DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the first conductive layer comprises titanium carbide, however, claim 1 recites does not recite titanium carbide anymore. It would appear that claim 2 has a broader scope than of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5-10, 12-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang [CN 111180384].
Claims 1 and 23: Wang teaches a method of forming interconnection structure, where the method includes providing a substrate comprising a first conductive layer [pg 2, Summary of invention] in a process chamber [pg 17, para 1]; providing a halide soak to clean the substrate comprising the first conductive layer using an halide [pg 2, Summary of invention; pg 4, para 3; pg 16, para 4 to pg 17, para 2]; providing a second material precursor in a vapor phase to deposit a second conductive layer on the first conductive layer [pg 19, para 1]; and the cleaning removes material (e.g oxide) from the first conductive layer [pg 16, para 4 to pg 17, para 2], wherein the first conductive layer can be elemental ruthenium and so forth [pg 5, para 4].
Claim 5: Wang teaches the second conductive layer comprises metal [pg 19, para 1].
Claims 6-7: Wang teaches the second conductive layer cam be of tungsten or ruthenium [pg 12, para 3].
Claim 8: Wang further teaches it could be an elemental metal [pg 12, para 3].
Claim 9: Wang teaches the both the first and second conductive layer can be of ruthenium material (same material) [pg 12, para 3].
Claim 10: Wang teaches the first and second conductive layer comprise a metal, and the metal halide of the cleaning agent comprises the metal of the first and second conductive layer [pg 16, para 6].
Claim 12: Wang teaches the precursor is from a metal organic precursor or inorganic precursor [pg 16, para 1].
Claims 13-14: Wang teaches the second material precursor comprises the same metal halide as the cleaning agent [pg 16, para 1].
Claims 15-16: Wang teaches the deposition is a cyclical process such as ALD [pg 5, para 5].
Claim 17: Wang teaches the method comprises a reducing agent in vapor phase [pg 17, para 6].
Claim 18: Wang teaches providing a reducing agent [pg 17, para 7].
Claims 19-20: Wang teaches a plasma treatment before the second conductive layer by using ammonia gas [pg 16, para 5].
Claim 21: Wang teaches the plasma treatment can perform an oxidation and reduction treatment (oxygen and hydrogen) [pg 16, para 5].
Claim 22: Wang teaches the surface comprises a second material surface [pg 16, para 3].
Claim 24: Wang teaches the surface comprises a second material surface [pg 16, para 3].
Claim 25: Wang teaches the first conductive layer is a contact surface of a via [Fig. 2].
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto [US 20040121526].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 2-3. Yamamoto is provided.
Claims 2-3: Yamamoto teaches that elemental molybdenum, or molybdenum carbide [0056]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the metals used for semiconductor integrated circuit can be elemental molybdenum and molybdenum carbide [title; 0056]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide these type of metals taught by Yamamoto since the prior art teaches these materials are well known and commonly used in semiconductor integrated circuit.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tarafdar [WO2021237032].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 11.
Claim 11: Tarafdar teaches metal halide for removing native oxides can be NbCl5 [0014] or MoCl5 [0013]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the taught halides for removing native oxide since Tarafdar teaches these gaseous compounds are effective at removing oxidized layers than other reducing agents [0039].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Kuroda failing to teach using metal halide as the cleaning agent, it is argued that Tarafdar teaches metal halides are well known etchants for cleaning oxides from metal surfaces and teaches these gaseous compounds are effective at removing oxidized layers than other reducing agents [0039].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights