DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/23/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments filed12/3/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
35 USC § 103 Rejection over Liang et al., US 11,217,524
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al., US 11,217,524, in view of Li et al. US 11,682,620.
Regarding claim 1, Liang (figures 1A & 2E) teaches a single-damascene interconnect comprising:
a first conductor line BM;
a second conductor line TM;
a via V connecting the first conductor line BM and second conductor line TM, wherein the via V is filled with a low resistivity metal conductor with high corrosion resistance (figure 2E-Ru, Ir, or Rh), and wherein the metal conductor is not the same material as the first or second conductor lines (figure 2E & column 7, lines 29-46).
Liang fails to teach the via comprises an adhesion layer applied to via sidewalls.
Li (figure 2A) teaches the via 120 comprises an electrically conductive adhesion layer 122B (paragraph 0023 recites metallic adhesion layer) applied to via sidewalls, wherein the via is filled with Ru, which is a low resistivity metal conductor with high corrosion resistance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of and via is filled with Ruthe he invention to use the adhesion layer of Lee in the invention of Liang because a skilled artisan knows an adhesion layer improves adhesion of the via conductive fill material. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 2, Liang (figure 2E-Ru, Ir, or Rh) teaches the metal conductor is a noble metal.
As to claim 3, Liang (figure 2E-Ru, Ir, or Rh) teaches the noble metal is selected from a group consisting of ruthenium, iridium, platinum, and rhodium.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,341,066, hereafter referred to as the patent, in view of Li et al. US 11,682,620.
Regarding claim 1, the patent (claim 11) claims a single-damascene interconnect comprising:
a first conductor line (column 13, lines 16-18);
a second conductor line (column 13, lines 16-18);
a via connecting the first conductor line and second conductor line (column 13, lines 14-15), wherein the via is filled with a low resistivity metal conductor with high corrosion resistance (claim 14), and wherein the metal conductor is not the same material as the first or second conductor lines (column 13, lines 19-20).
Liang fails to teach the via comprises an adhesion layer applied to via sidewalls.
Li (figure 2A) teaches the via 120 comprises an electrically conductive adhesion layer 122B (paragraph 0023 recites metallic adhesion layer) applied to via sidewalls, wherein the via is filled with Ru, which is a low resistivity metal conductor with high corrosion resistance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the adhesion layer of Lee in the invention of Liang because a skilled artisan knows an adhesion layer improves adhesion of the via conductive fill material. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 2, the patent (claim 14) claims the metal conductor is a noble metal.
As to claim 3, the patent (claim 14) claims the noble metal is selected from a group consisting of ruthenium, iridium, platinum, and rhodium.
Conclusion
Any inquiry should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE at (571)272-1937. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 5/12/26
Prosecution Insights