DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Applicant
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed on 09 June 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 11 May 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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 1, line 11, recites “has a trenches.” It is unclear and indefinite as to whether the claim requires one trench or more than one trench. For compact prosecution, it will be interpreted as “has a trench.”
Claims 2-10, which depend either directly or indirectly from independent claim 1, do not remedy the issues of claim 1 and therefore are also rejected.
Claim 5, in the second and third line, recites “an overlying layer in contact between the underlying layer and the isolation layer.” It is indefinite as to what the overlying layer is in contact with or what the overlying layer is between. For compact prosecution, it will be interpreted as “an overlying layer in contact and between the underlying layer and the isolation layer.”
Claim 6, which depends from independent claim 15, does not remedy the issues of claim 5 and therefore are also rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2018/0350913) in view of Shih et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0125947).
Claim 1: Yang et al. discloses a semiconductor device, in Fig. 2B and 4, comprising:
a substrate (102; paragraph 43); and
a wiring structure (103 and 402; paragraphs 43, 48-51 and 54) comprising:
at least one metal interconnect (103; paragraph 43) disposed on the substrate (102);
a block layer (104, 106 and 108; paragraph 43) disposed on a top surface (top surface of 103) of the metal interconnect (103), wherein the block layer (104, 106 and 108) has a hole (113; paragraph 37) extended therethrough to define an exposed portion of the top surface (top surface of 103) of the metal interconnect (103) through the hole (113);
an isolation layer (110) disposed on a top surface (top surface of 104, 106 and 108) of the block layer (104, 106 and 108), wherein the isolation layer (110) has a trench (111; paragraph 36) extended therethrough to expose the hole (113) of the block layer (104, 106 and 108) and to define an exposed portion of the top surface (top surface of 104, 106 and 108) of the block layer (104, 106 and 108);
at least one conductive feature (402; paragraph 54) disposed on the metal interconnect (103) and having a head portion (upper portion of 402) and a neck portion (lower portion of 402), wherein the neck portion (lower portion of 102) is between the metal interconnect (103) and the head portion (upper portion of 102); and
at least one diffusion barrier liner (306; paragraphs 48-51 and 54) conformally formed on sidewalls (sidewalls of 111) of the trench (111) of the isolation layer (110), on the exposed portion of the top surface (top surface of 104, 106 and 108) of the block layer (104, 106 and 108), sidewalls (sidewalls of 104, 106 and 108) of the hole (113) of the block layer (104, 106 and 108), and on the exposed portion of the top surface (top surface of 103) of the metal interconnect (103) to surround the conductive feature (402);
wherein a top surface (top surface of the upper portion of 402) of the head portion (upper portion of 402) of the conductive feature, a top surface (top surface of 110) of the isolation layer (110), and a top surface (top surface of 306) of the diffusion liner (306) are coplanar with each other;
wherein the neck portion (lower portion of 402) has a first critical dimension (width);
wherein the head portion (upper portion of 402) has a second critical dimension (width of upper portion of 402) greater than the first critical dimension (width of lower portion of 402).
Yang et al. appears not to explicitly disclose wherein the first critical dimension, which gradually decreases at positions of increasing distance from the head portion, and
wherein an included angle between the neck portion and the metal interconnect is less than 90 degrees.
Shih et al., however, in Fig. 1 and in paragraphs 31 and 44, discloses wherein the neck portion (132) has a first critical dimension (W1), which gradually decreases at positions of increasing distance from the head portion (134); and
wherein an included angle (angle between outer surface of 132 and upper surface of M3) between the neck portion (132) and the metal interconnect (M3) is less than 90 degrees in order to create a void-free layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Yang et al. with the disclosure of Shih et al. to have made the first critical dimension, which gradually decreases at positions of increasing distance from the head portion, and
wherein an included angle between the neck portion and the metal interconnect is less than 90 degrees in order to create a void-free layer (paragraph 44 of Shih et al.).
Claim 4: Yang et al. in view of Shih et al. discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, and Yang et al., in Figs. 2B and 4, further discloses wherein the head portion (upper portion of 402) is surrounded by the isolation layer (110) while the neck portion (lower portion of 402) is surrounded by isolation layer and the block layer (104, 106 and 108).
Claim 5: Yang et al. in view of Shih et al. discloses the semiconductor device of claim 4, and Yang et al., in Figs. 2B and 4, further discloses wherein the block layer (104, 106 and 108) includes an underlying layer (104) in contact with the metal interconnect (103) and an overlying layer (106 and 108) in contact and between the underlying layer (104) and the isolation layer (110), wherein the hole (113) is extended through the underlying layer (104) and the overlying layer (106 and 108), wherein the expose portion of the top surface (top surface of 104, 106 and 108) of the block layer (104, 106 and 108) through the trench (111) is defined on a portion of a top surface (top surface of 106 and 108) of the overlying layer (106 and 108).
Claim 7: Yang et al. in view of Shih et al. discloses the semiconductor device of claim 4, and Yang et al., in Figs. 2B and 4, further discloses wherein the diffusion barrier liner (306) sandwiched between the conductive feature (402) and the metal interconnect (103), between the conductive feature (402) and the block layer (104, 106 and 108), and between the conductive feature (402) and the isolation layer (110).
Claim 9: Yang et al. in view of Shih et al. discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, and Yang et al., in Fig. 4, further discloses wherein the head portion (upper portion of 102) and the neck portion (lower portion of 402) of the conductive feature (402) are integrally formed.
Yang et al. in view of Shih et al., as applied to claim 1, appears not to explicitly disclose wherein a width of the hole is gradually reduced to the metal interconnect, such that a width of the neck portion is gradually reduced from the head portion to the metal interconnect.
Shih et al., however, in Figs. 6 and 12 and in paragraphs 31 and 44, further discloses wherein a width of the hole (210) is gradually reduced to the metal interconnect (M3), such that a width of the neck portion (lower portion of 130) is gradually reduced from the head portion (upper portion of 130) to the metal interconnect (M3) in order to create a void-free layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Yang et al. in view of Shih et al., as applied to claim 1, with the further disclosure of Shih et al. to have made a width of the hole is gradually reduced to the metal interconnect, such that a width of the neck portion is gradually reduced from the head portion to the metal interconnect in order to create a void-free layer (paragraph 44 of Shih et al.).
Claim 10: Yang et al. in view of Shih et al. discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, and Yang et al., in paragraphs 33, 52 and 55, further discloses wherein the metal interconnect (103; can be Ag, paragraph 30) and the conductive feature (402; can be Ag, paragraph 54) have identical conductive materials.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. in view of Shih et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0318243).
Claim 2: Yang et al. in view of Shih et al.discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1.
Yang et al. in view of Shih et al. appears not to explicitly disclose wherein the diffusion barrier liner has a first thickness, and smaller values of the included angle correspond to greater values of the first thickness of the diffusion barrier liner.
Lin et al., however, in paragraph 16, discloses the thickness of the diffusion barrier and the included angle are result-effective parameters because the thickness of the diffusion barrier liner (106) and the included angle (sidewall angle of 120) of the conductive feature (120) affects the electrical characteristics of the metal interconnect (104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to optimize, for example by routine experimentation, the thickness of the diffusion barrier and the included angle of Yang et al. in view of Shih et al. in order to have the desire electrical characteristics of the metal interconnect according to well-established patent law precedents (see M.P.E.P. § 2144.05).
Claim 3: Yang et al. in view of Shih et al. in view of Lin et al. discloses the semiconductor device of claim 3, and Yang et al., in Fig. 4, further discloses the neck portion (lower portion of 402) has a second thickness (thickness of diffusion barrier liner (306) and DV, wherein DV can be 50 angstroms; paragraph 41), the head portion (upper portion of 402) has a third thickness (DT minus the thickness of the diffusion barrier liner (306), wherein DT can be 2000 angstroms; paragraph 40), greater than the second thickness, wherein the second thickness (thickness of the diffusion barrier liner (306) and DV) of the neck portion (lower portion of 402) is larger than a thickness (DV) of the block layer (104, 106 and 108), wherein the third thickness (DT minus the thickness of the diffusion barrier liner (306)) of the head portion (upper portion of 402) is less than a thickness of the isolation layer (110).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. in view of Shih et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and evidenced by Kiyotoshi (U.S. Pub. 2004/0169255).
Claim 6: Yang et al. in view of Shih et al. discloses the semiconductor device of claim 5 and Yang et al. further discloses wherein the underlying layer (104, which can be SiON; paragraph 31) has a first permittivity (SiON has permittivity of 5.2, as evidenced by Kiyotoshi in paragraph 120), and the overlying layer (106 and 108, which can be SiN; paragraphs 33 and 34) has a second permittivity (SiN has permittivity of 7.5, as evidenced by Kiyotoshi in TABLE 1) greater than the first permittivity.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. in view of Shih et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Agarwala et al. (U.S. Pub. 2002/0182855).
Claim 8: Yang et al. in view of Shih et al. discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, and Yang et al., in Figs. 2B and 4, further discloses comprising:
an insulative layer (105; paragraph 30) surrounding the metal interconnect (103), wherein a top surface (top surface of 105) of the insulative layer (105) is coplanar with the top surface (top surface of 103) of the metal interconnect (103);
wherein the block layer (104, 106 and 108) is disposed on the top surface (top surface of 105) of the insulative layer (105).
Yang et al. in view of Shih et al. appears not to explicitly disclose an adhesion liner interposed between the metal interconnect and the substrate and between the metal interconnect and the insulative layer.
Agarwala et al., in Fig. 2A and in paragraphs 4 and 6, discloses an adhesion liner (115) interposed between the metal interconnect (120) and the substrate (150) and between the metal interconnect (120) and the insulative layer (145).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Yang et al. in view of Shih et al. with the disclosure of Agarwala et al. to have made an adhesion liner interposed between the metal interconnect and the substrate and between the metal interconnect and the insulative layer in order to provide better adhesion between the metal interconnect and the surrounding elements to increase reliability of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/J.L/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815 /JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights