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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4,6,12,13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonilla et al (PG Pub 2014/0127896 A1); Cuxart, M.G. et al. 2017, ‘Inductively coupled remote plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (rPE-CVD) as a versatile route for the deposition of graphene micro- and nanostructures’, Carbon, vol. 117, pp. 331-342; and McEvoy, N. et al. 2013, ‘Functionalisation of graphene surfaces with downstream plasma treatments’, Carbon, vol. 54, pp. 283-290.
Regarding claim 1, Bonilla teaches a method for forming a dual damascene structure (figs. 1-6) on a semiconductor substrate (10, paragraph [0027]), the method comprising: providing the semiconductor substrate comprising a first dielectric layer (14R and 14L, paragraph [0025]) and a copper interconnect (22, paragraph [0025]) in the first dielectric layer, the copper interconnect having an exposed metal surface, wherein the exposed metal surface comprises copper; and selectively depositing a carbon layer (24, paragraph [0051]) on the exposed metal surface.
Bonilla does not teach the selectively deposited carbon layer is formed by remoted chemical vapor deposition.
In the same field of endeavor, Cuxart teaches to deposit a carbon layer (graphene) by remoted chemical vapor deposition for the benefit of reducing defect (pp. 332, right column).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to deposit the carbon layer by remoted chemical vapor deposition for the benefit of reducing defect.
Bonilla does not teach treating the carbon layer with a non-direct plasma.
the same field of endeavor, McEvoy teaches treating the carbon layer (graphene) with a non-direct plasma (remote plasma, pp, 284, left column) for the benefit of functionalize the carbon surface (pp. 283, left column).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to treat the carbon layer with a non-direct plasma left column) for the benefit of functionalize the carbon surface.
Regarding claim 2, Bonilla does not teach the claimed manufacturing steps.
Cuxart teaches forming a carbon layer comprises: flowing one or more hydrocarbon precursors (pp. 332, left column) into a reaction chamber and towards the semiconductor substrate; generating, from a hydrogen source gas, radicals of hydrogen (pp. 332, left column, pp. 335, left column, pp. 337, left column) in a remote plasma source (pp. 332, end of left column); and introducing the radicals of hydrogen into the reaction chamber and towards the semiconductor substrate, wherein the radicals of hydrogen react with the one or more hydrocarbon precursors to deposit the carbon layer (pp. 338, right column) on the exposed metal surface (nickel, abstract), for a benefit of forming a carbon layer with low temperature (abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the carbon layer using the steps claimed, for the benefit of forming a carbon layer with low temperature.
Regarding claim 3, Bonilla teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the carbon layer comprises carbon bonded in a hexagonal lattice (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 4, Bonilla teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the carbon layer is selectively deposited at a temperature of less than about 4000C (paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 6, McEvoy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the non-direct plasma comprises radicals selected from the group consisting of O* radicals (pp. 284, left column).
Regarding claim 12, Bonilla teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the carbon layer is deposited to a thickness of less than about 3 monolayers (single layer, paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 13, Bonilla teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first dielectric layer comprises a low-k dielectric material (paragraphs [0030][0033]).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Bonilla et al (PG Pub 2014/0127896 A1); Cuxart, M.G. et al. 2017, ‘Inductively coupled remote plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (rPE-CVD) as a versatile route for the deposition of graphene micro- and nanostructures’, Carbon, vol. 117, pp. 331-342; and McEvoy, N. et al. 2013, ‘Functionalisation of graphene surfaces with downstream plasma treatments’, Carbon, vol. 54, pp. 283-290, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al (PG Pub 2022/0157711 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Bonilla remains as applied in claim 1.
Bonilla does not teach depositing a hermetic barrier over the carbon layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches after selectively depositing the carbon layer (110, paragraph [0025], figs. 14 and 20, for example) on the exposed metal surface (108), depositing a hermetic barrier (112, protective barrier, paragraph [0026]) over the carbon layer, for the benefit of protecting the device from damage during further manufacturing steps to produce an integrated device (paragraph [0025]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to deposit a hermetic barrier over the carbon layer, for the benefit of protecting the device from damage during further manufacturing steps to produce an integrated device.
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches depositing a second dielectric material (114, paragraph [0026]) over the hermetic barrier, for the benefit of protecting the device from damage during further manufacturing steps to produce an integrated device (paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the second dielectric material comprises a metal oxide (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the metal oxide comprises aluminum oxide (paragraph [0026]), hafnium oxide, zirconium oxide, yttrium oxide, zinc oxide, titanium oxide, or combinations thereof.
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonilla et al (PG Pub 2014/0127896 A1); Cuxart, M.G. et al. 2017, ‘Inductively coupled remote plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (rPE-CVD) as a versatile route for the deposition of graphene micro- and nanostructures’, Carbon, vol. 117, pp. 331-342; and McEvoy, N. et al. 2013, ‘Functionalisation of graphene surfaces with downstream plasma treatments’, Carbon, vol. 54, pp. 283-290, Cho et al (PG Pub 2016/0270237 A1), and Lee et al (PG Pub 2022/0157711 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Bonilla teaches a semiconductor device comprising: a first dielectric layer (14, figs. 1-6, paragraph [0025]) having a via; a liner layer (18’ and/or 20’) conformally lining sidewalls of the via; a copper material (22’, paragraph [0025]) formed over the liner layer in the via, the copper material having an exposed cobalt-free copper surface (paragraph [0025]) planar (fig. 6) with a planar surface of the first dielectric layer; a carbon cap (24, paragraph [0051]) selectively formed directly on the exposed cobalt-free copper surface relative to the first dielectric layer.
Bonilla does not teach the selectively deposited carbon layer is formed by remoted chemical vapor deposition.
In the same field of endeavor, Cuxart teaches to deposit a carbon layer (graphene) by remoted chemical vapor deposition for the benefit of reducing defect (pp. 332, right column).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to deposit the carbon layer by remoted chemical vapor deposition for the benefit of reducing defect.
Bonilla does not teach the carbon cap is treated by exposure to non-direct plasma.
the same field of endeavor, McEvoy teaches treating the carbon layer (graphene) with a non-direct plasma (remote plasma, pp, 284, left column) for the benefit of functionalize the carbon surface (pp. 283, left column) to achieve benefit such as suppressing electromigration of the copper interconnect (paragraphs [0015][0046] and abstract of Cho).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to treat the carbon layer with a non-direct plasma left column) for the benefit of functionalize the carbon surface.
Bonilla does not teach a hermetic barrier over the carbon cap; and a second dielectric layer formed over the hermetic barrier.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches depositing a hermetic barrier (112, protective barrier, paragraph [0026]) over the carbon cap (110, paragraph [0025]; and a second dielectric layer (114, metal oxide, paragraph [0026]) formed over the hermetic barrier, for the benefit of protecting the device from damage during further manufacturing steps to produce an integrated device (paragraph [0025]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a hermetic barrier over the carbon cap; and to form a second dielectric layer over the hermetic barrier, for the benefit of protecting the device from damage during further manufacturing steps to produce an integrated device.
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches the semiconductor device of claim 14, wherein the second dielectric layer comprises a metal oxide (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches the semiconductor device of claim 15, wherein the metal oxide comprises aluminum oxide (paragraph [0026]), hafnium oxide, zirconium oxide, yttrium oxide, zinc oxide, titanium oxide, or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 17, Bonilla teaches the semiconductor device of claim 16, wherein the carbon cap has a thickness of less than about 3 monolayers (single layer, paragraph [0050]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonilla et al (PG Pub 2014/0127896 A1); Cuxart, M.G. et al. 2017, ‘Inductively coupled remote plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (rPE-CVD) as a versatile route for the deposition of graphene micro- and nanostructures’, Carbon, vol. 117, pp. 331-342; and McEvoy, N. et al. 2013, ‘Functionalisation of graphene surfaces with downstream plasma treatments’, Carbon, vol. 54, pp. 283-290, Cho et al (PG Pub 2016/0270237 A1), and Lee et al (PG Pub 2022/0157711 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Deemer et al (PG Pub 2022/0130572 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 17.
The previous combination does not teach the carbon cap comprises sp2 hybridized carbon.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches a carbon layer comprises sp2 hybridized carbon (abstract), for the benefit of increasing the conductivity of the overall interconnect (abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the carbon cap to comprise sp2 hybridized carbon for the benefit of increasing the conductivity of the overall interconnect.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) 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 FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am to 4pm 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, Dale Page can be reached at 571 270 7877. 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.
/FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights