DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to Applicant’s amendments filed on 03/05/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-11, and 25-29, 31-33. Claims 12-24, and 30 were cancelled by the Applicant.
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the bonding wire 302 in contact with the protection layer 125 as recited in claim 26 must be shown the drawings or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Fig. 3 does not show the bonding wire 302 in contact with the protection layer 125 (fig. 3 is shown the bonding wire 302 in contact with a different protection layer 225).
Also, the copper pillar 402 on the second insulating layer, filling the first opening and the second opening and in contact with the protection layer 125 as recited in claim 28 must be shown the drawings or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Fig. 4 does not show the copper pillar 402 in contact with the protection layer 125 (The Applicant is advised that fig. 4 belong to a non-elected species).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 2, 6-7, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
The claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint regard as the invention.
Claim 2 (and any dependents) recites the limitation "removing the residual passivation layer from the bottom of the first opening”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of “the residual passivation layer”.
Claim 6 (and any dependents) recites the limitation "the first thickness of the passivation layer is in the range from 710 to 1,340 nm and the thickness of the residual passivation layer is in the range from 10 to 40 nm”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations of “the first thickness”, and “the thickness”.
Claim 7 (and any dependents) recites the limitation “removal of the residual passivation layer includes a dry etching step”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations of “the residual passivation layer”.
The above list is not considered exhaustive, all claims must be thoroughly reviewed for proper antecedence and clarity.
Claim 25 (and any dependents) recites the limitation “… and having a second width greater than the first width”. This limitation should be written as limitation “… and having a second lateral width greater than the first lateral width”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8-9, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuechenmeister (US 2014/0021604).
Regarding claim 1, Kuechenmeister shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) all aspects of the instant invention including a method of manufacturing an end of an interconnection structure 10 of an integrated circuit 200 (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. [0018]), the method comprising:
Providing an integrated circuit 200 including an interconnection structure 10 having copper interconnection elements 12 (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. [0024]) at least partly extending through a first insulating layer 10 (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. [0024]) and flush with a first surface of said interconnection structure 10
Forming a passivation layer 14 on the interconnection structure 10 and the copper interconnection 12, the passivation layer 14 having a first thickness
Forming a first opening 16 in the passivation layer 14 (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. [0024]) having a first lateral width and exposing a top surface of a contact pad 12 of the interconnection elements 12
Depositing a protection layer 202 (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. [0026]) on a top surface of the passivation layer 14, on sidewalls of the passivation layer 14 in the first opening 16, and on the top surface of the contact pad 12
Depositing a second insulating layer 218 (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. [0026]) on the protection layer 202 and filling the first opening 16
Forming a second opening in the second insulating layer 218 vertically aligned with the first opening 16, having a second lateral width greater than the first lateral width, and exposing the protection layer 202 above the contact pad 12
Regarding claim 8, Kuechenmeister shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) that:
The protection layer 202 is formed by an atomic layer deposition process (ALD) (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. 0025])
The passivation layer 14 is formed by plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process ((see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. {0024])
Regarding claim 9, Kuechenmeister shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) that the first opening 16 is vertically in line with a least one copper interconnection element 12 (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. [0024]) of the copper interconnection elements 12 (see, e.g., Jeng: par. [0001] – [0002]), the first opening 16 being formed.
Regarding claim 25, Kuechenmeister shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) all aspects of the instant invention including a method (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. [0013]), the method comprising:
Forming a first insulating layer 10
Forming a contact pad 12 in the insulating layer 10 and having a top surface substantially coplanar with a top surface of the insulating layer 10
Forming a passivation layer 14 on the first insulating layer 10 and the contact pad 12
Forming a first opening 16 in the passivation layer 14 exposing the contact pad 12 and having a first lateral width
Depositing a protection layer 202 on a top surface of the passivation layer 14, on sidewalls of the passivation layer 14 in the first opening 16, and on a surface of the contact pad 12
Forming a second insulating layer 218 on the passivation layer 202 and filling the first opening 16
Forming a second opening in the second insulating layer 1218 vertically aligned with the first opening 16, exposing the protection layer 202 above the contact pad 12 and having a second width greater than the first width
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuechenmeister in view of Kuo (US 2019/0371660).
Regarding claim 2, Kuechenmeister shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) most aspects of the instant invention including a first opening 16 in the passivation layer 14.
However, Kuechenmeister fails (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) to show the method step of removing the residual passivation layer 14 from the bottom of the first opening 16.
Kuo, in a similar method to Kuechenmeister, shows (see, e.g., Kuo: fig. 2) the method step of removing a residual passivation layer 28 from the bottom of the first opening 30 (see, e.g., Kuo: par. [0028]). Kuo also shows (see, e.g., Kuo: fig. 2) that removing the residual passivation layer 28 from the bottom of the first opening 30 from the top surface of the contact pad 24 is a cleaning process performed on the intermediate structure (see, e.g., Kuo: par. [0028]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the method step of Kuo of removing the residual passivation layer from the bottom of the first opening in the method of Kuechenmeister, in order to perform a cleaning process on the intermediate structure.
Regarding claim 3, Kuechenmeister in view of Kuo shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) that the contact pad 12 has a third lateral width, wherein the first lateral width is less than a third lateral width, wherein the second lateral width is greater than the third lateral width.
Regarding claim 4, Kuechenmeister shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) that the passivation layer 14 is a multilayer structure 14A/14B/14C comprising at least a first passivation layer 14A of silicon nitride (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. [0024]), on contact pad 12, and a least another layer 14B on the first passivation layer 14A.
However, Kuechenmeister fails (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) to show that the first passivation layer 14A forms the residual passivation layer.
Kuo, in a similar method to Kuechenmeister, shows (see, e.g., Kuo: fig. 2) that the first passivation layer 28 forms the residual passivation layer 28 from the bottom of the first opening 30 (see, e.g., Kuo: par. [0028]). Kuo also shows (see, e.g., Kuo: fig. 2) that residual passivation layer 28 from the bottom of the first opening 30 is formed by the etch process of forming the opening 30, and/or other processes. Kuo also shows (see, e.g., Kuo: fig. 2) that the residual passivation layer is a by-product, which protects the surface of the contact pad in case of a deep etching (see, e.g., Kuo: par. [0028]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the first passivation layer as a residual passivation layer of Kuo in the method of Kuechenmeister, in order to protects the surface of the contact pad in case of a deep etching.
Regarding claim 5, Kuechenmeister in view of Kuo (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) that the at least another layer 14B includes a dielectric layer 14B of silicon oxide (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. [0024]), on the first passivation layer 14A, and a second passivation layer 14C of silicon nitride (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. [0024]), on the dielectric layer 14B.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuechenmeister in view of Tois (US 2019/0341245).
Regarding claim 6, Kuechenmeister shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) that the first thickness of the passivation layer 14 is in the range from 710 nm to 1340 nm (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. [0024], summation of thicknesses of layers 14A/14B/14C).
However, the differences in thicknesses of the passivation layer will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the mentioned thicknesses, and Kuechenmeister has identified such thicknesses as result-effective variables subject to optimization (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. [0024], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these thickness values in the method of Kuechenmeiste.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness values or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
However, Kuechenmeister fails (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) to show that the thickness of the residual passivation layer is in the range from 10 nm to 40 nm. Tois, in a similar method to Kuechenmeister, shows (see, e.g., Tois: fig. 3) that the thickness of the residual passivation layer 308B is in the range from 10 nm to 40 nm (see, e.g., Tois: par. [0045]). Tois also shows (see, e.g., Tois: fig. 3) that the thickness of the remaining/residual passivation layer 308B is to control selectively the depositions of dielectric films on the surface of the substrate relative to the passivation layers previously deposited (see, e.g., Tois: abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use for the thickness of the residual layer of Tois in the method of Kuechenmeister in order to control selectively the depositions of dielectric films on the surface of the substrate relative to the passivation layers previously deposited.
However, the differences in thicknesses of the residual passivation layer will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph 38) of the mentioned thicknesses, and Tois has identified such thicknesses as result-effective variables subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these thickness values in the method of Kuechenmeister.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuechenmeister in view of Naik (US 2008/0020570).
Regarding claim 7, Kuechenmeister shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) most aspects of the instant invention including method steps of forming a first opening 16, a second opening.
However, Kuechenmeister fails (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) to show that the method steps of forming the first opening, of forming the second opening include a dry etching step. Kuechenmeister is silent about the type of used etching process (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. [0024]).
Naik, in a similar method to Kuechenmeister, shows (see, e.g., Naik: fig.4F-4G) that the forming first opening 412, and the forming the second 412 opening includes a dry etching step (see, e.g., Naik: par. [0060] – [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use for the etching of first and second openings of Kuechenmeister or the dry etching of first and second openings of Naik because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as etching processes, as taught by Kuechenmeister and by Naik, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Kuechenmeister in view of Naik shows (see, e.g., Naik: fig.4F-4G) that the removal of a residual passivation layer 420 includes also a dry etching step (see, e.g., Naik: par. [0060] – [0061]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuechenmeister in view of Kim (US 2005/0142833).
Regarding claim 10, Kuechenmeister shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) that the protection layer 202 has a thickness in a range from 1 nm to 100 nm (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. [0025]).
However, the differences in thicknesses of protection layer will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph 38) of the mentioned thicknesses, and Kuechenmeister has identified such thicknesses as result-effective variables subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these thickness values in the device of Kuechenmeister.
Kuechenmeister also shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) that the protection layer 202 is an insulating or dielectric material (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. [0025]).
However, Kuechenmeister fails (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) to show that the protection layer 202 includes one or both of aluminum and hafnium material Kuechenmeister shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) that the protective layer 430 includes a silicon dioxide material (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. [0025]).
Kim, in a similar method to Kuechenmeister, shows (see, e.g., Kim: fig. 2B) that the protective layer 25 includes a hafnium oxide material (see, e.g., Kim: par. [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use for the protective layer including either the hafnium oxide material of Kim or the silicon dioxide material of Kuechenmeister because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as protective layers, as taught by Kim and by Kuechenmeister, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuechenmeister.
Regarding claim 11, Kuechenmeister shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) that the protection layer 430 has a thickness in a range from 5 nm to 50 nm (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. [0025]).
However, the differences in thicknesses of the protection layer will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph 38) of the mentioned thicknesses, and Kuechenmeister has identified such thicknesses as result-effective variables subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these thickness values in the method of Kuechenmeister.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuechenmeister in view of Eldridge (US 7225538) in further view of Sun (US 2022/0293520).
Regarding claim 26, Kuechenmeister shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) a first opening 16 and a second opening.
Kuechenmeister fails shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) to show the method step of forming a bonding wire extending through the first opening 16 and second opening, and in contact with the protective layer 202. Eldridge, in a similar method to Kuechenmeister, shows (see, e.g., Eldridge: fig. 14A-14C) the method step of forming a bonding wire extending through the first opening 1414 and second opening 1414 and in contact with the protective layer 1410 (see, e.g., Eldridge: col. 75/II.46-67 – col. 76/II.1-29). Eldridge also shows (see, e.g., Eldridge: fig. 14A-14C) that the method step of forming a bonding wire extending through the first and second opening 1414 creates a resilient contact structure to the bonding pads 1404 with the area of the virtual bond pad is significantly larger than the actual bond pad, as defined by the opening in the passivation layer (see, e.g., Eldridge: col. 75/II.46-67 – col. 76/II.1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use for the method step of Eldridge of forming a bonding wire extending through the first and second opening in the method of Kuechenmeister in order to make a resilient contact structure to the bonding pads with the area of the virtual bond pad is significantly larger than the actual bond pad, as defined by the opening in the passivation layer.
However, Kuechenmeister in view of Eldridge fails (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) to show the method step of forming an encapsulation material on the second insulating layer 120a, filling the first and the second openings 116/122, and in contact with the protection layer 106.
Sun, in a similar method to Kuechenmeister in view of Eldridge, shows (see, e.g., Sun: fig. 9C) a method step of forming an encapsulation material 250 on the second insulating layer 140/150/160, filling the first opening W1/W2 and the second opening W3/W4, and in contact with the protection layer 220. Sun also shows (see, e.g., Sun: fig. 9C) that the method step of forming an encapsulation material 250 on the second insulating layer 140/150/160, filling the first opening W1/W2 and the second opening W3/W4, and in contact with the protection layer 220 makes the filling of the trench (with dual opening) with a conductive material to form a conductive line, and providing better connection between interconnect layers (see, e.g., Sun: abstract, and par. [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use for the method step of Sun of forming an encapsulation material on the second insulating layer, filling the first and second openings and in contact with the protection layer in the method of Kuechenmeister in view of Eldridge in order to make the filling of the trench (with dual opening) with a conductive material to form a conductive line, and providing better connection between interconnect layers.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuechenmeister in view of Cao (US 2013/0157405).
Regarding claim 27, Kuechenmeister shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) the method step of forming the passivation layer 14.
Kuechenmeister shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D):
Forming a first passivation sub-layer 14A in contact with the contact pad 12
Forming a dielectric layer 14B on the first passivation sub-layer 14A
Forming a second passivation 14C sub-layer on the dielectric layer 14B
However, Kuechenmeister fails (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) to show that the dielectric layer 14B is a getter layer. Cao, in a similar method to Jeng in view of Kim, shows (see, e.g., Cao: fig. 7) a dielectric layer 140/240 is a getter layer (see, e.g., Cao: par. [0051]). Cao also shows (see, e.g., Cao: fig. 7) that the getter layer prevents oxygen from penetrating into the respective adjacent layers (see, e.g., Cao: par. [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use for the method step of Cao of forming a getter layer in the method of Kuechenmeister in order to prevent oxygen from penetrating into the respective adjacent layers.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuechenmeister in view of Jeng (US 2007/0182007).
Regarding claim 28, Kuechenmeister shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D, and 2G) that the method step of forming a filling 24B (see, e.g., Jeng: par. [0023]) on the second insulating layer 120a, filling the first opening 16 and the second opening, and in contact with the protection layer 218.
However, Kuechenmeister fails (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D, and 2G) to show that the filing 24B is of copper. Kuechenmeister is silent (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2D) about the material of the conductive filling 24B.
Jeng, in a similar method to Kuechenmeister, shows (see, e.g., Jeng: fig.8a) that the material of the filing 126 is copper (see, e.g., Jeng: par. [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the conductive filing of Kuechenmeister or the copper filing of Jeng because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as solder bumps, as taught by Kuechenmeister and by Jeng, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 29, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuechenmeister (US 2014/0021604) in view of Banerji (US 7858510).
Regarding claim 29, Kuechenmeister shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2E) most aspects of the instant invention including a method, the method comprising:
Forming a passivation layer 14 on a flat surface of an interconnection structure 10 in contact with a first insulating layer 10 of the interconnection structure 10 at the flat surface and on a contact pad 12 of the interconnection structure 10
Forming a first opening 16 in the passivation layer 14 exposing the contact pad 12 and having a first lateral width
Forming a dielectric protection layer 202 (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. [0025]) on the passivation layer 14 on sidewalls of the passivation layer 14 in the first opening 16 and on the exposed contact pad 12
Forming a second insulating layer 218 on the protection layer 14 and filing the first opening 16
Forming a second opening 200 in the second insulating layer 218 vertically aligned with the first opening 16, having a second lateral width greater than the first lateral width, and exposing the protection layer 202 over the contact pad 12
However, Kuechenmeister fails (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: fig. 2A-2F) to show a plurality of copper lines of the interconnection structure 10. Banerji, in a similar method to Kuechenmeister, shows (see, e.g., Banerji: fig. 1D) a plurality of copper lines 107 (see, e.g., Banerji: col.8/II.65-67 – col.9/II.1-16). Banerji also shows (see, e.g., Banerji: fig. 1D) that the copper lines 107 allows conductive routes between substrate and other upper layers (see, e.g., Banerji: col.8/II.65-67 – col.9/II.1-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use for the method step of Banerji of forming copper lines in the method of Kuechenmeister in order allow conductive routes between substrate and other upper layers.
Kuechenmeister in view of Banerji also shows (see, e.g., Banerji: fig. 1D) that the ends of the copper lines 107 of the interconnection structure are in contact with the passivation layer 109 at the flat surface (see, e.g., Banerji: col.9/II.27-35).
Regarding claim 31, Kuechenmeister in view of Banerji shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: fig. 2A-2F) that the passivation layer 14 includes a first passivation sub-layer 14A and a dielectric layer 14B on the first passivation sub-layer 14A (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. [0024]).
Regarding claim 32, Kuechenmeister in view of Banerji shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: fig. 2A-2F) that the passivation layer 14 includes a second passivation sub-layer 14C and a dielectric layer 14B (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: par. [0024]).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuechenmeister in view of Banerji in further view of Cao (US 2013/0157405).
Regarding claim 33, Kuechenmeister in view of Banerji shows (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2F) the method step of forming the dielectric layer 14B.
However, Kuechenmeister in view of Banerji fails (see, e.g., Kuechenmeister: figs. 2A-2F) to show that the dielectric layer 14B is a getter layer. Cao, in a similar method to Kuechenmeister in view of Banerji, shows (see, e.g., Cao: fig. 7) a dielectric layer 140/240 is a getter layer (see, e.g., Cao: par. [0051]). Cao also shows (see, e.g., Cao: fig. 7) that the getter layer prevents oxygen from penetrating into the respective adjacent layers (see, e.g., Cao: par. [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use for the method step of Cao of forming a getter layer in the method of Kuechenmeister in view of Banerji in order to prevent oxygen from penetrating into the respective adjacent layers.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has read and considered Applicants’ arguments, but these arguments are moot in light of the new rejection that implies new prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIBERIU DAN ONUTA whose telephone number is (571) 270-0074 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Tiberiu.Onuta@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/TIBERIU DAN ONUTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights