DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the election filed 2/9/2026.
Currently, claims 12-31 are pending. Claims 1-11 have been canceled, while claims 21-31 have been added.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, Species IIb and IId is acknowledged.
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 29 is 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 29 recites the limitation “a zone of the semiconductor device that is prone to void defects or edge fill defects”. It is not clear how one of ordinary skill in the art could identify such a zone. First, the term “prone” itself is unclear – would a single defect in the zone mean that it is prone to defects? Or is there some threshold of the number of defects before the zone is considered to be prone to defects? Second, if the invention leads to the results alleged by Applicant, then such a zone would never materialize. Again, this makes it impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to identify such a zone, as it is a hypothetic that does not actually occur in the claimed method.
Claim 29 also recites the limitation “reduces a likelihood of the void defects or edge fill defects”. Referencing the “likelihood” of an occurrence is indefinite, as it may or may not occur.
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.
Claims 12, 15, 21, 23-26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. (CN 103839872).
Pertaining to claim 12, Bao shows, with reference to FIG. 2A-C and 2E, a method, comprising:
forming one or more dielectric layers over a semiconductor substrate (para. [0045]);
forming a first second recesses (201) within the one or more dielectric layers (para. [0044] - [0045]);
forming a multi-layer film structure that comprises one or more barrier layers (202) and a copper seed layer (203) along contours of the first recess and the second recess; and
forming a copper structure (205) having a chlorine-enriched interface region on the multi-layer film structure (para. [0053]).
Pertaining to claim 21, Bao shows a method of forming a semiconductor device, comprising:
forming one or more dielectric layers over a semiconductor substrate (para. [0045]);
forming a multi-layer film structure (202/203) that conforms with a single damascene profile or a dual damascene profile within the one or more dielectric layers, wherein the multi-layer film comprises:
one or more barrier layers (202); and
a copper seed layer (203) on the one or more barrier layers; and
forming a copper structure (205) adjacent to the multi-layer film structure, wherein the copper structure comprises:
a chlorine-enriched interface region that joins with the multi-layer film structure (para. [0053]).
Although Bao does not explicitly show a conductive layer of the semiconductor device over which the one or more dielectric layers is formed, Bao does teach the field of invention to be BEOL interconnections (para. [0002]). As is well established in the art, BEOL interconnections connect the FEOL devices on or in the semiconductor substrate with one another, and are often several layers stacked. Thus, a conductive layer formed above or below the structure depicted in Bao as part of the BEOL interconnection would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Pertaining to claim 15, Bao shows forming the copper structure having the chlorine-enriched interface region on the multi-layer film structure comprises: forming a chlorine-based pre-layer (204) on the copper seed layer.
Pertaining to claims 23-25 and 31, although Bao does not explicitly show the claimed ranges of values, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bao to have parameters within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Pertaining to claim 26, the Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art to use materials such as cobalt and tantalum nitride for the material of a barrier layer for a copper interconnect. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try one of these materials for the barrier layer of Bao, as the court has held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 14 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao as applied to claims 12 and 21 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 11,101,171).
Bao teaches the methods of claims 14 and 27 but fails to teach the dual damascene process.
However, Zhang teaches in col. 1, lines 47-52 that such interconnect structures may be formed using a dual damascene process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a dual damascene process, as taught by Zhang, to form the interconnect of Bao, with the motivation that dual damascene has the advantage of process simplification and lower manufacturing costs (col. 1, lines 47-52).
Pertaining to claim 28, Bao teaches the field of invention to be BEOL (para. [0002]). Inherently, a dual damascene interconnect comprises upper and lower portions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 18-20, 22 and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 16 and 18-20 claim particular manufacturing steps that are not taught by the prior art of record in the context of forming a copper structure with a chlorine-enriched interface region.
Claims 22 and 30 specify, respectively, that the chlorine-enriched interface region comprises a copper chelate material and has lattice structures of <111> and <200>, which are not taught by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin et al. (US 9,601,430), Cheung et al. (US 6,740,221), Schloss et al. (US 2024/0136192), Kitamura et al. (US 2021/0265266), Yang et al. (US 9,209,073), Furuya et al. (US 7,800,229), and Chang et al. (US 10,714,334) disclose invention in the same field of endeavor as Applicant’s invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M LUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-1569. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, 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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/DANIEL LUKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights