DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15, 18, 19, 21-28 are pending. claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 11, 15, 19, 21-28 are rejected under prior art. Claims 12, 13, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 2, 4-6, 8, 11, 22, 23, 24, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (US 2015/0104941).
With respect to claims 1, 22, 23 Graham describes a CMP comprising; providing a dielectric structure having a metal and barrier layer such as Ru in trenches of patterned low-k dielectric layer; polishing a surface of the dielectric structure having the metal or claimed a first layer exposed through the surface of a dielectric structure, barrier layer and the low-k dielectric to remove the metal and barrier layers on the low-k dielectric layer (para 2, 3, 6, 23-25, 33, 41), with a CMP slurry comprising abrasives (para 35, 56), an oxidizing agent such as hydrogen peroxide, periodic acid, potassium iodate, potassium permanganate, ferric nitrate from 0.01-10 wt% (para 36, claim 4) or claimed oxidizing agent configured to promote dissolution of a metallic material and having an electrochemical potential greater than an electrochemical potential necessary to oxidize the metal layer since they are the same oxidizing agents as that of claim 22 and they provide oxidation of the metallic material for polishing, and a mixture of other oxidizing agents including ammonium persulfate, ammonium molybdate (para 36, 67), and a pH adjustor including tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TEAH) (para 39) which would have positively charged ions in water (please see Wikipedia reference for description of TEAH in aqueous solution) and interacts with the abrasive to reduce aggregation of the abrasive on a dielectric material/structure.
Unlike claimed invention, Graham doesn’t disclose that the pH adjuster of TEAH having the amount from about 0.1 to about 10 wt%. the amount of pH adjuster including the TEAH is from 0.0001-5 wt% (para 61, 62), which largely overlaps claimed 0.1-10 wt%. Overlapping ranges are held obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, one skill in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to use ranges including claimed ranges to provide a polishing composition with expected results.
With respect to claims 2, 8, the method above has a metal layer including copper or claimed first layer exposed through a surface of the dielectric structure. The composition further includes potassium hydroxide along with TEAH (para 39, 41). The TEAH in the aqueous slurry would provide the positively charged ion to interact with the abrasive to increase repulsion between the abrasive and the dielectric structure and cause a reduction in aggregation of the abrasive on the dielectric structure as it is in a slurry with the same abrasives using on the same dielectric layer and a concentration that is within claimed concentration.
With respect to claim 4, the metal layer includes copper (para 41).
With respect to claim 5, the low-k dielectric layer comprising of silicon, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen such as Black Diamond and ultra low-k film (para 41, 95,122), which would have a relative dielectric constant (k) of less than 3.9 (please also see Liu 2017/0117218 cited below for disclosing low-k dielectric materials including Black Diamond have a dielectric constant less than 3).
With respect to claim 6, the barrier layer includes a noble metals such as ruthenium (para 41).
With respect to claim 11, the method above includes the dielectric structure includes a copper layer or claimed first layer, a barrier layer or claimed second layer between the dielectric structure and the first layer of copper. The barrier includes a noble metal of ruthenium (para 2-4, 6, 41). The dielectric structure includes a low-k dielectric layer comprising of silicon, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen such as Black Diamond and ultra low-k film (para 41, 95,122), which would have a relative dielectric constant (k) of less than 3.9 (please also see Liu 2017/0117218 cited below for disclosing low-k dielectric materials including Black Diamond have a dielectric constant less than 3).
With respect to claim 24, the TEAH would provide the positively charged ion to interact with the abrasive to increase repulsion between the abrasive and the dielectric structure as it is in a slurry with the same abrasive using on the same dielectric layer.
With respect to claim 25, the remainder of the polishing composition is water (para 40), for example 1, it is about 95.55 wt% (para 101).
Claim(s) 15, 21, 26, 27, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jhang et al. (US 2022/0033683).
With respect to claims 15, 21, 26 Graham, as described above, further describes the method includes the dielectric structure includes a copper layer or claimed first layer, a barrier layer including Ta, TaN, Ti, TiN and ruthenium or claimed second layer between the dielectric structure and the first layer of copper. The barrier includes a noble metal of ruthenium (para 2-4, 6, 41). The dielectric structure includes a low-k dielectric layer comprising of silicon, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen such as Black Diamond and ultra low-k film (para 41, 95,122), which would have a relative dielectric constant (k) of less than 3.9 (please also see Liu 2017/0117218 cited below for disclosing low-k dielectric materials including Black Diamond have a dielectric constant less than 3). The abrasives are selected from colloidal silica, ceria, germania, silica, titania, zirconia (claim 3). The TEAH in the aqueous slurry would provide the positively charged ion to interact with the abrasive to increase repulsion between the abrasive and the dielectric structure and cause a reduction in aggregation of the abrasive on the dielectric structure as it is in a slurry with the same abrasives using on the same dielectric layer and a concentration that is within claimed concentration.
Unlike claimed invention Graham doesn’t describe that the abrasives having particle sizes of between 10-300 nm. Jhang teaches a CMP method for polishing a same structure including Ru as barrier stack in copper interconnects (para 4) wherein the particle sizes of titania is from 10-300 nm (para 23). One skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would find it obvious to provide particle size, in light of Jhang’s teaching, because Jhang shows that these sizes have been successfully facilitate in the polishing of a copper interconnect structures with expected results.
With respect to claim 27, it is expected that the combined described above would provide such results of a height variable of less than 2.5nm because the same CMP composition having the same chemicals, which is used on the same surface of structure having materials including copper, ru barrier layer, and low-k dielectric layer.
With respect to claim 28, a copper thickness or claimed first layer is at 10000 angstrom, which is greater than a TaN thickness or claimed second layer of about 3000 angstroms (para 97, 98).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham and Jhang as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Tohma et al. (US 2008/0121529).
With respect to claim 19, the combined process of Graham and Jhang, described above, doesn’t disclose that the copper interconnects or claimed a first metal layer and a second metal layer spaced apart at the surface by a dimension of greater than 300nm. However, such copper interconnect structures having the copper interconnects spacing apart of greater than 300 is known to one skilled in the art as shown here by Tohma, who teaches an example of a pattern of copper interconnect width of 9um and a spacing or 1um or 1000nm (para 139). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a copper interconnect structure such as one taught by Tohma because Tohma shows such structure has been known to form a semiconductor device and Graham teaches a general interconnect structures across the wafer surfaces including low and high density features (para 46). This would provide claimed structures with expected results.
With respect to the limitation of the CMP results in a dishing of the dielectric structure between copper interconnects or claimed the first metal layer and second metal layer of 4nm or less, it is expected that Graham’s method would provide such results because he describes the same CMP composition having the same chemicals, which is used on the same materials including copper, ru barrier layer, and low-k dielectric layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 13, 18 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.
Claims 12 and 18 are allowed because Graham doesn’t teach nor suggest “wherein performing the CMP on the surface is performed with process parameters targeting height of the metal layer of 20 nm; and wherein the surface has a dense pattern with a pitch of less than 30 nm, and performing the CMP on the surface results in a height of the metal layer of between 19 and 21 nm; wherein the surface has a wide metal pattern with a metal layer to dielectric structure pattern density of greater than 60 percent, the metal layer has a width at the surface of greater than 100 nm, and performing the CMP on the surface results in a height of the metal layer of between 16 and 18 nm; or wherein the surface has an iso pattern with a metal layer to dielectric structure pattern density of less than 20 percent, the metal layer has a width at the surface of less than 20 nm, and performing the CMP on the surface results in a height of the metal layer of between 20 and 23 nm
Claim 13 is allowable because the combined method of Graham and Tohma doesn’t suggest the metal layer is a first metal layer spaced apart on the dielectric structure from a second metal layer at the surface by a dimension of greater than 300 nm, and a ratio of an exposed surface area of the metal layers to the dielectric structure is less than approximately 30%, wherein performing the CMP on the surface results in a dishing of the dielectric structure between the first metal layer and the second metal layer of 4 nm or less.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks that Graham’s “PEO polymer would likely dominate the surface chemistry or coat the particles, therefore interfering with the ionic mechanism of the TEAH. Consequently, TEAH in Graham’s PEO-rich environment would not function in the same manner as in the claimed invention” is found unpersuasive. It is an speculation without having facts nor results to prove that TEAH absolutely doesn’t provided the claimed function. Furthermore, PEO would not likely to coat the particles or abrasives because Graham describes “the ethylene oxide repeating units of polyethyleneoxide (PEO) are able to form coordination bonds with oxidized metal cations in barrier film. Those more soft complexes in barrier films lead to the enhanced barrier film” (para 55), and those metal cations are from the metal lines and barrier films as he describes “the chemical reactions involved in using barrier CMP composition include: oxidation reactions induced by the oxidant used in the barrier CMP slurry, for example, H2O2 . The surfaces of metal, such as copper, lines, vias or trenches, and barrier material, such as Ta, are oxidized into the relative metal oxide films. Typically, metal copper is oxidized into a mixture of cuprous and cupric oxides, and Ta is oxidized to Ta2O5 (the preferred oxide form for Ta). Chelators, ligands or other suitable chemical additives which can be chemically bonded to the copper cations and tantalum cations are used in barrier CMP slurry to accelerate the dissolution of copper oxide and tantalum oxide to yield the desirable removal rates of copper lines, vias, or trenches and barrier layer, or barrier films. therefore, the PEO would not l removal rates.” (para 49). Therefore, PEO would not likely to coat the particles of the abrasives.
Also the amount of pH adjuster including the TEAH is from 0.0001-5 wt% (para 61, 62), which largely overlaps claimed 0.1-10 wt%. Overlapping ranges are held obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, one skill in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to use ranges including claimed ranges to provide a polishing composition with expected results.
In response to applicant's argument that Graham doesn’t disclose the interaction between the components of TEAH with the abrasives to reduce aggregation including “the TEAH includes positively charged ions that interact with the abrasive to increase repulsion between the abrasive on the dielectric structure and cause a reduction in aggregation of the abrasive on the dielectric structure” the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In this case, the same components are present in the same slurry with the amount that is within the amount (TEAH amount) of the claimed invention; therefore, it is expected that the TEAH to react with the abrasives in the same way as that of the claimed invention to provide such advantages.
Liu 2017/0117218 cited for disclosing low-k dielectric materials including Black Diamond have a dielectric constant less than 3.
Wikipedia reference is cited for description of TEAH in aqueous solution.
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 DUY VU NGUYEN DEO whose telephone number is (571)272-1462. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F.
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 Allen can be reached at 571-272-3176. 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.
/DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
3/25/2026