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 .
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.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the dual precursor" in 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that this should depend rom claim 18
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.
Claim(s) s 1-2,4-6, and 8-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoyama 2023/0120199).
a. As to claim 1 and 8, Motoyama teaches A semiconductor structure, comprising (figure 10): a first low dielectric constant (low-k) layer (lower item 404 paragraph 29) ;a first metal layer, embodied in the first low-k layer (items 410), wherein the first low-k layer exposes the first metal layer (figure 6 in the processing steps); a metal cap layer, disposed on the first metal layer (item 512); a dielectric on dielectric (DoD) layer (item 716 which is a dielectric on another dielectric, 404, thus DOD), disposed on the first low-k layer (item 404under 716)); an etch stop layer (ESL), disposed on the metal cap layer and the DoD layer (item 918 ESL is intended use since the layer could be used as an etch stop it meets the claim limitation); a second low-k layer (upper item 404), disposed above the etch stop layer; a metal via (1022), embodied in the second low-k layer and connected to the first metal layer (see figure 10); and a second metal layer , disposed above the second low-k layer and connected to the metal via (item 410).
Motoyama teaches SiCOH which dielectric constant can range from 2.0 to 4.19 but typically is between 2.7 and 3.2.
Motoyama does not explicitly state the low-k whose dielectric constant is less than 4.
Applicant has shown no unexpected results for the value.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing too provide 404 with a dielectric constant less than 4 to decrease parasitic capacitance between lines and reduce the laminate thickness of the inter layer dielectric layers (404) to make the device more compact.
b. As to claims 2, Motoyama teaches the DOD item 716 maybe SiCN or any other appropriate dielectric (paragraph 35) while 918 maybe AlOx or any other appropriate dielectric (paragraph 38).
c. As to claim 4, Claim 4 is product by process, while applicant may assert benefits using their methods including self-assembly these do not limit the claimed device structure thus claim is read on since the structure is the same.
d. As to claim 5 Motoyama teach the DOD is thicker than the metal cap it underlies and extend at least to the same height.
e. As to claim 6 Motoyama does not explicitly teach wherein the DoD layer is 2 to 5 times thicker than the metal cap layer.
Motoyama teaches the DOD 716 is thicker than the cap.
Applicant has shown no unexpected result for the relative thickness. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have form layer 716 at 2 to 5 times the thickness of the cap to prevent the micro-trenches while not being too thick to add substantially to the laminate thickness.
f. As to claim 9 , Motoyama teaches the DOD item 716 maybe SiCN or any other appropriate dielectric (paragraph 35) while 918 maybe AlOx or any other appropriate dielectric (paragraph 38).
Further it was known etch stop work by etch rate differences between the layers above the etch stop and the type of etch.
Further SiCN is a known etch stop for SiCOH the material cited as the low-k dielectric.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to switch the materials of 716 and 918 making 918 from SiCN and 716 from AlO for the desire variation of etch rates at the corresponding levels during fabrication
g. As to claim 10, Recitation of ALD like radical CVD in claim 10, is product by process and applicant has not shown that it inherently changes the structure. Thus Motoyama reads on claim 10
h. As to claims 11-12, in view of claim 9 SiCN comprises both Silicon (hexamethyldisilazane) and Nitrogen the specificity of how it was formed does not affect the structure thus the product by process limitation does not further limit the structure and Motoyama reads on 11 and 12.
i. As to claim 13, 14, Motoyama teaches A semiconductor structure, comprising (figure 10): a first low dielectric constant (low-k) layer (lower item 404 paragraph 29) ;a first metal layer, embodied in the first low-k layer (items 410), wherein the first low-k layer exposes the first metal layer (figure 6 in the processing steps); a metal cap layer, disposed on the first metal layer (item 512); a dielectric on dielectric (DoD) layer (item 716 which is a dielectric on another dielectric, 404, thus DOD), disposed on the first low-k layer (item 404under 716)); an etch stop layer (ESL), disposed on the metal cap layer and the DoD layer (item 918 ESL is intended use since the layer could be used as an etch stop it meets the claim limitation); a second low-k layer (upper item 404), disposed above the etch stop layer; a metal via (1022), embodied in the second low-k layer and connected to the first metal layer (see figure 10); and a second metal layer , disposed above the second low-k layer and connected to the metal via (item 410).
Motoyama teaches the DOD item 716 maybe SiCN or any other appropriate dielectric (paragraph 35) while 918 maybe AlOx or any other appropriate dielectric (paragraph 38). Motoyama teaches a barrier at a sidewall of the etch stop layer and via (item 406) Motoyama does not teach the etch stop layer 918 is non-metal based.
It is known etch stop work by etch rate differences between the layers above the etch stop and the type of etch. Further SiCN is a known etch stop for SiCOH the material cited as the low-k dielectric. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to switch the materials of 716 and 918 making 918 from SiCN and 716 from AlO for the desire variation of etch rates at the corresponding levels during fabrication
j. As to claims 16-19, Motoyama modified teaches SiCN for etch stop layer so Silicon (hexamethyldisilazane , silane) and Nitrogen (Ammonia); how they were provided in the formation steps of the device (the precursor or precursors) does not structurally change the device thus the product by process limitation are read on since the structure of Motoyama is the same as claimed. T
k. As to claim 15, claim 15 recites product by process and applicant has not shown that the method results in a structural difference.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoyama in view of Jiang (CN 107026087).
a. As to claim 3, Motoyama does not teach the thickness of item 716. However, 716 is used for a CMP stop layer to prevent micro trenching (paragraph 39 and 36).
Motoyama does not explicitly teach the thickness.
Jiang teaches CMP stops of a thickness of 5 angstrom:
…the CMP stop layer 220 of about 5 angstroms per second chemical mechanical polishing rate and an injection part of the dielectric layer 216 of about In another example…
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide 716 at a thickness of 11 angstroms to provide sufficient thickness to prevent micro trenching but not overly thick to increase the laminate thickness and the device size.
Claim(s) 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoyama in view of Kang (20240096797).
As to claim 7 and 13, it is noted applicant does not set forth what the layers of the bilayer are the Motoyama single layer could be considered a bilayer of the single material.
Motoyama does not teach a bilayer of different materials.
Kang teaches a Tri layer etch stop (ESL ESL1-3).
Thus, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a Tri layer or bilayer of different materials for the etch stop for the desired etching stop properties to ensure prevention of over etching.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin 20220285210 teaches a multi-layer ESL 116 and 114.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW L REAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-2408. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am-4:00 pm 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 F. 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.
/MATTHEW L. REAMES/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/MATTHEW L REAMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896