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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claimsare 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 1 recites the limitation “and a surface of the etch stop film in direct contact with the first wiring layer have a carbon (C) concentration less than or equal to about 3 at%.”
“Less than or equal to about 3%” does not limit 0%, which is not having carbon. It’s indefinite and failing to distinctly point out whether it contains carbon.
Claim 2 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein a surface of the first insulating film and a surface of the etch stop film in direct contact with the first wiring layer have a fluorine (F) concentration less than or equal to about 36 at%.”
“Less than or equal to about 36%” does not limit 0%, which is not having fluorine. It’s indefinite and failing to distinctly point out whether it contains fluorine.
Claim 4 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 1.
Claim 5 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 1.
Claim 6 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein a surface of the first insulating film and a surface of the etch stop film in direct contact with the second wiring layer have a C concentration less than or equal to about 3 at%.”
“Less than or equal to about 3%” does not limit 0%, which is not having carbon. It’s indefinite and failing to distinctly point out whether it contains carbon.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein a surface of the first insulating film and a surface of the etch stop film in direct contact with the second wiring layer have a F concentration less than or equal to about 36 at%.”
“Less than or equal to about 36%” does not limit 0%, which is not having fluorine. It’s indefinite and failing to distinctly point out whether it contains fluorine.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “The wiring structure of claim 1, wherein the etch stop film comprises oxide- doped carbide (ODC).”
Claim 9 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 1. Claim 1 does not limit 0% of carbon, which is 0% of oxide- doped carbide (ODC). It fails to distinctly point out whether it contains (ODC).
Claim 10 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a surface of the etch stop film in direct contact with the first wiring layer have a carbon (C) concentration of about 3 at% or less.”
“Less than or equal to about 3%” does not limit 0%, which is not having carbon. It’s indefinite and failing to distinctly point out whether it contains carbon.
For the purposes of examination, claim 11 would be acceptable if adding follow limitations:
Etching stop film contains oxide-doped carbide (ODC).
Because the carbon concentration of claim 11 is overlapping with other patents. For example, Wang, et la. US 20220102203 A1 (paragraph [0040]). A different etching stop film material would make it “new” and acceptable.
A non-zero carbon concentration range (x – 3%).
Because with 0% percent of carbon, the material of the etching stop film is indefinite.
Claim 12 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 11.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein a surface of the first insulating film and a surface of the etch stop film in direct contact with the first wiring layer have a fluorine (F) concentration less than or equal to about 36 at%.”
“Less than or equal to about 36%” does not limit 0%, which is not having fluorine. It’s indefinite and failing to distinctly point out whether it contains fluorine.
Claim 14 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 11.
Claim 15 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 11.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein a surface of the first insulating film and a surface of the etch stop film in direct contact with the second wiring layer have a C concentration less than or equal to about 3 at% and a F concentration less than or equal to about 36 at%.”
“Less than or equal to about 3%” does not limit 0%, which is not having carbon. It’s indefinite and failing to distinctly point out whether it contains carbon. “Less than or equal to about 36%” does not limit 0%, which is not having fluorine. It’s indefinite and failing to distinctly point out whether it contains fluorine.
Claim 17 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 11.
Claim 18 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 11.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “and a surface of the etch stop film have a carbon (C) concentration less than or equal to about 3 at%.”
“Less than or equal to about 3%” does not limit 0%, which is not having carbon. It’s indefinite and failing to distinctly point out whether it contains carbon.
For the purposes of examination, claim 19 would be acceptable if adding follow limitation:
A non-zero carbon concentration range (x – 3%).
Because with 0% percent of carbon, the material of the etching stop film is indefinite.
Claim 20 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 19.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano, et al. US 20090026622 A1 (hereinafter Amano), and further in view of Wang, et la. US 20220102203 A1 (hereinafter Wang), and Liou, et al. US 20200006126 A1. (hereinafter Liou)
Amano discloses the following:
A wiring structure comprising: an etch stop film disposed on a substrate; a first insulating film disposed on the etch stop film; and a first wiring layer extending in a vertical direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the substrate and extending through the first insulating film and the etch stop film, (paragraph [0091], line 1-22)
Amano dose not disclose the following:
wherein a sidewall of the first wiring layer forms a first inclination angle of about 88 degrees to about 90 degrees with respect to a first horizontal direction parallel to the upper surface of the substrate, but Liou disclosed it. (paragraph [0040] line 3-6)
a surface of the first insulating film and a surface of the etch stop film in direct contact with the first wiring layer have a carbon (C) concentration less than or equal to about 3 at%. But Wang disclosed it. (paragraph [0040])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Liou’s inclination angle. The range of sidewall inclination angle (88 – 90 degrees) is attributed to the properties of the carbon-rich layer, such as its carbon content and density, which are responsible for the layer’s etching stop properties, Vias with substantially vertical profiles can prevent electrical shorts between adjacent vias. A person of ordinary skill in the art would substitute Wang’s carbon concentration to improve Liou’s carbon-rich etching stop properties. Correct carbon concentration can maintain anisotropicity along the desired etching direction during the etching processes.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano, et al. US 20090026622 A1 (hereinafter Amano), and further in view of Suzuki, US 20250154409 A1 (hereinafter Suzuki).
Amano does not disclose the following:
The wiring structure of claim 1, wherein the first wiring layer has a first width in a range of about 12 nm to about 20 nm in the first horizontal direction. But Suzuki disclosed it. (Background Art [0002]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Suzuki’s wire width, to reach a manufacturing miniaturization of the wiring lines, to meet the increased demand for wiring lines having a line width of 20 nm or less. Manufacturing miniaturization requires a smaller line width. Miniaturization increases efficiency and calculation speed.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano, et al. US 20090026622 A1 (hereinafter Amano), and further in view of Joseph, et al. US 20150318182 A1 (hereinafter Joseph).
Amano does not disclose the following:
The wiring structure of claim 1, wherein a surface of the first insulating film and a surface of the etch stop film in direct contact with the first wiring layer have a fluorine (F) concentration less than or equal to about 36 at%. But Joseph disclosed it. (paragraph [0041])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Joseph’s fluorine concentration to enhance fluorine treatment, to improve the quality of the surface, and reduce the number of dangling silicon bonds.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano, et al. US 20090026622 A1 (hereinafter Amano), and further in view of Yong, KR 20220174954 A (hereinafter Yong).
Amano does not disclose the following:
The wiring structure of claim 1, further comprising a second wiring layer spaced apart from the first wiring layer and extending in the vertical direction through the first insulating film and the etch stop film. But Yong disclosed it. (DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS Paragraph 34)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Yong’s wiring layer in vertical direction (Z direction), to improve reliability and reduce the chance of short-circuit.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano, et al. US 20090026622 A1 (hereinafter Amano), and further in view of YASUSHI, JP 2013251380 A (hereinafter Yasushi).
Amano does not disclose the following:
The wiring structure of claim 4, wherein the second wiring layer has a second width in a range of about 15 nm to about 50 nm in the first horizontal direction. But Yasushi disclosed it. (DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS Paragraph 8, line 1-5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Yasushi’s wiring layer width to reach a manufacturing miniaturization of the wiring lines and in the same time balance a required conductive ability.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano, et al. US 20090026622 A1 (hereinafter Amano), and further in view of Liou, US 20200006126 A1 (hereinafter Liou)
Amano does not disclose the following:
The wiring structure of claim 4, wherein a sidewall of the second wiring layer forms a second inclination angle in a range of about 83 degrees to about 87 degrees with respect to the first horizontal direction. But Liou disclosed it. (paragraph [0040])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Liou’s inclination angle to improve reliability and reduce the chance of short-circuit.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano, et al. US 20090026622 A1 (hereinafter Amano), and further in view of Wang, et la. US 20220102203 A1 (hereinafter Wang)
Amano does not disclose the following:
wherein a surface of the first insulating film and a surface of the etch stop film in direct contact with the second wiring layer have a C concentration less than or equal to about 3 at%. But Wang disclosed it. (Paragraph [0040])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Wang’s carbon concentration to improve etching stop properties. Correct carbon concentration will maintain anisotropicity along the desired etching direction during the etching processes.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano, et al. US 20090026622 A1 (hereinafter Amano), and further in view of Joseph, et al. US 20150318182 A1 (hereinafter Joseph).
Amano does not disclose the following:
wherein a surface of the first insulating film and a surface of the etch stop film in direct contact with the second wiring layer have a F concentration less than or equal to about 36 at%. But Joseph disclosed it. (paragraph [0041])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Joseph’s fluorine concentration to enhance fluorine treatment, to improve the quality of the surface, and reduce the number of dangling silicon bonds.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano, et al. US 20090026622 A1 (hereinafter Amano), and further in view of Lee, Woo-jin KR 102894042 B1 (hereinafter Lee).
Amano does not disclose the following:
The wiring structure of claim 1, wherein an upper region of the first insulating film adjacent to the first wiring layer has a rounded shape. But Lee disclosed it. (paragraph [0040])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Lee’s insulation film shape to make the etching process reliable, to form a wiring structure, after removing the etching mask.
Citation of Pertinent Art
Suzuki, et al. US 20250154409 A1
Yong, et al. KR 20220174954 A
YASUSHI, et al. JP 2013251380 A
Liou, et al. US 20200006126 A1
Lee, et al. KR 102894042 B1
OBUCHI, et al. US 20170278805 A1
Amano, et al. US 20090026622 A1
Park et al. US 20230027769 A1
Wang et al. US 20220102203 A1
Joseph, et al. US 20150318182 A1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEI LI whose telephone number is (571)270-0313. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at 4089187532. 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.
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights