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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-15, drawn to a method for electroplating, classified in H10W20/056.
II. Claims 16-20, drawn to a device, classified in H10D64/0111.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the device/product of invention II can be made in a process wherein the copper was deposited by vapor deposition instead of electroplating.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries), a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search. See MPEP section 808.02.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Joseph McManis on March 10, 2026, a provisional election was made to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-15. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claims 1-8 are 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.
The term “relatively weak suppressing agent” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively weak suppressing agent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1 is indefinite because it is not clear what properties a suppressing agent has to have in order to be considered “relatively weak”.
The term “relatively strong suppressing agent” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively strong suppressing agent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1 is indefinite because it is not clear what properties a suppressing agent has to have in order to be considered “relatively strong”.
Claim 8 is indefinite because the claims require that the first and second additives as added to the electroplating solution after the second additive is added and it is not clear how the second additive and be added to the solution after it has already been added. For the purposes of this examination this limitation will be taken to require that the second additive was added twice to the solution.
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 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oberst et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0212773).
In the case of claims 9, 11 and 12, Oberst teaches a method for depositing copper in a recess/opening formed in a dielectric layer by electroplating wherein the copper comprised nanotwinned grains having a (111)-orientation (Abstract, Page 4 Paragraph 0042 and Pages 17-16 Paragraphs 0124 and 0132). The electroplating of Oberst comprised using an electroplating solution comprising a first additive in the form of a leveler and a second additive in the form of a suppressor (Page 6 Paragraph 0055). Oberst teaches that the first additive/leveler acted as a suppressing agent (Top half of Paragraph 0058 on Page 7) and comprised polymeric/carbon compounds having amine, amide, imide and sulfide functional groups, therefore comprising metal-coordinating functional groups and hydrogen groups/suppressing functional groups because the additive comprised alkyl/polymeric compounds (Bottom half of Paragraph 0058 on Page 7). Furthermore, Oberst teaches that the second additive/suppressor comprised a polymer (Page 6 Paragraph 0056).
As for claim 10, Oberst teaches that the copper deposit comprised a first copper region in the form of a nanotwinned region and second copper region in the form of a transition region which occupied the space between the substrate and the nanotwinned region and that the copper feature/deposit was comprised of 50% or more of the first region/nanotwinned region (Page 5 Paragraph 0047). Oberst teaches that the nanotwinned region comprised (111)-orientated copper (Page 4 Paragraph 0042) while the transition region was non-nanotwinned and comprised orientations other than (111) (Page 5 Paragraph 0049). Furthermore, since the copper feature was within a recess/opening the second region/transition region would have surrounded the first region/nanotwinned region of the deposit because the second region/transition region existed between the substrate surfaces and the first region/nanotwinned and the first region/nanotwinned region would have had a greater portion of (111)-oriented copper than the second region/transition region because the second region/transition region had less (111) orientation and size than the first region/nanotwinned region.
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.
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.
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 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberst et al as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Roeger-Goepfert et al (U.S. Patent # 9,869,029).
The teachings of Oberst as it applies to claim 9 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 13, though Oberst taught that the first additive was a suppressing agent/leveler Oberst did not teach that the first agent had the structure required by claim 13.
Roeger-Goepfert teaches a method for electroplating copper into the openings of a substrate using a solution comprising a suppressing agent in the form of a polyoxyalkylated polyalcohol condensate which provided a substantially defect free fill of the openings (Abstract, Column 1 Line 58 through Column 2 Line 12 and Column 2 Lines 51-61). Roeger-Goepfert teaches that the condensate had a glycerol structure (Column 3 Lines 30-48) which reads on the structure of claim 13, when the suppressing functional groups R are hydrogen and the metal-coordinating functional groups X are hydroxyl groups. Roeger-Goepfert further teaches that the condensate was used with additional suppressors and leveling agents (Column 8 Line 64 through Column 9 Line 30).
Based on the teachings of Roeger-Goepfert, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the condensate suppressing agent of Roeger-Goepfert as a first additive in the electroplating solution of Oberst because the condensate suppressing agent of Roeger-Goepfert allowed for defect free filling of openings in substrate being electroplated.
As for claim 14, as was discussed previously, Oberst taught a second additive that comprised a polymer. However, Oberst did not specifically teach that the polymer had linear or branched structure.
Roeger-Goepfert teaches that it was known in the art for suppressing agent polymers to have either linear or branched structures (Column 1 Lines 26-33).
Based on the teachings of Roeger-Goepfert, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have comprised the second additives of Oberst as linear or branched structures because these were known structures in the art for polymeric suppressing agents.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberst et al as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Paneccasio, Jr et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0390356).
The teachings of Oberst as it applies to claim 9 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 15, Oberst does not teach that the electroplating solution further comprised a third additive having a positively charged nitrogen. However, Oberst does teach that the solution comprised suppressors including polypropylene oxide-based suppressers (Page 6 Paragraph 0056).
Paneccasio teaches a method for filling a submicron feature in a substrate with copper by electroplating wherein the electroplating solution comprised a suppressor based on propylene oxide (Abstract, Page 1 Paragraph 0002 and Page 3 Paragraphs 0039-0040). Paneccasio teaches that the suppressors comprised a positively-charged nitrogen in the form of a nitrogen cation which enhanced the attraction of the suppressor to the copper deposits (Page 3 Paragraph 0042 and Page 5 Paragraph 0051).
Based on the teaching of Paneccasio, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added a third additive to the electroplating solution of Oberst in the form of a suppressor comprising positively-charged nitrogen in order to enhance the attraction of the suppressors to the copper deposits.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberst et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0212773) in view of Kao (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0136397).
In the case of claim 1, Oberst teaches a method for depositing copper in a recess/opening by electroplating wherein the copper comprised nanotwinned grains having a (111)-orientation (Abstract and Page 4 Paragraph 0042). Oberst teaches that the electroplating was conducted using an electroplating solution comprised of a copper salt, an acid and organic additives (Page 4 Paragraph 0045). Oberst teaches that the organic additives comprised a suppressor/suppressing agent and a leveler/leveling agent (Page 6 Paragraphs 0055-0056 and Page 7 Paragraph 0058).
Oberst does not teach having added to the electroplating solution multiple suppressing agents such as a “relatively weak” suppressing agent as a first additive and a “relatively strong” suppressing agent as a second additive. However, "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP section 2144.06.I.
Furthermore, Kao teaches a process for forming electroplated copper having a (111)-orientation (Abstract and Page 1 Paragraph 0001) wherein the electroplating was conducted using a solution comprising one or more suppressors (Page 1 Paragraph 0007).
Based on the teachings of Kao, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included two suppressing agents in the electroplating solution of Oberst because it was known in the art for electroplating solutions which deposited copper to be comprised of one or more suppressing agents.
In the case of claim 2, Oberst teaches that the electroplating solution further comprised a copper salt and an acid (Page 4 middle of Paragraph 0045). However, Oberst does not teach that the solution further comprised a source of halide ions.
Kao teaches that the plating solution included a source of halide ions as an electrolyte (Page 4 Paragraph 0030 and Page 5 Paragraph 0042).
Based on the teachings of Kao, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further included a source of halide ions in the electroplating solution of Oberst to act as an electrolyte.
As for claim 4, as was discussed previously, it would have been obvious to have included multiple additives in the electroplating solution including multiple suppressors. Furthermore, Oberst teaches that the levelers acted as suppressing agents (Top half of Paragraph 0058 on Page 7) and comprised polymeric/carbon compounds having amine, amide, imide and sulfide functional groups, therefore comprising metal-coordinating functional groups and hydrogen groups/suppressing functional groups because the additive comprised alkyl/polymeric compounds (Bottom half of Paragraph 0058 on Page 7).
As for claim 5, Oberst does not teach that the polymer of the second additive had an average molecular weight that was greater than 10,000 Da.
Kao teaches that the suppressors had an average molecular weight or 800 to 15,000 Da (Page 5 Paragraph 0044).
Based on the teachings of Kao, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have had the average molecular weight of the polymers of the second additive of Oberst be in the range of 800 to 15,000 Da because these were known molecular weights in the art. Furthermore, the average molecular weight range of Oberst in view of Kao overlapped with the claimed range. 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). See section 2144.05.I of the MPEP.
As for claim 7, Oberst teaches an embodiment wherein at least 90 vol.% of the deposited copper comprised nanotwinned copper (Page 20 Paragraph 0140). At least 90 vol.% overlapped with the claimed range of at least 97 vol.% and as was discussed previously, overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
As for claim 8, neither Oberst nor Kao teach that the first and second additives were added to the solution after the second additive was added. However, Kao teaches that the electroplating solution was prepared by combining the components in any order (Page 5 Paragraph 0045). Furthermore, section 2144.04.I.V.C, states “Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)”
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the first and second additives to the electroplating solution after having added the second additive because the order in which the additives/components were added would not have affected the final electroplating solution.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberst et al in view of Kao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0059665).
The teachings of Oberst in view of Kao as they apply to claim 1 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 3, though Oberst in view of Kao render obvious a first additive being a suppressing agent neither reference teaches that the additive was a gelatin.
Li teaches a method a method for electroplating copper onto a substrate (Abstract and Pages 2-3 Paragraphs 0026-0030) wherein the solution for plating comprised a suppressing agent in the form of an inhibitor (Page 3 Paragraph 0032). Li further teaches that the inhibitor comprised gelatin (Page 2 Paragraph 0012).
Based on the teachings of Li, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the first additive of Oberst in view of Kao as a gelatin because this was a known suppressing agent form in the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberst et al in view of Kao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Banik, II et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0010446).
The teachings of Oberst in view of Kao as they apply to claim 1 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 6, as was discussed previously, based on the teachings of Oberst in view of Kao it would have been obvious for the electroplating solution to comprise multiple suppressors/suppressing agents. However, neither reference teaches that the average molecular weight of the first additive was less than half of an average molecular weight of the second additive. Section 2144.05.II.A of the MPEP states, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Furthermore, Banik teaches a method for forming a nanotwinned copper structure through electroplating (Abstract). Banik further teaches that it was known in the art for electroplating solutions to comprise suppressors having different molecular weights and that the size of the compounds affected their diffusion into recessed features (Page 4 Bottom of Paragraph 0043).
Based on the teachings of Banik, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined optimal average molecular weights for the suppressors/suppressing agents of Oberst in view of Kao through routine experimentation because it was known in the art for electroplating solutions to comprise suppressors of different molecular weights and the size/molecular weight of the suppressors affected their diffusion into recessed features.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 15 have been rejected. Claims 16 through 20 have been withdrawn from consideration. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712