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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on July 20, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Status of the Claims
By amendment filed July 20, 2026, claims 1, 8-10 have been amended, claims 21-24 are new and claims 16-20 have been cancelled. Claims 1 through 15 and 21 through 24 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments against the rejection of claim 9 are not persuasive because Oberst teaches an embodiment wherein an opening/recess in a dielectric layer was coated with a seed layer and then completely filled with nanotwinned copper (Page 5 Paragraphs 0052-0055 and Figures 2A-2C).
Applicant’s arguments against the rejection of claim 1 are not persuasive because Oberst teaches embodiments wherein the nanotwinned copper electroplating solution was free of accelerators (Page 3 Paragraph 0020). Furthermore, previously cited reference Roeger-Goepfert taught the use of a suppressing agent which caused the growth rate of copper along the sidewalls of an opening to be smaller than the growth rate away from the sidewalls (Column 2 Lines 51-61). Therefore, claim 1 is still obvious in view of the cited prior art of record.
New claim 21 is allowable over the prior art because the prior art of record does not teach forming in a recess/opening of a dielectric layer a conductive feature having a first nanotwinned copper region and a second nanotwinned copper region wherein the first region has a greater density of (111)-oriented grains than the second region and the first region is separated from the dielectric layer by the second region. However, claims 21 through 25 are not complete condition for allowance because the limitation of “a thickness of the second nanotwinned copper region along a sidewall surface of the recess is greater than a thickness of the second nanotwinned region along a top surface of the dielectric layer” fails to comply with the written description requirement.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejection of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification of the present application as originally filed does not provide support for the limitation that a thickness of the second copper region on sidewall surfaces of the opening is greater than a thickness of the second copper region on a bottom surface of the opening.
Claim 21 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification of the present application as originally filed does not provide fully support for the claim. Claim 21 requires that the first nanotwinned copper region has a greater (111)-oriented grains than the second nanotwinned copper region. However, according to Paragraphs 0041 and 0042 of the specification of the present application as originally filed this is only possible due to the electroplating solution having a fist and second additive wherein the first additive is weaker suppressor than the second additive. Claim 21 does not require that the electroplating solution comprised the first and second additives and therefore is new matter.
Claim 21 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification of the present application as originally filed does not provide support for the limitation that a thickness of the second nanotwinned copper region on a sidewall surface of the recess is greater than a thickness of the second nanotwinned copper region along a top surface of the dielectric layer.
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).
Furthermore, Oberst teaches a specific embodiment wherein an opening/recess 212 was formed in a dielectric layer 206 followed by a seed layer 210 being deposited on the dielectric layer 206 and within the opening 212 (Pages 5-6 Paragraphs 0052-0053 and Figure A). Oberst then teaches that the recess 212 was filled with copper by the electroplating (Page 6 Paragraph 0054 and Figure 2B).
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) and Roeger-Goepfert et al.
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). Furthermore, Oberst teaches an embodiment wherein the nanotwinned copper electroplating solution was free of accelerators (Page 3 Paragraph 0020).
Oberst does not teach having added to the electroplating solution multiple suppressing agents such as a first suppressing agent as a first additive and a second suppressing agent as a second additive wherein the second additive suppressed growth of copper more than the first additive. Furthermore, Oberst does not teach that the growth rate of copper from a sidewall surface of the recess was smaller than a growth rate of copper from a bottom surface of the recess. 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.
Furthermore, 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 further teaches that the condensate was used with additional suppressors and leveling agents (Column 8 Line 64 through Column 9 Line 30). Furthermore, Roeger-Goepfert teaches that the suppressor caused the growth rate of copper at the sidewalls to be smaller than at the bottom of the recess (Column 2 Lines 51-61).
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.
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 and Roeger-Goepfert 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, none of the references 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 and Roeger-Goepfert et al 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 and Roeger-Goepfert 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 and Roeger-Goepfert 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 and Roeger-Goepfert 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 and Roeger-Goepfert et al 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 and Roeger-Goepfert 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 and Roeger-Goepfert 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 and Roeger-Goepfert 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As was discussed previously, Oberst taught a method wherein a recess was formed in a dielectric layer and an electroplating process was performed to fill the recess with copper and form a conductive feature wherein the electroplating solution was free of accelerating additives and the copper was nanotwinned having (111)-orientation. However, Oberst did not fairly teach or suggest that the conductive feature had a first nanotwinned copper region and a second nanotwinned copper region wherein the first nanotwinned region had a greater density of (111)-oriented grains than the second nanotwinned region and the first nanotwinned region was separated from the dielectric layer by the second nanotwinned region
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 15 and 21 through 25 have been rejected. No claims were allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights