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 with traverse of invention I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 03/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no unreasonable search and examination burden exists. This is not found persuasive. There would be serious search burden because the inventions I and II require different searches in different classifications and different field of search (for example, different queries). Additionally, prior art applicable to the device claims may not be applicable to the process steps in the method claims, and vice versa.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/11/2026.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of the claim is suggested to be changed to “A method for fabricating a semiconductor device, the method comprising:” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of the claim is suggested to be changed to “A method for fabricating a semiconductor device, the method comprising:” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11-18 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 “substantially” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. The limitation “substantially reach at least one of the surface of the one or more openings and the metal disposed thereon” of the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “substantially”.
The term “ultra-shallow” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ultra-shallow” 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. The limitation “ultra-shallow implant” in the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “ultra-shallow”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the surface of the one or more openings " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the dose of the oxygen containing species is greater than 1x1020” in lines 4-5. It is not clear what unit is used for “1x1020” of the limitation.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the opening" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the surface of each of the plurality of openings " in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “substantially” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. The limitation “substantially reach at least one of the surface of the one or more openings and the metal disposed thereon” of the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “substantially”.
The term “ultra-shallow” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ultra-shallow” 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. The limitation “ultra-shallow implant” in the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “ultra-shallow”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the surface of the one or more openings" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the dose of the oxygen containing species is greater than 1x1020” in lines 4-5. It is not clear what unit is used for “1x1020” of the limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Menon (US 2006/0054997).
Regarding claim 1, Menon discloses, in FIG. 1 and in related text, a method for fabricating a semiconductor device, comprising:
forming a dielectric layer (104) over a surface of a substrate (102) (see Menon, FIG. 1, [0032]);
forming one or more openings (108) in the dielectric layer (see Menon, FIG. 2, [0035]);
filling the one or more openings with a metal (110) wherein the metal is disposed on a surface of each of the one or more openings (see Menon, FIG. 3, [0039]); and
implanting an oxygen containing species (112) into the dielectric layer to provide a dose of the oxygen containing species to the surface (side surface) of each of the one or more openings and the metal disposed thereon (see Menon, FIG. 4, [0040]-[0041]).
Regarding claim 6, Menon discloses the method of claim 1.
Menon discloses wherein forming the dielectric layer (104) comprises depositing a stoichiometric dielectric film (SiO2) (see Menon, [0032]);
and forming the one or more openings (108) comprises etching the one or more openings in the stoichiometric dielectric film (see Menon, [0035]).
Regarding claim 8, Menon discloses the method of claim 1.
Menon discloses that the entire metal in the openings is converted to metal oxide (120) (see Menon, FIG. 5, [0044]-[0046]), that is, there is no more metal for further oxidation. Therefore, Menon inherently discloses wherein a Pilling-Bedworth ratio of the metal is greater than 1. See, for example, Wikipedia, Pilling-Bedworth ratio, archived 31 December 2020.
Regarding claim 9, Menon discloses the method of claim 8.
Menon discloses wherein the metal (110) comprises at least one of: tungsten, aluminum, molybdenum, cobalt, titanium, tantalum, zirconium, platinum, zinc, hafnium, lead, nickel, iron, niobium, vanadium, or silicon (see Menon, [0039]).
Claims 12-13 and 15-16, as so far as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Menon (US 2006/0054997).
Regarding claim 12, Menon discloses, in FIG. 4 and in related text, a method for fabricating a semiconductor device, comprising:
implanting an oxygen containing species (112) into a patterned dielectric layer (104) disposed on a substrate (102) (see Menon, FIG. 4, [0040]), wherein:
the patterned dielectric layer comprises a dielectric layer (104) that comprises a plurality of openings (108) that each comprise a metal layer (110) that is disposed on a surface of the opening (see Menon, FIGS. 2-3, [0035], [0039]),
and the implanting of the oxygen containing species into the dielectric layer provides a dose of the oxygen containing species to the surface (side surface) of each of the plurality of openings and the metal layer disposed thereon (see Menon, FIG. 4, [0040]-[0041]), and
heating the patterned dielectric layer after implanting the oxygen containing species to cause the surface of each of the plurality of openings and the metal layer exposed to the dose of the oxygen containing species to oxidize (see Menon, FIG. 5, [0044]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 13, Menon discloses the method of claim 12.
Menon discloses wherein causing the metal layer exposed to the dose of the oxygen containing species to oxidize causes a metal oxide layer (120) to form on one or more surfaces of the metal layer (see Menon, FIG. 5, [0046]).
Regarding claim 15, Menon discloses the method of claim 13.
Menon discloses that the entire metal in the openings is converted to metal oxide (120) (see Menon, FIG. 5, [0044]-[0046]), that is, there is no more metal for further oxidation. Therefore, Menon inherently discloses wherein a Pilling-Bedworth ratio of the metal is greater than 1. See, for example, Wikipedia, Pilling-Bedworth ratio, archived 31 December 2020.
Regarding claim 16, Menon discloses the method of claim 15.
Menon discloses wherein the metal in the metal layer (110) comprises at least one of: tungsten, aluminum, molybdenum, cobalt, titanium, tantalum, zirconium, platinum, zinc, hafnium, lead, nickel, iron, niobium, vanadium, or silicon (see Menon, [0039]).
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 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menon.
Regarding claim 7, Menon discloses the method of claim 1.
Menon discloses wherein:
the one or more openings (108) in the dielectric layer are formed in a surface of the dielectric layer (104) (see Menon, FIG. 2, [0035]),
the filling the one or more openings with the metal further comprises forming a layer of the metal (110) on the surface of the dielectric layer (104) (see Menon, FIG. 3, [0039]), and
the method further comprises:
removing the layer of the metal from the surface of the dielectric layer (104) (see Menon, FIG. 5, [0044]-[0045]) after implanting the oxygen containing species (112) into the dielectric layer (see Menon, FIG. 4, [0040]-[0041]).
Menon does not explicitly disclose the limitation “removing the layer of the metal from the surface of the dielectric layer before implanting the oxygen containing species into the dielectric layer”. However, the limitation would have been found obvious since selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). See also, MPEP § 2144.04.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menon in view of Sethuraman (US 2002/0106886).
Regarding claim 10, Menon discloses the method of claim 9.
Menon discloses wherein: the metal comprises aluminum; and
the oxygen containing species causes an aluminum oxide layer to form on one or more surfaces of the metal (see Menon, [0039], [0046]).
Menon does not explicitly disclose tungsten, tungsten oxide.
Sethuraman teaches that interconnect metal can be aluminum, tungsten, molybdenum or titanium (see Sethuraman, FIGS. 6-7, [0031]-[0032]). Therefore, Sethuraman together with Menon teaches tungsten, tungsten oxide.
Menon and Sethuraman are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Menon with the features of Sethuraman because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Menon to include tungsten, tungsten oxide, as taught by Sethuraman, because it is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (as interconnect metals). See MPEP § 2143.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menon in view of Sethuraman (US 2002/0106886).
Regarding claim 10, Menon discloses the method of claim 16.
Menon discloses wherein the metal layer comprises aluminum and the metal oxide layer comprises aluminum oxide (see Menon, [0039], [0046]).
Menon does not explicitly disclose tungsten, tungsten oxide.
Sethuraman teaches that interconnect metal can be aluminum, tungsten, molybdenum or titanium (see Sethuraman, FIGS. 6-7, [0031]-[0032]). Therefore, Sethuraman together with Menon teaches tungsten, tungsten oxide.
Menon and Sethuraman are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Menon with the features of Sethuraman because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Menon to include tungsten, tungsten oxide, as taught by Sethuraman, because it is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (as interconnect metals). See MPEP § 2143.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20080061485) in view of Sethuraman (US 2002/0106886).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses, in FIGS. 1a and 1b and in related text, a method for fabricating a semiconductor device, comprising:
forming an insulating layer (106) over a surface of a substrate (100);
forming one or more openings (107b) in the dielectric layer;
filling the one or more openings with a metal (108) wherein the metal is disposed on a surface of each of the one or more openings (see Kim, FIG. 1a, page 10); and
implanting an oxygen containing species into the dielectric layer to provide a dose of the oxygen containing species (110) to the surface (side surface) of each of the one or more openings and the metal disposed thereon (see Kim, FIG. 1b, page 10).
Kim discloses an insulating layer. Kim does not explicitly disclose a dielectric layer.
Sethuraman teaches a dielectric layer (50) as an insulating layer between interconnect metal layers (see Sethuraman, FIGS. 5-7, [0029]). Sethuraman teaches a dielectric layer.
Kim and Sethuraman are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kim with the features of Sethuraman because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim to include a dielectric layer, as taught by Sethuraman, because it is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (as insulating layer between interconnect metal layers). See MPEP § 2143.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection(s), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection(s), and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “wherein implanting the oxygen containing species comprises using a tilted implant process” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 2.
The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “wherein implanting the oxygen containing species comprises using a hot oxygen tilted implant process” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIH TSUN A CHOU whose telephone number is (408)918-7583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-16:00 Arizona Time.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at (571) 272-1670. 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.
/SHIH TSUN A CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights