INTERCONNECTION LAYER STRUCTURES INCLUDING TWO-DIMENSIONAL (2D) MATERIAL, ELECTRONIC DEVICES INCLUDING INTERCONNECTION LAYER STRUCTURES, AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUSES INCLUDING ELECTRONIC DEVICES

Application No. 18/471,715

• Filed: Sep 21, 2023
• Priority: Sep 29, 2022 — provisional 63/411,256
  • Nov 08, 2022 — RE 10-2022-0148135
• Examiner: PROSTOR, ANDREW VICTOR
• Art Unit: 2812
• Tech Center: 2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
• Assignee: President and Fellows of Harvard College
• OA Round: 1 (Non-Final)

Office Action

CTNF 18/471,715 CTNF 100442 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 The election of species XXII without traverse from applicant’s reply filed 04/10/2026 is acknowledged. The applicant has included claim 18 in the listing of claims that read on the elected species. However, claim 18 is drawn to a work function modulation layer contacting the gate electrode (presently claimed as the third electrode in claim 18). This feature appears to be drawn to Fig. 20, previously indicated as non-elected Species XXI. As best understood by the examiner, this feature is not present in elected Species XXII drawn to Fig. 21. Therefore, claim 18 is hereby withdrawn (along with claims 7-14) and will not be treated on its merits. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 7-14 and 18 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by US 2019/0252511 A1 Clendenning et al ( herein “Clendenning” ) . Regarding Claim 1, Clendenning discloses : An interconnection layer structure ( see generally Fig. 3 ) comprising: a first interconnection layer (#308); and a work function modulation layer (#306) directly on one surface ( inner surfaces of #308 in Fig. 3 ) of the first interconnection layer (#308), wherein the first interconnection layer (#308) includes a metal layer ([0055]), and the work function modulation layer (#306) is a two-dimensional (2D) material layer that includes ruthenium (Ru) ([0027]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claims 1-6, 17, a nd 19-20 are reject ed under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020 /0035837 A1 Ahmed ( herein “Ahmed” ) in view of US 2019/0252511 A1 Clendenning et al. Regard ing Claim 1, Ahmed discloses : An interconnection layer structure ( see Figs. 4A-4E, specifically see perspective view of structure in Fig. 4C, source/drain regions shown in Fig. 4C, gate region shown in Fig. 4D, see also [0059]-[0065] ) comprising: a first interconnection layer (#474, Fig. 4C); and the first interconnection layer includes a metal layer ([0059]), Ahmed does not explicitly disclose : a work function modulation layer directly on one surface of the first interconnection layer, wherein the work function modulation layer is a two-dimensional (2D) material layer that includes ruthenium (Ru). However, in analogous art, Clendenning teaches : a first interconnection layer (#308); and a work function modulation layer (#306) directly on one surface ( inner surfaces of #308 in Fig. 3 ) of the first interconnection layer (#308), wherein the first interconnection layer (#308) includes a metal layer ([0055]), and the work function modulation layer (#306) is a two-dimensional (2D) material layer that includes ruthenium (Ru) ([0027]). 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 consider combining the teachings of Clendenning to the device disclosed by Ahmed and include a thin layer comprising ruthenium on the inner surface of the metallic contact (electrode) acting as a conformal layer, ultrathin layer, a conductive liner, a work function metal, a good diffusion barrier, and/or a good adhesion layer/nucleation layer between the source/drain contact and the channel layer of the device. Clendenning [0027] states: “In some embodiments, a ruthenium (Ru)-phosphorus (P) film may be formed on semiconductor devices to provide desirable properties to the devices. A Ru—P film may be referred to as a Ru—P alloy film. The film may be formed by different embodiments of one or more deposition processes such as ALD and/or CVD. In some embodiments, the films may be ultrathin, on the order of approximately 1 to 5 nanometers, and may be used as effective diffusion barriers against other metals. In some embodiments, the films may be highly conformal and may provide effective adhesion layers in transistor device contacts, gate structures, or the back end of line interconnects. In some embodiments, the films may be effective as conductive liners. In some embodiments, Ru—P films may be conformal, ultrathin, a conductive liner, a work function metal, a good diffusion barrier, and/or a good adhesion layer/nucleation layer. ” The ruthenium layer would assist in the electrical properties, see [0027] above, of the claimed device, specifically acting as a diffusion barrier, act as a conductive liner, and/or a adhesion/nucleation layer between source/drain layers and the channel layer. Regarding Claim 2, Ahmed in view of Clendenning discloses : The interconnection layer structure of claim 1, Clendenning further discloses : further comprising: a second interconnection layer (#456, Fig.4C) facing the first interconnection layer (#474) with the work function modulation layer ( Clendenning #306, see above ) therebetween, wherein the second interconnection layer (#456) directly contacts the work function modulation layer ( Clendenning #306, see above ). Note, as combined in the manner described above, particularly as an adhesion layer, the work function modulation layer would be deposited between the first and second interconnection layers thereby directly contacting both layers. Regarding Claim 3, Ahmed in view of Clendenning discloses : The interconnection layer structure of claim 2, Clendenning further discloses : wherein the second interconnection layer (#456) includes a semiconductor layer ( see abstract, “The channel material layer includes a crystalline Group III-P material” ). Regarding Claim 4, Ahmed in view of Clendenning discloses : The interconnection layer structure of claim 2, Clendenning further discloses : further comprising: an insulating layer (#455), wherein the first interconnection layer (#474), the work function modulation layer ( Clendenning #306, see above ), and the second interconnection layer (#456) are stacked in a horizontal direction on one surface ( left or right surfaces in Fig. 4C ) of the insulating layer (#455). Regarding Claim 5, Ahmed in view of Clendenning discloses : The interconnection layer structure of claim 4, Clendenning further discloses : wherein a portion of the first interconnection layer (#474) and the second interconnection layer (#456) overlap each other ( for example, overlap from a top down view ). Regarding Claim 6, Ahmed in view of Clendenning discloses : The interconnection layer structure of claim 2, Clendenning further discloses : further comprising: an insulating layer (#455), wherein the first interconnection layer (#474), the work function modulation layer ( Clendenning #306, see above ), and the second interconnection layer (#456) are vertically stacked on the insulating layer (#455). Regarding Claim 17, Ahmed discloses : An electronic device ( see Figs. 4A-4E, specifically see perspective view of structure in Fig. 4C, source/drain regions shown in Fig. 4C, gate region shown in Fig. 4D, see also [0059]-[0065] ) comprising: a substrate (#452); a 2D semiconductor channel layer (#456) on the substrate (#452); a first electrode layer (#474, front ) connected to a first side region of the 2D semiconductor channel layer (#456); a second electrode layer (#474, back ) connected to a second side region of the 2D semiconductor channel layer (#456) and spaced apart from the first electrode layer (#474, front ); a third electrode layer (#458) on the 2D semiconductor channel layer (#456), the third electrode layer (#458) being spaced apart from the first electrode layer (#474, front ) and the second electrode layer (#474, back ); Ahmed does not explicitly disclose : a first work function modulation layer between the 2D semiconductor channel layer and each of the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer, wherein the first work function modulation layer includes ruthenium (Ru). However, in analogous art, Clendenning teaches : a first interconnection layer (#308); and a work function modulation layer (#306) directly on one surface ( inner surfaces of #308 in Fig. 3 ) of the first interconnection layer (#308), wherein the first interconnection layer (#308) includes a metal layer ([0055]), and the work function modulation layer (#306) is a two-dimensional (2D) material layer that includes ruthenium (Ru) ([0027]). 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 consider combining the teachings of Clendenning to the device disclosed by Ahmed and include a thin layer comprising ruthenium on the inner surface of the metallic contact (electrode) acting as a conformal layer, ultrathin layer, a conductive liner, a work function metal, a good diffusion barrier, and/or a good adhesion layer/nucleation layer between the source/drain contact and the channel layer of the device. Clendenning [0027] states: “In some embodiments, a ruthenium (Ru)-phosphorus (P) film may be formed on semiconductor devices to provide desirable properties to the devices. A Ru—P film may be referred to as a Ru—P alloy film. The film may be formed by different embodiments of one or more deposition processes such as ALD and/or CVD. In some embodiments, the films may be ultrathin, on the order of approximately 1 to 5 nanometers, and may be used as effective diffusion barriers against other metals. In some embodiments, the films may be highly conformal and may provide effective adhesion layers in transistor device contacts, gate structures, or the back end of line interconnects. In some embodiments, the films may be effective as conductive liners. In some embodiments, Ru—P films may be conformal, ultrathin, a conductive liner, a work function metal, a good diffusion barrier, and/or a good adhesion layer/nucleation layer. ” The ruthenium layer would assist in the electrical properties, see [0027] above, of the claimed device, specifically acting as a diffusion barrier, act as a conductive liner, and/or a adhesion/nucleation layer between source/drain layers and the channel layer. As combined in the manner described, particularly when the ruthenium layer is utilized as an adhesion layer, the work function modulation layer would be deposited between the first and second interconnection layers and the channel layer, thereby directly contacting the inner surface of the first and second interconnection layers as described by Clendenning and applied to Ahmed, which therefore reads on the claimed limitations “the first work function modulation layer directly contacts the first electrode layer” and “the first work function modulation layer directly contacts the second electrode layer” which corresponds to the source/drain contacts described by Ahmed. Regarding Claim 19, Ahmed in view of Clendenning discloses : Ahmed further discloses : A memory device (#1108) comprising: a switching device ([0124], controller, processors…etc. ); and a data storage element ([0124]) coupled to the switching device, wherein the switching device includes the electronic device of claim 17 (abstract, [0001]-[0007], [0022]-[0022], [0051] and [0124]). Regarding Claim 20, Ahmed in view of Clendenning discloses : Ahmed further discloses : An electronic apparatus (abstract, [0001]-[0007], [0022]-[0022], [0051] and [0124]) comprising: the electronic device of claim 17 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0035837 A1 Ahmed in view of US 2019/0252511 A1 Clendenning et al and further in view of US 2023/0343854 A1 Su et al ( herein “Su” ) . Regarding Claim 15, Ahmed in view of Clendenning discloses : The interconnection layer structure of claim 1, Ahmed in view of Clendenning does not explicitly disclose : wherein the work function modulation layer includes ruthenium chloride. However, in analogous art, Su teaches : wherein the conductive liner layer ( analogous to conductive liner previously combined above ) includes ruthenium chloride ([0068]). 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 consider combining the teachings of Su to the device disclosed by Ahmed in view of Clendenning and form the conductive liner layer, i.e. the work function layer, previously referenced as the work function modulation layer, using ruthenium chloride. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one known conductive liner material for another to achieve predictable results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0035837 A1 Ahmed in view of US 2019/0252511 A1 Clendenning et al and further in view of US 2023/0343854 A1 Su et al and further in view of Modulation Doping via a Two-Dimensional Atomic Crystalline Acceptor Wang et al ( herein “Wang”) . Regarding Claim 16, Ahmed in view of Clendenning and further in view of Su discloses: The interconnection layer structure of claim 15, Ahmed in view of Clendenning and further in view of Su does not explicitly disclose : wherein the ruthenium chloride includes alpha-phase RuCl 3 (a-RuCl 3 ). However, in analogous art, Wang teaches : See generally abstract and paragraphs 1 and 2. Wang teaches the use of alpha-phase RuCl 3 in use as a work function metal, with notable characteristics including its narrowe band gap and large work function. Specifically, “We focus on α-ruthenium(III) chloride (α-RuCl 3 ), a van der Waals, narrow-band Mott insulator with a deep work function of 6.1 eV (Figure1), (22) far greater than the typical work functions of layered materials ( ∼ 4.5 eV). In α-RuCl 3 the onsite Coulomb repulsion (U) and strong spin–orbit coupling (λ SOC ) produce strongly narrowed valence and conduction bands that are just 1 eV apart with the Fermi level close to the conduction band edge. (22,23) Taken together, these properties imply α-RuCl 3 will accept a large density of electrons.” 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 consider combining the teachings of Wang to the device disclosed by Ahmed in view of Clendenning and further in view of Su and form the conductive liner layer, i.e. the work function layer, previously referenced as the work function modulation layer, using alpha-phase ruthenium chloride. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one known conductive liner material for another to achieve predictable results, particularly in this case as a substitution to tune to a specific targeted work function as described by Wang. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew V. Prostor whose telephone number is [phone]. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-4:30p. 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, Christine S Kim can be reached at [phone]. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is [phone]. 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 [phone] (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call [phone] (IN USA OR CANADA) or [phone]. /ANDREW VICTOR PROSTOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 /CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/471,715 Page 2 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/471,715 Page 3 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/471,715 Page 5 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/471,715 Page 6 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/471,715 Page 7 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/471,715 Page 8 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/471,715 Page 9 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/471,715 Page 10 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/471,715 Page 11 Art Unit: 2812

Prosecution Timeline

• Sep 21, 2023: Application Filed
• Jun 02, 2026: Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)