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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 12-14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0036076) in view of Tatsumi et al. (JP 2015017299) and Tanimoto et al. “Effects of Cu Self-Capping and Ta Capping on Nanometer-Sized Cu Films Sputter-Deposited on-Ta.”
As to claim 12, Kim et al. discloses a display (abstract) apparatus, comprising a substrate (110 of Fig. 5); a bottom metal layer on the substrate (see 120 of Fig. 5) and comprising a first layer, and a second layer comprising copper (see 0111); and a buffer layer directly on the bottom metal layer (see 161 of Fig. 5) (see 0109-112).
PNG
media_image1.png
683
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim et al. fails to expressly teach the copper layer is the second layer of the bottom metal layer or wherein in an X-ray diffraction spectrum of the second layer by an X-ray diffraction analysis, a (111) plane peak is greater than a (220) plane peak as required by claim 12.
Tatsumi et al. teaches an insulating substrate having an underlying Ti film (2 of Fig. 2) with a pure Cu film (3) formed on the Ti film by sputtering. Tatsumi et al. recognizes Ti as a suitable underlying layer for a Cu conductive film with the added benefit of lowering the resistivity of the Cu film and improving the crystallinity and quality of the Cu film.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when forming the Ti/Cu double layer lower metal of Kim et al. to use the Ti underlayer/Cu overlayer arrangement taught by Tatsumi et al. in order to obtain low resistivity Cu conductive layer while using Ti as the underlying layer and to obtain improved Cu crystallinity and film quality.
Kim teaches that the buffer layer (161 of Fig.) is disposed directly on the top surface of the lower metal layer. Implementing the Ti/Cu lower metal of Kim et al. according to the arrangement of Tatsumi et al., copper forms the top surface of the lower metal layer, such that the buffer layer is directly on the second, copper containing layer.
Tanimoto teaches sputter deposited Cu thin films having a preferred (111) crystallographic orientation. Tanimoto further shows for a 500 nm copper film has major Cu(111) reflective and minor Cu (200) and (220) reflections, thereby teaching a copper film in which the (111) plane peak is greater than the (220) plane peak. Tanimoto further discloses tha for thinner Cu films only the Cu (111) reflection is observed in the relevant diffraction range (see section 3. Results and Discussion and 4. Conclusion)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the sputtered Cu layer of the Kim modified by Tatsumi et al. with the known (111) preferred crystallographic texture as taught by Tanimoto. One would have been motivated to do so since Kato demonstrates that such a texture was a known characteristic of sputter deposited copper thin films.
As to claim 13, Kim teaches the first and second layer are formed of different materials (Ti and Cu).
As to claim 14, the first layer is formed of titanium (as shown by Kim modified by Tatsumi et al. above).
As to claims 16-18, Kim et al. states the buffer layer may include a double layer of SiNx/SiOx (see 0112).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0036076) in view of Tatsumi et al. (JP 2015017299) and Tanimoto et al. “Effects of Cu Self-Capping and Ta Capping on Nanometer-Sized Cu Films Sputter-Deposited on-Ta” as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Ouyang et al. “Effect of film thickness and Ti interlayer on structure and properties of Nanotwinned Cu thin films” and Landis “Formation of nanostructured TiO2 by femtosecond laser irradiation of titanium in O2.”
The teachings of Kim et al. modified by Tatsumi et al. and Tanimoto et al. as applied to claim 12 are as stated above.
Kim et al. modified by Tatsumi et al. and Tanimoto et al. fail to disclose wherein in an X-ray diffraction spectrum of the first layer by an X- ray diffraction analysis, a peak on a (002) plane is greater than a peak on a (103) plane as required by claim 19.
Ouyang et al. discloses forming copper thin film layer onto a silicon substrate along with a Ti interlayer which is used to improve the adhesion of the Cu layer to the substrate (see abstract, Introduction).Ouyang et al. teaches that in a Ti/Cu thin film structure, a Ti interlayer facilitate growth of Cu having the preferred (111) orientation due to favorable lattice packing between Ti(002) and Cu(111) (see section 3. Results).
Landis teaches deposited Ti film characterized by X-ray diffraction and reports a strong Ti(002) diffraction peak and a smaller Ti(003) reflection peak, thereby teaching a deposited Ti film having the claimed relationship of (002) > (103) (see III Results and discussion).
The display of Kim et al. modified by Kim et al. modified by Tatsumi et al. and Tanimoto et al. comprises a Ti first layer underlying a Cu second layer and seeks Cu layer having a (111) preferred crystallographic condition, one of ordinary skill would have had reason to provide the Ti underlayer with the Ti(002) crystallographic orientation taught by Ouyang et al. in order to facilitate the desire Cu(111) growth. Landis further demonstrates that a deposited Ti film having strong (002) orientation exhibits XRD spectrum having a strong (002) peak and a smaller (103) peak. Thus, having Ouyang’s Ti(002) underlayer would have resulted in, or rendered obvious providing the claimed Ti-film relationship (002)>(103).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0036076) in view of Tatsumi et al. (JP 2015017299) and Tanimoto et al. “Effects of Cu Self-Capping and Ta Capping on Nanometer-Sized Cu Films Sputter-Deposited on-Ta” as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kroger et al. (“Properties of Copper Films Prepared by Chemical Vapor Deposition for Advanced Metallization of Microelectronic Devices”).
The teachings of Kim et al. modified by Tatsumi et al. and Tanimoto et al. as applied to claim 12 are as stated above.
Kim et al. modified by Tatsumi et al. and Tanimoto et al. fail to disclose wherein an X-ray diffraction spectrum of the second layer by an X-ray diffraction analysis, a ratio (P1/P2) of a (200) plane peak (P1) to a (111) plane peak (P2) is 0.3 or more as required by claim 20.
Kroger et al. is directed to preparing and characterizing copper thin films for advanced metallization of microelectronic devices. Copper films were deposited on barrier layers, and X-ay diffraction was used to evaluate the crystallographic orientation of the resulting copper films. Kroger et al. shows that a ratio of (200)/(111) = 0.46 for randomly oriented copper. The values indicate that the deposited copper films grow with substantially random crystallographic orientation on barrier layers (Experimental section, Results and Discussion page 3252; Figs. 9-10). Kroger et al. shows that the texture of the deposited copper film is affected by the material the copper is being deposited onto and the growth conditions; for example, Cu deposited on Ta and TaNx exhibit random orientation where Cu deposited using sputter exhibit (111) orientation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to when forming the copper second layer of the Ti/Cu bottom metal structure of Kim et al. modified by Tatsumi et al. and Tanimoto et al., to control the deposition and resulting crystallographic texture of the copper layer according to the teachings of Kroger to provide a copper film having (200)/(111) ratio of at least 0.3. Kroger is directed to the same general problem of forming copper films and demonstrates that deposited copper films can be produced with P1/P2 ratios within the claimed range and that the Cu texture varies with the deposition and underlying layer conditions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the relative (200) and (111) peak intensities are controllable crystallographic characteristics of deposited copper films and would have a reasonable expectation of obtaining the disclosed texture especially when applying the copper film onto the titanium substrate.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0036076) in view of Tatsumi et al. (JP 2015017299) and Tanimoto et al. “Effects of Cu Self-Capping and Ta Capping on Nanometer-Sized Cu Films Sputter-Deposited on-Ta” as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0175258).
The teachings of Kim et al. (‘076) modified by Tatsumi et al. and Tanimoto et al. as applied to claim 12 are as stated above.
Kim et al. (‘076) modified by Tatsumi et al. and Tanimoto et al. fail to disclose the root mean square (RMS) roughness of a surface of the butter layer is less than 5 nm as required by claim 21.
Kim et al. (‘258) discloses a display device (see abstract) having a buffer layer under a semiconductor film and recognizes that the surface roughness of the buffer film affects formation and electrical characteristics of the overlying semiconductor (see abstract, 0132-0134). Kim et al. (‘258) teaches the surface of the second buffer film may have a first roughness range of 1.5 nm or less (see 0138-0141). Kim et al.(‘258) states if the roughness is large, pinholes may be generated in the silicon deposited on the buffer film. The pinholes can extend through the silicon and permit hydrogen ions useful for healing silicon defects to escape (see 0132-133). Conversely, decreasing the roughness of the buffer film suppresses formation of pinholes, permits formation of denser amorphous silicon, increases retention of hydrogen ions and thereby improves characteristics of the overlying material (see 00128-00131).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the roughness of the buffer layer of Kim et al. (‘076) modified by Tatsumi et al. and Tanimoto et al.to an RMS roughness of 1.5 nm or less according to Kim (‘258). One would have been motivated to do so since both references are directed to display devices having a buffer layer and an additional layer overlaying the buffer, where Kim(‘258) further teaches controlling the roughness provides a smoother surface for deposition of the overlying layers, suppresses formation of pinholes, and reduces internal defects.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12-14, and 16-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights