The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of the embodiment of figure 5 in the reply filed on 04/13/2026 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)).
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simpson (6,316,359).
Regarding claim 1, Simpson teaches in figure 9 and related text an integrated circuit device, comprising:
a lower insulating structure 70 disposed over a substrate 10;
a lower wiring structure 76 that passes through the lower insulating structure in a vertical direction;
an upper insulating structure 80 disposed on the lower insulating structure; and
an upper wiring structure 86 that passes through the upper insulating structure in the vertical direction and that contacts the lower wiring structure,
wherein the upper wiring structure 86 comprises an upper metal plug 85 and an upper conductive barrier structure 82, 83, 84, and the upper conductive barrier structure surrounds a sidewall and a lower surface of the upper metal plug, and
wherein the upper conductive barrier structure comprises:
a first barrier portion 82 and/or 83, 84 that faces a sidewall of the upper insulating structure 80, and
a second barrier portion 82 and/or 83 or 84 interposed between the lower wiring structure and the upper metal plug, and the first barrier portion and the second barrier portion have different structures from each other.
Regarding claim 2, Simpson teaches in figure 9 and related text that each of the first barrier portion and the second barrier portion of the upper conductive barrier structure has a multilayered structure, and a thickness of the first barrier portion is greater than a thickness of the second barrier portion.
Regarding claim 3, Simpson teaches in figure 9 and related text that the upper conductive barrier structure, the first barrier portion comprises a first multilayered film that includes at least three conductive films that differ from each other (by location) and are sequentially stacked from the upper insulating structure toward the upper metal plug, and the second barrier portion comprises a second multilayered film that includes two conductive films that differ from each other and are sequentially stacked from the lower wiring structure toward the upper metal plug.
Regarding claim 4, Simpson teaches in figure 9 and related text that in the upper conductive barrier structure, the first barrier portion and the second barrier portion each include two conductive films that differ from each other.
Regarding claim 5, Simpson teaches in figure 9 and related text that the first barrier portion of the upper conductive barrier structure includes a first metal film 82 and a second metal film 84 that are spaced apart from each other, and the first metal film and the second metal film include different metals from each other.
Regarding claim 9, Simpson teaches in figure 9 and related text in a first horizontal direction that is parallel to a main surface of the substrate, a width of the lower wiring structure is less than a width of the upper wiring structure, and the first barrier portion of the upper conductive barrier structure is in contact with each of the lower insulating structure and the upper insulating structure.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 6-7 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson (6,316,359) in view of Taguwa (6,404,058).Regarding claim 11, Simpson teaches in figure 9 and related text an integrated circuit device, comprising:
a lower insulating structure 70 disposed over a substrate 10;
a lower wiring structure 76 that passes through the lower insulating structure in a vertical direction;
an upper insulating structure 80 disposed on the lower insulating structure; and
an upper wiring structure 86 that passes through the upper insulating structure in the vertical direction and that contacts the lower wiring structure,
wherein the upper wiring structure 86 comprises an upper metal plug 85 and an upper conductive barrier structure 82, 83, 84, and the upper conductive barrier structure surrounds a sidewall and a lower surface of the upper metal plug, and
a first barrier portion 82, 83, 84 that is arranged between the upper metal plug 85 and the upper insulating structure 80 and contacts each of the upper metal plug and the upper insulating structure, and that includes a metal nitride film 82 and a plurality of metal films 83, 84, wherein the plurality of metal films include different metals from each other; and
a second barrier portion that is arranged between the upper metal plug and the lower wiring structure and contacts (at least electrically contacts) each of the upper metal plug and the lower wiring structure, wherein the second barrier portion has a different structure from the first barrier portion.
Simpson does not teach using a plurality of metal nitride films.
Taguwa teaches in figure 2F and related text using a plurality of metal nitride films 106, 108.
Taguwa and Simpson are analogous art because they are directed to contact plugs and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Simpson because they are from the same field of endeavor.It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use a plurality of metal nitride films, as taught by Taguwa, in Simpson’s device, in order to improve the device characteristics by providing better protection to the plug, by improving the adhesion between the barrier layers and by preventing electromigration.
Regarding claim 6, Simpson does not teach that the first barrier portion of the upper conductive barrier structure includes an Ru film and a Co film that are spaced apart from each other, and the Co film is closer to the upper metal plug than the Ru film.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the first barrier portion of the upper conductive barrier structure to include an Ru film and a Co film that are spaced apart from each other, and the Co film is closer to the upper metal plug than the Ru film, in prior art’s device in order to improve the device characteristics by providing better protection to the plug, by improving the adhesion between the barrier layers and by preventing electromigration.
Note that substitution of materials is not patentable even when the substitution is new and useful. Safetran Systems Corp. v. Federal Sign & Signal Corp. (DC NIII, 1981) 215 USPQ 979.
See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Regarding claim 7, Simpson teaches in figure 9 and related text that in the upper conductive barrier structure, the first barrier portion includes a first metal nitride film, a first metal film, a second metal film, a portion of a third metal film, and a portion of a second metal film that are stacked in the stated order on the sidewall of the upper insulating structure, and the second barrier portion includes another portion of the third metal film and another portion of the second metal film that are stacked in the stated order on an upper surface of the lower wiring structure.
Simpson does not teach a second metal nitride film and a third metal nitride film.
Taguwa teaches in figure 2F and related text using a second metal nitride film 106 and a third metal nitride film 108.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to a second metal nitride film and a third metal nitride film, as taught by Taguwa, in prior art’s device in order to improve the device characteristics by providing better protection to the plug, by improving the adhesion between the barrier layers and by preventing electromigration.
Regarding claims 10 and 15, Simpson teaches in figure 9 and related text that the lower wiring structure includes a lower metal plug and a lower conductive barrier structure, and the lower conductive barrier structure surrounds a sidewall and a lower surface of the lower wiring structure, the upper wiring structure includes a first multilayered film and a second multilayered film that are stacked in the stated order from the upper insulating structure toward the upper metal plug, the first multilayered film is in contact with each of the lower insulating structure and the upper insulating structure, and the second multilayered film is not in contact with the lower insulating structure and the upper insulating structure and is in contact with an upper surface of each of the lower metal plug and the lower conductive barrier structure.
Simpson does not teach that the first multilayered film and the second multilayered film have different stacked structures from each other.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the first multilayered film and the second multilayered film having different stacked structures from each other, in prior art’s device in order to improve the device characteristics by providing better protection to the plug.
Regarding claim 12, in the combined device, a metal nitride film of the plurality of metal nitride films, and a metal film of the plurality of metal films each include a portion interposed between the upper metal plug and the upper insulating structure and a portion interposed between the upper metal plug and the lower wiring structure, such
that the metal nitride film and the metal film are commonly includes in the first barrier portion and the second barrier portion.
Regarding claim 13, Simpson teaches in figure 9 and related text that a thickness of the first barrier portion is greater than a thickness of the second barrier portion.
Regarding claim 14, Simpson does not teach that each of the first barrier portion and the second barrier portion includes one TaN film and one Co film, and the first barrier portion further includes an Ru film, the second barrier portion does not include an Ru film, and the Ru film of the first barrier portion is spaced apart from the one Co film with the one TaN film interposed therebetween.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, in the combined device of Taguwa and Simpson, to form each of the first barrier portion and the second barrier portion includes one TaN film and one Co film, and the first barrier portion further includes an Ru film, the second barrier portion does not include an Ru film, and the Ru film of the first barrier portion is spaced apart from the one Co film with the one TaN film interposed therebetween, in order to improve the device characteristics by providing better protection to the plug.
Regarding claim 16, Simpson teaches in figure 9 and related text that the upper conductive barrier structure comprises: a first multilayered film that extends along a first sidewall of the upper insulating structure, wherein the first sidewall faces the upper wiring structure; and a second multilayered film that is disposed over the first sidewall of the upper insulating structure and extends along the first multilayered film, and that is disposed on the lower wiring structure and extends along an upper surface of the lower wiring structure, wherein the second multilayered film is contact with each of the first multilayered film and the upper surface of the lower wiring structure.
Simpson does not teach that the first multilayered film and the second multilayered film have different stacked structures from each other.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the first multilayered film and the second multilayered film have different stacked structures from each other, in prior art’s device in order to improve the device characteristics by providing better protection to the plug.
Regarding claim 17, Simpson does not teach that the first multilayered film includes a first TaN film, an Ru film, and a second TaN film that are stacked in the stated order from the upper insulating structure toward the upper metal plug, and the second multilayered film includes a third TaN film and a Co film that are stacked in the stated order from each of the first multilayered film and the lower wiring structure toward the upper metal plug.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the first multilayered film includes a first TaN film, an Ru film, and a second TaN film that are stacked in the stated order from the upper insulating structure toward the upper metal plug, and the second multilayered film includes a third TaN film and a Co film that are stacked in the stated order from each of the first multilayered film and the lower wiring structure toward the upper metal plug, in prior art’s device in order to improve the device characteristics by providing better protection to the plug.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Simpson teaches in figure 9 and related text that the upper insulating structure comprises: an etch stop film 78 that includes an oxide film that covers an upper surface of the lower insulating structure, and an interlayer dielectric 80 that covers the etch stop film 78, wherein the first barrier portion of the upper conductive barrier structure is in contact with the etch stop film and the interlayer dielectric.
Simpson does not teach an etch stop film that includes a first aluminum oxide film that covers an upper surface of the lower insulating structure, an SiOC film that covers an upper surface of the first aluminum oxide film, and a second aluminum oxide film that covers an upper surface of the SiOC film.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the etch stop film that includes a first aluminum oxide film that covers an upper surface of the lower insulating structure, an SiOC film that covers an upper surface of the first aluminum oxide film, and a second aluminum oxide film that covers an upper surface of the SiOC film, in prior art’s device in order to improve the device characteristics by providing better protection to the plug.
Regarding claim 20, as asserted and discussed above, Simpson teaches in figure 9 and related text an integrated circuit device, comprising:
a lower insulating structure disposed over a substrate (see all numerals with respect to the claims above);
a lower wiring structure that passes through the lower insulating structure in a vertical direction;
an upper insulating structure disposed on the lower insulating structure and the lower wiring structure and that includes an etch stop film being a silicon nitride film, and an interlayer dielectric that covers an upper surface of the etch stop film, and
an upper wiring structure that includes an upper metal plug that passes through the upper insulating structure in the vertical direction, and an upper conductive barrier structure that surrounds a sidewall and a lower surface of the upper metal plug,
wherein the upper conductive barrier structure comprises:
a first multilayered film that extends along a first sidewall of the upper insulating structure and includes a first TaN film, an Cu film, and a palladium tin film that are sequentially stacked in the stated order from the first sidewall of the upper insulating structure toward the upper metal plug,
wherein the first sidewall faces the upper wiring structure; and
a second multilayered film that is disposed over the first sidewall of the upper insulating structure and extends along the first multilayered film, and that is disposed on the lower wiring structure and extends along an upper surface of the lower wiring structure,
wherein the second multilayered film is spaced apart from the first sidewall of the upper insulating structure with the first multilayered film interposed therebetween and includes a third TaN film and a Cu film that are sequentially stacked in the stated order from each of a surface of the first multilayered film and the upper surface of the lower wiring structure toward the upper metal plug.
Simpson does not teach that the etch stop film has a multilayered structure that includes a plurality of insulating films that include different materials from each other, and does not teach using an Ru film and a second TaN film for the a first multilayered film and using a third TaN film and a Co film for the second multilayered film.
Taguwa teaches in figure 2F and related text using five metal barrier films 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 being a multilayered film.
Taguwa and Simpson are analogous art because they are directed to contact plugs and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Simpson because they are from the same field of endeavor.It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use a plurality of metal nitride films, as taught by Taguwa, in Simpson’s device, in order to improve the device characteristics by providing better protection to the plug, by improving the adhesion between the barrier layers and by preventing electromigration, because it is well known in the art to use ONO film instead of silicon nitride film.
Note that substitution of materials is not patentable even when the substitution is new and useful. Safetran Systems Corp. v. Federal Sign & Signal Corp. (DC NIII, 1981) 215 USPQ 979.
See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Note that substitution of materials is not patentable even when the substitution is new and useful. Safetran Systems Corp. v. Federal Sign & Signal Corp. (DC NIII, 1981) 215 USPQ 979.
See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ORI NADAV whose telephone number is 571-272-1660. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7 AM to 4 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
O.N. /ORI NADAV/
5/10/2026 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800
Prosecution Insights