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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as detailed below as necessitated by Applicant’s claim amendments. Applicant has incorporated the language of objected to as allowable claim 7 into claim 1, but previously presented claim 7 depended on claim 6 which depended on claim 1. Since Applicant has not also included the limitations of claim 6 into claim 1, claim 1 is rejected as detailed below.
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.
Claims 1-2,9,21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0188845 A1 to Iguchi et al., “Iguchi” in view of US 2016/0190062 A1 to ZHENG et al., “Zheng”.
Regarding claim 1, Iguchi discloses an interconnection structure (e.g. FIG. 4), comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (1, ¶ [0007],[0046],[0047]) that is formed with a first metal trench (one of trenches filled with 118 in region 13, see Examiner-annotated figure below) and a second metal trench (one of trenches filled with 118 in region 12, see Examiner-annotated figure below);
a first metal via (one of 119 in region 13, see Examiner-annotated figure below) that is disposed over and connected to the first metal trench;
a second metal via (119 in region 12, see Examiner-annotated figure below) that is disposed over and connected to the second metal trench;
a third metal trench (filled with 118 in region 13, see Examiner-annotated figure below) that is disposed over and connected to the first metal via; and
a fourth metal trench (118 in region 12, see Examiner-annotated figure below) that is disposed over and connected to the second metal via, wherein a thickness of the third metal trench is different from a thickness of the fourth metal trench (since portions of 118 in region 12 protrude downward to upper sidewalls of 119 as pictured),
wherein the fourth metal trench has a first portion (upper portion 118 in region 12, see second Examiner-annotated figure below) that has a same thickness as the third metal trench, and a second portion (lower portion) that is connected between the first portion and the second metal via;
wherein the second portion of the fourth metal trench (see second Examiner-annotated figure below) has a first sub-portion and a third sub-portion (see second Examiner-annotated figure below, similar to Applicant’s 114B_L1 and 114B_L3).
PNG
media_image1.png
603
1280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
567
1100
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Iguchi fails to clearly teach a second sub-portion that is conformally disposed on the first sub-portion, and the third sub-portion that cooperates with the first sub-portion to sandwich the second sub-portion therebetween, wherein the second sub-portion is different from the first sub-portion and the third sub-portion in terms of material.
Zheng teaches a second sub-portion (barrier 160, ¶ [0030], see Examiner-annotated figure below) conformally deposited on a first sub-portion (upper portion of 132), and a third sub-portion (lower portion of 172) that cooperates with the first sub-portion (upper portion of 132) to sandwich the second sub-portion (barrier 160) therebetween, wherein the second sub-portion (barrier 160) is different from the first sub-portion (upper portion of 132) and the third sub-portion (lower portion of 172) in terms of material (i.e. barrier layer 160 is formed of a barrier layer material ¶ [0030]).
PNG
media_image3.png
588
1269
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the interconnection structure of Iguchi with a second sub-portion (i.e. a barrier layer) as taught by Zheng in order to desirably stop diffusion of the conductor into the surrounding dielectric (Zheng ¶ [0030]).
Regarding claim 2, Iguchi in view of Zheng yields the interconnection structure according to claim 1, and Iguchi further discloses wherein a top surface of the third metal trench (see Examiner-annotated figure above) is coplanar (as pictured, see Examiner-annotated figure below) with a top surface of the fourth metal trench.
PNG
media_image4.png
517
375
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Iguchi in view of Zheng yields the interconnection structure according to claim 1, and Iguchi further discloses (see Examiner-annotated figure with claim 1 above) wherein the second metal trench is wider than the first metal trench (width being measured laterally and parallel to the substrate), and the fourth metal trench is thicker than the third metal trench (thickness being measured vertically and perpendicular to the substrate).
Regarding claim 21, Iguchi in view of Zheng yields the interconnection structure according to claim 1, and Iguchi further discloses wherein a thickness of a portion of the first metal via (one of 119 in region 13, see Examiner-annotated figure above) that extends between a bottom surface of the third metal trench (filled with 118 in region 13, see Examiner-annotated figure above) and a top surface of the first metal trench (one of trenches filled with 118 in region 13, see Examiner-annotated figure above) is different (see Examiner-annotated figure below) from a thickness of a portion of the second metal via (119 in region 12, see Examiner-annotated figure above) that extends between a bottom surface of the fourth metal trench (118 in region 12, see Examiner-annotated figure above) and a top surface of the second metal trench (one of trenches filled with 118 in region 12, see Examiner-annotated figure above).
PNG
media_image5.png
291
577
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-17,20,22-24 are allowed.
Claims 6 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Prior art e.g. Iguchi teaches interconnections as discussed above and prior art e.g. Zheng teaches adding a barrier layer as discussed above. Prior art e.g. US 2016/0111371 A1 to Peng et al. teaches an interconnection structure (FIG. 2), comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (100, ¶ [0010]) that is formed with a first metal trench (116A, ¶ [0027]) and a second metal trench (116B);
a first metal via (128A) that is disposed over and connected to the first metal trench (116A);
a second metal via (128B) that is disposed over and connected to the second metal trench;
a third metal trench (144A, ¶ [0050]) that is disposed over and connected to the first metal via (128A); and
a fourth metal trench (144B) that is disposed over and connected to the second metal via, wherein a thickness of the third metal trench (144A left side) is different from a thickness of the fourth metal trench (144B on left and right sides),
and generally teaches barrier layers (112 and 114, ¶ [0022],[0023],[0049]), as discussed previously.
However, prior art fails to reasonably teach or suggest wherein the third metal trench has a trench body, and a barrier film that is different from the trench body of the third metal trench in terms of materials, and that is conformally disposed on a side surface and a bottom surface of the trench body of the third metal trench; wherein the fourth metal trench has a trench body, and a barrier film that is different from the trench body of the fourth metal trench in terms of materials, and that is conformally disposed on a side surface and a bottom surface of the trench body of the fourth metal trench; wherein a portion of the barrier film of the third metal trench that is disposed on the bottom surface of the trench body of the third metal trench is spaced apart from the top surface of the third metal trench by a first distance along a direction perpendicular to the top surface of the semiconductor substrate; wherein a portion of the barrier film of the fourth metal trench that is disposed on the bottom surface of the trench body of the fourth metal trench is spaced apart from the top surface of the fourth metal trench by a second distance along the direction perpendicular to the top surface of the semiconductor substrate; and wherein the first distance is different from the second distance, together with all of the limitations of amended claim 10. Claim 14 is allowable for similar reasons to claim 10. Claims 11-13,15-17,20,22-24 are allowable insofar as they depend upon and inherit the allowable subject matter of claims 10 and 14 accordingly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2022/0238433 A1 to Shin et al. teaches (FIG. 2) a metal trench (241) having sub-portions (of height HS) surrounding a lower interconnection (232).
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 ERIC A WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-3406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 ET.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)272-1731. 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.
/Eric A. Ward/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights