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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the etch stop layer further comprises TiN, Mo, W, Ru, or combination thereof” while the parent claim 1 recites “the etch stop layer comprises Ti, Ta, TaN, or combination thereof.” This limitation introduces new matter because it is not supported by neither Specification nor claims as originally filed. Contrary to the claim language, [0074] of Applicant’s speciation discloses that the etch stop layer included the listed materials in alternation and does not provide a support to the limitation of claim 5 that etch stop layer comprises TiN, Mo, W, Ru and Ti, Ta, TaN.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the etch stop layer further comprises TiN, Mo, W, Ru, or combination thereof” while the parent claim 1 recites “the etch stop layer comprises Ti, Ta, TaN, or combination thereof.” This limitation introduces new matter because it is not supported by neither Specification nor claims as originally filed. Contrary to the claim language, [0074] of Applicant’s speciation discloses that the etch stop layer included the listed materials in alternation and does not provide a support to the limitation of claim 8 that etch stop layer comprises TiN, Mo, W, Ru and Ti, Ta, TaN.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “depositing the metal layer comprises depositing the metal layer on the adhesion layer.” This limitaiton fails to further limitation the subject matter of the parent claim 1 because this limitation contradicts to the claim 1 wherein it is recited that “a metal layer directly in contact with the etch stop layer.”
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maydan (US 2002/0058408) in view of Peethala (US 2019/0189508) and Chang (US 2021/0098366).
Regarding claim 1, Maydan discloses process for fabricating an interconnect structure, comprising: performing a degas operation on a semiconductor structure ([0036]), the semiconductor structure comprising a dielectric material (Fig.6, numeral 22) and a via hole (33), the via hole at least partially filled with a metal material (33); depositing, by chemical vapor deposition ([0043]), an etch stop layer (34) on the semiconductor structure after the degas operation, wherein the etch stop layer (34) is selectively deposited on the metal material disposed in the via hole and the dielectric material is substantially free of the etch stop layer ([0027]; Fig. 7); and depositing, by physical vapor deposition ([0059]), a metal layer (Fig.9, numeral 38) on the semiconductor structure after depositing the etch stop layer (34) to form the interconnect structure (Fig.11).
Maydan does not disclose (1) that the etch stop layer comprises Ti, Ta, TaN, or combination thereof; (2) that the metal layer is directly in contact with the etch stop layer.
Regarding element (1), Maydan however discloses that the etch stop layer (34) is a metal capping layer for preventing diffusion into a dielectric layer ([0027]). And Peethala discloses that the metal capping layer (Fig.10, numeral 160) comprises Ti ([0048]). Peethala further discloses that the metal capping layer (160) is a part of a capping structure for preventing diffusion into a dielectric layer ([0040]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the etch stop layer comprises Ti because it is well-known alternative material for forming capping layer for preventing diffusion into a dielectric material in interconnect structures.
Regarding element (2), Chang discloses that the metal layer (Fig.2, numeral 141) is directly in contact with the etch stop layer (124) ([0017]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Maydan with Chang to have the metal layer is directly in contact with the etch stop layer for the purpose of fabrication a conductive plug with improved device liability (Chang, [0017]).
Regarding claim 3, Maydan discloses depositing the etch stop layer (34), the process further comprises depositing, by physical vapor deposition ([0058]), an adhesion layer (36) on at least a portion of the etch stop layer (34) and at least a portion of the dielectric material (22) (Fig.7); and depositing the metal layer comprises depositing the metal layer (Fig.9, numeral 38) on the adhesion layer (36).
Regarding claim 5, Maydan discloses etch stop layer (34) comprises W ([0027]); and Peethala discloses the metal layer (150) (Fig.10) comprises Co or Ru or Ir, ([0032]); and the etch stop layer comprises a different material than the metal layer ([0027]; [0028]).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Peethala discloses wherein a resistivity of the metal layer (150) is about 15 mΩ-cm or less ([0032]; note: Co or Ru or Ir).
Regarding claim 8, Maydan discloses wherein the etch stop layer (34) comprises W ([0027]).
Regarding claim 9, Peethala discloses wherein the metal layer (150) comprises Co or Ru or Ir ([0032]).
Regarding claim 10, Maydan discloses wherein the etch stop layer (34) comprises a different material than the metal layer ([0027]; [0028]).
Claim(s) 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maydan and Peethala as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheng (US 2016/0240483).
Regarding claim 2, Maydan does not disclose wherein the degas operation, the depositing the etch stop layer, and the depositing the metal layer are performed in a single cluster tool.
Cheng however discloses performing method steps in in a single cluster tool
([0029)). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Maydan with Cheng to perform the degas operation, depositing the etch stop layer, depositing the metal seed layer, performing the sputter operation, and depositing the metal layer are performed in a single cluster tool for the purpose of prevention contamination of the seed layer or other portion of the substrate (Cheng, [0029]).
Regarding claim 7, Maydan does not disclose wherein the process is performed without a vacuum break.
Cheng however discloses performing method steps without a vacuum break ([0029)).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Haider with Cheng to perform the process without a vacuum break for the purpose of prevention contamination of the seed layer or other portion of the substrate (Cheng, [0029)]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maydan in view of Peethala as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rozbicki (US 7, 186, 648).
Regarding claim 4, Maydan does not disclose that at least a portion of the via hole is free of the metal material, the etch stop layer is formed in the via hole.
Rozbicki discloses wherein at least a portion of the via hole (Fig.2D, upper part of (209)) is free of the metal material, the etch stop layer (227) is formed in the via hole (Fig.2D).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Maydan with Rozbicki to have at least a portion of the via hole is free of the metal material, the etch stop layer is formed in the via hole for the purpose of forming an interconnect structure.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maydan in view of Peethala as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haider (US 2006/0258152).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Maydan does not disclose that the metal layer has a thickness of about 200 A to about 300 A.
Haider discloses wherein the metal layer (100) has a thickness of about 200 A to about 300 A ([0033]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Maydan with Haider to have the metal layer in the clamed thickness for the purpose fabrication more unform metal seed layer (Haider, [0043]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 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.
Regarding 112 rejections of claims 5 and 8, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, because Applicant’s Speciation discloses that the etch stop layer included the listed materials in alternation and does not provide a support to the limitation of a of claim 5 that etch stop layer comprises TiN, Mo, W, Ru and Ti, Ta, TaN and limitation of claim 8 that etch stop layer comprises TiN, Mo, W, Ru and Ti, Ta, TaN. Applicant’s arguments that the phase “in combination” in paragraphs [0040], [0050], and [0058] would support that limitations of claims 5 and 8 are not persuasive because the term “in combination” is a broad term and Specification does not provide any specific examples whether the etch stop layer include TiN, Mo, W, Ru and Ti, Ta, TaN or TiN, Mo, W, Ru and Ti, Ta, TaN.
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 JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 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, 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.
/JULIA SLUTSKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891