DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/614,346 filed on March 22, 2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on August 15, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN 202311027398.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites performing an aluminum pad layer process, rendering the claim indefinite since there is no standardized aluminum pad layer process. It is not clear what is required or excluded by the claimed performing an aluminum pad layer process. A pad forming process may involve many steps, e.g. a cleaning step involving a DI rinse, or a visual inspection step, it is unclear if performing a DI rinse or visually inspecting infringes on the claimed performing an aluminum pad layer process. The metes and bounds are unclear. The aluminum pad layer process is undefined.
Claim 3 recites an undefined “RV process” rendering the claim indefinite since this is not a standardized process and could mean anything. It is not clear what is required or excluded by the claimed RV process. The metes and bounds are unclear. The RV process is undefined. One would not know when infringement occurs.
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 2 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 2 depends from method claim 1 and recites the semiconductor chip is a SONOS memory. Claim 2 recites no method step nor does it further define any previously recited method step, thus claim 2 does not further limit the method of claim 1. 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 § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 6,709,965).
(Re Claim ) Chen teaches a method for manufacturing an aluminum pad of a semiconductor chip, comprising the following steps:
S1: providing a semiconductor substrate, an upper surface of the semiconductor substrate being a top metal layer (100) which has been grown (Fig. 1, metal 3, col 2 line 54 – col 3 line 17);
S2: depositing a passivation layer on the top metal layer (100), the passivation layer being a SiN-OX-SiN-OX four-layer structure from bottom to top (layers 30, 4, 5, and 6, col 3 lines 18-35);
S3: removing the passivation layer in a via area and reserving the passivation layer outside the via area (Figs. 2-3);
S4: performing an aluminum pad layer process (Fig. 4); and
S5: performing a photolithographic process and etching to remove aluminum in areas not requiring aluminum and reserve aluminum in the via area to complete the fabrication of the aluminum pad (Figs. 5-6, col 4 lines 26-52).
(Re Claim 3) wherein in step S3, the via area is defined through an RV process, the passivation layer in the via area is removed, and the passivation layer outside the via area is reserved (Figs. 2-3).
(Re Claim 5) wherein the aluminum pad layer process comprises aluminum line formation and aluminum deposition (Figs. 4-6, col 5 lines 5-56)
(Re Claim 6) wherein in step S2, depositing a passivation layer on the top metal layer (100) comprises the following steps: S21: depositing a first SiN layer (101) on the top metal layer (100); S22: depositing a first OX layer (102) on the first SiN layer (101); S23: depositing a second SiN layer (103) on the first OX layer (102); and S24: depositing a second OX layer (104) on the second SiN layer (103) (layers 30, 4, 5, 6, col 3 lines 18-35).
(Re Claim 7) wherein the first SiN layer (101), the first OX layer (102), the second SiN layer (103) and the second OX layer (104) are formed by adopting chemical vapor deposition, physical vapor deposition, or atomic layer deposition (col 3 lines 18-35).
(Re Claim 10) wherein the top metal layer (100) is metal Cu (col 3 lines 8-11).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen at al. as applied above and further in view of Kreupl et al. (US 2009/0026524)
(Re Claim 2) wherein the semiconductor chip is a SONOS memory.
Chen is silent regarding the semiconductor chip is a SONOS memory. Chen discloses a generic semiconductor chip. A PHOSITA would recognize Chen’s process for forming a pad is applicable to any semiconductor device, including SONOS memory. Related art from Kreupl teaches a SONOS memory device (¶69), and teaches the device has contact pads (¶64), however Kreupl is silent regarding a process for forming the pads. A PHOSITA would find it obvious to apply Chen’s generic pad process for forming a pad to Kreupl’s SONOS memory to enable electrical connections for I/O.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen at al. as applied above and further in view of Su et al. (US 2007/0037394).
(Re Claim 4) wherein the RV process comprises redistribution via photoresist development and redistribution via etching; the via area is defined by performing redistribution via photoresist (105) development (photoresist 7); and a redistribution via etching process is performed to remove the passivation layer in the via area and reserve the passivation layer outside the via area (col 3 line 36-56).
Chen is silent regarding development of the photoresist. Related art from Su teaches when using photoresist, it is developed after exposure (¶122). This is how all conventional photoresists are processed, and developing would be obvious to any skilled artisan as this step is required to pattern the exposed resist. A PHOSITA would find it obvious to perform a developing step on the resist as taught by Su because development is required to form the patterned resist following exposure.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. as applied above, and further in view of Bhatkar et al. (US 2015/0187714).
(Re Claim 8) wherein the thickness of the first SiN layer (101) is 800nm-1200nm; the thickness of the first OX layer (102) is 6800nm-7200nm; the thickness of the second SiN layer (103) is 3800nm-4200nm; and the thickness of the second OX layer (104) is 1000nm-5000nm.
Chen is silent regarding the claimed thicknesses as Chen’s passivation layer stack is on the order of 2-3 µm thick. Related art from Bhatkar teaches a similar passivation layer stack 119B may be on the order of about 10 µm thick (¶18). From Bhatkar, a PHOSITA would recognize Chen’s passivation stack can be made thicker and that the thickness of the stack corresponds to a thickness of the pad. A PHOSITA would recognize this and understand that if a thicker pad is desirable, the layers of the stack may be made thicker to accommodate the thicker metal deposition and therefore a thicker pad. A PHOSITA would find it obvious to experiment with a thicker passivation layer stack according to Bhatkar and thicker metal to form a thicker pad as desired. Forming thicker layers only involves routine skill in the art since this is easily accomplished by increasing the deposition time for each layer. A PHOSITA would find the thickness of each layer in the passivation stack obvious to optimize and ascertainable through routine experimentation, also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Thicker passivation layers will provide more insulation and protection while enabling a thicker metal pad to be formed. Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed passivation layer thicknesses nor any unexpected results arising therefrom. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197(CCPA 1960).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen at al. as applied above, and further in view of Burrell et al. (US 2005/0074959).
(Re Claim 9) wherein in step S4, the aluminum pad layer process adopts physical vapor deposition to firstly deposit a TaN/Ti/TiN layer (106), and then deposit an Al layer (107).
Chen is silent regarding depositing a TaN/Ti/TiN liner by PVD. A PHOSITA desiring to make, used, and improve upon Chen’s invention would be motivated to look to related art to teach modifications that may provide advantages. Related art from Burrell teaches depositing a TaN/Ti/TiN liner 24 by PVD as a highly preferred liner for preventing metal diffusion into the surrounding dielectric layers (¶29). In view of Burrell, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to deposit the highly preferred liner, prior to Chen’s Al deposition, for preventing undesirable metal diffusion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited art discloses related passivation layers, interconnects, liners, and pads.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIK T. K. PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 pm (CST).
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/ERIK T. K. PETERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights