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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-18, drawn to a process, classified in H10P50/267.
II. Claims 19-20, drawn to an apparatus, classified in H01J37/32.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus can be used to etch a different substrate other than ruthenium (Ru) metal as required in the instant process invention.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a)the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Keith Taboada on 2/9/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw et al (US 2022/0068661).
Regarding claims 1-4, Shaw et al disclose a process of etching a metal layer, containing ruthenium (Ru) by supplying an etching comprises oxygen (O.sub.2) and chlorine (Cl.sub.2); and aforesaid chlorine reads on the claimed halogen containing gas ([0008],[0009] and [0046]; Figures 3A-3B).
Shaw et al also disclose that the substrate is maintained at a temperature of from about 5 degrees Celsius to about 80 degrees Celsius, and more particularly from about 20 degrees Celsius to about 50 degrees Celsius during operation 250 (passivate and etch in Figure 2); and these low process temperatures have been found to significantly improve the etch profile (e.g., reducing bowing) in the metal-containing layer 310 [0075]; and aforesaid temperature range overlaps the claimed range between -90 degree C and 20 degree C and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious; MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 5-6, Shaw et al disclose that the etchant gas mixture includes 50-200 sccm of O.sub.2; 10-100 sccm of Cl.sub.2 [0011] and aforesaid overlaps the claimed ranges of flow rate of chlorine between 5 and 600 sccm (claim 5) and between 60 and 200 sccm (claim 6).
Regarding claims 9-10, Shaw et al disclose that maintaining the plasma of the etchant gas mixture at a pressure from about 10 mTorr to about 20 MTorr [0011]; and aforesaid range overlaps the claimed range between 2 and 60 mTorr as to claim 9 and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious; MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 11, Shaw et al disclose that the etchant gas mixture includes 50-200 sccm of O.sub.2; 10-100 sccm of Cl.sub.2; 100-300 sccm of argon; and 5-100 sccm of N.sub.2 or 10-30 sccm of SO.sub.2 (Sulfur dioxide) gas [0011], which reads on the sulfuric-based gas.
Regarding claim 12-13, Shaw et al disclose that the etchant gas mixture includes 50-200 sccm of O.sub.2; 10-100 sccm of Cl.sub.2; 100-300 sccm of argon; and 5-100 sccm of N.sub.2 [0011]; and the claimed ratio appears encompasses the claimed ratio of the additive nitrogen gas.
Regarding claim 14, Shaw et al disclose that such Ru layer being used to fabricate an interconnect structure [0045].
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (US 2023/0083577).
Regarding claims 15-16, Cho et al disclose an etching process of metal layer including ruthenium (Ru) by exposing the substrate having Ru to an etching gas mixture in the presence of an energy source. The etching gas mixture includes an oxygen-containing gas, a halogen-containing gas, and optionally an inert gas. The oxygen-containing gas can be selected from O.sub.2 and the halogen-containing gas can be selected from a halogen, Cl.sub.2 [0038]; and the substrate temperature during operation 120 can be controlled at from about or at −100° C. to about or at 300° C., such as from about or at −90° C. to about or at −10° C [0042], and aforesaid temperature range overlaps the claimed range, between -70 degree C to -20 degree C and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious; MPEP 2144.05.
Cho et al also disclose that the etching gas mixture includes O.sub.2 and Cl.sub.2. In at least one example, the etching gas mixture comprises, consists essentially of, or consists of about 100-500 sccm of O.sub.2 and about 100-500 sccm of Cl.sub.2 [0043]; and aforesaid teaching would at least teach their ratio of 1.1.
Further, it has been held that, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art in the absence of evidence indicating that said concentration is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 17, Cho et al disclose the process flow chart of a method of etching as substrate having Ru metal layer during fabrication of in general, the method 100 is applicable to HAR processes of DRAM, flash memory and logic devices as well as HAR line/space patterns (for example, for gate line, bitline, word-line, and interconnect line etches [0026] and it would have been obvious that oxidation by-product of Ru layer being deposited on the sidewall of the interconnect structure as passivation layer.
Regarding claim 18, from the above teaching of Cho et al above, a tapered interconnect would have ben an obvious design choice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yang et al (US 2022/0199422) disclose an etching process for ruthenium metal film [0036],[0045]; The etching gas may be selected depending on the type and chemistry of the substrate to be etched. Suitable modification gases can include oxygen (O.sub.2), chlorine (Cl.sub.2); O.sub.2 has been shown to be effective for etching and extreme smoothing of ruthenium [0056] and temperature of may be between about −70 to 150° C., e.g., −70, −60, −50, −40, −30, −20, −10, 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 130, 140, or 150° C [0057].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713