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 § 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0190003 A1, hereinafter “Singh”) in view of Hsu et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0119184 A1, hereinafter “Hsu”) and further in view of Porter (USPN 4,373,990, hereinafter “Porter”).
In reference to claim 1, Singh discloses a similar method. Figures 1-9 of Singh disclose a method which comprises forming a first conductive feature (104, 106) in a first dielectric layer (102), forming an etch stop layer (108) over the first dielectric layer (102), and forming a second dielectric layer (110) over the etch stop layer (108). The second dielectric layer (110) and the etch stop layer (108) are etched to form an opening such that a portion of the etch stop layer (108) is interposed between a bottom of the opening and the first conductive feature (104, 106). Fig. 7 of Singh shows that the portion of the etch stop layer (108) is etched to extend the opening toward the conductive line (104, 106) and forms an extended opening, wherein the extended opening exposes the top surface of the first conductive feature (104, 106). Fig. 8 of Singh discloses filling the opening with a conductive material (132) to form a second conductive feature in the second dielectric layer (110).
Singh does not disclose that the etch stop layer is formed of a metal-doped aluminum nitride layer. However Hsu discloses that aluminum nitride with a metal dopant is a known etch stop layer material (p. 2, paragraph 33). The applicant is reminded in this regard that it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use would be entirely obvious. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See MPEP 2144.07. In view of the above, it would therefore be obvious to use an in-situ metal-doped aluminum nitride as the etch stop layer material. Therefore this limitation is not patentable over Singh and Hsu.
Singh does not explicitly disclose the use of sputter etching to extend the above opening through the etch stop layer (108) and to expose the first conductive feature (104, 106). However Porter discloses that sputter etching is a well-established process and has good etching control (column 1, lines 7-13). In view of Porter, it would therefore be obvious to use sputter etching to extend the above opening through the etch stop layer (108) and to expose the first conductive feature (104, 106). Thus claim 1 is not patentable over Singh, Hsu, and Porter.
With regard to claim 2, fig. 1 of Singh discloses etching the second dielectric layer (110) comprises etching a portion of the etch stop layer (108).
In reference to claim 3, in the method of Singh constructed in view of Hsu and Porter, the aluminum nitride film is doped with a metal dopant in the form of Mg (Hsu - p. 2, paragraph 33).
With regard to claim 4, Singh does not disclose the exact thickness of etch stop layer/metal-doped aluminum nitride layer. Although Singh does not teach the exact thickness as that claimed by the applicant:
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Size and dimension differences are generally not sufficient to patentably distinguish from the prior art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
In view of the above, adjusting the thickness is considered to be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art. Therefore this limitation is not patentable over Singh, Hsu, and Porter.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Hsu and further in view of Porter as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Usami et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0060975 A1, hereinafter “Usami”).
In reference to claim 5, Singh does not disclose the exact concentration of dopants for the etch stop layer as required by the applicant. However Usami discloses tailoring the dopant concentration of an etch stop layer for desired adhesion strength (p. 7, paragraph 111). Thus Usami makes it clear that the dopant concentration in the etch stop layer is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the dopant concentration in the etch stop layer to that claimed by the applicant, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore claim 5 is not patentable over the above cited references.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Hsu and further in view of Porter as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Glang et al. (USPN 4,467,519, hereinafter “Glang”).
In reference to claim 6, in the method of Singh constructed in view of Hsu and Porter, the etch stop layer/aluminum nitride layer is formed by forming an aluminum nitride layer but neither of the above references explicitly discloses doping the aluminum nitride layer with the metal element after forming the aluminum nitride layer. However Glang discloses that doping a material by ion implantation after its deposition provides the benefit of better control of the total amount of dopant (column 1, lines 23-27). In view of Glang, it would therefore be obvious to dope the aluminum nitride layer after forming it.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Hsu and further in view of Porter as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tong et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0077147 A1, hereinafter “Tong”).
In reference to claim 7, Porter discloses the use of a sputter etch process (column 1, lines 7-13) but not the use of non-reactive gas ions for the sputter etch process. However Tong discloses the known use of argon gas ions (a non-reactive gas) in sputter etching (p. 6, paragraph 69). It would be obvious to use argon gas ions (a non-reactive gas) for sputter etching in the method of Singh constructed in view of Hsu and Porter since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions ("obvious to try") with a reasonable expectation of success have been found to be obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). In view of the above, it would therefore be obvious to use argon gas ions for the sputter etch process. Therefore claim 7 is not patentable over Singh, Hsu, Porter, and Tong.
Claims 8, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Hsu and further in view of Usami and further in view of Porter.
In reference to claim 8, Singh discloses a similar method. Figures 1-9 of Singh disclose a method which comprises forming a metallization layer (104, 106) over a substrate (102), forming an etch stop layer (108). A second dielectric layer (110) is deposited over the etch stop layer (108). One or more masks (112, 114, 116) are deposited over the second dielectric layer (110). An etch process is performed on the second dielectric layer (110) to form an opening in the second dielectric layer (110) such that a bottom of the opening exposes the etch stop layer (108). Fig. 7 of Singh shows that the portion of the etch stop layer (108) is etched to remove a portion of the etch stop layer (108) along the bottom of the opening to expose a conductive feature of the metallization layer (104, 106). Fig. 8 of Singh discloses filling the opening with a conductive material (132).
Singh does not disclose that the etch stop layer is formed of a metal-doped aluminum nitride layer. However Hsu discloses that aluminum nitride with a metal dopant is a known etch stop layer material (p. 2, paragraph 33). The applicant is reminded in this regard that it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use would be entirely obvious. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See MPEP 2144.07. In view of the above, it would therefore be obvious to use an in-situ metal-doped aluminum nitride as the etch stop layer material. Therefore this limitation is not patentable over Singh and Hsu.
Singh does not disclose the exact concentration of dopants for the metal-doped nitride layer etch stop layer as required by the applicant. However Usami discloses tailoring the dopant concentration of an etch stop layer for desired adhesion strength (p. 7, paragraph 111). Thus Usami makes it clear that the dopant concentration in the etch stop layer is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the dopant concentration in the etch stop layer to that claimed by the applicant, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore this limitation is not patentable over the Singh, Hsu, and Usami.
Singh does not explicitly disclose the use of sputter etching to remove a portion of the metal-doped aluminum nitride etch stop layer (108) and to expose the conductive feature (104, 106) of the metallization layer (104, 106). However Porter discloses that sputter etching is a well-established process and has good etching control (column 1, lines 7-13). In view of Porter, it would therefore be obvious to use sputter etching to remove a portion of the metal-doped aluminum nitride etch stop layer (108) and to expose the conductive feature (104, 106) of the metallization layer (104, 106). Thus claim 8 is not patentable over Singh, Hsu, Usami, and Porter.
With regard to claim 9, in the method of Singh constructed in view of Hsu, Usami, and Porter, fig.1 of Singh shows that the etch process forms a recess in the metal-doped aluminum nitride etch stop layer (108).
In reference to claim 12, in the method of Singh constructed in view of Hsu, Usami, and Porter, forming the metal-doped aluminum nitride etch stop layer (108 – fig. 1-9 of Singh) comprises depositing an aluminum nitride layer.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Hsu and further in view of Usami and further in view of Porter as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Minami (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0154471 A1, hereinafter “Minami”).
In reference to claim 14, as noted above in the rejection of claim 8, the method of Singh constructed in view of Hsu, Usami, and Porter has a metal-doped aluminum nitride etch stop layer (108 – fig. 1-9 of Singh). Singh does not disclose the exact thickness of the metal-doped aluminum nitride etch stop layer (108) that remains along the bottom of the opening after the etch process as that claimed by the applicant. However Minami discloses forming the etch stop layer to be thin as possible in order to minimize the dielectric constant of the material while also having a thickness sufficient to properly function as an etch stop layer (p. 2, paragraph 24). Minami discloses that a lower dielectric constant prevents RC delay between conductive interconnections as well as minimizes cross talk and power consumption in the device (p. 2, paragraph 25). Thus Minami makes it clear that the etch stop layer thickness is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thickness of the metal-doped aluminum nitride etch stop layer, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore claim 14 is not patentable over Singh, Hsu, Usami, Porter, and Minami.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Hsu and further in view of Usami and further in view of Porter as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Tong.
In reference to claim 10, Porter discloses the use of a sputter etch process (column 1, lines 7-13) but not the use of non-reactive gas ions for the sputter etch process. However Tong discloses the known use of argon gas ions (a non-reactive gas) in sputter etching (p. 6, paragraph 69). It would be obvious to use argon gas ions (a non-reactive gas) for sputter etching in the method of Singh constructed in view of Hsu and Porter since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions ("obvious to try") with a reasonable expectation of success have been found to be obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). In view of the above, it would therefore be obvious to use argon gas ions for the sputter etch process. Therefore claim 10 is not patentable over Singh, Hsu, Usami, Porter, and Tong.
With regard to claim 11, in the method of Singh constructed in view of Hsu, Usami, Porter, and Tong, the inert gas is argon (Tong – p. 6, paragraph 69).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Hsu and further in view of Usami and further in view of Porter as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Carter et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0152637 A1, hereinafter “Carter”).
In reference to claim 13, in the method of Singh constructed in view of Hsu, Usami, and Porter, the aluminum nitride film is doped with a metal dopant in the form of Mg (Hsu – p. 2, paragraph 33). Hsu does not explicitly disclose that the aluminum nitride film is in-situ doped. However Carter discloses that in-situ ion implantation is a known doping process (p. 2, paragraph 15). It would be obvious to use in-situ ion implantation in the method of Singh constructed in view of Hsu, Usami, and Porter since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions ("obvious to try") with a reasonable expectation of success have been found to be obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). In view of the above, it would therefore be obvious to use in-situ ion implantation for the doping process. Therefore claim 13 is not patentable over Singh, Hsu, Usami, Porter, and Carter.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Hsu and further in view of Porter and further in view of Carter.
In reference to claim 15, Singh discloses a similar method. Figures 1-9 of Singh disclose a method which comprises forming a first conductive feature (104, 106) in a first dielectric layer (102), forming an etch stop layer (108), and forming a second dielectric layer (110) over the etch stop layer (108). The second dielectric layer (110) and the etch stop layer (108) are etched to form an opening such that a portion of the etch stop layer (108) is interposed between a bottom of the opening and the first conductive feature (104, 106). Fig. 7 of Singh shows that the portion of the etch stop layer (108) is etched to extend the opening toward the conductive line (104, 106) and forms an extended opening, wherein the extended opening exposes the top surface of the conductive line (104, 106). Fig. 8 of Singh discloses filling the opening with a conductive material (132) to form a second conductive feature in the second dielectric layer (110).
Singh does not disclose that the etch stop layer is formed of a metal-doped aluminum nitride layer. However Hsu discloses that aluminum nitride with a metal dopant is a known etch stop layer material (p. 2, paragraph 33). The applicant is reminded in this regard that it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use would be entirely obvious. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See MPEP 2144.07. In view of the above, it would therefore be obvious to use a metal-doped aluminum nitride which is doped by implantation as the etch stop layer material. Therefore this limitation is not patentable over Singh and Hsu.
Hsu does not explicitly disclose that the metal-doped aluminum nitride film is doped by implantation. However Carter discloses that in-situ ion implantation is a known doping process (p. 2, paragraph 15). It would be obvious to use in-situ ion implantation in the method of Singh constructed in view of Hsu since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions ("obvious to try") with a reasonable expectation of success have been found to be obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). In view of the above, it would therefore be obvious to use in-situ ion implantation for the doping process. Therefore this limitation is not patentable over Singh, Hsu, and Carter.
Singh does not explicitly disclose the use of sputter etching to extend the above opening through the etch stop layer (108) and to expose the first conductive feature (104, 106). However Porter discloses that sputter etching is a well-established process and has good etching control (column 1, lines 7-13). In view of Porter, it would therefore be obvious to use sputter etching to extend the above opening through the etch stop layer (108) and to expose the first conductive feature (104, 106). Thus claim 15 is not patentable over Singh, Hsu, Carter, and Porter.
With regard to claim 16, in the method of Singh constructed in view of Hsu, Carter, and Porter, the aluminum nitride film is doped with a metal dopant in the form of Mg (Hsu - p. 2, paragraph 33).
In reference to claim 17, in the method of Singh constructed in view of Hsu, Carter, and Porter, the implanting is performed in-situ (Carter - p. 2, paragraph 15).
In reference to claim 18, in the method of Singh constructed in view of Hsu, Carter, and Porter, the opening extends into the metal-doped etch stop layer (108).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Hsu and further in view of Carter and further in view of Porter as applied to claim 15 above and further in view of Tong.
In reference to claim 19, Porter discloses the use of a sputter etch process (column 1, lines 7-13) but not the use of non-reactive gas ions for the sputter etch process. However Tong discloses the known use of argon gas ions (a non-reactive gas) in sputter etching (p. 6, paragraph 69). It would be obvious to use argon gas ions (a non-reactive gas) for sputter etching in the method of Singh constructed in view of Hsu, Carter, and Porter since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions ("obvious to try") with a reasonable expectation of success have been found to be obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). In view of the above, it would therefore be obvious to use argon gas ions for the sputter etch process. Therefore claim 19 is not patentable over Singh, Hsu, Carter, Porter, and Tong.
With regard to claim 20, the method of Singh constructed in view of Hsu, Carter, Porter, and Tong uses argon gas (Tong – p. 6, paragraph 69).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,996,325 B2 (hereinafter “Tsai”) in view of Hsu.
In reference to claim 1, Tsai discloses a similar method. Claim 1 of Tsai discloses a method which comprises forming a first conductive feature in a first dielectric layer; forming an etch stop layer over the first dielectric layer; forming a second dielectric layer over the etch stop layer; etching the second dielectric layer and the etch stop layer to form an opening, wherein a portion of the etch stop layer is interposed between a bottom of the opening and the first conductive feature, sputtering the portion of the etch stop layer to extend the opening toward the first conductive feature and form an extended opening, wherein the extended opening exposes the first conductive feature; and filling the extended opening with a conductive material to form a second conductive feature in the second dielectric layer. Claim 1 of Tsai does not disclose using a metal-doped aluminum nitride layer as the etch stop layer. However Hsu discloses that aluminum nitride with a metal dopant is a known etch stop layer material (p. 2, paragraph 33). The applicant is reminded in this regard that it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use would be entirely obvious. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jigsaw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See MPEP2144.07. In view of the above, it would therefore be obvious to use a metal-doped aluminum nitride as the etch stop layer material. Therefore claim 1 is not patentable over claim 1 of Tsai and Hsu.
With regard to claim 2, as noted above, claim 1 of Tsai discloses that etching the second dielectric layer comprises etching a portion of the etch stop layer. The method of claim 1 of Tsai constructed in view of Hsu uses a metal-doped aluminum nitride as the etch stop layer material. Thus claim 2 is not patentable over Tsai and Hsu.
In reference to claim 3, in the method of claim 1 of Tsai constructed in view of Hsu, the aluminum nitride film is doped with a metal dopant in the form of Mg (Hsu – p. 2, paragraph 33).
With regard to claim 4, claim 1 of Tsai does not disclose the exact thickness of etch stop layer/metal-doped aluminum nitride layer. Although claim 1 of Tsai does not teach the exact thickness as that claimed by the applicant:
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Size and dimension differences are generally not sufficient to patentably distinguish from the prior art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
In view of the above, adjusting the thickness is considered to be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art. Therefore this limitation is not patentable over Tsai and Hsu.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Tsai in view of Hsu as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Usami.
In reference to claim 5, claim 1 of Tsai does not disclose the exact concentration of dopants for the etch stop layer as required by the applicant. However Usami discloses tailoring the dopant concentration of an etch stop layer for desired adhesion strength (p. 7, paragraph 111). Thus Usami makes it clear that the dopant concentration in the etch stop layer is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the dopant concentration in the etch stop layer to that claimed by the applicant, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore claim 5 is not patentable over the above cited references.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Tsai in view of Hsu as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Glang.
In reference to claim 6, the method of claim 1 of Tsai constructed in view of Hsu forms the metal-doped aluminum nitride layer by forming an aluminum nitride layer but does not explicitly disclose doping the aluminum nitride layer with the metal element after forming the aluminum nitride layer. However Glang discloses that doping a material by ion implantation after its deposition provides the benefit of better control of the total amount of dopant (column 1, lines 23-27). In view of Glang, it would therefore be obvious to dope the aluminum nitride layer after forming it.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Tsai in view of Hsu as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tong.
In reference to claim 7, claim 1 of Tsai does not disclose the use of argon ions for sputtering. However Tong discloses the known use of argon gas ions (a non-reactive gas) in sputter etching (p. 6, paragraph 69). It would be obvious to use argon gas ions (a non-reactive gas) for sputter etching in the method of Tsai constructed in view of Hsu since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions ("obvious to try") with a reasonable expectation of success have been found to be obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). In view of the above, it would therefore be obvious to use argon gas ions for the sputter etch process. Therefore claim 7 is not patentable over Tsai, Hsu, and Tong.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN QUINTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5:30.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at 571-270-3042. 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.
/KEVIN QUINTO/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights