DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Cross-Reference to Related Applications
2. This application is a CON of 17/693,925 03/14/2022 PAT 12009293 which is a DIV of 16/572,670 09/17/2019 PAT 11276637.
Oath/Declaration
3. The oath/declaration filed on 06/10/2024 is acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The office acknowledges receipt of the following items from the applicant:
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 06/10/2024.
Specification
5. The specification is objected to for the following reason: The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed (see MPEP 606.01).
A title such as – BARRIER-FREE INTERCONNECT STRUCTURE – or is suggested by the applicant.
Note that the claims are directed to a semiconductor device instead of a method of making semiconductor device.
The specification needs to be updated.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 5 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 2, and in claim 16, line 2, a term of “comprise” should replace by – comprises --.
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.
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 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.
7. Claims 1-2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nguyen et al., hereafter “Nguyen” (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0199832 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nguyen discloses a structure, comprising:
a first metal line (20) (Fig. 1 and para [0030]);
a first etch stop layer (ESL) (28) (Fig. 1and para [0030]) disposed on the first metal line (20);
a first dielectric layer (30) (Fig. 1 and para [0030] disposed along a top surface of the first etch stop layer (ESL) (28); and
a via (60 including 60A/60B, Fig. 23 and para [0068]) extending through the first dielectric layer (30) and the first ESL (28) to physically contact the metal line (20), wherein a top surface of the first dielectric layer (30) is lower than a top surface of the via (60) (Fig. 23).
Regarding claim 2, Nguyen discloses further comprising: a first barrier layer (32) disposed on the first dielectric layer (30), wherein the via (60) extends through the first barrier layer (32) such that top surfaces of the first barrier layer (32) and the via (60) are coplanar (Fig. 23).
Regarding claim 12, Nguyen discloses a contact structure, comprising:
a first etch stop layer (ESL) (28);
a first dielectric layer (30) disposed along a top surface of the first etch stop layer (ESL) (28); and
a via (60) extending through the first dielectric layer (30) and the first ESL (28),
wherein a top surface of the first dielectric layer (30) is lower than a top surface of the via (60) (Fig. 23).
8. Claims 1-2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MAHALINGAM A (CN-106257643-A).
Regarding claim 1, MAHALINGAM A discloses a structure, comprising:
a first metal line (112);
a first etch stop layer (ESL) (116) disposed on the first metal line (112);
a first dielectric layer (118) disposed along a top surface of the first etch stop layer (ESL) (116); and
a via (M1/VO) extending through the first dielectric layer (118) and the first ESL (116) to physically contact the metal line (112), wherein a top surface of the first dielectric layer (118) is lower than a top surface of the via (M1/VO) (Figs. 2A-2H and English Text).
Regarding claim 2, MAHALINGAM A discloses further comprising: a first barrier layer (120) disposed on the first dielectric layer (118), wherein the via (M1/VO) extends through the first barrier layer (118) such that top surfaces of the first barrier layer (120) and the via (M1/VO) are coplanar (Fig. 2H).
Regarding claim 12, MAHALINGAM A discloses a contact structure, comprising:
a first etch stop layer (ESL) (116);
a first dielectric layer (118) disposed along a top surface of the first etch stop layer (ESL) (116); and
a via (M1/VO) extending through the first dielectric layer (118) and the first ESL (116),
wherein a top surface of the first dielectric layer (118) is lower than a top surface of the via (M1/VO) (Figs. 2A-2H).
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 of this title, 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.
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 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.
9. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nguyen or MAHALINGAM A in view of Morrow et al., hereafter “Morrow” (U.S. Publication No. 2004/0058547 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Nguyen or MAHALINGAM A discloses the features of the claimed invention as discussed above, but does not disclose wherein the first barrier layer comprises tantalum, tantalum nitride, tantalum carbide, titanium, titanium nitride, or titanium carbide, or a combination thereof.
Morrow, however, discloses wherein the first barrier layer (222) comprises tantalum, tantalum nitride, tantalum carbide, titanium, titanium nitride, or titanium carbide, or a combination thereof (Fig. 2F and para [0015]).
10. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nguyen or MAHALINGAM A in view of LIM et al., hereafter “LIM” (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0020610 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Nguyen or MAHALINGAM A discloses the features of the claimed invention as discussed above, but does not disclose wherein, in a top view, the first barrier layer comprises a circular shape to surround the via.
Lim, however, discloses wherein, in a top view, the first barrier layer (220) comprises a circular shape to surround the via (220) (Fig. 2 and para [0042]).
It would have been an obvious matter of the design choice to modify wherein, in a top view, the first barrier layer comprises a circular shape to surround the via in order to improve the compactness of the semiconductor structure, since it has been held to be within the general skill of the worker in the art to select any type of the first barrier layer on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
11. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nguyen or MAHALINGAM A in view of TSUKIYAMA et al., hereafter “U.S. Publication No. 2016/0351441 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Nguyen or MAHALINGAM A discloses the features of the claimed invention as discussed above, but does not disclose wherein, in the top view, the via comprises a circular shape.
TSUKIYAMA, however. Discloses wherein, in the top view, the via (17) comprises a circular shape (Fig. 4 and para [0078]).
It would have been an obvious matter of the design choice to modify wherein, in a top view, the via comprises a circular shape to prevent the metal contamination, since it has been held to be within the general skill of the worker in the art to select any type of the via on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. The following is a statement of reason for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 17, Nguyen discloses a contact structure, comprising:
a first metal line (112);
a first etch stop layer (ESL) (28);
a first dielectric layer (30) disposed along a top surface of the first etch stop layer (ESL) (28); and
a via (60) extending through the first dielectric layer (30) and the first ESL (28),
a first barrier layer (120) disposed on the first dielectric layer (118)
wherein a top surface of the first dielectric layer (30) is lower than a top surface of the via (60) (Fig. 23).
Nguyen, does not disclose, teach, or otherwise suggest a feature of “a second ESL disposed continuously along the top surface of the first dielectric layer, a sidewall of the first barrier layer, and the top surface of the first barrier layer” as cited in the independent claim 17.
Claims 18-20 are directly depend on the independent claim 17, then, they are also being allowed.
Claims 4, 7-11 and 13-16 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.
Cited Prior Arts
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
SONG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0001796 A1) discloses a contact structure, comprising:
a first metal line (34/38);
a first dielectric layer (40) disposed on the first metal line (34/38); and
a via (84A/88A) extending through the first dielectric layer (40),
wherein a top surface of the first dielectric layer (118) is lower than a top surface of the via (84A/88A) (Figs. 5A-5G).
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Phuc T. Dang whose telephone number is 571-272-1776. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jacob Choi can be reached on 469-295-9060. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHUC T DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights