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 .
Note by the Examiner
For clarity, references to specific claim numbers are presented in bold. Cited claim limitations are presented in bold the first time they are associated with a particular prior art disclosing the cited limitations, and subsequent reference to the already disclosed claim limitations are presented un-bolded. Certain elements from prior art which are not required by the claims are also presented bolded if they are particularly pertinent to understanding how the references are being combined. Item-to-item matching and examiner explanations for 102 &/or 103 rejections are provided in parenthesis.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II, drawn to Figs. 3A-3K, in the reply filed on 8/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference numbers 1040, 1050, 1060, and 1070. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because visual details are inconsistent between the method shown in Figs. 3D-3F and supposedly a repeat of the method shown in Figs. 3H-3J. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 5 and 12 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.
With regard to claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the first metal liner and the second metal liner are the same”, however this is indefinite because the limitation does not define what characteristic(s) are shared between the two liners. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that the liners include the same materials.
With regard to claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “comprising repeating the operations of: depositing a first metal liner by PVD, forming a first flowable polymer film on the first metal liner, selectively removing at least a portion of the first metal liner from the top surface and the at least one sidewall, and removing the first flowable polymer film”. This is indefinite because it is unclear if the repeated operations are occurring in the same area or not. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that the repeated operation occur in the same area.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 14 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 14 states the limitation "selectively depositing a metal layer on the first metal liner and the second metal liner to fill the at least one feature" which does not further limit claim 13 or claim 1 as this limitation is already stated in the last two lines 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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 3-7, 10-11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Pub. No.: US 20230352346 A1), hereinafter as Lee’23, in view of Ando et al (Pub. No.: US 20160181353 A1), hereinafter as Ando.
[Jose M. Quero, Francisco Perdigones, Carmen Aracil, “11 - Microfabrication technologies used for creating smart devices for industrial applications”, hereinafter as Quero, is used herein as evidence.]
PNG
media_image1.png
834
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image A: closeup of Lee’23 Fig. 7, showcasing various characteristics of a feature.
PNG
media_image2.png
801
859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Image B: closeup of Lee’23 Fig. 12, showcasing feature depth and polymer depth.
PNG
media_image3.png
611
892
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Image C: closeup of Ando Fig. 3, showcasing various surfaces.
With regard to claim 1, Lee’23 teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising: depositing a first metal liner (see Lee’23 Fig. 9, first metallic layer 110; Lee’23 [0027]) by physical vapor deposition (PVD) (see Lee’23 [0027]: “The first metallic layer 110 may be formed by, for instance, PVD.”) on a semiconductor substrate surface (see Image A) with at least one feature (see Lee’23 Fig. 7, plurality of trenches 152; Lee’23 [0024]) formed thereon (see Lee’23 Fig. 9), the at least one feature having at least one opening (see Image A) at a top surface (see Image A) with an opening width (see Image A), at least one sidewall (see Image A), and a bottom (see Image A), the at least one feature extending a feature depth (see Image A and Image B) from the top surface to the bottom (see Image A), the first metal liner forming on the top surface, on the at least one sidewall, and on the bottom (see Lee’23 Fig. 9); forming a first flowable polymer film (see Lee’23 Fig. 11, amphiphilic polymer layer 130 and hydrophobic polymer layer 120; Lee’23 [0028]&[0032]; where the polymer film is flowable because amphiphilic polymer layer 130 can be sprayed on (see Lee’23 [0028]).) on the first metal liner within the at least one feature (see Lee’23 Fig. 11), the first flowable polymer film forming on the first metal liner on the bottom and having a polymer depth (see Image B) less than the feature depth (see Image B); selectively removing at least a portion (see Lee’23 Fig. 12, first portion 111; Lee’23 [0034]) of the first metal liner from the top surface and the at least one sidewall (see Lee’23 Fig. 14); removing the first flowable polymer film to expose the first metal liner on the bottom of the at least one feature (see Lee’23 Fig. 16).
Lee’23 does not teach depositing a second metal liner by physical vapor deposition (PVD) on the top surface of the at least one feature, and on the remaining portion of the first metal liner on the at least one sidewall and on the bottom; and selectively depositing a metal layer on the first metal liner and the second metal liner to fill the at least one feature.
Ando teaches depositing a second metal liner (see Ando Fig. 4, thin metallic film 120; Ando [0054]) by physical vapor deposition (PVD) (see Ando [0054]: “Such a thin metallic film 120 can be readily deposited by any suitable deposition technique, including, but not limited to: atomic layer deposition (ALD), chemical vapor deposition (CVD), and physical vapor deposition (PVD).” Where one would use PVD.) on a top surface (see Image C) of at least one feature (see Ando Fig. 3, deep trench 116; Ando [0051]), and on a remaining portion of a first metal liner (see Ando Fig. 4, oxygen gettering layer 118, where the oxygen gettering layer does include a metal (see Ando [0052]); Ando [0052]) on at least one sidewall (see Image C) and on a bottom (see Image C).
Together, Lee’23 and Ando teach depositing the second metal liner (see Ando Fig. 4, thin metallic film 120) by physical vapor deposition (PVD) (see Ando [0054]) on the top surface of the at least one feature (see Lee’23 Fig. 7, plurality of trenches 152), and on the remaining portion of the first metal liner (see Lee’23 Fig. 9, first metallic layer 110) on the at least one sidewall and on the bottom (see Image A); and selectively depositing a metal layer (see Lee’23 Fig. 19, second metallic layer 119; Lee’23 [0042]) on the first metal liner and the second metal liner to fill the at least one feature (see Lee’23 Fig. 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include forming a second metal liner taught by Ando to the device of Lee’23 in order to include the ability to act in tandem with the first metal liner and further promote a barrier like function between the substrate and the metal layer.
With regard to claim 3, Lee’23 and Ando teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first metal liner (see Lee’23 Fig. 9, first metallic layer 110) comprises one or more of tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), or cobalt (Co) (see Lee [0027]: “The first metallic layer 110 includes at least one of tungsten, tungsten nitride, aluminum oxide, titanium nitride, aluminum, tantalum nitride, cobalt, titanium, tantalum, nickel, molybdenum, copper, and the like.”, where one would choose either tungsten, tungsten nitride, molybdenum, or cobalt.).
With regard to claim 4, Lee’23 and Ando teach the method of claim 1, wherein the second metal liner (see Ando Fig. 4, thin metallic film 120) comprises one or more of tungsten (W) or ruthenium (Ru) (see Ando [0054]: “Preferably, the thin metallic film 120 includes at least one material selected from the group consisting of Ti, TiN, W, WN, and Ru.”, where one would choose either tungsten or ruthenium.).
With regard to claim 5, Lee’23 and Ando teach the method of claim 4, wherein the first metal liner (see Lee’23 Fig. 9, first metallic layer 110) and the second metal liner (see Ando Fig. 4, thin metallic film 120) are the same material (for the first metal liner, one would further choose tungsten (see Lee [0027]); and for the second metal liner, one would choose further tungsten (see Ando [0054]). By further choosing tungsten for both metal liners, they are therefore made of the same material.).
With regard to claim 6, Lee’23 and Ando teach the method of claim 1, comprising forming the first flowable polymer film (see Lee’23 Fig. 11, amphiphilic polymer layer 130 and hydrophobic polymer layer 120) at a temperature in a range of from 30° C to 400° C (see Lee’23 [0028]: “In substep (i), the solution may be formed by dissolving the amphiphilic polymer material in a suitable organic solvent (determined according to practical needs). In substep (ii), in some embodiments, the solution may be applied by, for instance, evenly spraying over the first metallic layer 110 at a suitable temperature, for instance but not limited to, room temperature (about 25° C. to about 40° C.).”).
It would have been obvious to have the step of forming the first flowable polymer film at a temperature in a range of from 30° C to 400° C. Since it has been held that wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
With regard to claim 7, Lee’23 and Ando teach the method of claim 1, wherein forming the first flowable polymer film (see Lee’23 Fig. 11, amphiphilic polymer layer 130 and hydrophobic polymer layer 120) comprises exposing the semiconductor substrate surface (see Image A) to one or more monomers (a polymer consists of multiple monomers, so when depositing a polymer film on a surface, that surface is exposed to multiple monomers.).
With regard to claim 10, Lee’23 and Ando teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first flowable polymer film (see Lee’23 Fig. 11, amphiphilic polymer layer 130 and hydrophobic polymer layer 120) is removed without substantially affecting any material beneath the first flowable polymer film (see Lee’23 Fig. 16).
With regard to claim 11, Lee’23 and Ando teach the method of claim 1, wherein removing the first flowable polymer film (see Lee’23 Fig. 11, amphiphilic polymer layer 130 and hydrophobic polymer layer 120) comprises exposing the semiconductor substrate surface (see Image A) to one or more of a thermal process (see Lee’23 [0038]: “Referring to FIG. 1 and the example illustrated in FIG. 16, the method proceeds to step 212, where the hydrophobic polymer layer 120′ is removed by, for example but not limited to, an ashing process.”).
With regard to claim 13, Lee’23 and Ando teach the method of claim 1.
Lee’23 and Ando do not teach forming a second flowable polymer film on the second metal liner, selectively removing at least a portion of the second metal liner from the top surface and the at least one sidewall, and removing the second flowable polymer film.
However, Ando further teaches forming a second flowable polymer film (see Ando Fig. 8, second trench fill 126; Ando [0059]; where the second trench fill is flowable because it is deposited via spin-on techniques (see Ando [0056]), and, by choosing the material to be a photoresist (see Ando [0056]), the second trench fill includes polymer material (see Quero: “Photoresists are fundamental materials related to photolithography. They are light-sensitive materials, composed of a polymer, a sensitizer, and a solvent.”). Note that second trench fill 126 is derived from planarizing film 122 (see Ando [0059]).) on the second metal liner (see Ando Fig. 4, thin metallic film 120), selectively removing at least a portion of the second metal liner from the top surface and the at least one sidewall (see Ando Fig. 9), and removing the second flowable polymer film (see Ando Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include steps involving the second polymer flowable film taught by Ando to the combined device of Lee’23 and Ando in order to protect the second metal liner during the removing process and control which areas are removed.
With regard to claim 14, Lee’23 and Ando teach the method of claim 13, further comprising selectively depositing a metal layer (see Ando Fig. 12, inner electrode 134; Ando [0063]) on the first metal liner (see Lee’23 Fig. 9, first metallic layer 110) and the second metal liner (see Ando Fig. 4, thin metallic film 120) to fill the at least one feature (see Lee’23 Fig. 7, plurality of trenches 152).
Claim(s) 2 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Pub. No.: US 20230352346 A1), hereinafter as Lee’23, in view of Ando et al (Pub. No.: US 20160181353 A1), hereinafter as Ando, in further view of Lee et al. (Pub. No.: US 20170053872 A1), hereinafter as Lee’17.
[Jose M. Quero, Francisco Perdigones, Carmen Aracil, “11 - Microfabrication technologies used for creating smart devices for industrial applications”, hereinafter as Quero, is used herein as evidence.]
PNG
media_image4.png
652
768
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Image D: closeup of Lee’17 Fig. 6B, showcasing an opening width.
With regard to claim 2, Lee’23 and Ando teach the method of claim 1.
Lee’23 and Ando do not teach that the at least one feature comprises an overhang or an undercut within the opening width.
Lee’17 teaches that at least one feature (see Lee’17 Fig. 6B, TSV space TS1; Lee’17 [0068]) comprises an overhang or an undercut (see Lee’17 Fig. 6B, undercut region UR; Lee’17 [0068]) within an opening width (see Image D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add an overhang or an undercut taught by Lee’17 to the combined device of Lee’23 and Ando in order to reduce the amount of delamination defect occurrences (see Lee’17 [0069]: “By forming the undercut region UR in the TSV space TS1, surface areas of the TSV structure 30 and the via insulating layer 140 surrounding the TSV structure 30 may increase in the vicinity of the undercut region UR, and the increased surface areas may serve to release stress caused by the TSV structure 30 and the vicinity thereof. Thus, the likelihood of the occurrence of delamination defects may be reduced, or possibly prevented, in the TSV structure 30 and the vicinity thereof due to the undercut region UR formed in the TSV space TS1.”).
With regard to claim 18, Lee’23 teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising: depositing a first metal liner (see Lee’23 Fig. 9, first metallic layer 110; Lee’23 [0027]) comprising tungsten (W) (see Lee [0027]: “The first metallic layer 110 includes at least one of tungsten, tungsten nitride, aluminum oxide, titanium nitride, aluminum, tantalum nitride, cobalt, titanium, tantalum, nickel, molybdenum, copper, and the like.”, where one would choose tungsten.) by physical vapor deposition (PVD) (see Lee’23 [0027]: “The first metallic layer 110 may be formed by, for instance, PVD.”) on a semiconductor substrate surface (see Image A) with at least one feature (see Lee’23 Fig. 7, plurality of trenches 152; Lee’23 [0024]) formed thereon (see Lee’23 Fig. 9), the at least one feature having at least one opening (see Image A) at a top surface (see Image A) with an opening width (see Image A), at least one sidewall (see Image A), and a bottom (see Image A), the at least one feature extending a feature depth (see Image A and Image B) from the top surface to the bottom (see Image A); forming a first flowable polymer film (see Lee’23 Fig. 11, amphiphilic polymer layer 130 and hydrophobic polymer layer 120; Lee’23 [0028]&[0032]; where the polymer film is flowable because amphiphilic polymer layer 130 can be sprayed on (see Lee’23 [0028]).) on the first metal liner within the at least one feature (see Lee’23 Fig. 11), the first flowable polymer film forming on the first metal liner on the bottom and having a polymer depth (see Image B) less than or equal to the feature depth (see Image B); selectively removing at least a portion (see Lee’23 Fig. 12, first portion 111; Lee’23 [0034]) of the first metal liner from the top surface and the at least one sidewall (see Lee’23 Fig. 14); removing the first flowable polymer film to expose the first metal liner on the bottom of the at least one feature (see Lee’23 Fig. 16).
Lee’23 does not teach that the at least one feature comprising an overhang or an undercut within the opening width, the first metal liner forming on the top surface, on the overhang or the undercut, on the at least one sidewall, and on the bottom; depositing a second metal liner comprising tungsten (W) by physical vapor deposition (PVD) on the top surface of the at least one feature, on the overhang or the undercut, and on the remaining portion of the first metal liner on the at least one sidewall and on the bottom; and selectively depositing a metal layer on the first metal liner and the second metal liner to fill the at least one feature.
Lee’17 teaches at least one feature (see Lee’17 Fig. 6B, TSV space TS1; Lee’17 [0068]) comprising an overhang or an undercut (see Lee’17 Fig. 6B, undercut region UR; Lee’17 [0068]) within an opening width (see Image D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add an overhang or an undercut taught by Lee’17 to the device of Lee’23 in order to reduce the amount of delamination defect occurrences (see Lee’17 [0069]: “By forming the undercut region UR in the TSV space TS1, surface areas of the TSV structure 30 and the via insulating layer 140 surrounding the TSV structure 30 may increase in the vicinity of the undercut region UR, and the increased surface areas may serve to release stress caused by the TSV structure 30 and the vicinity thereof. Thus, the likelihood of the occurrence of delamination defects may be reduced, or possibly prevented, in the TSV structure 30 and the vicinity thereof due to the undercut region UR formed in the TSV space TS1.”).
Together, Lee’23 and Lee’17 teach that the first metal liner (see Lee’23 Fig. 9, first metallic layer 110) forms on the top surface (see Image A), on the overhang or the undercut (see Lee’17 Fig. 6B, undercut region UR), on the at least one sidewall (see Image A), and on the bottom (see Image A).
Lee’23 and Lee’17 do not teach depositing a second metal liner comprising tungsten (W) by physical vapor deposition (PVD) on the top surface of the at least one feature, on the overhang or the undercut, and on the remaining portion of the first metal liner on the at least one sidewall and on the bottom; and selectively depositing a metal layer on the first metal liner and the second metal liner to fill the at least one feature.
Ando teaches depositing a second metal liner (see Ando Fig. 4, thin metallic film 120; Ando [0054]) comprising tungsten (W) (see Ando [0054]: “Preferably, the thin metallic film 120 includes at least one material selected from the group consisting of Ti, TiN, W, WN, and Ru.”, where one would choose tungsten.) by physical vapor deposition (PVD) (see Ando [0054]: “Such a thin metallic film 120 can be readily deposited by any suitable deposition technique, including, but not limited to: atomic layer deposition (ALD), chemical vapor deposition (CVD), and physical vapor deposition (PVD).” Where one would use PVD.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include forming a second metal liner taught by Ando to the combined device of Lee’23 and Lee’17 in order to include the ability to act in tandem with the first metal liner and further promote a barrier like function between the substrate and the metal layer.
Together, Lee’23, Lee’17, and Ando teach depositing the second metal liner (see Ando Fig. 4, thin metallic film 120) on the top surface (see Image A) of the at least one feature (see Lee’23 Fig. 7, plurality of trenches 152), on the overhang or the undercut (see Lee’17 Fig. 6B, undercut region UR), and on the remaining portion of the first metal liner (see Lee’23 Fig. 9, first metallic layer 110) on the at least one sidewall (see Image A) and on the bottom (see Image A); and selectively depositing a metal layer (see Lee’23 Fig. 19, second metallic layer 119; Lee’23 [0042]) on the first metal liner and the second metal liner to fill the at least one feature (see Lee’23 Fig. 19).
With regard to claim 19, Lee’23, Lee’17, and Ando teach the method of claim 18.
Lee’23, Lee’17, and Ando do not teach forming a second flowable polymer film on the second metal liner, selectively removing at least a portion of the second metal liner from the top surface and the at least one sidewall, and removing the second flowable polymer film prior to selectively depositing the metal layer on the first metal liner and the second metal liner.
However, Ando further teaches forming a second flowable polymer film (see Ando Fig. 8, second trench fill 126; Ando [0059]; where the second trench fill is flowable because it is deposited via spin-on techniques (see Ando [0056]), and, by choosing the material to be a photoresist (see Ando [0056]), the second trench fill includes polymer material (see Quero: “Photoresists are fundamental materials related to photolithography. They are light-sensitive materials, composed of a polymer, a sensitizer, and a solvent.”). Note that second trench fill 126 is derived from planarizing film 122 (see Ando [0059]).) on the second metal liner (see Ando Fig. 4, thin metallic film 120), selectively removing at least a portion of the second metal liner from the top surface and the at least one sidewall (see Ando Fig. 9), and removing the second flowable polymer film (see Ando Fig. 10) prior to selectively depositing the metal layer (see Ando Fig. 12, inner electrode 134) on the first metal liner (see Ando Fig. 4, oxygen gettering layer 118) and the second metal liner (see Ando Figs. 9-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include steps involving the second polymer flowable film taught by Ando to the combined device of Lee’23, Lee’17, and Ando in order to protect the second metal liner during the removing process and control which areas are removed.
With regard to claim 20, Lee’23, Lee’17, and Ando teach the method of claim 19, wherein the metal layer (see Ando Fig. 12, inner electrode 134) on the first metal liner (see Lee’23 Fig. 9, first metallic layer 110) and the second metal liner (see Ando Fig. 4, thin metallic film 120) is free of seams or voids (see Ando Fig. 12).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee'23 and Ando, in view of Chu et al. (Pub. No.: US 20210242078 A1), hereinafter as Chu.
[H. Ekinci, "Plasma and Reactive Ion Etching", hereinafter as Ekinci, is used herein as evidence.]
With regard to claim 8, Lee’23 and Ando teach the method of claim 1.
Lee’23 and Ando do not teach selectively removing the portion of the first metal liner at a temperature in a range of from 100C to 400C.
Chu teaches selectively removing a portion (see Chu Fig. 2B) of a first metal liner (see Chu Fig. 2A, metal layer 124; Chu [0045]; in which “[t]he metal layer 124 may include Ta, TaN, TiN, Cu, Co, W, Ru, Al, Mo, Ir, other applicable metallic materials, an alloy thereof, or a combination thereof.”) at a temperature in a range of from 100C to 400C (see Chu [0048]: “In some embodiments, the first cap layer 126 and the metal layer 124 is etched by a reactive-ion etching (RIE)… The RIE process may be performed under a temperature in a range of about 0° C. to about 200° C.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use reactive-ion etching (RIE) taught by Chu instead of the wet etching of Lee’23 and Ando in order to anisotropic etch with high selectivity (see Ekinci pg.3: “RIE was developed to meet the very strong need for an anisotropic etching with high selectivity.”). It would have been obvious to have the step of selectively removing the portion of the first metal liner at a temperature in a range of from 100C to 400C. Since it has been held that wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
With regard to claim 9, Lee’23, Ando, and Chu teach the method of claim 8, wherein selectively removing the portion (see Lee’23 Fig. 12, first portion 111) of the first metal liner (see Lee’23 Fig. 9, first metallic layer 110) comprises exposing the semiconductor substrate surface (see Image A) to a fluorine-based plasma or a chlorine-based plasma (see Chu [0048]: “The RIE process may use etchers such as inductively coupled plasma (ICP), capacitively coupled plasma (CCP), remote plasma, other applicable etchers, or a combination thereof. The etching gas may include CH.sub.4, CH.sub.3F, CH.sub.2F.sub.2, CHF.sub.3, C.sub.4F.sub.8, C.sub.4F.sub.6, CF.sub.4, H.sub.2, HBr, CO, CO.sub.2, O.sub.2, BCl.sub.3, Cl.sub.2, N.sub.2, He, Ne, Ar, other applicable gases, or a combination thereof.”, where one would choose either a fluorine based gas or a chlorine based gas to form the plasma.).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee’23 and Ando, in view of Lo et al. (Pub. No.: US 10957779 B2), hereinafter as Lo, further in view of Peethala et al. (Pub. No.: US 20200090988 A1), hereinafter as Peethala.
[Roseline Calloway and Val Bradford, “Semiconductor Device Fabrication & Packaging Technology in Microfabrication”, hereinafter as Calloway, is used herein as evidence.]
With regard to claim 12, Lee’23 and Ando teach the method of claim 1.
Lee’23 and Ando do not teach repeating the operations of: depositing a first metal liner by PVD, forming a first flowable polymer film on the first metal liner, selectively removing at least a portion of the first metal liner from the top surface and the at least one sidewall, and removing the first flowable polymer film.
Lo teaches depositing an additional first metal liner (see Lo Fig. 16, fill metal 272; Lo col. 8, ln. 22), forming an additional first flowable polymer film (see Lo Fig. 18, sacrificial layer 280; Lo col. 11, ln. 51; where the sacrificial layer 280 is flowable because a gas mixture of the BCl.sub.3 gas and the H.sub.2 gas is used in its formation and it is a polymer because it is polymerized during its formation (see Lo col. 13, lns. 2-5).) on the additional first metal liner (see Lo Fig. 18), selectively removing at least a portion of the additional first metal liner from a top surface and at least one sidewall (see Lo Fig. 22), and removing the additional first flowable polymer film (see Lo Figs. 19-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include forming an additional metal liner taught by Lo to the combined device of Lee’23 and Ando in order to include the ability to act in tandem with the first metal liner and further promote a barrier like function between the substrate and the metal layer.
Lee’23, Ando, and Lo do not teach depositing an additional first metal liner by PVD.
Peethala teaches depositing a first metal liner (see Peethala Fig. 3, barrier layer 20; Peethala [0021]; where one would choose the materials of the barrier layer 20 to be the same as Lo’s additional first metal liner, see Peethala [0025]: “Exemplary barrier materials include at least one of … tungsten, tungsten nitride, titanium, titanium nitride, tantalum, or tantalum nitride (TaN).” and see Lo col. 9, lns. 19-24: “The fill metals 272 and/or 273 may exemplarily include, but are not limited to, tungsten, … , titanium, tantalum, titanium nitride, tantalum nitride, …, or other suitable materials.”) by PVD (Peethala [0031]: “The barrier layer 20 can be formed by physical vapor deposition (PVD), chemical vapor deposition (CVD), or atomic layer deposition (ALD) processes known in the art.”, where one would choose PVD).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use PVD taught by Peethala to deposit the additional first metal liner of Lo in order to avoid producing corrosive by-products (see Calloway pg. 7: “The PVD process can be carried out at lower deposition temperatures and without corrosive products, but deposition rates are typically lower.”).
By incorporating the steps taught by Lo, Lee’23, Ando, Lo, and Peethala teach repeating the operations of the aforementioned steps.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee'23 and Ando, in view of Cho et al. (Pub. No.: US 20230083577 A1), hereinafter as Cho.
With regard to claim 15, Lee’23 and Ando teach the method of claim 1.
Lee’23 and Ando do not teach that the feature depth is in a range of about 10 nm to about 300 nm.
Cho teaches at least one feature (see Cho Fig. 2A, trenches 204; Cho [0027]) and has a feature depth (see Cho Fig. 2A, distance “DT”; Cho [0028]) is in a range of about 10 nm to about 300 nm (see Cho [0028]: “The plurality of trenches 204 can be formed so as to have a depth within a range of from about 10 nm to about 1,000 nm, including, but not limited to a range of from about 50 nm to about 300 nm, a range of from about 75 nm to about 100 nm, a range of from about 120 nm to about 250 nm, a range of from about 120 nm to about 150 nm, from about 150 nm to about 200 nm, from about 200 nm to about 250 nm, from about 120 nm to about 200 nm, or from about 150 nm to about 250 nm.”, where one would choose a range of from about 75 nm to about 100 nm.).
It would have been obvious to have the feature depth in a range of about 10 nm to about 300 nm. Since it has been held that wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
With regard to claim 16, Lee’23 and Ando teach the method of claim 14.
Lee’23 and Ando do not teach that the feature depth is in a range of about 60 nm to about 100 nm.
Cho teaches at least one feature (see Cho Fig. 2A, trenches 204; Cho [0027]) and has a feature depth (see Cho Fig. 2A, distance “DT”; Cho [0028]) is in a range of about 60 nm to about 100 nm (see Cho [0028]: “The plurality of trenches 204 can be formed so as to have a depth within a range of from about 10 nm to about 1,000 nm, including, but not limited to a range of from about 50 nm to about 300 nm, a range of from about 75 nm to about 100 nm, a range of from about 120 nm to about 250 nm, a range of from about 120 nm to about 150 nm, from about 150 nm to about 200 nm, from about 200 nm to about 250 nm, from about 120 nm to about 200 nm, or from about 150 nm to about 250 nm.”, where one would choose a range of from about 75 nm to about 100 nm.).
It would have been obvious to have the feature depth in a range of about 60 nm to about 100 nm. Since it has been held that wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee'23 and Ando, in view of Adusumilli et al. (Patent No.: US 9496225 B1), hereinafter as Adusumilli.
With regard to claim 17, Lee’23 and Ando teach the method of claim 1.
Lee’23 and Ando do not teach that the polymer depth is in a range of about 1 nm to about 50 nm.
Adusumilli teaches a first flowable polymer film (see Adusumilli Fig. 4, organic planarization layer (OPL) 410; Adusumilli col. 3, ln. 59; wherein OPL 410 is a polymer and is flowable because it is deposited via a spin coating process, see Adusumilli col. 3, lns. 60-63: “The OPL 410 may be an organic polymer including carbon (C), hydrogen (H), and nitrogen (N), for example, and may be deposited by a spin coating process.”), wherein a polymer depth is in a range of about 1 nm to about 50 nm (see Adusumilli col. 4, lns. 1-2: “The thickness of the OPL 410 at the bottom of the trenches 110 may be 6-15 nanometers (nm), for example.”).
It would have been obvious to have the polymer depth in a range of about 1 nm to about 50 nm. Since it has been held that wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKATERINA T BIRCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8676. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Steven Loke can be reached at 5712721657. 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.
/E.T.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/STEVEN H LOKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
