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
It is noted that the restriction mailed on 29 June 2026 incorrectly lists Group I as claims 1-12, which is a miss-typing of claims 1-11.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, claims 1-12 (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 08 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examining both groups does constitute an undue burden (p.7, last paragraph). This is not found persuasive because for purposes of the initial requirement, a serious burden on the Examiner may be prima facie shown if the Examiner shows by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search (as defined in MPEP § 808.02). The restriction requirement meets this requirement. While that prima facie showing may be rebutted by appropriate showings or evidence by the Applicant, an unsupported statement by Applicant that no serious burden would exist in the examination of all pending claims does not qualify as an “appropriate showing” or “evidence”. See MPEP § 803.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08 July 2026.
In the event of allowable subject matter, the restriction requirement may be reconsidered.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barth et al. (US 2002/0172811) and claims 4-5 are rejected over Barth as applied to claim 1 further in view of Niyogi et al. (US 2014/0106561).
Considering claim 1, Barth teaches a laminated diffusion barrier resistant to oxygen and/or moisture permeability (abstract) and barrier properties to O2, H2O, and Cu (Paragraph 34) for semiconductor devices (Paragraph 1). The barrier comprises a dielectric stack of two or more dielectric films where each film has a dielectric constant of about 8 or less (Paragraph 15). The stack comprises alternating layers of low-density amorphous films and high-permeability material (Paragraph 14) (e.g. amorphous material layers and intermediate layers). Examples of high-permeability materials include dielectrics with a dielectric constant of 4 or less and preferably about 2-3.5 (Paragraph 26). The thickness of the high-permeability film is about 12 nm or less (Paragraph 28) and the thickness of the low-permeability dielectric film is 12 nm or less (Paragraph 31).
While not expressly teaching a singular example of the claimed stacked structure this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in view of the teachings of Barth as this is considered a combination of conventionally known barrier materials and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Further, the dielectric constants and thicknesses disclosed by Barth and the ratios thereof overlap those which are claimed and the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside of those disclosed in the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 2, Barth teaches where the low-density dielectric material comprises amorphous C, Si, N, B, and/or O including boron nitride (Paragraph 30).
Considering claim 3, Barth teaches where the low-density dielectric material comprises amorphous materials including boron nitride (Paragraph 30) and where each film has a dielectric constant of about 8 or less (Paragraph 15). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claims 4-5, Barth teaches a barrier for semiconductor devices, but does not teach the claimed two-dimensional materials.
In a related field of endeavor, Niyogi teaches graphene barrier layers (abstract) used in semiconductor devices (Paragraphs 3 and 22). The barrier layer comprises graphene and amorphous carbon (Paragraphs 60-61) where the graphene prevents diffusion of copper (Paragraph 66).
As both Barth and Niyogi teach diffusion barriers they are considered analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Barth and to substitute the graphene barrier material taught by Niyogi as this is considered a substitution of one conventionally known barrier material for another to obtain predictable results and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 6, Barth teaches where the thickness of the high-permeability film is about 12 nm or less (Paragraph 28). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 7, Barth teaches where the thickness of the high-permeability film is about 12 nm or less (Paragraph 28) and the thickness of the low-permeability dielectric film is 12 nm or less (Paragraph 31) overlapping the claimed ratio. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 8, Barth teaches where each film in the stack has a dielectric constant of about 8 or less (Paragraph 15) overlapping the claimed ratio. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 9, Barth teaches where the stack comprises two or more dielectric films (Paragraph 15) overlapping the claimed number of layers. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 10, Barth teaches an example of 3-5 dielectric films where the thickness of the high-permeability film is about 12 nm or less (Paragraph 28) and the thickness of the low-permeability dielectric film is 12 nm or less (Paragraph 31) overlapping the overall thickness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 11, Barth teaches a substrate with a wiring layer and where the wiring layer is surrounded by the diffusion barrier (Fig.3; Paragraph 43).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takaba (US 2012/0098147) teaches a laminate of amorphous carbon and fluorinated carbon in a stack similar to that which is claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
SETH DUMBRIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/SETH DUMBRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights