DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/767,722 filed on July 9, 2024.
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, corresponding to claims 1-11, 13-17, 19, 21, and 22 and Fig. 8, in the reply filed on 5/20/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 5, 19, and 21, reciting the etch stop layer 940 of non-elected Species II are withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. The IDS has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the conductive structure below the ruthenium metal structure, wherein the ruthenium metal structure is on a top surface of the conductive structure, and the ruthenium metal structure is in contact with a conductive structure in the substrate; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 20 be found allowable, claim 22 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 4 and 13 recite “the conductive structure comprises a metal different from a metal of the ruthenium metal structure”, and add new matter to the originally filed specification. There is no disclosure of the specific materials in 110 nor is there any disclosure of the metal in 110 being different than the ruthenium metal structure (see ¶18).
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oates et al. (US 2007/0057305).
(Re Claim 1) Oates teaches an interconnect layer, comprising (see Fig. 4 and supporting text):
a dielectric layer (201-205) on a substrate (101); and
a ruthenium metal structure (see ¶¶24-30, 301 is formed the same as 111 from 107: Ru), within the dielectric layer, wherein:
the ruthenium metal structure is in contact with sidewall surfaces of the dielectric layer (as shown);
a portion of the dielectric layer adjacent to the ruthenium metal structure comprises a dopant (201, 205: carbon doped silicon oxide, ¶35); and
top surfaces of the ruthenium metal structure and the dielectric layer are coplanar (Fig. 4).
(Re Claim 2) wherein the ruthenium metal structure is a ruthenium metal liner, and wherein the interconnect layer further comprises a copper metal structure within the dielectric layer and surrounded by the ruthenium metal liner (Fig. 4, 309 is Cu, ¶40).
(Re Claim 3) further comprising a conductive structure below the ruthenium metal structure, wherein the ruthenium metal structure is on a top surface of the conductive structure (Fig. 4, conductive structure 109).
(Re Claim 6) wherein the dopant comprises carbon (C), boron (B), phosphorous (P), oxygen (O), silicon (Si), argon (Ar), germanium (Ge), arsenic (As), or xenon (Xe) (¶35: C).
(Re Claim 9) wherein the ruthenium metal structure is in contact with a conductive structure in the substrate (Fig. 4, conductive structure 109).
(Re Claim 10) Oates teaches a semiconductor structure, comprising (see Fig. 4 and supporting text):
a substrate comprising a conductive structure (101, 109);
a dielectric layer (201-205) on the substrate; and
a ruthenium metal structure (301) within the dielectric layer and in contact with the conductive structure, wherein: at least one of the dielectric layer (¶35: carbon doped silicon oxide) and the ruthenium metal structure comprises a dopant; and top surfaces of the ruthenium metal structure and the dielectric layer are coplanar (Fig. 4).
(Re Claim 11) wherein the ruthenium metal structure is a ruthenium metal liner, and wherein the semiconductor structure further comprises a copper metal structure within the dielectric layer and surrounded by the ruthenium metal liner (Fig. 4, 309 is Cu, ¶40).
(Re Claim 14) wherein the dopant comprises carbon (C), boron (B), phosphorous (P), oxygen (O), silicon (Si), argon (Ar), germanium (Ge), arsenic (As), or xenon (Xe), (¶35: C).
Claims 16, 17, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joi et al. (US 2018/0374747).
(Re Claim 16) Joi teaches an interconnect structure, comprising (Figs. 13A-13C and supporting text): a dielectric layer (164) on a conductive structure (160); and a ruthenium metal structure (210) extending through the dielectric layer and in contact with the conductive structure, wherein: the ruthenium metal structure is in contact with sidewall surfaces of the dielectric layer; and a portion of the ruthenium metal structure comprises a dopant (¶101: Zn).
(Claims 20 and 22) wherein a concentration of the dopant is equal to or greater than about 1 x1012 atoms/cm3 (¶101: 1-30 atomic %, 1 atomic % is on the order of ~5x1020/cm3).
(Re Claim 16, alternative mapping) Joi teaches an interconnect structure, comprising (Figs. 12A-12F and supporting text): a dielectric layer (164) on a conductive structure (160+180); and a ruthenium metal structure (¶83: 200+202, 200 is incorrectly labeled 202 in Fig. 12C) extending through the dielectric layer and in contact with the conductive structure, wherein: the ruthenium metal structure is in contact with sidewall surfaces of the dielectric layer; and a portion of the ruthenium metal structure comprises a dopant (portion 202 comprises Zn, ¶94).
(Re Claim 17) wherein the ruthenium metal structure is a ruthenium metal liner (200+202), and wherein the interconnect structure further comprises a copper metal structure (204) within the dielectric layer and surrounded by the ruthenium metal liner.
(Claims 20 and 22) wherein a concentration of the dopant is equal to or greater than about 1 x1012 atoms/cm3 (¶94: 1-5 atomic %, 1 atomic % is on the order of ~5x1020/cm3).
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 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oates et al. as applied above, and further in view of Plekhanov et al. (US 2014/0151889).
(Re Claims 7 and 15) wherein a concentration of the dopant is equal to or greater than about 1x 1012 atoms/cm3.
Oates is silent regarding the concertation of carbon in the carbon doped silicon oxide ILD layer. A PHOSITA desiring to make and use Oates’ invention would be motivated to look to related art to teach suitable, working concentration of carbon in the disclosed film. Related art from Plekhanov teaches carbon doped silicon oxide ILD layers may comprise 15-30% or greater carbon concentration (¶23), a range considerably greater than 1012 atoms/cm3. A PHOSITA would find it obvious to select a known, working, carbon concentration from the prior art to use in Oates’ device. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in 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 also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 1-3, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oates et al. (US 2007/0057305) in view of Ramappa et al. (US 2009/0227087).
(Re Claim 1) Oates teaches an interconnect layer, comprising (see Fig. 4 and supporting text):
a dielectric layer (201-205) on a substrate (101); and
a ruthenium metal structure (see ¶¶24-30, 301 is formed the same as 111 from 107: Ru), within the dielectric layer, wherein:
the ruthenium metal structure is in contact with sidewall surfaces of the dielectric layer (as shown);
a portion of the dielectric layer adjacent to the ruthenium metal structure comprises a dopant (201, 205); and
top surfaces of the ruthenium metal structure and the dielectric layer are coplanar (Fig. 4).
Oates is silent regarding a portion of the dielectric layer adjacent to the ruthenium metal structure comprises a dopant. A PHOSITA desiring to make, use, and improve upon Oates’ interconnect structure would be motivated to look to related art to teach process alternatives that result in improvements. Related art from Ramappa teaches CMP uniformity, in particular due to dishing and erosion is a well-known issue, particularly in interconnects due to the different polishing rates of metals vs. dielectrics, different pattern densities, etc. (¶¶3-11). In order to improve the CMP uniformity, Ramappa (see Figs 7-9, abstract, and ¶¶ 41-56) performs an ion implant into the upper surfaces of both the metal feature (overburden) and the ILD layer (see Fig. 9, ¶¶55-56) to damage the upper surface and make it more amorphous which makes the material removal easier and more uniform. A PHOSITA would find it obvious to apply Ramappa’s ion implant process to Oates’ interconnect structure, at a stage after filling the vias with copper, in order to improve the CMP uniformity. In doing so, both the upper surface of the metal structure and the ILD layer will contain dopants.
(Re Claim 2) wherein the ruthenium metal structure is a ruthenium metal liner, and wherein the interconnect layer further comprises a copper metal structure within the dielectric layer and surrounded by the ruthenium metal liner (Fig. 4, 309 is Cu, ¶40).
(Re Claim 3) further comprising a conductive structure below the ruthenium metal structure, wherein the ruthenium metal structure is on a top surface of the conductive structure (Fig. 4, conductive structure 109).
(Re Claim 6) wherein the dopant comprises carbon (C), boron (B), phosphorous (P), oxygen (O), silicon (Si), argon (Ar), germanium (Ge), arsenic (As), or xenon (Xe) (Ramappa: ¶¶52,55).
(Re Claim 9) wherein the ruthenium metal structure is in contact with a conductive structure in the substrate (Fig. 4, conductive structure 109).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oates et al. in view of Ramappa et al., as applied above, and further in view of Adem et al. (US 2007/0020919).
(Re Claim 7) wherein a concentration of the dopant is equal to or greater than about 1x 1012 atoms/cm3.
(Re Claim 8) wherein the ruthenium metal structure comprises the dopant at a concentration equal to or greater than about 1x 1012 atoms/cm3.
While Ramappa is silent regarding the concentration, a dose on the order of 1014-1016 is disclosed (¶43) and according to the thicknesses disclosed in view of Fig. 9 ~50 nm of 1404 + a smaller thickness of the surface at 1400, conservatively assuming another 50 nm for a total implanted thickness of ~100 nm, this provides a concentration on the order of ~1019-1021/cm3. For an even more conservative thickness estimate of 10 µm, this is still on the order of ~1017-1019/cm3, all well within the claimed range. A PHOSITA may be motivated to look to related art to teach resulting concentrations when an amorphization implant is performed and Adem notes the concentration used is 1012-1017/cm3 (the units of cm2 in ¶25 are understood to be a typo since concentrations are always atoms/cm3). Regardless, the effective concentration is a result effective variable, obvious to optimize and ascertainable through routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Too small of a dose and resulting concentration would not be effective at amorphizing the metal and have little effect, while too high of a concentration would cause undesirable damage and agglomerated or precipitated dopant phases.
Claims 16, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joi et al. (US 2018/0374747).
(Re Claim 16) Joi teaches an interconnect structure, comprising (Figs. 12A-12F and supporting text): a dielectric layer (164) on a conductive structure (160+180); and a ruthenium metal structure (¶83: 200, incorrectly labeled 202 in Fig. 12C) extending through the dielectric layer and in contact with the conductive structure, wherein: the ruthenium metal structure is in contact with sidewall surfaces of the dielectric layer; and a portion of the ruthenium metal structure comprises a dopant (discussed below).
In this embodiment, Joi deposits a CuZn layer 202 over the Ru layer 200 in Fig. 12D, and then subsequently performs an anneal to drive Zn into 164 in region 206, see ¶¶93-99. Based on this process, it is obvious and inherent, that at least some of the Zn diffusing through layer 200 into 164 will be incorporated in the Ru layer 200 as well, although not expressly stated. This will flow naturally from the diffusion caused by the annealing.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,450,565. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 17-20 encompass all of the limitations of the claims noted above in the instant application. The only difference being the liner contacting the dielectric, however this would be obvious to a PHOSITA and obvious in view of the limitations recited in claim 17 as this is how well-known diffusion barrier liners are used in conventional ILD layers of interconnect structures and there are no embodiments in the disclosure wherein the liner is used and does not contact the dielectric, claims are interpreted in light of the specification teaching conventional use of a conventional liner that is in contact with, i.e. lining the opening in the ILD layer. Also, see Oates et al. (US 2007/0057305), and Joi et al. (US 2018/0374747), each teaching conventional Ru liners in contact with the ILD layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited art teaches related interconnect structures and dopants in dielectric and metal layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIK T. K. PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 pm (CST).
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/ERIK T. K. PETERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights