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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 07/27/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains information already present in the title. The title states “An interconnect structure and methods of forming the same are described”. This information is already present in the title and should not be in the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim 9 – 14 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.
The term “substantially greater than” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially greater than” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim does not make clear to what degree the first thickness is greater than the second thickness and what degree the second thickness is greater than the third thickness, as the term “substantially greater than” does not provide a percentage, amount, range, or other indicator that details the degree the first, second, and third thicknesses are different from each other. The specification does not appear to provide measurements or ranges for the different in thicknesses in regard to the term “substantially greater than”.
Claim 9 also states “…wherein the first thickness is substantially greater than the second thickness, which is substantially greater than the third thickness”. It is unclear if the term “which is” is referring to the first thickness or the second thickness in claim 9, as both the first thickness and second thickness are referred to in the claim, but no clear indication is provided stating which thickness is substantially greater than the third thickness. The term “which is” leaves open either the first or second thickness being compared to the third thickness, which allows two different interpretations to be possible.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 9 is being interpreted as states “An interconnect structure, comprising: a first dielectric layer; one or more first conductive features disposed in the first dielectric layer; and a carbon-containing layer disposed between each of the one or more first conductive features and the first dielectric layer, wherein the carbon-containing layer comprises a slant portion and a horizontal portion connected to the slant portion, wherein the slant portion has a first thickness at a top of the slant portion and a second thickness at a bottom of the slant portion, wherein the horizontal portion has a third thickness”. This interpretation removes the relative term “substantially” and removes the comparison uncertainty between the first, second, and third thicknesses.
Claims 10 – 14 depend on claim 9 and inherit all of its deficiencies. Claims 10 – 14 are rejected as being indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20200243383 A1 hereinafter Huang.
For claim 9, Huang teaches “An interconnect structure (fig. 17), comprising: a first dielectric layer (fig. 17 numeral 102); one or more first conductive features disposed in the first dielectric layer (fig. 17 numeral 1502); and a carbon-containing layer disposed between each of the one or more first conductive features and the first dielectric layer (fig. 17 numeral 1102), wherein the carbon-containing layer comprises a slant portion and a horizontal portion connected to the slant portion (fig. 17 shows the carbon-containing layer 1102 having a two slant portions and a horizontal portion connecting the slant portions), wherein the slant portion has a first thickness at a top of the slant portion and a second thickness at a bottom of the slant portion (fig. 17 shows the slant portion of carbon-containing layer 1102 having a upper thickness and a lower thickness), wherein the horizontal portion has a third thickness (fig. 17 shows horizontal portion of the carbon-containing layer 1102 having a third thickness).”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 15 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160056384 A1 hereinafter Barth in further view of US 20150249034 A1 hereinafter Kondo.
For claim 1, Barth teaches an interconnect structure (Barth, fig. 10) comprising a first dielectric layer (fig. 10 numeral 634); one or more first conductive features disposed in the first dielectric layer (fig. 10 numeral 220), wherein the one or more first conductive features comprise a first metal (Par. [0046]); and a plurality of graphene layers disposed on each of the one or more first conductive features (fig. 10 numeral 222), wherein the graphene layers comprise a second metal that is different from the first metal (Par. [0051 – 0052]). Barth is silent regarding the second metal being intercalated with the plurality of graphene layers.
Kondo teaches an interconnect structure (Kondo, Par. [0224]) including a plurality of graphene layers (fig. 24 numeral 64), wherein the graphene layers are intercalated with a metal (Par. [0240]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the intercalated graphene layers in Kondo with the interconnect structure in Barth in order to reduce stress on the graphene layers (Kondo, Par. [0242]).
For claim 3, Barth and Kondo teach all of claim 1. Barth also teaches the first metal comprising copper (Barth, Par. [0046]). Kondo teaches the second metal intercalated with the graphene layers includes nickel or cobalt (Kondo, Par. [0333]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention that the first and second metals used in Barth and Kondo would include the first metal comprises copper and the second metal comprises nickel, cobalt, tungsten, molybdenum, or ruthenium; as Barth and Kondo teaches the use of the at least two different metals and as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
For claim 15, Barth teaches an interconnect structure (Barth, fig. 10) comprising a first dielectric layer (fig. 10 numeral 634), a first conductive feature disposed in the first dielectric layer (fig. 10 numeral 220), wherein the first conductive feature comprises a metal, and the metal comprises Ni, Co, W, Mo, or Ru (Par. [0046]); and a layer (fig. 10 numeral 218) disposed between and in contact with the first dielectric layer and the first conductive feature, wherein the layer comprises the metal (Par. [0044]). Barth is silent regarding the layer containing carbon.
Kondo teaches an interconnect structure (Kondo, Par. [0224]) including a plurality of carbon layers (fig. 26A numeral 64), wherein the carbon layers are intercalated with a metal (Par. [0240]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the carbon layers in Kondo with the layer disposed between and in contact with the first dielectric layer and the first conductive feature in Barth in order to minimize stress the layer experiences (Kondo, Par. [0242]). Barth also teaches the layer may be made of other suitable materials (Barth, Par. [0043]) and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
For claim 16, Barth and Kondo teach all of claim 15. Barth also teaches an etch stop layer disposed on the first dielectric layer, the first conductive feature, and the carbon-containing layer (Barth, fig. 10 numeral 632).
For claim 17, Barth and Kondo teach all of claim 16. Barth also teaches a second dielectric layer disposed on the etch stop layer (Barth, fig. 10 numeral 634).
For claim 18, Barth and Kondo teach all of claim 17. Barth also teaches a second conductive feature disposed in the second dielectric layer, wherein the second conductive feature is disposed over the first conductive feature (Barth, fig. 10 numeral 220).
For claim 19, Barth and Kondo teach all of claim 18. Barth also teaches a metal layer disposed on the first conductive feature and the carbon-containing layer (Barth, fig. 10 numeral 218; Par. [0043]).
For claim 20, Barth and Kondo teach all of claim 19. Barth also teaches the metal layer comprises Co, Cu, Ni, Ru, W, Mo, Ti, Zr, Ta, or Zn (Barth, Par. [0043]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160056384 A1 hereinafter Barth in view of US 20150249034 A1 hereinafter Kondo in further view of US 20200243383 A1 hereinafter Huang.
For claim 2, Barth and Kondo teach all of claim 1. Barth also teaches a barrier layer disposed between the first conductive feature and the dielectric layer (Barth, fig. 10 numeral 218). Barth and Kondo are silent regarding a liner disposed between each of the one or more first conductive features and the first dielectric layer and a barrier layer disposed between the first dielectric layer and the liner.
Huang teaches a conductive feature (Huang, fig. 17 numeral 1502) in a dielectric layer (fig. 17 numeral 102) with a liner disposed between the conductive feature and the first dielectric layer (fig. 17 numeral 502) and a barrier layer disposed between the first dielectric layer and the liner (fig. 17 numeral 1102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the liner and barrier layer in Huang with the conductive feature in Barth and Kondo, in order to prevent diffusion of metal ions through the device (Huang, Par. [0040]).
Claim(s) 4, and 6 - 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160056384 A1 hereinafter Barth in view of US 20150249034 A1 hereinafter Kondo in further view of US 20210082832 A1 hereinafter Yang.
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
For claim 4, Barth and Kondo teach all of claim 1. Barth and Kondo are silent regarding a metal layer being disposed on the plurality of graphene layers.
Yang teaches an interconnect structure (Yang, fig. 6J) including a conductive feature (fig. 6J numeral 214) with a plurality of graphene layers on the conductive feature (fig. 6J numeral 220) and a metal layer formed on the graphene layers (fig. 6J numeral 218).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the metal layer in Yang with the graphene layers in Barth and Kondo in order to improve device reliability and improve electron migration (Yang, Par. [0031]).
For claim 6, Barth, Kondo, and Yang teach all of claim 4. Yang also teaches an etch stop layer disposed on the first dielectric layer and the metal layer (Yang, fig. 6J numeral 222); a second dielectric layer disposed on the etch stop layer (fig. 6J numeral 226); and a second conductive feature disposed in the second dielectric layer, wherein the second conductive feature is disposed over at least one of the one or more first conductive features (fig. 6J numeral 232).
For claim 7, Barth, Kondo, and Yang teach all of claim 6. Yang also teaches the second conductive feature is disposed through the metal layer (Yang, fig. 6J numeral 232).
For claim 8, Barth, Kondo, and Yang teach all of claim 7. Yang also teaches the second conductive feature is disposed through the plurality of graphene layers (Yang, fig. 6J numeral 232 goes into graphene layers 220). Barth also teaches the second conductive feature (Barth, fig. 10 numeral 220) going through the plurality of graphene layers (fig. 10 numeral 222).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160056384 A1 hereinafter Barth in view of US 20150249034 A1 hereinafter Kondo in view of US 20210082832 A1 hereinafter Yang and in further view of US 20200328152 A1 hereinafter Cheng.
For claim 5, Barth, Kondo, and Yang teach all of claim 4. Barth, Kondo, and Yang are silent regarding the metal layer including carbon.
Cheng teaches an interconnect structure (Cheng, fig. 7) comprising a conductive feature (fig. 7 numeral 208) and a metal layer disposed on the conductive feature (fig. 7 numeral 210) and the metal layer includes carbon (Par. [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the carbon containing metal layer in Cheng with the graphene layers and metal layer in Barth, Kondo, and Yang in order to ensure good adhesion between layers (Cheng, Par. [0017]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200243383 A1 hereinafter Huang in further view of US 20140145332 A1 hereinafter Ryan.
For claim 10, Huang teaches all of claim 9. Huang also teaches a liner in contact with each of the one or more first conductive features and the liner is between the carbon-containing layer and the first conductive features (Huang, fig. 12 numeral 502). Huang is silent regarding a barrier layer disposed between the first dielectric layer and the carbon-containing layer.
Ryan teaches an interconnect structure (Ryan, fig. 3) including a conductive feature (fig. 3 numeral 20), a carbon-containing layer (fig. 3 numeral 26B), and a barrier layer (fig. 3 numeral 24) disposed between the carbon-containing layer and a dielectric layer (fig. 3 numeral 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the barrier layer in Ryan with the liner and carbon-containing layer in Huang in order to improve the device’s electromigration resistance (Ryan, Par. [0027]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200243383 A1 hereinafter Huang in view of US 20140145332 A1 hereinafter Ryan and in further view of US 20150249034 A1 hereinafter Kondo.
For claim 11, Huang and Ryan teach all of claim 10. Huang also teaches the carbon-containing layer comprises a plurality of graphene layers (Huang, Par. [0058]). Huang and Ryan is silent regarding the graphene layers being intercalated with two different metals.
Kondo teaches a plurality of graphene layers (Kondo, fig. 24 numeral 64; fig. 26A numeral 64) that are intercalated with multiple metals (Par. [0265] and Par. [0324 – 0327]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the intercalated graphene layers in Kondo with the interconnect structure in Huang and Ryan in order to reduce stress on the graphene layers (Kondo, Par. [0242]).
Claim(s) 12 - 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200243383 A1 hereinafter Huang in further view of US 20160056384 A1 hereinafter Barth.
For claim 12, Huang teaches all of claim 9. Huang also teaches a second dielectric layer formed over the first dielectric layer and the one or more first conductive features (Huang, fig. 17 numeral 1704). Huang is silent regarding an etch stop layer disposed on the first dielectric layer and over the one or more first conductive features and a second conductive feature disposed in the second dielectric layer, wherein the second conductive feature is disposed over at least one of the one or more first conductive features.
Barth teaches an interconnect structure (Barth, fig. 10) with a conductive feature (fig. 10 numeral 220), an etch stop layer (fig. 10 numeral 632) disposed on a first dielectric layer (fig. 10 numeral 634) and over the one or more first conductive features; a second dielectric layer disposed over on the etch stop layer (fig. 10 numeral 634); and a second conductive feature disposed in the second dielectric layer, wherein the second conductive feature is disposed over at least one of the one or more first conductive features (fig. 10 numeral 220).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate art to combine the etch stop layer and second conductive feature in Barth with the conductive feature and graphene layers in Huang in order to provide better uniformity of the graphene layers in the device (Barth, Par. [0048]), to protect layers during etching and other manufacturing processes (Barth, Par. [0071]), and to minimize resistance in the device while creating multiple interfaces in the device (Barth, Par. [0078]).
For claim 13, Huang and Barth teach all of claim 12. Barth also teaches the second conductive feature is in contact with the at least one of the one or more first conductive features (Barth, fig. 10 shows both conductive features 220 in contact with each other).
For claim 14, Huang and Barth teach all of claim 12. Barth also teaches a metal layer disposed between the etch stop layer and the one or more first conductive features, and the second conductive feature is in contact with the metal layer (Barth, fig. 10 numeral 218; Par. [0043]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/J.T.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights