DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the election filed 6/26/2026.
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (Figure 5) is acknowledged. Applicant identified claims 1-5, 7-16 and 18-20 as being directed towards the elected Species. However, the species represented in FIG. 5 does not the undoped metal portion contacting the first doped dielectric layer, as recited in claim 3. On the contrary, as seen in FIG. 5, undoped metal portion 220 explicitly does not contact first doped dielectric layer 216-1. Rather, this is a feature exclusive to Species III, represented in FIG. 11. Similarly, as it pertains to claim 4, the undoped metal portion contacting the second doped dielectric layer is a feature exclusive to Species III. Thus, claims 3 and 4 are directed to a non-elected invention and are withdrawn from consideration. This also applies to claims 9 and 10, and thus claims 9 and 10 are also withdrawn from consideration. Claim 20 recites that the undoped metal portion does not extend into the first dielectric layer. This is also not a feature of Species III, as FIG. 5 shows the entirety of the undoped portion 220 resides in the first dielectric layer 212. Thus, claim 20 is also withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/31/2024 and 7/10/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2020/0098591).
Pertaining to claim 1, Lin shows, with reference to FIG. 4D(1), a connecting structure, comprising:
a first dielectric layer (432) disposed over a conductive feature (S/D region of transistor 420);
a first doped dielectric layer (432U) disposed over the first dielectric layer;
a second doped dielectric layer (433) disposed over the first doped dielectric layer; and
a metal feature (comprising portions 430 (see FIG. 4D) and 440) disposed in the first dielectric layer, the first doped dielectric layer, and the second doped dielectric layer, wherein the first doped dielectric layer applies a compressive stress (436, 437) to the metal feature, wherein the metal feature contacts the conductive feature, the first doped dielectric layer and the second doped dielectric layer, wherein a top surface of the metal feature and a top surface of the second doped dielectric layer are aligned, wherein the first dielectric layer and the first doped dielectric layer comprise a first dielectric material (para. [0048]), wherein the second doped dielectric layer comprises a second dielectric material different from the first dielectric material (para. [0052], [0062]).
Pertaining to claim 16, Lin shows, with reference to FIG. 4D(1), a connecting structure, comprising:
a first dielectric layer (432) over a conductive feature (S/D region of transistor 420), the first dielectric layer comprising a first dielectric material (para. [0048]);
a first doped dielectric layer (432U) over the first dielectric layer, the first doped dielectric layer comprising the first dielectric material doped with dopants (para. [0048]);
a second doped dielectric layer (433) over the first doped dielectric layer, the second doped dielectric layer comprising a second dielectric material doped with dopants (para. [0052], [0048]), the second dielectric material being different from the first dielectric material (para. [0052]); and
a metal feature (comprising portions 430 (see FIG. 4D) and 440) disposed in the first dielectric layer and the first doped dielectric layer, wherein the first doped dielectric layer and the second doped dielectric layer apply a compressive stress (436, 437) to the metal feature, wherein the metal feature contacts the conductive feature, the first doped dielectric layer and the first dielectric layer, wherein a top surface of the metal feature and a top surface of the second doped dielectric layer are aligned.
Pertaining to claim 5, Lin shows the dopants comprise germanium (Ge), silicon (Si), argon (Ar), xenon (Xe), or nitrogen (N) (para. [0048]).
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 2, 8, 11, 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Engelmann et al. (US 7,183,629).
Pertaining to claims 2 and 18, Lin shows the structures of claims 1 and 16, respectively, as discussed above.
As it pertains to claim 8, Lin shows, with reference to FIG. 4D(1), a connecting structure, comprising:
a first dielectric layer (432) disposed over a first conductive feature (S/D region of transistor 420);
a first doped dielectric layer (432U) disposed over the first dielectric layer;
a second doped dielectric layer (437) disposed over the first doped dielectric layer;
a metal portion (430, see FIG. 4D) disposed in the first dielectric layer; and
another metal portion (440) disposed over the metal portion, wherein the second doped dielectric layer applies a compressive stress (437) to the other metal portion, a top surface of the other metal portion being level with a top surface of the second doped dielectric layer, the first dielectric layer and the first doped dielectric layer comprising a first dielectric material (para. [0048]), wherein the second doped dielectric layer comprises a second dielectric material different from the first dielectric material (para. [0052], [0062]).
Lin fails to show that the other metal portion is doped.
However, Lin does teach that metal portion 440 may be present at the time of the implantation step used to dope the dielectric layer (para. [0049], lines 1-3). Meanwhile, Engelmann teaches in FIG. 1a-b that when a metal structure 103 is embedded in a dielectric layer 102 and an implantation step is performed, portions of both the dielectric layer and the metal structure are doped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try implanting after portion 440 has been formed, thereby leading to the doped metal portion taught by Engelmann, as the court has held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Pertaining to claim 11, Engelmann teaches the doped metal portion contacts the doped portion of the dielectric layer (FIG. 1b).
Pertaining to claim 13, both Lin and Engelmann teach the same dopants are implanted into both the dielectric and metal materials, as discussed previously.
Pertaining to claims 14 and 15, although Lin in view of Engelmann does not explicitly show a dopant concentration between 1E19 and 1E12 atom/cm³, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the concentration to be in this range, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See Engelmann, col. 7, lines 30-39.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Hsieh et al. (US 2019/0157148).
Lin shows the structure of claim 1, but fails to show the metal feature comprises a noble metal material.
However, Hsieh teaches in para. [0049] that, for a similar connecting structure, the metal may be e.g. platinum or ruthenium.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the metal material of Lin for that taught by Hsieh, as the court has held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Furthermore, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Pertaining to claim 12, Lin teaches away from the doped metal portion and the metal portion comprising a same material. See para. [0045], lines 3-6.
Pertaining to claim 19, Engelmann teaches away from the doped metal portion extending through the first doped dielectric layer and the second doped dielectric layer. See col. 9, lines 10-14 and FIG. 1b. Because the depth of the implantation is greater in the dielectric than in the metal, the doped metal could not be said to extend through the doped dielectric layer(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gosset et al. (US 2010/0059889) discloses a connecting structure where the upper regions of both the metal and dielectric layers are doped.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M LUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-1569. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/DANIEL LUKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights