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 .
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 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tapily et al (US 2018/0301335).
With respect to Claim 1, Tapily et al discloses a method for forming an interconnect structure (Figure 1), the method comprising: preparing a substrate (Figure 2C, 220) including a first metal layer (Figure 2C, 208) and a first insulating layer (Figure 2C, 202); selectively forming a carbon layer (Figure 2D, 210) on the first metal layer (Figure 2C, 208), the carbon layer having an sp2 bonding structure (paragraph 16, graphene, which inherently has sp2 bonding structure); selectively forming a second insulating layer (Figure 2E, 212) on the first insulating layer (Figure 2E, 202) . Moreover, Tapily discloses forming another insulating layer (paragraph 25, repeated deposition of dielectric layer 212) to cover the second insulating layer; and forming another metal layer (Figure 3A, 222, paragraph 28) electrically connected to the first metal layer (Figure 3A, 208, paragraph 28). See Figures 2C-3B and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 17-28. Furthermore, Tapily et al disclose optionally removing the graphene layer (Figures 2F and 2G) and repeating the processing steps described in Figures 2D-2G (paragraphs 29-31), forming a third insulating layer (Figure 3B, 224) after totally removing the carbon layer ( Figure 2F-2G, 210) , the third insulating layer (Figure 3B, 224) covering the second insulating layer (Figure 3B, 212), the third insulating layer including an opening over the first metal layer (Figure 3B, 208). See paragraphs 29-31. Furthermore, the deposition of the second metal layer on the first metal layer would provide an electrical connection. See Figures 2-3 and corresponding text of Tapily et al.
Tapily et al differs from the present Claims in that it does not explicitly exemplify the limitations in one embodiment.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to perform the optional steps of repeating the processing steps described in Figures 2D-2G (paragraphs 29-31), and arrive at the presently claimed limitations. The performance of known optional steps, for their known benefit of forming another layer of metal in the interconnect, would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the present step sequence would have been prima facie obvious as selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See In re Burhans, 154 F 2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946).
With respect to Claim 2, Tapily et al discloses wherein the first metal layer comprises one of Ni or Cu. See paragraph 14.
With respect to Claim 3, and the limitation “the carbon layer is selectively formed on the first metal due to a reactivity difference between the first metal layer and the first insulating layer”, Tapily et al disclose selective deposition. The deposition would inherently be selective due to reactivity differences.
With respect to Claim 7, the limitation “wherein the carbon layer includes intrinsic graphene or nanocrystalline graphene”, is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as the same materials and reaction conditions are disclosed by the prior art references.
With respect to Claim 8, the limitation “wherein the nanocrystalline graphene includes crystals having sizes of about 0.5 nm to about 100 nm”, is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as the same materials and reaction conditions are disclosed by the prior art references.
With respect to Claim 9, the limitation “wherein a ratio of carbon having an sp2 bonding structure with respect to total carbon is about 50% to about 99% in the nanocrystalline graphene”, is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as the same materials and reaction conditions are disclosed by the prior art references.
With respect to Claim 10, the limitation “wherein the carbon layer has a contact angle of about 60 to about 110 degrees”, is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as the same materials and reaction conditions are disclosed by the prior art references.
With respect to Claim 11, Tapily et al discloses further comprising performing a surface treatment on the carbon layer after the selectively forming the carbon layer. See paragraph 26.
With respect to Claim 12, with respect to the limitation “wherein the selectively forming the second insulating layer includes forming the second insulating layer on the first insulating layer on the first insulating layer due to a difference in surface energy between the first insulating layer and the carbon layer”, Tapily et al disclose selective deposition in paragraph 25. Moreover, the deposition would inherently be selective due to reactivity differences.
Claims 4-6 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tapily et al (US 2018/0301335) as applied to claims 1-3 and 7-12 above, and further in view of Zhou (EP 3264458).
Tapily et al is relied upon as discussed above.
However, Zhou does not disclose the formation of a barrier layer, the methods used to form the layers, and the second metal directly on and overlying the third insulating layer and electrically connected to the first metal layer as required by the Claims at hand.
Zhou also pertains to the formation of interconnects and discloses the use of barrier layers (Figure 3A, 240) , the use of PECVD processes to form the different layers, and the formation of an upper metal layer comprising a via and a line (Figure 3K, 303 and 304) on top of a bottom metal via (Figure 3K, 230) . See Figure 3A and 3K, and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 76-97.
With respect to Claim 4, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use a barrier layer in the interconnect of Tapily et al, for its known benefit in the art of preventing contamination as disclosed by Zhou. As both references pertain to the formation of interconnect structures, the use of a known component, barrier layers, for their known benefit, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 5, Tapily et al disclose wherein the selectively forming the carbon layer includes selectively forming the carbon layer to cover the first metal layer or selectively forming the carbon layer to cover the first metal layer and the barrier layer. See Figure 2D of Tapily et al.
With respect to Claim 6, Zhou disclose wherein selectively forming the carbon layer includes depositing the carbon layer on the first metal layer through a deposition process using chemical vapor deposition (CVD) or plasma-enhanced CVD (PECVD). See paragraphs 46-50.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use known methods in the art as disclosed by Zhou, to form the layers of the interconnect as disclosed by Tapily et al. The use of a known process for its known benefit would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 13, Zhou disclose wherein selectively forming the carbon layer includes depositing the carbon layer on the first metal layer through a deposition process using chemical vapor deposition (CVD) or plasma-enhanced CVD (PECVD). See paragraphs 46-50.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use known methods in the art as disclosed by Zhou, to form the layers of the interconnect as disclosed by Tapily. The use of a known process for its known benefit would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected for the reasons as discussed above with respect to Claim 1. Moreover, with respect to Claim 14, and the limitation “the second metal directly on and overlying the third insulating layer and electrically connected to the first metal layer”, Zhou et al disclose the formation of an upper metal layer comprising a via and a line (Figure 3K, 303 and 304) on top of a bottom metal via (Figure 3K, 230) . See Figure 3A and 3K, and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 76-97.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to form an upper metallization layer comprising a via and line, over the via of Tapily et al, for its known benefit of providing an electrical connection through the line as disclosed by Zhou, and thereby arrive at the claimed limitations of Claim 14.
With respect to Claim 15, Tapily et al discloses wherein the first metal layer comprises one of Ni or Cu. See paragraph 14.
With respect to Claim 16, the limitation “wherein the carbon layer includes intrinsic graphene or nanocrystalline graphene”, is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as the same materials and reaction conditions are disclosed by the prior art references.
With respect to Claim 17, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use a barrier layer in the interconnect of Tapily et al, for its known benefit in the art of preventing contamination as disclosed by Zhou. As both references pertain to the formation of interconnect structures, the use of a known component, barrier layers, for their known benefit, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 18, and the limitation “the carbon layer is selectively formed on the first metal due to a reactivity difference between the first metal layer and the first insulating layer”, Tapily et al disclose selective deposition. The deposition would inherently be selective due to reactivity differences.
With respect to Claim 19, Tapily et al disclose wherein the selectively forming the carbon layer includes selectively forming the carbon layer to cover the first metal layer or selectively forming the carbon layer to cover the first metal layer and the barrier layer. See Figure 2D of Tapily et al.
With respect to Claim 20, Zhou disclose wherein selectively forming the carbon layer includes depositing the carbon layer on the first metal layer through a deposition process using chemical vapor deposition (CVD) or plasma-enhanced CVD (PECVD). See paragraphs 46-50.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use known methods in the art as disclosed by Zhou, to form the layers of the interconnect as disclosed by Tapily et al. The use of a known process for its known benefit would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
September 8, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights