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 § 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.
Claims 4-5, 12, 14 and 19-20 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.
Claims 4-5, 12, 14 and 19-20 recite the limitation "the conductive metal layer": in claims 4-5 in the first line of the claim, in claim 12 in the last line of the claim, in claim 14 in the third line of the claim, in claim 19 in the last line of the claim and in claim 20 in the third line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the conductive metal layer” as “the conducting metal layer”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 4, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 2, 4, 12 and 19 are device claims and contain product by process limitations which, as explained below, do not carry patentable weight in the claim. In examining the claim limitations that are not product by process limitations, Examiner notes that: structural limitations in claims 2 and 4 do not further limit claims 2 and 4 over the structural limitations of claim 1, structural limitations in claim 12 do not further limit claim 12 over the structural limitations of claim 11, and structural limitations in claim 19 do not further limit claim 19 over the structural limitations of claim 18. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iucolano et al. (IT 201900019980 A1, hereinafter Iucolano ‘980) in view of the following arguments.
PNG
media_image1.png
550
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 1 Iucolano ‘980 discloses an electrode structure for a device (Fig 1-3H), comprising:
a substrate (6, Fig 1, Para [17]) comprising a gallium nitride material layer (Para [17] discloses 6 comprising AlGaN, hereinafter GaNML);
an insulating layer (7, Fig 2, Para [17]) formed on (Note, the term “formed on” is a product by process limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that the product by process limitation “formed on” would have imparted the structural characteristic of the barrier layer being on the surface region of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to assume that the prior art was using this technique, absent a teaching to the contrary. For these reasons, it would have been reasonable for on of ordinary skill in the art to assume that he structural characteristics of the prior art and the claimed invention are indistinguishable. MPEP 2113(II)) the substrate (5), the insulating layer (7) comprising an opening (opening of insulating layer 7 shown in Fig 2, hereinafter OPEN) that exposes a surface region (top of substrate 6 as shown in Fig 2, hereinafter SR) of the gallium nitride material layer (GaNML) through the opening (OPEN);
a barrier metal layer (22, Fig 2, Para [29]) on the surface region (SR) of the gallium nitride material layer (GaNML); and
a conducting metal layer (24, Fig 2, Para [29]) on the barrier metal layer (22).
Iucolano ‘980 fails to expressly disclose a barrier metal layer on a region of the insulating layer.
However, in an embodiment Iucolano ‘980 discloses a barrier metal layer (22) on a region (left and right side of 7 as shown in Fig 2) of the insulating layer (7)(Para [30] teaches the Ni layer 20, shown in Fig 2, can be omitted in the case of using Tungsten Nitride for the protection layer 22, Para [29] discloses 22 as WN).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Iucolano ‘980’s teaching of a barrier metal layer on a region of the insulating layer into Iucolano ‘980’s device. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Iucolano ‘980 in the manner set forth above, at least, Iucolano ‘980 teaches in Para [30}, ”The Ni layer 20 can be omitted in the case of using Tungsten Nitride for the protection layer 22, since the latter is able to form a good Schottky contact with the AlGaN of the barrier layer 6”. Using the teaching of the embodiment omitting the Ni Layer would be motivating to a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivating as simplifies the device eliminating process steps and materials. Further, as incorporated, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the elimination of the Ni layer 22 would result in barrier metal layer 22 being in direct contact with layer 6 so that the sides of the insulation layer 7 would be in contact with the barrier metal layer.
With respect to Claim 2 Iucolano ‘980 discloses all limitations of the electrode structure according to claim 1, and Iucolano ‘980 further discloses wherein the barrier metal layer (22) is deposited on (Note, the term “deposited on” is a product by process limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that the product by process limitation “deposited on” would have imparted the structural characteristic of the barrier layer being on the surface region of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to assume that the prior art was using this technique, absent a teaching to the contrary. For these reasons, it would have been reasonable for on of ordinary skill in the art to assume that he structural characteristics of the prior art and the claimed invention are indistinguishable. MPEP 2113(II)) the surface region (SR) of the substrate (6) using atomic layer deposition (Note, the term “using atomic layer deposition” is a product by process limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that the product by process limitation “using atomic layer deposition” would have imparted the structural characteristic of the barrier layer being on the surface region of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to assume that the prior art was using this technique, absent a teaching to the contrary. For these reasons, it would have been reasonable for on of ordinary skill in the art to assume that he structural characteristics of the prior art and the claimed invention are indistinguishable. MPEP 2113(II)).
With respect to Claim 3 Iucolano ‘980 discloses all limitations of the electrode structure according to claim 1, and Iucolano ‘980 further discloses wherein the barrier metal layer (22) comprises tungsten nitride (Para [29] discloses 22 as WN).
With respect to Claim 4 Iucolano ‘980 discloses all limitations of the electrode structure according to claim 1, and Iucolano ‘980 further discloses wherein the conductive metal layer (Note Examiner’s above interpretation of “the conductive metal layer” as “the conducting metal layer”) (24) is deposited over (Note, the term “deposited over” is a product by process limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that the product by process limitation “deposited over” would have imparted the structural characteristic of the barrier layer being on the surface region of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to assume that the prior art was using this technique, absent a teaching to the contrary. For these reasons, it would have been reasonable for on of ordinary skill in the art to assume that he structural characteristics of the prior art and the claimed invention are indistinguishable. MPEP 2113(II)) the barrier metal layer (22) using sputtering (Note, the term “using sputtering” is a product by process limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that the product by process limitation “using sputtering” would have imparted the structural characteristic of the barrier layer being on the surface region of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to assume that the prior art was using this technique, absent a teaching to the contrary. For these reasons, it would have been reasonable for on of ordinary skill in the art to assume that he structural characteristics of the prior art and the claimed invention are indistinguishable. MPEP 2113(II)).
With respect to Claim 5 Iucolano ‘980 discloses all limitations of the electrode structure according to claim 1, and Iucolano ‘980 discloses further wherein the conductive metal layer (24) (Note Examiner’s above interpretation of “the conductive metal layer” as “the conducting metal layer”) comprises aluminum (Para [29] discloses 24 as Al).
With respect to Claim 6 Iucolano ‘980 discloses all limitations of the electrode structure according to claim 1, and Iucolano ‘980 discloses further comprising a cap metal layer (26, Fig 2, Para [33]) on the conducting metal layer (24).
With respect to Claim 7 Iucolano ‘980 discloses all limitations of the electrode structure according to claim 6, and Iucolano ‘980 further discloses wherein the cap metal layer (26) comprises at least one of titanium nitride, tungsten, and tungsten nitride (Para [33] discloses cap metal layer as TiN).
With respect to Claim 8 Iucolano ‘980 discloses all limitations of the electrode structure according to claim 1, and Iucolano ‘908 discloses further wherein the gallium nitride material layer (GaNML) comprises a layer of gallium nitride, a layer of aluminum gallium nitride, or a combination of layers of gallium nitride and aluminum gallium nitride (Para [17] discloses GaNML comprising aluminum gallium nitride).
With respect to Claim 9 Iucolano ‘980 discloses all limitations of the electrode structure according to claim 1, and Iucolano ‘980 discloses further comprising:
a cap metal layer (26, Fig 2, Para [33]) on the conducting metal layer (24); and
a cap etch photoresist layer (38, fig 3H, Para [56]) over the cap metal layer (24), the cap etch photoresist layer (38) having a width (annotated Fig 3H of Iucolano ‘980 discloses cap etch photoresist layer 38 has a width).
With respect to Claim 10 Iucolano ‘980 discloses all limitations of the electrode structure according to claim 9, and Iucolano ‘980 further discloses wherein the cap metal layer (26), the conducting metal layer (24), and the barrier metal layer (22) are etched down(Note, the term “etched down” is a product by process limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that the product by process limitation “etched down” would have imparted the structural characteristic of the barrier layer being on the surface region of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to assume that the prior art was using this technique, absent a teaching to the contrary. For these reasons, it would have been reasonable for on of ordinary skill in the art to assume that he structural characteristics of the prior art and the claimed invention are indistinguishable. MPEP 2113(II)) to the insulating layer (7) over an area outside the width (annotated Fig 3H of Iucolano ‘980 discloses 26, 24 and 22 over an area outside the width of 38) of the cap etch photoresist layer (38).
With respect to Claim 11 Iucolano ‘980 discloses an electrode structure for a device Fig 1-3H), comprising:
a substrate (6, Fig 1, Para [17]) comprising a gallium nitride material layer (Para [17] discloses 6 comprising AlGaN, hereinafter GaNML);
an insulating layer (7, Fig 2, Para [17]) formed on (Note, the term “formed on” is a product by process limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that the product by process limitation “formed on” would have imparted the structural characteristic of the barrier layer being on the surface region of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to assume that the prior art was using this technique, absent a teaching to the contrary. For these reasons, it would have been reasonable for on of ordinary skill in the art to assume that he structural characteristics of the prior art and the claimed invention are indistinguishable. MPEP 2113(II)) the substrate (5), the insulating layer (7) comprising an opening (opening of insulating layer 7 shown in Fig 2, hereinafter OPEN) that exposes a surface region (top of substrate 6 as shown in Fig 2, hereinafter SR) of the gallium nitride material layer (GaNML) through the opening (OPEN);
a barrier metal layer (22, Fig 2, Para [29]) on the surface region (SR) of the gallium nitride material layer (GaNML), and
a conducting metal layer (24, Fig 2, Para [29]) on the barrier metal layer (22).
Iucolano ‘980 fails to expressly disclose a barrier metal layer on a region of the insulating layer.
However, in an embodiment Iucolano ‘980 discloses a barrier metal layer (22) on a region (left and right side of 7 as shown in Fig 2) of the insulating layer (7)(Para [30] teaches the Ni layer 20, shown in Fig 2, can be omitted in the case of using Tungsten Nitride for the protection layer 22, Para [29] discloses 22 as WN).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Iucolano ‘980’s teaching of a barrier metal layer on a region of the insulating layer into Iucolano ‘980’s device. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Iucolano ‘980 in the manner set forth above, at least, Iucolano ‘980 teaches in Para [30}, ”The Ni layer 20 can be omitted in the case of using Tungsten Nitride for the protection layer 22, since the latter is able to form a good Schottky contact with the AlGaN of the barrier layer 6”. Using the teaching of the embodiment omitting the Ni Layer would be motivating to a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivating as simplifies the device eliminating process steps and materials. Further, an incorporated, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the elimination of the Ni layer 22 would result in barrier metal layer 22 being in direct contact with layer 6 so that the sides of the insulation layer 7 would be in contact with the barrier metal layer.
Iucolano ‘980 fails to expressly disclose the barrier metal layer comprising a thickness of between 200-500 Å; however, Iucolano ‘980 discloses the barrier metal layer (22) comprising a thickness between 200-1000Å (Para [31] discloses 22 as between 20nm and 100nm which overlaps the range of the instant application).
Further, the examiner notes that in the applicants disclosure teaches wherein the recited thickness has the advantage of forming the barrier layer without pin holes of other defects (Para [0040] of instant application) to prevent conducting metal layer from reaching the surface (Para [0003] of instant application). Having this in mind, Iucolano ‘980 teaches a thickness to provide properties for diffusion (Para [31] of Iucolan0 ‘980. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the recited limitation through routine optimization, to obtain the well-known advantage of preventing conducting metal layer from reaching the surface. See MPEP§2144.05 (II)(A),(B).
With respect to Claim 12 Iucolano ‘980 discloses all limitations of the electrode structure according to claim 11, and Iucolan0 ‘980 further discloses wherein:
the barrier metal layer (22) is deposited on the surface region (SR) of the substrate (6) using atomic layer deposition (Note, the term “using atomic layer deposition” is a product by process limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that the product by process limitation “using atomic layer deposition” would have imparted the structural characteristic of the barrier layer being on the surface region of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to assume that the prior art was using this technique, absent a teaching to the contrary. For these reasons, it would have been reasonable for on of ordinary skill in the art to assume that he structural characteristics of the prior art and the claimed invention are indistinguishable. MPEP 2113(II)); and
the conductive metal layer (24) (Note Examiner’s above interpretation of “the conductive metal layer” as “the conducting metal layer”) is deposited over (Note, the term “deposited over” is a product by process limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that the product by process limitation “deposited over” would have imparted the structural characteristic of the barrier layer being on the surface region of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to assume that the prior art was using this technique, absent a teaching to the contrary. For these reasons, it would have been reasonable for on of ordinary skill in the art to assume that he structural characteristics of the prior art and the claimed invention are indistinguishable. MPEP 2113(II)) the barrier metal layer (22) using sputtering (Note, the term “using sputtering” is a product by process limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that the product by process limitation “using sputtering” would have imparted the structural characteristic of the barrier layer being on the surface region of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to assume that the prior art was using this technique, absent a teaching to the contrary. For these reasons, it would have been reasonable for on of ordinary skill in the art to assume that he structural characteristics of the prior art and the claimed invention are indistinguishable. MPEP 2113(II)).
With respect to Claim 13 Iucolano ‘980 discloses all limitations of the electrode structure according to claim 11, and Iucolano ‘980 discloses further comprising a cap metal layer (26, Fig 2, Para [33]) on the conducting metal layer (24).
With respect to Claim 14 Iucolano ‘980 discloses all limitations of the electrode structure according to claim 13, and Iucolano ‘980 further discloses wherein:
the barrier metal layer (22) comprises tungsten nitride (Para [29] discloses 22 as WN);
the conductive metal layer (24) (Note Examiner’s above interpretation of “the conductive metal layer” as “the conducting metal layer”) comprises aluminum (Para [29] discloses 24 as Al); and
the cap metal layer (26) comprises at least one of titanium nitride, tungsten, and tungsten nitride (Para [33] discloses cap metal layer as TiN).
With respect to Claim 15 Iucolano ‘980 discloses all limitations of the electrode structure according to claim 11, wherein the gallium nitride material layer (GaNML) comprises a layer of gallium nitride, a layer of aluminum gallium nitride, or a combination of layers of gallium nitride and aluminum gallium nitride (Para [17] discloses GaNML comprising aluminum gallium nitride).
With respect to Claim 16 Iucolano ‘980 discloses all limitations of the electrode structure according to claim 11, and Iucolano ‘980 discloses further comprising:
a cap metal layer (26, Fig 2, Para [33]) on the conducting metal layer (24); and
a cap etch photoresist layer (38, fig 3H, Para [56]) over the cap metal layer (24), the cap etch photoresist layer (38) having a width (annotated Fig 3H of Iucolano ‘980 discloses cap etch photoresist layer 38 has a width).
With respect to Claim 17 Iucolano ‘980 discloses all limitations of the electrode structure according to claim 16, wherein the cap metal layer(26), the conducting metal layer (24), and the barrier metal layer (22) are etched down(Note, the term “etched down” is a product by process limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that the product by process limitation “etched down” would have imparted the structural characteristic of the barrier layer being on the surface region of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to assume that the prior art was using this technique, absent a teaching to the contrary. For these reasons, it would have been reasonable for on of ordinary skill in the art to assume that he structural characteristics of the prior art and the claimed invention are indistinguishable. MPEP 2113(II)) to the insulating layer (7) over an area outside the width (annotated Fig 3H of Iucolano ‘980 discloses 26, 24 and 22 over an area outside the width of 38) of the cap etch photoresist layer (38).
With respect to Claim 18. An electrode structure for a device, comprising:
a substrate (6, Fig 1, Para [17]) comprising a gallium nitride material layer (Para [17] discloses 6 comprising AlGaN, hereinafter GaNML);
an insulating layer (7, Fig 2, Para [17]) formed on (Note, the term “formed on” is a product by process limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that the product by process limitation “formed on” would have imparted the structural characteristic of the barrier layer being on the surface region of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to assume that the prior art was using this technique, absent a teaching to the contrary. For these reasons, it would have been reasonable for on of ordinary skill in the art to assume that he structural characteristics of the prior art and the claimed invention are indistinguishable. MPEP 2113(II)) the substrate (5), the insulating layer (7) comprising an opening (opening of insulating layer 7 shown in Fig 2, hereinafter OPEN) that exposes a surface region (top of substrate 6 as shown in Fig 2, hereinafter SR) of the gallium nitride material layer (GaNML) through the opening (OPEN);
a barrier metal layer (22, Fig 2, Para [29]) on the surface region (SR) of the gallium nitride material layer (GaNML); and
a conducting metal layer (24, Fig 2, Para [29]) on the barrier metal layer (22) ; and
a cap metal layer (26, Fig 2, Para [33]) on the conducting metal layer (24), wherein the cap metal layer(26), the conducting metal layer (24), and the barrier metal layer (22) are etched down (Note, the term “etched down” is a product by process limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that the product by process limitation “etched down” would have imparted the structural characteristic of the barrier layer being on the surface region of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to assume that the prior art was using this technique, absent a teaching to the contrary. For these reasons, it would have been reasonable for on of ordinary skill in the art to assume that he structural characteristics of the prior art and the claimed invention are indistinguishable. MPEP 2113(II)) to the insulating layer (7) over an area (annotated Fig 3H of Iucolano ‘980 discloses 26, 24 and 22 over an area).
Iucolano ‘980 fails to expressly disclose a barrier metal layer on a region of the insulating layer.
However, in an embodiment Iucolano ‘980 discloses a barrier metal layer (22) on a region (left and right side of 7 as shown in Fig 2) of the insulating layer (7)(Para [30] teaches the Ni layer 20, shown in Fig 2, can be omitted in the case of using Tungsten Nitride for the protection layer 22, Para [29] discloses 22 as WN).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Iucolano ‘980’s teaching of a barrier metal layer on a region of the insulating layer into Iucolano ‘980’s device. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Iucolano ‘980 in the manner set forth above, at least, Iucolano ‘980 teaches in Para [30}, ”The Ni layer 20 can be omitted in the case of using Tungsten Nitride for the protection layer 22, since the latter is able to form a good Schottky contact with the AlGaN of the barrier layer 6”. Using the teaching of the embodiment omitting the Ni Layer would be motivating to a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivating as simplifies the device eliminating process steps and materials. Further, an incorporated, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the elimination of the Ni layer 22 would result in barrier metal layer 22 being in direct contact with layer 6 so that the sides of the insulation layer 7 would be in contact with the barrier metal layer.
With respect to Claim 19 Iucolano ‘980 discloses all limitations of the electrode structure according to claim 18, and Iucolano ‘980 further discloses wherein:
the barrier metal layer (22) is deposited on the surface region (SR) of the substrate (6) using atomic layer deposition (Note, the term “using atomic layer deposition” is a product by process limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that the product by process limitation “using atomic layer deposition” would have imparted the structural characteristic of the barrier layer being on the surface region of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to assume that the prior art was using this technique, absent a teaching to the contrary. For these reasons, it would have been reasonable for on of ordinary skill in the art to assume that he structural characteristics of the prior art and the claimed invention are indistinguishable. MPEP 2113(II)); and
the conductive metal layer (24) (Note Examiner’s above interpretation of “the conductive metal layer” as “the conducting metal layer”) is deposited over (Note, the term “deposited over” is a product by process limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that the product by process limitation “deposited over” would have imparted the structural characteristic of the barrier layer being on the surface region of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to assume that the prior art was using this technique, absent a teaching to the contrary. For these reasons, it would have been reasonable for on of ordinary skill in the art to assume that he structural characteristics of the prior art and the claimed invention are indistinguishable. MPEP 2113(II)) the barrier metal layer (22) using sputtering (Note, the term “using sputtering” is a product by process limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that the product by process limitation “using sputtering” would have imparted the structural characteristic of the barrier layer being on the surface region of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to assume that the prior art was using this technique, absent a teaching to the contrary. For these reasons, it would have been reasonable for on of ordinary skill in the art to assume that he structural characteristics of the prior art and the claimed invention are indistinguishable. MPEP 2113(II)).
With respect to Claim 20 Iucolano ‘980 discloses all limitations of the electrode structure according to claim 18, and Iucolano ‘980 further discloses wherein:
the barrier metal layer (22) comprises tungsten nitride (Para [29] discloses 22 as WN);
the conductive metal layer (24) (Note Examiner’s above interpretation of “the conductive metal layer” as “the conducting metal layer”) comprises aluminum (Para [29] discloses 24 as Al); and
the cap metal layer (26) comprises at least one of titanium nitride, tungsten, and tungsten nitride (Para [33] discloses cap metal layer as TiN).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A. BERRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5637. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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.
/PAUL A BERRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights