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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and species b in the reply filed on 8/3/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-12 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions and species.
Claims 1-10 read on the instant elected invention and therefore are examined on the merits herein.
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, 5, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application 20060128142 by Whelan et al. taken with US Patent Application Publication 20230055960 by Iwashita and US Patent Application Publication 20190326114 by Kachien et al.
Claim 1: Whelan discloses a film forming method, comprising, sequentially performing: preparing a substrate having a first metal film and a first insulating film formed in different regions of a surface of the substrate (Figure 3A-3F and accompanying text, 0056, “said substrate having a first dielectric layer 10 having a first copper structure 4 (also referred to as metal n-1) embedded in said first dielectric layer 10. Onto said first dielectric layer 10, a second dielectric layer 11 is deposited and a dual damascene structure is patterned into said second dielectric 11 layer“);
forming a first self-assembled monolayer on a surface of the first metal film selectively with respect to a surface of the first insulating film (Figure 3B, 0056 “depositing a sacrificial SAM-1 13 onto the existing Cu surface 4”, “selectively depositing a first self-assembled monolayer on the copper surface”);
removing the first self-assembled monolayer (Figure 3D and accompanying text); and forming a second metal film on a surface of a remaining portion of the first metal film and the surface of the first insulating film (Figure 3E-3F and accompanying text),
Whelan discloses the SAM deposition as a barrier layer; however, fails to disclose the claimed first bonding agent as claimed. However, IWASHITA, also in the art of dual damascene formation and gap filling with metal into a recess discloses a SAM barrier layer/bonding film on surface of the first insulating film, wherein the first molecular bonding agent is an organic compound having a first functional group and a second functional group in one molecule, wherein the first functional group is more likely to bond to the first insulating film than the second functional group, and wherein the second functional group is more likely to bond to the second metal film than the first functional group (“intermolecular binder 15 has a functional group configured to be bonded to the metal and a functional group configured to be bonded to the SAM 13 in order to be bonded to both the metal and the SAM 13 at a molecular level.”0041) IWASHITA discloses the binding agent will improve adhesion of metal in the recess. As such, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified Whelan to use the intermolecular binding agent as suggested by IWASHITA to reap the benefits of improving metal adhesion in the recess. As for the organic compound having the first and second ligand, a full reading of the disclosure suggests that the selection of the second ligands to be more likely to bond to the second metal film and the first ligand to more likely bond to the dielectric, insulation and SAM layers on the sidewall would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of the invention to achieve the desired bonding and adhesion between the materials.
As for the requirement of the binding agent onto the SAM on the metal and removing the SAM with the binding agent thereon, Kachien, also in the art of SAM layer for selective deposition (abstract, title) discloses removing the SAM and material deposited thereo to expose the underlying surface (0080) and therefore it would have been obvious to have deposited and removed bonding film on the SAM to provide for additional selective removal.
Claim 2: Whalen discloses removing the SAM by heating (0013).
Claim 3: Whalen discloses the films remain on the sidewall dielectric (0013) and therefore meets this claim requirement (as the heating temperature does not remove the film).
Claim 5: Whalen discloses thiol (0033, 0047).
Claim 7: Whalen discloses the substrate has a recess on the surface of the substrate, wherein a bottom surface of the recess includes the surface of the first metal film, and wherein a side surface of the recess includes the surface of the first insulating film. (see e.g. Figure 3A-3F)
Claim 8: IWASHITA discloses silanol group (“silanol-based organic film may be used.” And “may be a functional group that produces silanol by reaction with water (including moisture), and examples thereof may include an alkoxy group”, see 0085-0086). A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 9: IWASHITA discloses amine/epoxy group (0086 “ Examples of the functional group that reacts with and is bonded to the organic material may include a vinyl group, an epoxy group, an amino group, a methacryl group and a mercapto group”). A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 10: IWASHITA discloses a triazine as claimed “compound which has these functional groups, a triazine derivative” (see also Figure 10). A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whelan et al. taken with Iwashita and Kachien and further with US Patent 10867850 by Lee et al.
Whelan et al. taken with Iwashita and Kachien discloses all that is taught above and discloses removing the SAM covering the metal, such as by heating; however, fails to disclose using acetic acid. However, Lee, also in the art of selective deposition using SAM and discloses using acetic acid to remove the SAM (“When the blocking layer 140 of the phosphonic acid compound (e.g. ODPA) is formed on the metal portion 110, the blocking layer 140 may be removed by applying acetic acid over the blocking layer 140 and the dielectric layer 150, as shown in FIG. 1J. Alternatively, when the blocking layer 140 of the thiol compound is formed on the metal portion 110, the blocking layer 140 may be removed by heating”, column 7, lines 35-45). As such, Lee discloses a known alternative to heating includes acetic acid for removal of the SAM and therefore taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have used the known method of removal of the SAM used for blocking and selective deposition.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whelan et al. taken with Iwashita and Kachien and further with US Patent Application Publication 20230064448 by Lee et al, hereinafter USPP 448.
Whelan et al. taken with Iwashita and Kachien discloses all that is taught above; however, fails to disclose Ru. However, USPP 448 also in the art of dual damascene discloses that the conductive materials in can be e.g. copper as taught by Whelan or ruthenium (0018, “ the conductive structure 43 may be a metal interconnect line, and may be made of copper (Cu), cobalt (Co), tungsten (W), ruthenium (Ru), molybdenum (Mo), aluminum (Al), or the like.”). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Ruthenium as such is a known alternative to copper for conductive features. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights