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 of Invention I in the reply filed on July 15, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 0046 of the specification as originally filed recites “such as transition regions 132” when describing Figure 9 of the application. This is incorrect because the “transition regions” of the Figures have reference number “134”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 22-25 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 22 recites “the first region of copper over a trop surface of the second region of copper”. The word “trop” should be “top”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-17 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the claim requires that a second layer of copper is deposited on the first layer of copper which is not disclosed within the specification of the present application as originally filed. According to Paragraph 0042 of the specification of the present application the first layer of copper on the sidewalls is transition region 134 while the second layer of copper which has a higher (111)-orientation of copper than the first layer is represented as nanotwinned regions 132. As shown Figure 5 of the present application the second layer 132 is between the first layer 134 and not on the first layer of copper 134.
Claim 2 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the claim is not fully supported by the specification of the present application as originally filed. Claim 2 requires forming a conductive feature in a recess formed in a dielectric layer however the specification of the present application only discloses forming a conductive feature in a recess using electroplating which is not required by the claim.
Claim 2 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the scope of the claim is not fully supported by the specification of the present application as originally filed. The claim requires that the first layer of copper along the side walls comprised 40% to 97% (111)-oriented copper while the second layer of copper on a bottom surface of the recess comprised at least 97% (111)-oriented copper. However, according to Paragraphs 0041 and 0042 of the specification of the present application as originally filed these two copper layers are only formed when the electroplating solution comprised a first suppressing additive and a second suppressing additive wherein the first additive is a weaker suppressor than the second additive.
Claim 5 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification as originally filed does not have support for the limitation that the bottom surface of the recess is free of the first layer of copper. As show in Figure 5 of the specification recess/opening 118 has the first copper layer 134 on a bottom surface of the recess 118.
Claim 7 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification as originally filed does not have support for the second layer of copper having a roughness of less than 20 micrometers. According to Paragraph 0048 of the specification as originally filed the conductive feature has a top surface roughness of about 20 micrometers or less.
Claim 9 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification as originally filed does not have support for the limitation that a thickness of the second layer of copper is greater than a thickness of the first layer of copper. Nowhere within the specification is there a disclosure regarding the thickness of each copper layer.
Claim 10 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification as originally filed does not provide support for the limitation that the first layer of copper has a smaller average grain size than the second layer of copper. Instead, Paragraph 0062 of the specification as originally filed only discloses that the average grain size of the first nanotwinned copper region is greater than an average grain size of a second nanotwinned copper region.
Claim 11 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification as originally filed does not provide support for the limitation that the second suppressing agent is larger than the first suppressing agent. Instead, Paragraph 0037 of the specification as originally filed discloses that the second additive/suppressing agent has larger molecules than the first additive/suppressing agent. Furthermore, Paragraph 0041 of the specification as originally filed discloses that the first additive has a smaller size than the second additive.
Claim 13 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification as originally filed does not provide support for the limitation that the copper deposited near sidewalls of the opening are lower than copper deposited away from the sidewalls of the opening.
Claim 22 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification of the present application as originally filed does not disclose a method for forming a first conductive feature comprising a first region of copper having a first average copper grain size that is larger than a second average copper grain size of a second region of the conductive feature. Though Paragraph 0062 discloses a device which comprised a first nanotwinned copper region having an average grain size greater than a second nanotwinned copper region the specification does not provide adequate support for the method limitation of claim 22.
Claim 25 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification of the present application as originally filed does not provide support for a second region of copper being substantially comprised of (111)-oriented copper grain while having an average copper grain size than that of a first region of copper which also substantially comprises (111)-oriented copper grain.
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.
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 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberst et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0212773) in view of Roeger-Goepfert et al (U.S. Patent # 9,869,029).
In the case of claim 11, Oberst teaches a method for filling an opening/recess in a dielectric layer with nanotwinned copper (Abstract). The method for Oberst comprised forming an opening/recess 212 in a dielectric layer 206 formed by forming a conformal seed layer 210 over the dielectric layer 206 and in the recess 212 (Pages 5-6 Paragraphs 0052-0053 and Figure 2A). Oberst further teaches having deposited nanotwinned/(111)-oriented copper over the dielectric layer 206 and in the opening/recess 212 by electroplating using a solution comprised of a suppressor/suppressing agent and a leveling agent/leveler (Page 6 Paragraph s0054-0055 and Figure 2B). Oberst further teaches that the leveling agent/leveler was organic (Page 7 Paragraph 0058).
Though Oberst taught that the electroplating solution comprised suppressing agents (Page 6 Paragraph 0056) Oberst does not teach that the solution comprised a first suppressing agent comprising at least one metal-coordinating functional group and a second suppressing agent that was larger than the first suppressing agent.
Roeger-Goepfert teaches a method for electroplating copper into the openings of a substrate using a solution comprising a suppressing agent in the form of a polyoxyalkylated polyalcohol condensate which provided a substantially defect free fill of the openings (Abstract, Column 1 Line 58 through Column 2 Line 12 and Column 2 Lines 51-61). Roeger-Goepfert further teaches that the condensate was used with additional suppressors which comprised metal-coordinating functional groups such as amine and with levelers (Column 8 Line 64 through Column 9 Line 30). Furthermore, Roeger-Goepfert teaches that the condensate suppressor caused the growth rate of copper at the sidewalls to be smaller than at the bottom of the recess (Column 2 Lines 51-61).
Based on the teachings of Roeger-Goepfert, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the condensate suppressing agent and additional suppressing agent of Roeger-Goepfert as suppressing agents in the electroplating solution of Oberst because the suppressing agents of Roeger-Goepfert allowed for defect free filling of openings in substrate being electroplated.
Furthermore, the condensate suppressing agent of Oberst in view of Roeger-Goepfert can be considered the second suppressing agent and the additional suppressing agent can be considered the first suppressing agent because the condensate suppressing agent had a molecular weight of 4000 to 8000 g/mol (Column 5 Lines 48-53) while the additional suppressing agent had a molecular weight had a smaller molecular weight of 2000 g/mol (Column 9 Lines 6-10).
As for claim 12, as was discussed previously, the second/condensate suppressing agent was a polyoxyalkylated polyalcohol condensate and therefore a polymer.
As for claims 13 and 14, as was discussed previously, the suppressing agents of Roeger-Goepfert allowed for bottom-up deposition and suppressed sidewall growth of the copper during electroplating (Column 2 Lines 51-61) and therefore copper deposited at a lesser rate near the sidewalls than away from the sidewalls and deposited on the bottom surface of the opening before over the dielectric layer.
As for claim 15, the second/condensate suppressing agent has a molecular weight twice that of the first/additional suppressing agent.
As for claim 16, Oberst teaches that the nanotwinned copper had a (111)-oriented copper grain (Page 5 Paragraphs 0047-0048).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberst et al in view of Roeger-Goepfert et al as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Li et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0059665).
The teachings of Oberst in view of Roeger-Goepfert as they apply to claim 11 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 3, neither reference teaches that the additive was a gelatin.
Li teaches a method a method for electroplating copper onto a substrate (Abstract and Pages 2-3 Paragraphs 0026-0030) wherein the solution for plating comprised a suppressing agent in the form of an inhibitor (Page 3 Paragraph 0032). Li further teaches that the inhibitor comprised gelatin (Page 2 Paragraph 0012).
Based on the teachings of Li, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the first additive of Oberst in view of Roeger-Goepfert as a gelatin because this was a known suppressing agent form in the art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 and 21-25 of copending Application No. 18/415,770 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim substantially the same method of depositing by electroplating copper in a recess of a dielectric layer wherein the copper comprised a first region and a second region where the first regio had a larger amount of (111)-oriented grains.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 22-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 and 21-25 of copending Application No. 18/415,770 in view of Oberst. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim substantially the same method of depositing by electroplating copper in a recess of a dielectric layer wherein the copper comprised a first region and a second region where the first regio had a larger amount of (111)-oriented grains. However, the copening application does not claim having formed a first conductive feature in a first dielectric layer and then formed a second conductive feature on the first feature.
Oberst teaches that it was known in the art to form a second conductive feature 220 over a first conductive feature 204 in a first dielectric layer 202 as part for forming an interconnected structure (Page 6 Paragraphs 0052-0054 and Figure 2A-2B).
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the second conductive feature of the copening application on a first conductive feature in a first dielectric layer because this was a known processes in the art for forming a conductive interconnected structure.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Claims 2 through 17 and 22 through 25 have been rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights