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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/19/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 28 be found allowable, claim 30 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-12 & 16-30 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.
Clams 1 & 8: Claims 1 & 8 recite the limitation “without a substrate in the process chamber” during the seasoning step which fails to comply with the written description requirement because the original disclosure has no discussion regarding the presence of a substrate in the chamber during the seasoning step and a lack of disclosure does not provide support for the exclusion of a substrate.
Claims 2-7, 9-12, & 16-30: Claims 2-7, 9-12, & 16-30 are rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement because they depend from claims 1 or 8 and do not remedy the issues of claim 1 or 8.
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 1-12 & 16-30 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.
Clams 1 & 8: Claims 1 & 8 recite the limitation “without a substrate in the process chamber” during the seasoning step which renders the claim indefinite because the original disclosure does not provide a definition defining the scope of the term and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
The term “substrate” can be defined as “substratum” (see Merriam-Webster Dictionary) or a surface on which other chemical reactions are performed (see Wikipedia).
Thus, it is apparent that in the seasoning process wherein a material is deposited that the chamber is also a substrate and yet is excluded by the claim limitation or in the instance of the ’314 reference the source material is comprised of a coated silicon wafer which is etched and it may be termed a substrate or a source material.
Claims 2-7, 9-12, & 16-30: Claims 2-7, 9-12, & 16-30 are rejected as being indefinite because they depend from claims 1 or 8 and do not remedy the issues of claim 1 or 8.
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, 2, 4-12, 16, 17, 20, 21, & 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘Ying et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0013314; hereafter ‘314) in view of Yamasaki et al. (US PG Pub 2014/0206189; hereafter ‘189), Okumura et al. (US PG PUB 2004/0045669; hereafter ‘669), and Frankel et al. (US PG Pub 2002/00773922; hereafter ‘922).
Claim 1: ‘314 discloses a method of forming a hardmask (¶ 53), comprising:
performing a cleaning and seasoning process comprising entrapping metal etch contaminants comprising byproducts of fluoride etching (¶s 20-21) with deposited silicn oxide and nitrides (¶ 70);
subsequent to depositing the season material on the plurality of exposed surfaces of the process chamber, positioning a substrate in the process chamber and in contact with the season material (¶s 50-54, 55-56, & 59);
forming a barrier layer on the substrate comprising TiN (a first etch mask is formed which is a barrier to etching; see 310, first TiN hardmask, Figs. 3B-3C and ¶s 51);
performing a plasma etching process of the Ir/IrO2 layers (¶s 51& 56); and
forming, subsequent to forming the barrier layer, a metal hardmask film on the substrate (a second TiN hardmask is formed on the substrate; see 330, second TiN hardmask, Figs. 3H-3I and ¶s 53).
‘314 doesn’t teach how to form the TiN hardmask.
However, ‘189, which is directed towards a TiN film forming method (title) and teaches that TiN layers can be formed by a cyclic PECVD process comprising repeatedly (at least two times) absorbing a precursor on the surface of the substrate and performing a nitrogen-hydrogen plasma enhanced surface treatment (see ¶s 47-52), wherein each plasma treatment is performed at 13.56 MHz (¶ 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the cyclic PECVD process of ‘189 as the specific method for forming the TiN wherein the process comprises absorbing a precursor, performing a N2-H2 plasma surface treatment, absorbing a precursor, and performing a N2-H2 plasma surface treatment because it is an art recognized method of forming a TiN layer and would have predictably produced the desired layer structure for the first and second TiN layers.
‘314 does not provided details for the plasma etch process of the Ir/IrO2 layers.
However, ‘669 teaches that iridium can be plasma etched using a frequency power of 100 kHz to 20 MHz (¶s 13) and 400 kHz (¶ 78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to performing the plasma etching with the process of ‘669 during the combination because it is an art recognized plasma etch process for iridium and would have predictably provided the desired results.
‘314 does not teach the claimed cleaning/seasoning process.
However, ‘922, discloses a plasma cleaning process absent a substrate (¶ 243) and discloses that aluminum is a suitable material for plasma chamber components (¶s 114 & 123), which comprises a first plasma enhanced surface treatment comprising a fluorine gas which produces aluminum fluoride contaminants (¶s 123, 165, 260, & 261) followed by converting said fluoride to aluminum oxide with a second plasma enhanced surface treatment using an oxygen plasma (¶s 252-261) and then deposition of silicon oxide and silicon nitride (see ¶s 250-262).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the seasoning process of ‘922 for the seasoning process of ‘314 because it is an art recognized cleaning and seasoning process which would have predictably performed the seasoning as desired to form a seasoning layer as desired by ‘314.
Claim 2: The seasoning material comprises a combination of silicon oxide and silicon nitride (¶ 70).
The substrate is a silicon wafer (¶ 9).
‘314 teaches the claimed invention but fails to explicitly teach that the season material comprised of silicon oxide and silicon nitride comprises a hardness that is less than half of a hardness of the substrate. Since ‘314 teaches the same materials as disclosed in the instant application; it is reasonable to presume the same properties are present. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
Claim 4: The combination forms the TiN layers by using cyclic PECVD while applying a low frequency RF as discussed above and thus it is apparent that forming the barrier layer comprises at least one cycle of soaking the substrate in a precursor for a first period of time to form a target barrier layer thickness and ‘314 further teaches performing a plasma-enhanced treatment for a second time period (two hardmasks are formed and a plasma etch is performed after forming the first hardmask and prior to forming the second hardmask; see ¶s 27 & 51-53).
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the ‘314 product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 5: ‘314 does not teach the claimed thickness for the barrier layer is 3-50 angstroms.
However, the thickness of a hardmask is dependent on the degree of etch resistance required and it is prima facie obvious to optimize the thickness to obtain the desired etch resistance.
Claim 6: It is apparent that the plurality of gasses employed in the plasma enhanced treatment are ramped up to a target gas flow rate over a predetermined period of gas flow time in ‘314 because there is a flow and a time for the use of the plurality of gasses in the process of ‘314.
Claim 7: The plasma-enhanced treatment of ‘314 is a nitriding process and the time spent at nitriding is a result-effective variable based on the desire to degree of nitriding and it is obvious to optimize time to obtain the desired degree of nitriding.
"Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Claim 8: ‘314 discloses a method of forming a hardmask (¶ 53), comprising:
cleaning a process chamber (¶ 68);
performing a seasoning process to form a silicon oxide and silicon nitride seasoning layer (¶s 55-72);
positioning a substrate in the process chamber in contact with the season material (¶s 50-54, 55-56, & 59);
forming a barrier layer on the substrate comprising TiN (a first etch mask is formed which is a barrier to etching; see 310, first TiN hardmask, Figs. 3B-3C and ¶s 51);
performing a plasma etching process (¶s 51& 56); and
forming, subsequent to forming the barrier layer, a metal hardmask film on the substrate (a second TiN hardmask is formed on the substrate; see 330, second TiN hardmask, Figs. 3H-3I and ¶s 53).
‘314 doesn’t teach how to form the TiN hardmask.
However, ‘189, which is directed towards a TiN film forming method (title) and teaches that TiN layers can be formed by a cyclic PECVD process comprising repeatedly (at least two times) absorbing a precursor on the surface of the substrate and performing a nitrogen-hydrogen plasma enhanced surface treatment (see ¶s 47-52), wherein each plasma treatment is performed at 13.56 MHz (¶ 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the cyclic PECVD process of ‘189 as the specific method for forming the TiN wherein the process comprises absorbing a precursor, performing a N2-H2 plasma surface treatment, absorbing a precursor, and performing a N2-H2 plasma surface treatment because it is an art recognized method of forming a TiN layer and would have predictably produced the desired layer structure for the first and second TiN layers.
‘314 does not provided details for the plasma etch process of the Ir/IrO2 layers.
However, ‘669 teaches that iridium can be plasma etched using a frequency power of 100 kHz to 20 MHz (¶s 13) and 400 kHz (¶ 78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to performing the plasma etching with the process of ‘669 during the combination because it is an art recognized plasma etch process for iridium and would have predictably provided the desired results.
‘314 does not teach the claimed seasoning process.
However, ‘922, discloses a plasma cleaning and seasoning process absent a substrate (¶ 243) which comprises a first plasma enhanced fluoride treatment followed by seasoning to convert the fluoride trapped to oxide and then deposition of silicon oxide and silicon nitride (see ¶s 250-262).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the seasoning process of ‘922 for the seasoning process of ‘314 because it is an art recognized cleaning and seasoning process which would have predictably performed the seasoning as desired to form a seasoning layer as desired by ‘314.
Claim 9: The metal hardmask film comprises TiN (¶s 51-53).
Claim 10: Subsequent to positioning the substrate in the process chamber and prior to forming the metal hardmask film of ‘314, ‘314 teaches performing a prior TiN layer which as taught by the combination above can be formed by a low frequency RF treatment.
Claim 9: The metal hardmask film comprises TiN (¶s 51-53).
Claim 11: The metal hardmask film comprises TiN (¶s 51-53).
Claim 12: It is apparent that the plurality of gasses employed in the plasma enhanced treatment are ramped up to a target gas flow rate over a predetermined period of gas flow time in ‘314 because there is a flow and a time for the use of the plurality of gasses in the process of ‘314.
Claims 16 & 20: The combination teaches 100 kHz to 20 MHz as discussed above.
Although the taught range of 100 kHz to 20 MHz is not explicitly the claimed range of 350 kHz, it does overlap the claimed range. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated a value within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 17 & 21: The combination teaches 100 kHz to 20 MHz as discussed above.
Although the taught range of 100 kHz to 20 MHz is not explicitly the claimed range of 2 MHz, it does overlap the claimed range. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated a value within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 26: The metal hardmask film includes a first metal comprising titanium (¶s 51-53) and the barrier layer includes the first metal (¶ 50).
Claim 27: As discussed above, the first plasma treatment converts aluminum fluoride to aluminum oxide.
Claims 28 & 30: As discussed above, it is known to use aluminum as various components of the chamber and the seasoning adheres to the chamber components.
Claim 29: ‘922 discloses that aluminum is a suitable material for plasma chamber components such as shower heads (¶s 114 & 123).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use an aluminum showerhead during the process because it is an art recognized material for components is said systems and would have predictably been suitable for use in the apparatus.
Thus, it is apparent that the combination teaches that the first surface treatment of the combination converts an aluminum fluoride to an oxide as discussed above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘314 in view of ‘189, ‘669, & ‘922 as applied above, and further in view of Kulshreshtha et al. (US PG Pub 2016/0099147; hereafter ‘147).
Claim 3: ‘314 is silent regarding how gas is introduced in the etching chamber.
However, ‘147, which is directed towards gas flow modulated control (title) for use in etch chambers (¶ 32) discloses a gas flow diffuser comprising a blocker plate comprising apertures with unequal spacing (¶ 53 & Fig. 5A) wherein the blocker plate of ‘147 modulates local stress and overlay error in patterning process and thus improves the process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the blocker plate of ‘147 in the etch chamber of ‘314 because it is an art recognized blocker plate for modulating gas flow in etch chambers and would have predictably improved the process by modulating local stress and overlay error in the patterning process.
Claims 18, 19, & 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘314 in view of ‘189, ‘669, & ‘922 as applied above, and further in view of Usami et al. (US PG PUB 2013/0069238; hereafter ‘238) and Lopatin et al. (US Patent 6,528,884; hereafter ‘884).
Claims 18, 19, 22, & 23: ‘314 teaches that the hardmask layers are TiN.
The combination does not teach that the hardmask layer is W.
However, ‘238, which is directed towards manufacturing semiconductors (title) discloses that TiN and W are art recognized alternative hardmask materials (¶ 129) which can be formed from WF6 as a precursor (¶ 110).
And ‘884 teaches that tungsten layers can be formed by an ald process comprising depositing tungsten precursor and the reducing it with a plasma treatment of N2-H2 (see col. 6, line 58 – col. 7, line 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of ‘238 & ‘884 into the combination such that a WF6 precursor is used to form a W hardmask in place of TiN and the N2-H2 plasma in the cyclic deposition process reduces the W precursor because W is an art recognized alternative for TiN hardmasks and the process of reducing WF6 with N2-H2 plasma is an art recognized means for producing W layers which predictably would have produced a hardmask as desired.
Claims 24-25: It is apparent that the plurality of gasses employed in the plasma enhanced treatment are ramped up to a target gas flow rate over a predetermined period of gas flow time in ‘314 because there is a flow and a time for the use of the plurality of gasses in the process of ‘314.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s argument that the newly added amendments to claims 1 & 8 overcome the combination of ‘314, ‘189, & ‘669; ‘314 teaches a source material in the form of a substrate for forming the seasoning and the claims are now rejected as obvious in view of the combination of ‘314, ‘189, ‘669, & ‘922 which teaches that the same seasoning material can be formed is the absence of a substrate of source material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights