DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
RE: the objection to claim(s) 1, 5-6, Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments have resolved the typographical issues in these claims. Accordingly, the objection to claim(s) 1, 5-6 is withdrawn.
RE: the rejection of claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9 and 20 under 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments have been fully considered but are moot as further search and consideration prompted the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR20140112702A (“Lee”).
RE: Claim 1, Lee discloses A method for forming etched features in a layer of a first material (combination 130a and upper surface of 110 in FIGs. 1-3), comprising:
a) forming patterned mask (120a with openings 125 in FIG. 3) over the layer of the first material (120a is over 110 in FIG. 3), wherein the patterned mask comprises at least one mask layer (120a) and at least one opening (125);
b) depositing a layer of a second material (140 in FIG. 4) over the patterned mask and the layer of the first material, wherein the second material only contacts the first material at the at least one opening (FIG. 4 shows 140 only contacts 130a at the openings of 120a);
c) forming an alloy layer (130b in FIG. 5; As the metal layer 140 includes cobalt or nickel, the metal silicide layer pattern 130b may be formed to include cobalt silicide or nickel silicide, [0033]) of the first material and the second material between the layer of the first material and the layer of the second material (After forming 130b, portions of the metal layer 140 that do not react with the polysilicon layer pattern 130a are removed, [0047]; Accordingly, 130b would be formed between at least 110 and the unreacted portions of 140), wherein the alloy layer is formed in the at least one opening where the second material contacts the first material and not below the at least one mask layer (FIG. 5 shows 130b is formed in the openings 125 and not below 120a);
d) removing the layer of the second material that is not alloyed to expose the patterned mask (portions of the metal layer 140 that do not react with the polysilicon layer pattern 130a are removed, [0047]; FIG. 5 shows unreacted portions of 140 were removed to expose 120a);
e) after d, removing the patterned mask to expose at least part of the layer of the first material (FIG. 6 shows 120a was removed after what is shown in FIG. 5, i.e., after the unreacted portions of 140 are removed); and
f) selectively etching the layer of the first material with respect to the alloy layer, using the alloy layer as a hardmask (FIG. 6 shows upper surface of 110 is selectively etched with respect to 130b using 130b as a hardmask, [0047]).
RE: Claim 2, Lee discloses The method, as recited in claim 1, wherein the depositing the layer of the second material is by atomic layer deposition (140 is deposited by atomic layer deposition, [0029]).
RE: Claim 4, Lee discloses The method, as recited in claim 1, wherein the layer of the first material is over a substrate (middle portion of 110 under the upper surface of 110 in FIG. 3; the upper surface of 110 is over this middle portion of 110) and further comprising etching the substrate using the alloy layer as a hardmask (FIG. 6 shows the middle portion of 110, i.e., portion of 110 under the upper surface of 110 is etched using 130b as a hardmask).
RE: Claim 20, Lee discloses The method, as recited in claim 1, wherein the forming an alloy layer of the first material and the second material between the layer of the first material and the layer of the second material comprises heating the layer of the first material and the layer of the second material to form the alloy (110 on which 140 is formed is heated in a furnace to diffuse metal in 140 into 130a, [0031]).
RE: Claim 21, Lee discloses The method, as recited in claim 1, wherein the second material only physically contacts the first material at the at least one opening and wherein the alloy layer is formed in the at least one opening where the second material physically contacts the first material and not below the at least one mask layer (FIG. 4 shows 140 only physically contacts 130a at the at least one opening 125 of 120a and FIG. 5 shows wherein 130b is formed in the at least one opening 125 where 140 physically contacts 130a and not below 120a).
RE: Claim 22, Lee discloses The method, as recited in claim 1, wherein forming an alloy layer of the first material and the second material between the layer of the first material and the layer of the second material forms the alloy from the first material of the layer of the first material and the second material of the layer of the second material (130b is formed from 140 and 130a, [0031]).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20190081070 A1 (“Lu”).
RE: Claim 5, Lee does not explicitly disclose The method, as recited in claim 1, wherein the alloy layer has a thickness of between 0.5 nm and 10 nm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lu discloses hard mask layer 106 can be a metal silicide layer, including CoSi.sub.x, NiSi.sub.x, or WSi.sub.x, [0039] and a thickness of hard mask layer 106 is between 10 nm and 200 nm, [0034].
Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there was a need to select or determine the thickness of the silicide layer 130b in Lee.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thickness of the silicide layer 130b which is used as a mask to be 10nm as taught by Lu as this would have been obvious to try since 10nm is one solution for the thickness of a silicide mask layer identified by Lu, and this would have had a reasonable expectation of success, see MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20120258556 A1 (“Matsumoto”).
RE: Claim 6, Lee does not explicitly disclose The method, as recited in claim 1, wherein the layer of the second material has a thickness of between 0.5 nm and 20 nm.
However in the same field of endeavor, Matsumoto discloses the metal film 17 whose surface is subjected to silicidation is formed on the flow path forming substrate wafer 110. Specifically, nickel (nickel) is formed into a film with a thickness of about 10 to 100 nm as the metal film 17 by a sputtering method, [0057].
Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there was a need to select or determine the thickness of the metal layer 140 in Lee.
Matsumoto further discloses nickel is diffused for silicidation, a nickel silicide film (silicide film 16), [0059], and silicide 16 is used as a mask, [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thickness of the metal layer 140 to be 10nm as taught by Lu as this would have been obvious to try since 10nm is one solution for the thickness of a metal layer used during silicidation to form a silicide mask identified by Matsumoto, and this would have had a reasonable expectation of success, see MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20020081851 A1 (“Vyvoda”), further in view of US 20200381545 A1 (“Chiang”), further in view of US 20080064178 A1 (“Ho”).
RE: Claim 9, Lee does not explicitly disclose The method, as recited in claim 1, wherein the first material comprises silicon oxide and the second material comprises at least one of tin, tungsten, and platinum.
However, Lee discloses The metal silicide layer pattern 130b may be formed by heating the etch target layer 110 on which the metal layer 140 is formed in a furnace to diffuse metal included in the metal layer 140 into the polysilicon layer pattern 130a, [0031].
FIG. 5 shows the metal silicide 130b formed in prescribed regions between portions of 120a.
In the same field of endeavor, Vyvoda discloses hard mask materials for hard mask 1316 include but are not limited to tungsten and tungsten silicide, [0075].
FIG. 14 shows silicon film 1314 was etched using hard mask 1317 which is formed from 1316, [0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the metal silicide mask in Lee with a tungsten silicide mask as taught by Vyvoda since tungsten silicide and each of cobalt silicide and nickel silicide are used as masks for etching silicon and a tungsten silicide hard mask would have had a reasonable expectation of success, see MPEP 2143.
In the same field of endeavor, Chiang discloses silicidation, such as nickel silicide, titanium silicide, tantalum silicide, or tungsten silicide, may be formed by depositing a metal layer over the epitaxial source/drain features 244 and annealing the metal layer such that the metal layer reacts with silicon in the epitaxial source/drain features 244 to form the metal silicidation, [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the tungsten silicide mask by modifying the metal layer 140 in FIG. 4 of Lee to be made out of tungsten and performing a silicidation/annealing process as taught by Chiang in order to form the silicide in prescribed regions between portions of 120a in Lee and prevent silicidation in non-prescribed regions.
Moreover, Lee teaches The etching target layer 110 may be, for example, a semiconductor substrate including a semiconductor material such as silicon or germanium, or may be a film structure including an insulating material, [0021].
In the same field of endeavor, Ho teaches semiconductor-on-insulator (SOI) substrates for cache memory. SOI substrates include a silicon layer on a buried insulator layer, such as a buried silicon oxide (BOX), on a silicon substrate, [0004].
Ho further teaches If the active area etch is highly selective to silicon oxide, as is common, this would result in only the silicon of the SOI substrate being etched away while the BOX layer remains relatively unperturbed, [0006]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the etch target 110 in Lee to have a silicon on insulator structure and to modify the etch to be highly selective to silicon as taught by Ho as this would allow better control of the etching in the vertical direction and allow to control the vertical height of the trenches or holes in the upper silicon layer of 110 during etching.
As a result, the material of 130a and the material of the silicon on insulator substrate 110 would correspond to the claimed first material and it would comprise buried silicon oxide in 110, the tungsten silicide layer 130b would correspond to the claimed alloy layer, and the tungsten layer 140 would correspond to the claimed second material.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ANGUIANO whose telephone number is (703)756-1226. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (408) 918-7532. 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 ANGUIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/Brent A. Fairbanks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899