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
Claims 1-14 are pending in this application.
Applicant elected without traverse Group I, Figs. 1-5 and 12, in the reply filed on March 31, 2025.
Claims 5-7 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 31, 2025.
The Examiner notes that claims 1-4, 8-14 are examined and claims 5-7 remain withdrawn.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP21182339.8, filed on Jun 29, 2021.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed August 18, 2025. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 15 is cancelled. Claims 5-7 remain withdrawn. The Examiner notes that claims 1-4 and 8-14 are examined.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 2013/0207238 A1) in view of Chan (US 2016/0118295 A1), Dobisz (US 2012/0217220 A1), Albrecht (2011/0096436 A1), and Matsunaga (US 2015/0168841 A1).
Cooper teaches:
A method for providing different patterns (para. 38 “The block copolymer photoresist is used to create a periodic pattern of phase separated domains on the surface to be patterned. The morphologies of the domains may take on a variety of shapes including but not limited to: an array of spherical domains dispersed regularly in a matrix, an array of column shaped domains arranged perpendicular or parallel to the substrate, or a series of lamellar domains”) on a single substrate (Fig. 1A, self assembled block copolymer film on substrate),
the method comprising providing the substrate comprising a layer of interest (Fig. 1A, “substrate”) and executing at least twice (para. 4 “In order to create more complex structures on the semiconductor substrate, the light exposure and physical pattern transfer steps (deposition/etch/ion implantation/etc.) may be repeated a number of times, with the same or different light mask patterns, with each subsequent pattern being aligned with the previously transferred pattern on the wafer.”) a sequence of the following steps:
depositing a hardmask on the layer of interest (para. 39 “the BCP may be sandwiched between an underlying hardmask and/or spin on carbon layers and conventional topcoat layers”)
spinning a glass/carbon layer on the hardmask (para. 39 “the BCP may be sandwiched between an underlying hardmask and/or spin on carbon layers and conventional topcoat layers”)
spin coating a block copolymer (para. 13 “Deposition of block copolymer films can be performed by a variety of methods, including, but not limited to drop-casting, spin-casting”) on the glass/carbon layer (para. 39 “the BCP may be sandwiched between an underlying hardmask and/or spin on carbon layers and conventional topcoat layers”);
transferring a predefined block copolymer pattern (predefined by composition of BCP) onto the layer of interest thereby obtaining a transferred pattern (Fig. 1D, para. 25 “The pattern of the remaining BCP can then be transferred to the substrate below by further processing and pattern transfer steps, including, but not limited to: etching, ion implantation, and deposition.”)
removing the hard mask (removed in step of Fig. 1D as hardmask is part of the resist that is removed);
wherein for at least for some of the sequences the block copolymer pattern for one sequence is different from the block copolymer pattern of the other sequence and wherein the with the same or different light mask patterns, with each subsequent pattern being aligned with the previously transferred pattern on the wafer”)
The Examiner takes the position that the since the light mask is made up of the block copolymer and, in the embodiment relied upon, a hard mask, that the teaching of “the same or different light mask patterns” meets the limitations of both a different block copolymer pattern and different hardmask pattern.
In the event that this limitation is not inherent, which the Examiner does not concede, it would be obvious to the ordinary artisan to use a different BCP pattern and hardmask pattern for the purpose of “creating more complex structures on the semiconductor substrate” (para. 4 of Cooper.)
Cooper fails to teach:
and patterning the hardmask with a predefined pattern to form a predefined hardmask pattern and create an accessible portion on the layer of interest;
spinning a glass/carbon layer on the hardmask and on the accessible portion on the layer of interest;
filling the transferred pattern by atomic layer deposition with a material to form a filled pattern followed by chemical mechanical polishing or etching back;
and after executing a last sequence, removing the material in the filled pattern by etching, thereby revealing the transferred pattern,
wherein the predefined hardmask pattern is different for the different sequences.
Chan teaches in Fig. 1d:
depositing a hardmask (dielectric hardmask 2) on the layer of interest (42) and patterning the hardmask (para. 38 “The PR layer is used to pattern at least the upper layer 2 of the hardmask layer”) with a predefined pattern (predetermined by deposition of the photoresist layer 1) to form a predefined hardmask pattern and create an accessible portion on the layer of interest (portion of 42 not covered by patterned hardmask 2);
spinning a glass/carbon layer (planarization template layer 6, para. 38 “A planarization template layer 6, for instance a layer comprising a (spin-on-glass (SoG) and/or spin-on carbon (SoC) layer) on the hardmask (2) and on the accessible portion on the layer of interest (parts of 42 not covered by 2) (Fig. 1(d));
Combining the teaching of repeating the sequence with Cooper and the use of a predefined hardmask of Chan further teaches:
wherein the predefined hardmask pattern is different for the different sequences.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Chan into the device of Cooper to deposit a predefined pattern with an accessible portion on the layer of interest and cover the accessible portion with spin on glass. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Cooper in the manner set forth above for the purpose or providing a template for subsequent etching processes (para. 38 of Chan).
Dobisz teaches:
filling the transferred pattern (para. 64, “voids left by the B component”) with a material (para. 64, “spin-on-glass material”) to form a filled pattern followed by chemical mechanical polishing or etching back (para. 64 “in another additive process, the voids left by the B component can be filled back with a spin-on glass material. Once formed, the glass layer can be etched back to expose the original stripes of A component.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Dobisz into the method of Cooper/Chan to rill and etch a transferred pattern. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Cooper/Chan in the manner set forth above for the purpose of providing a mask to etch to the transfer layer or provide a surface for processing a second block copolymer layer (para. 64 of Dobisz).
Albrecht teaches:
and after executing a last sequence (process occurs after the pattern is formed), removing the material in the filled pattern (protective layer 206) by etching (para. 56 “dry etch process is used to etch the substrate 200, including any portion of material 206 left on top of substrate 200), thereby revealing the transferred pattern (para. 56, “The structure of FIG. 4P, which began as a substrate of base 200, has now been etched to define the pattern of holes 229 below the original surface of substrate material 200”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Albrecht into the method of Cooper/Chan/Dobisz to remove the filling material from the transferred pattern. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Cooper/Chan/Dobisz in the manner set forth above for the purpose of exposing the transferred pattern after processing is finished and the protective material 206 is no longer necessary (para. 56 of Albrecht)
Albrecht teaches in para. 51 that:
The transferred pattern is filled with a protective layer 206 that may be Si, SiO2, or alumina but teaches filling with sputtering, not ALD.
Matsunaga teaches:
a surface modification film that can be Si or SiO2 film (the material taught by Albrecht) that may be formed with atomic layer deposition (para. 44)
Modifying the method of Cooper/Chan/Dobisz/Albrecht to use the protective layer of Albrecht deposited by the method of Matsunaga teaches:
wherein the transferred pattern is filled using atomic layer deposition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Matsunaga into the method of Cooper/Chan/Dobisz/Albrecht to use the filled layer of Albrecht deposited by the ALD method taught by Matsunaga. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Cooper/Chan/Dobisz/Albrecht in the manner set forth above for the purpose of forming the film at a temperature low enough that the device does not deform (para. 44 of Matsunaga) and/or because atomic layer deposition is a conventional method of depositing materials in a semiconductor device and it would be obvious for the ordinary artisan to use atomic layer deposition to deposit the filling layer.
With respect to claim 2, Cooper/Chan/Dobisz/Albrecht/Matsunaga further teaches:
wherein transferring the block copolymer pattern (pattern formed by B component and A component) onto the layer of interest is done using dry etching. (para. 57 of Dobisz, “Next, in FIG. 5G, one of the components, the B component (PMMA), is selectively removed by a wet etch process (acetic acid, IPA or other selective solvent) or a dry etch process (O.sub.2 RIE), leaving stripes 212 of the other component, the A component (PS).”)
With respect to claim 3, Cooper/Chan/Dobisz/Albrecht/Matsunaga further teaches in para. 51 of Albrecht:
wherein the material filling the transferred pattern (protective layer 206) is a dielectric material (SiO2 or Al2O-3), a metal, or a semiconductor material (Si).
With respect to claim 4, Cooper/Chan/Dobisz/Albrecht/Matsunaga further teaches:
wherein the glass/carbon layer comprises glass and/or carbon or a standalone layer comprising glass and/or carbon. (para. 38 of Chan, “A planarization template layer 6, for instance a layer comprising a (spin-on-glass (SoG) and/or spin-on carbon (SoC) layer; here a combination of both”)
With respect to claim 8, Cooper/Chan/Dobisz/Albrecht/Matsunaga further teaches in 37 of Chan:
wherein the deposited hardmask material (hardmask 2 or 3) is a dielectric (dielectric hardmask 2) or a metal (metal hardmask 3).
With respect to claim 10, Cooper/Chan/Dobisz/Albrecht/Matsunaga further teaches in 37 of Chan:
wherein the metal is selected from group consisting of TiN, TaN, and Ru. (a metal hardmask 3, which comprises for instance TiN)
With respect to claim 11, Cooper/Chan/Dobisz/Albrecht/Matsunaga further teaches:
wherein the predefined block copolymer pattern of one sequence has a different pitch than the predefined block copolymer pattern of another sequence.
Although Cooper/Chan/Dobisz/Albrecht does not specifically mention the pitch of the block copolymer pattern deposited in any given sequence, the Examiner takes the position that the teaching in para. 4 of Cooper (“In order to create more complex structures on the semiconductor substrate, the light exposure and physical pattern transfer steps (deposition/etch/ion implantation/etc.) may be repeated a number of times, with the same or different light mask patterns, with each subsequent pattern being aligned with the previously transferred pattern on the wafer”) teaches block copolymer patterns of different pitch because the “different light mask patterns” refers to the block copolymer patterns and a different pitch is included in differences in the patterns. Further, Dobisz teaches in para. 39 that different areas of a substrate require different pitches “a track pitch of about 50 nm and an island pitch of about 12.5 nm will be required.” It would be obvious to combine the teaching of Cooper to repeat the sequence to the teaching of Dobisz to use patterns of different pitches to make the different pitch patterns in different iterations of the sequence.
In the event that Cooper/Chan/Dobisz/Albrecht does not implicitly teach a pattern with a different pitch in subsequent sequences, which the Examiner does not concede, it would be obvious to an ordinary artisan to use a predefined block copolymer with a different pitch for another sequence. The ordinary artisan would be motivated to do so “in order to create more complex structures on the semiconductor substrate” (para. 4 of Cooper) and/or because it has been ruled that changes of dimension are prima facie obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular size is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
With respect to claim 12, Cooper/Chan/Dobisz/Albrecht/Matsunaga further teaches:
wherein the predefined block copolymer pattern of one sequence has a different shape than the predefined block copolymer pattern of another sequence.
Although Cooper/Chan/Dobisz/Albrecht does not specifically mention the shape of the block copolymer pattern deposited in any give sequence, the Examiner takes the position that the teaching in para. 4 of Cooper (“In order to create more complex structures on the semiconductor substrate, the light exposure and physical pattern transfer steps (deposition/etch/ion implantation/etc.) may be repeated a number of times, with the same or different light mask patterns, with each subsequent pattern being aligned with the previously transferred pattern on the wafer”) teaches block copolymer patterns of different shape because the “different light mask patterns” refers to the block copolymer patterns and a different shape is included in differences in the patterns. Further, Dobisz teaches in para. 42 that different areas of a substrate require different shapes “The pillars or holes are arranged in circular rings in the portions of the mold that will be used to form the data islands in the subsequently nanoimprinted disk. The rings are grouped into annular zones. The pillars or holes are arranged in slanted stripes in the portions of the mold that will be used to form the chevron servo sectors in the subsequently nanoimprinted disks.” It would be obvious to combine the teaching of Cooper to repeat the sequence to the teaching of Dobisz to use patterns of different pitches to make the different pitch patterns in different iterations of the sequence.
In the event that Cooper/Chan/Dobisz/Albrecht does not implicitly teach a pattern with a different shape in subsequent sequences, which the Examiner does not concede, it would be obvious to an ordinary artisan to use a predefined block copolymer with a different shape for another sequence. The ordinary artisan would be motivated to do so “in order to create more complex structures on the semiconductor substrate” (para. 4 of Cooper) and/or because it has been ruled that changes of dimension are prima facie obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular size is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
With respect to claim 13, Cooper/Chan/Dobisz/Albrecht/Matsunaga further teaches:
wherein the sequence is executed at least 3 times. (“In order to create more complex structures on the semiconductor substrate, the light exposure and physical pattern transfer steps (deposition/etch/ion implantation/etc.) may be repeated a number of times, with the same or different light mask patterns, with each subsequent pattern being aligned with the previously transferred pattern on the wafer.”)
In the event that “a number of times” does not implicitly include “at least 3 times,” which the Examiner does not concede, it would be obvious to the ordinary artisan to repeat the sequence at least 3 times. The prior art contains a known technique of repeating the pattern transfer steps to improve the device. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that repeating the steps at least three times would yield a predictable result of making a further complex pattern on the substrate (MPEP 2143(I)(D)). The ordinary artisan would be motivated to do so for the purpose of making more complex structures on the semiconductor substrate.
With respect to claim 14, Cooper/Chan/Dobisz/Albrecht/Matsunaga further teaches:
wherein the method further comprising a baking step after spin coating the block copolymer. (“In one example, when applying the BCP material, for instance by a spin-on technique, the pattern density of the template holes and their total accumulated volume is hereby also taken into account. An appropriate anneal step is performed in order to induce polymer separation into central pillar portions 71 and a surrounding or embedding portion 72 of the BCP in the template openings (FIG. 1(g))”)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 2013/0207238 A1) in view of Chan (US 2016/0118295 A1), Dobisz (US 2012/0217220 A1), and Albrecht (2011/0096436 A1), and Matsunaga (US 2015/0168841 A1) as applied to claim 8 and further in view of Gay (US 2012/0217565 A1).
With respect to claim 9, Cooper/Chan/Dobisz/Albrecht/Matsunaga teaches all limitations of claim 8 upon which claim 9 depends. Cooper/Chan/Dobisz/Albrecht/Matsunaga fails to teach:
wherein the dielectric is Al203.
Gay teaches:
wherein the dielectric is Al203 (para. 82 “alumina patterns forms a hard mask”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Gay into the method of Cooper/Chan/Dobisz/Albrecht/Matsunaga to use Al2O3 (alumina) as a hard mask. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Cooper/Chan/Dobisz/Albrecht/Matsunaga in the manner set forth above because “alumina is known to be an excellent hard engraving mask with high selectivity with respect to silicon” (para. 82 of Gay) and/or because the use of conventional materials to perform their known function is prima-facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues that Matsunaga allegedly should not be applied to teach "wherein the transferred pattern is filled using atomic layer deposition” because “while this paragraph does mention use of atomic layer deposition, it does so to form a "surface modification film" that "covers the surface of the resist pattern in a conformal matter." Applicant respectfully submits that forming a surface modification film that conformally covers the surface of a resist pattern does not amount to filling a transferred pattern by atomic layer deposition, as recited in amended claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the rejection of claim 1 above, Dobisz is relied upon to teach the limitations that a transferred pattern is completely filled with a material that is etched back. Albrecht is relied upon to teach that a material in the voids of the transfer pattern may be a protective SiO2 conformal layer that is removed from the final product but does not specify a method of depositing the SiO2. Matsunaga is relied upon only to teach that atomic layer deposition is a known method of deposition that can be used to deposit SiO2. Although the layer deposited in Albrecht and Matsunaga is a conformal layer that does not completely occupy the empty space within the pattern, the ordinary artisan would understand that the use of ALD is not limited to processes in which a pattern is only partially filled and that the ALD process can be extended to deposit additional layers until the pattern is completely filled.
The Examiner further notes that under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the word “fill” it is not necessary for the pattern to be completely full in order to say it has been filled and a partially filled pattern can satisfy the limitation. For example, if one were to fill a glass of water, the glass would not need to be filled to the brim to satisfy that it has been filled. The Examiner submits that it can be said that a pattern is “filled” by a conformal layer even if there is still an empty space within the pattern as long as enough of the material of the conformal layer has been deposited into the pattern to perform the intended function of the material.
The arguments are therefore found unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AARON MICHAEL WEGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7647. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30 AM - 5 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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/A.M.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897