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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatasubramanian et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2018/0358222 A1, hereinafter referenced as 'Venka') in view of Seamons et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2012/0080779 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Venka teaches a semiconductor processing method (¶ 0066 & fig. 3: 300) comprising:
providing a substrate (¶ 0036: 190) in a substrate processing region (¶¶ 0033, 0053 & fig. 1A: in step 310, 190 provided in processing volume 126) of a substrate processing chamber (¶ 0033: 100), wherein the substrate is maintained at a temperature less than or about 20 °C (¶¶ 0028, 0061: in step 320, substrate pedestal maintained at about 0 degrees Celsius to about 50 degrees Celsius).
flowing a hydrocarbon-containing precursor (¶ 0026: hydrocarbon-containing gas mixture) into the substrate processing region of the substrate processing chamber (¶¶ 0040, 0066: in step 340, hydrocarbon-containing gas mixture flowed into region 126 of chamber 100);
generating a plasma from the hydrocarbon-containing precursor (¶¶ 0026, 0063: in step 330, plasma generated at substrate level from hydrocarbon-containing precursor); and
depositing a carbon-containing material from the plasma on the substrate (¶¶ 0033, 0066: during step 340, carbon film formed from plasma on 190),
wherein the carbon-containing material is characterized by an as-deposited stress that is about -100 MPa (¶ 0051: as-deposited amorphous carbon film may have a stress (MPa) about −100 MPa).
Venka does not teach the carbon-containing material is characterized by an as-deposited stress that is less than -50 MPa where a stress value closer to 0 MPa is less stress.
Seamons teaches a carbon-containing material characterized by an as-deposited stress that is from about 0 to -50 MPa (¶ 0039: from about 0 to about -500 MPa, for example -50 MPa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the stress of the as-deposited film of Venka to values of about -50 MPa, as a means to control layer properties such as reflectivity (Seamons, ¶ 0043) and/or density (Seamons, ¶ 0056).
Furthermore, it has been held that 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the claimed range of “less than -50 MPa” lies inside the range disclosed by Seamons.
Regarding claim 2, Venka in view of Seamons teaches the semiconductor processing method of claim 1, wherein the hydrocarbon-containing precursor is flowed at a flow rate of less than or about 50 sccm (Venka, ¶ 0049: flow rate of the hydrocarbon-containing gas mixture may be from about 10 sccm).
Regarding claim 3, Venka in view of Seamons teaches the semiconductor processing method of claim 1, further comprising:
flowing an inert precursor (Venka, ¶ 0066: the hydrocarbon-containing gas mixture further comprises an inert gas) into the substrate processing region of the substrate processing chamber (Venka, ¶ 0074: inert gas such as argon or helium flowed into region 126), wherein the inert precursor is flowed at a flow rate of more than or about 1000 sccm (Venka, ¶ 0049, Table I: in at least one embodiment, inert precursor flow is greater than 1000 sccm).
Regarding claim 4, Venka in view of Seamons teaches the semiconductor processing method of claim 1, wherein the substrate processing chamber is maintained at a pressure of less than or about 100 mTorr (Venka, ¶ 0049, Table I: in at least one embodiment, processing chamber pressure is about 2 mTorr).
Regarding claim 5, Venka in view of Seamons teaches the semiconductor processing method of claim 1, wherein the carbon-containing material is deposited at an average thickness greater than or about 10 A (Venka, ¶ 0050: in at least one embodiment, carbon layer deposited to a thickness of about 5 Å).
Regarding claim 6, Venka in view of Seamons teaches the semiconductor processing method of claim 1, wherein the hydrocarbon-containing precursor comprises acetylene (Venka, ¶ 0069).
Regarding claim 7, Venka in view of Seamons teaches the semiconductor processing method of claim 1, further comprising:
flowing an inert precursor into the substrate processing region of the substrate processing chamber, wherein the inert precursor comprises at least one of helium or argon (Venka, ¶ 0074: inert gas such as argon or helium flowed into region 126).
Regarding claim 8, Venka in view of Seamons teaches the semiconductor processing method of claim 1, wherein the plasma is a bias plasma formed at a bias power greater than 2000 Watts (Venka, ¶ 0063: in one implementation, the bias power is between about 2000 Watts and about 3000 Watts).
Regarding claim 10, Venka teaches a semiconductor processing method comprising:
providing a substrate (¶ 0040: 190) in a substrate processing region (¶ 0033: volume 126) of a substrate processing chamber (100), wherein the substrate is maintained at a temperature less than or about 50*C (¶ 0040);
generating a plasma (¶ 0028) from a deposition precursor comprising a hydrocarbon- containing precursor (¶ 0026) in the substrate processing region of the substrate processing chamber (¶ 0028: plasma generated at wafer level), wherein the plasma is a bias plasma generated at a bias power of greater than or about 3500 W (¶¶ 0028, 0049 & Table 1: in at least one embodiment, dual-bias plasma includes 3000 Watts + additional 2000 Watts), wherein the deposition precursor further comprises an inert precursor (¶ 0066: hydrocarbon-containing gas mixture further includes an inert gas); and
depositing a carbon-containing material from the plasma on the substrate (¶ 0033-0036: carbon layer deposited on 190),
wherein the carbon-containing material is characterized by an as-deposited stress that is about -100 MPa where a stress value closer to 0 MPa is less stress (¶ 0051: as-deposited amorphous carbon film may have a stress (MPa) about −100 MPa).
Venka does not teach the carbon-containing material is characterized by an as-deposited stress that is less than -50 MPa where a stress value closer to 0 MPa is less stress.
Seamons teaches a carbon-containing material characterized by an as-deposited stress that is from about 0 to -50 MPa (¶ 0039: from about 0 to about -500 MPa, for example -50 MPa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the stress of the as-deposited film of Venka to values of about -50 MPa, as a means to control layer properties such as reflectivity (Seamons, ¶ 0043) and/or density (Seamons, ¶ 0056).
Furthermore, it has been held that 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the claimed range of “less than -50 MPa” lies inside the range disclosed by Seamons.
Regarding claim 11, Venka in view of Seamons teaches the semiconductor processing method of claim 10, wherein the bias power is greater than or about 4000 Watts (Venka, ¶ 0049, Table 1: 1st RF power=3000 Watts, 2nd RF power=2000 Watts).
Regarding claim 12, Venka in view of Seamons teaches the semiconductor processing method of claim 10, wherein the bias power is delivered at an operating frequency less than or about 13.56 MHz (Venka, ¶¶ 0028, 0049: at least 1st bias power delivered at 13.56 MHz).
Regarding claim 14, Venka in view of Seamons teaches the semiconductor processing method of claim 10, wherein a flow rate ratio of the inert precursor to the hydrocarbon-containing precursor is greater than or about 10:1 (Venka, ¶ 0049: in at least one embodiment, inert gas flow=5000 sccm and C2H2 flow=10 sccm).
Regarding claim 15, Venka teaches a semiconductor processing method (¶ 0052 & fig. 3: 300) comprising:
generating a plasma from a hydrocarbon-containing precursor (¶ 0026) and an inert precursor comprising at least one of helium or argon (¶ 0063) in a substrate processing region (¶ 0033: 126) of a substrate processing chamber (¶ 0033: 100); and
depositing a carbon-containing material from the plasma on a substrate in the substrate processing region of the substrate processing chamber (¶ 0066: in step 340, diamond-like carbon film deposited from plasma on 190 in region 126), wherein the carbon-containing material is characterized by an as-deposited stress that is less than or about -100 MPa (¶ 0051: as-deposited diamond-like carbon film may have a stress (MPa) less than about −100 MPa).
Venka does not explicitly teach the as-deposited stress that is less than or about -50 MPa, where a stress value closer to 0 MPa is less stress.
Seamons teaches a carbon-containing material characterized by an as-deposited stress that is about -50 MPa (¶ 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the stress of the as-deposited film of Venka, as a means to control layer properties such as reflectivity (Seamons, ¶ 0043) and/or density (Seamons, ¶ 0056).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, the general conditions of as-deposited stress are disclosed by Venka and Seamons, such that discovering the claimed range of “less than or about -50 MPa” would involve only routine skill.
Regarding claim 16, Venka in view of Seamons teaches the semiconductor processing method of claim 15, wherein the substrate is maintained at a temperature less than or about 50°C (Venka, ¶ 0040: chuck temperature maintained as low as -50°C).
Regarding claim 17, Venka in view of Seamons teaches the semiconductor processing method of claim 15, wherein a flow rate ratio of the inert precursor to the hydrocarbon-containing precursor is greater than or about 10:1 (Venka, ¶ 0049: in at least one embodiment, inert gas flow=5000 sccm and C2H2 flow=10 sccm).
Regarding claim 18, Venka in view of Seamons teaches the semiconductor processing method of claim 15, wherein the carbon-containing material comprises greater than or about 60% carbon atoms with sp3 hybridized bonds (Venka, ¶ 0048).
Regarding claim 20, Venka in view of Seamons teaches the semiconductor processing method of claim 15, wherein the carbon-containing material comprises a diamond-like carbon (Venka, ¶ 0052).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venka in view of Seamons as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Troccoli et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2020/0019750 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Venka in view of Seamons teaches the semiconductor processing methods of claim 10, comprising a carbon-containing material (Venka, ¶ 0033).
Venka in view of Seamons does not explicitly teach wherein the carbon-containing material comprises less than or about 25 mol % hydrogen.
Troccoli teaches a carbon-containing material (¶¶ 0066, 0075: DLC 30, similar to that of Venka) deposited on a substrate (¶ 0057 & fig. 1: 30 deposited on substrate 10), wherein the carbon-containing material comprises less than or about 25 mol % hydrogen (¶ 0075: 30 comprises 0.1 mol % to 5 mol % hydrogen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the carbon-containing material of Venka in view of Seamons with the hydrogen mol % of Troccoli, as a means to optimize net film stress (Troccoli, ¶ 0073).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venka in view of Seamons as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Troccoli.
Regarding claim 19, Venka in view of Seamons teaches the semiconductor processing method of claim 15, comprising a carbon-containing material.
Venka in view of Seamons does not explicitly teach wherein the carbon-containing material comprises less than or about 25 mol % hydrogen.
Troccoli teaches a carbon-containing material (¶¶ 0066, 0075: DLC 30, similar to that of Venka) deposited on a substrate (¶ 0057 & fig. 1: 30 deposited on substrate 10), wherein the carbon-containing material comprises less than or about 25 mol % hydrogen (¶ 0075: 30 comprises 0.1 mol % to 5 mol % hydrogen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the carbon-containing material of Venka in view of Seamons with the hydrogen mol % of Troccoli, as a means to optimize net film stress (Troccoli, ¶ 0073).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 rejections of claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are not persuasive. In particular, the Applicant argues “The primary reference, Venka, does not teach or suggest the claimed as-deposited stress. Instead, Venka discusses "as-deposited diamond-like carbon film may have a stress (MPa) less than about -100 MPa, for example from approximately -1000 MPa to approximately -100 MPa.” The Examiner notes that Venka is not relied upon to teach this feature, as noted in the rejection above. Rather, claim 1 is rejected by the combination of Venka and Seamons. Venka teaches high-density carbon films with low stress for use as a hardmask, and Seamons teaches high-density carbon film hardmasks with stress less than about -50 MPa (from 0 to -100 MPa, for example -50 MPa).
Regarding the Applicant’s argument stating “However, Seamons suggests doping amorphous carbon with boron to arrive at a stress less than -50 MPa. See Seamons, para. [0039] and Table II (where a boron-free amorphous carbon is characterized by a stress of -414 MPa). As such, Seamons, being directed to boron-doped amorphous carbon, is not directed to diamond-like carbon like Venka. Therefore, one skilled in the art would have no reason to incorporate boron from Seamons into Venka as this incorporation would modify the intended material of Venka”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both Venka and Seamons teach high-density, low stress carbon films suitable for use as masks for high aspect ratio applications (Venka, ¶ 0024 & Seamons, ¶ 0025). Although Seamons does not explicitly use the term ‘diamond-like’, the density of Seamons’ carbon film (¶ 0039: 1.95 g/cc) is comparable to the diamond-like carbon of Venka (¶ 0051: >1.8 g/cc). Seamons teaches low-stress carbon films at least with stress values overlapping or encompassing the claimed range, including properties such as etch selectivity, critical dimension control/uniformity, and ease of removal, which would enhance the hardmask carbon film of Venka. Venka also discusses a need for low-stress films to avoid wafer bow (¶ 0024).
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the claims are not allowable over the cited references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bobek et al. (US 2019/0172714 A1) teaches carbon films with stress of about -50 MPa (¶ 0079, figs. 5A-5B).
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 BRIAN TURNER whose telephone number is (571)270-5411. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at 571-270-3829. 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.
/BRIAN TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 2818