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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 11/24/2025, in which claims 1, 8, 15, 17, 21 were amended, claims 10, 16 were cancelled, claim 22 was added, has been entered.
Specification
The amendment to the specification received on 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species 3, Figs. 7A-7O in the reply filed on 06/27/2025 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)).
Claims 1-7 directed to an invention that is distinct from elected species 3, shown in Figs. 7A-7O for the following reasons: claim 1 requires “removing a portion of the first mask layer exposed through the second mask layer to expose a portion of the substrate” while in elected species 3, Fig. 7F and paragraph [0043] discloses that “the second mask pattern 212 partially exposes the first mask layer 220, and the exposed first mask layer 220 is not etched when the line patterns 101 are removed.” (Emphasis added). In addition, Fig. 7E-7H shows that the first mask layer 220 exposed through the second mask layer 210 was not etched.
PNG
media_image1.png
527
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In addition, claim 1 recites the limitation “etching the substrate exposed through the first mask layer and the second mask layer to obtain the prescribed pattern”. However, in elected species 3, etching the substrate [line patterns 101] exposed through the first mask layer 220 and the second mask layer 210 show in Fig. 7F and/or etching the substrate [line patterns 101] exposed through the first mask layer 220 and the third mask layer 710 show in Fig. 7N do not obtain the prescribed pattern. The prescribed pattern is obtained in Fig. 7O or 7P after etching the substrate [line patterns 101] exposed through the first mask layer 220 and the second mask layer 221 or exposed through the first mask layer 220 and the third mask layer 710. (Emphasis added).
PNG
media_image2.png
306
783
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
242
633
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, claims 1-7 and 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species.
It is further notes that “[t]he meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies… The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.” See MPEP 608.01 (o), 2173.05 (a). Thus, the claim terms “first mask layer” and “second mask layer” must be consistent with the term “first mask layer” and “second mask layer” identified/defined in the specification. It seems that Applicant attempted to use the claimed term “second mask layer” to refer to the third mask layer 710 defined in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms will raise specification objection and 112 (b) rejection and would not be allowed if the claims are examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chu et al. (US Pub. 20150262873).
Regarding claim 8, Chu et al. discloses in Fig. 2A-7B a method of reducing corner rounding during patterning of a substrate having two or more materials to form a prescribed pattern comprising a corner, the method comprising:
dividing the prescribed pattern into a first pattern [vertical] and a second pattern [horizontal], the first pattern forming a first edge of the corner and the second pattern forming a second edge of the corner, wherein at least a portion of the second pattern overlaps the first pattern such that the first edge intersects with the second edge to form a first corner of the prescribed pattern [Fig. 6A];
forming the first pattern in a first mask layer [111] disposed over the substrate [101, 105, 107, 109] to expose the substrate [101, 105, 107, 109][Fig. 2A-2B];
forming the second pattern in the first mask layer [111] to expose the substrate [101, 105, 107, 109][Fig. 4A-4B];
prior to forming the second pattern, etching a first [109] of the two or more materials of the substrate [101, 105, 107, 109] exposed by the first pattern [Fig. 2A-2B]; and
etching the substrate [101, 105, 107, 109] exposed by the second pattern [Fig. 4B, Fig. 6B].
PNG
media_image4.png
434
452
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 9, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US Pub. 20150262873) as applied to claim 8 above in view of Zhou et al. (US Pub. 20190096666).
Regarding claims 9, 11-14, Chu et al. fails to disclose
wherein the two or more materials are disposed in a pattern in a portion exposed by the first pattern;
wherein the first of the two or more materials is a pattern of lines separated by spacers comprising a second of the two or more materials;
wherein the second material is a different material than the first material;
wherein the first material is silicon nitride, silicon dioxide, doped silicon, or a metallic material;
wherein the second material is silicon nitride, silicon dioxide, or a doped silicon.
Zhou et al. discloses in Fig. 8A, 10A, Fig. 13A
wherein the two or more materials [40 and 60] are disposed in a pattern in a portion exposed by the first pattern;
wherein the first [40] of the two or more materials is a pattern of lines separated by spacers comprising a second [60] of the two or more materials;
wherein the second material [60] is a different material than the first material [40];
wherein the first material [40] is silicon nitride, silicon dioxide, doped silicon, or a metallic material [silicon nitride];
wherein the second material [60] is silicon nitride, silicon dioxide, or a doped silicon [silicon oxide].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhou et al. into the method of Chu et al. to include wherein the two or more materials are disposed in a pattern in a portion exposed by the first pattern; wherein the first of the two or more materials is a pattern of lines separated by spacers comprising a second of the two or more materials; wherein the second material is a different material than the first material; wherein the first material is silicon nitride, silicon dioxide, doped silicon, or a metallic material; wherein the second material is silicon nitride, silicon dioxide, or a doped silicon. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chu et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing improved methods for device patterning utilizing self-aligned double patterning (SADP), self-aligned quad patterning (SAQP) for extending the capabilities of photolithographic techniques beyond the minimum pitch capabilities of existing lithographic equipment and selective etching process to minimizing or eliminating pattern misalignment [paragraphs [0004]-[0005], [0048], [0073] of Zhou et al.]
Claims 15, 17-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (US Pub. 20170345913) in view of Zhou et al. (US Pub. 20190096666) and deVilliers et al. (US Pub. 20170316939), or alternatively, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US Pub. 20190096666) in view of Dai et al. (US Pub. 20170345913), and deVilliers et al. (US Pub. 20170316939).
Regarding claim 15, Dai et al. discloses in Fig. 2E-2J a method, comprising:
forming a first mask layer [235] over a substrate [Fig. 2E],
wherein the substrate comprises a line pattern [220] formed of a first material in a second material [230][Fig. 2E];
forming a first pattern [255] in the first mask layer [235] exposing a first part of the line pattern [220][Fig. 2F, paragraph [0028]];
forming a second mask layer [240] over the first mask layer [235][Fig. 2E];
removing the first part of the line pattern [220] exposed by the first mask layer [235] to form a space [260] in the second material [230][Fig. 2F];
filling the space [260] with a third material [265] different from the first material [230][Fig. 2G, paragraphs [0022], [0029]];
after filling the space with the third material [265], polishing the third material [265] until an uppermost surface of the third material [265] is coplanar with an uppermost surface of the first mask layer [235];
exposing a second part [40] of the line pattern [220][Fig. 2I]; and
removing the second part of the line pattern [220][Fig. 2I].
Dai et al. fails to disclose
exposing the second part of the line pattern comprising:
forming a third mask layer over the third material and the first material;
forming the third pattern in the third mask layer exposing a part of the first mask layer;
removing the part of the first mask layer exposing the second part of the line pattern.
However, Dai suggests in Fig. 2E-2F that exposing a part of the line pattern comprising:
forming a mask layer over the first material;
forming a pattern in the mask layer exposing a part of the first mask layer; and
removing the part of the first mask layer exposing a part of the line pattern.
Thus, it would be obvious to one skill in the art to apply the same above method as a suitable method for exposing a second part of the line pattern.
For further support, Zhou et al. and deVilliers et al. are cited.
Zhou et al. discloses
exposing the second part of the line pattern comprising:
forming a third mask layer [121] over the third material [120] and the first material [40 and 80][Fig. 13A];
forming a third pattern [133] in the third mask layer [121/131]; and
exposing the second part [40] of the line pattern [40 and 80][Fig. 13A].
deVilliers et al. discloses in Fig. 1A-6A
exposing a second part of the substrate comprising:
forming a third mask layer [130] over the third material [121] and the first material [115][Fig. 5A];
forming the third pattern in the third mask layer [130] exposing a part of the first mask layer [112][Fig. 6A];
removing the part of the first mask layer [112] exposing the second part of the substrate [Fig. 6A].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhou et al. and deVilliers et al. into the method of Dai et al. to include exposing the second part of the line pattern comprising: forming a third mask layer over the third material and the first material; forming the third pattern in the third mask layer exposing a part of the first mask layer; removing the part of the first mask layer exposing the second part of the line pattern. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Dai et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable alternative method for exposing the second part of the line pattern to enhance etching selectivity while protect other device areas during the removing the second part of the line pattern. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Alternatively,
Regarding claim 15, Zhou et al. discloses in Fig. 9A-14A a method, comprising:
forming a first mask layer [90] over a substrate [Fig. 9A],
wherein the substrate comprises a line pattern [40 and 80] formed of a first material in a second material [60][Fig. 9A];
forming a first pattern [102] in the first mask layer [90/100] exposing a first part [80] of the line pattern [40 and 80][Fig. 10A];
forming a second mask layer [91] over the first mask layer [90][Fig. 9A];
removing the first part [80] of the line pattern [40 and 80] exposed by the first mask layer [100] to form a space [110] in the second material [60][Fig. 11A];
filling the space [110] with a third material [SOC 120] different from the first material [aluminum oxide 80][Fig. 12A, paragraph [0066]-[0067], [0074]];
exposing a second part [40] of the line pattern [40 and 80][Fig. 13A];
removing the second part [40] of the line pattern [40 and 80][Fig. 14A].
Zhou et al. fails to disclose
after filling the space with the third material, polishing the third material until an uppermost surface of the third material is coplanar with an uppermost surface of the first mask layer;
exposing the second part of the line pattern comprising:
forming a third mask layer over the third material and the first material;
forming the third pattern in the third mask layer exposing a part of the first mask layer;
removing the part of the first mask layer exposing the second part of the line pattern.
However, Zhou suggests in Fig. 9A-10A that exposing a part of the line pattern comprising:
forming a mask layer over the first material;
forming a pattern in the mask layer exposing a part of the first mask layer; and
removing the part of the first mask layer exposing a part of the line pattern.
Thus, it would be obvious to one skill in the art to apply the same above method as a suitable method for exposing a second part of the line pattern.
Dai et al. discloses in Fig. 2G
after filling the space with the third material [265], polishing the third material [265] until an uppermost surface of the third material [265] is coplanar with an uppermost surface of the first mask layer [235].
deVilliers et al. discloses in Fig. 1A-6A
after filling the space with the third material [120], polishing the third material [120] until an uppermost surface of the third material [120/121] is coplanar with an uppermost surface of the first mask layer [112][Fig. 3A-Fig. 4A];
exposing a second part of the substrate comprising:
forming a third mask layer [130] over the third material [121] and the first material [115][Fig. 5A];
forming the third pattern in the third mask layer [130] exposing a part of the first mask layer [112][Fig. 6A];
removing the part of the first mask layer [112] exposing the second part of the substrate [Fig. 6A].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Dai et al. and deVilliers et al. into the method of Zhou et al. to include after filling the space with the third material, polishing the third material until an uppermost surface of the third material is coplanar with an uppermost surface of the first mask layer; exposing the second part of the line pattern comprising: forming a third mask layer over the third material and the first material; forming the third pattern in the third mask layer exposing a part of the first mask layer; removing the part of the first mask layer exposing the second part of the line pattern. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zhou et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable alternative method for exposing the second part of the line pattern while enabling the use of the same first mask layer to protect other device areas during the removing the first and second parts of the line pattern thus reducing the process steps and improving process throughput.
Regarding claim 17, Dai et al. fails to disclose
wherein the polishing comprises chemical mechanical polishing.
However, Dai et al. discloses in Fig. 2F-2G, paragraph [0029]
the polishing comprises a planarization process.
Chemical mechanical polishing or CMP is a known planarization process and therefore it would have been obvious to select CMP for use as the planarization process in the method of Dai et al. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 18, Dai et al. discloses in Fig. 2E and paragraph [0025] wherein the first mask layer [235] and the second mask layer [240] have etch selectivity with respect to each other.
Zhou et al. also discloses in paragraph [0068]-[0069] wherein the first mask layer [90] and the second mask layer [91] have etch selectivity with respect to each other [masks 90 and 91 are formed of different materials thus masks 90 and 91 have etch selectivity with respect to each other].
Regarding claim 21, deVilliers et al. discloses in Fig. 7A, Fig. 15A
removing remaining parts of the first mask layer [112], the third mask layer [130], and the third material [121].
Zhou et al. discloses in Fig. 14A
removing remaining parts of the first mask layer, the third mask layer, and the third material.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (US Pub. 20170345913), Zhou et al. (US Pub. 20190096666) and deVilliers et al. (US Pub. 20170316939) as applied to claim 15 above and further in view of Xie et al. (US Pub. 20170018437)
Regarding claim 19, Dai et al. and Zhou et al. fails to disclose
wherein the third material and the second material comprise a same material.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the finite number of predictable solutions for a material of the third material with respect to a material of the second material: the third material and the second material comprise a same material or the third material and the second material comprise different materials. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to try the third material and the second material comprise a same material to yield suitable material for the third material and the second material with a reasonable expectation of success.
For further providing support that the third material and the second material comprise a same material, Xi et al. is cited.
Xie et al. discloses in Fig. 8-Fig. 9, paragraph [0034]-[0035]
the third material [140] and the second material [122] comprise a same material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Xie et al. into the method of Dai et al. and Zhou et al. to include the third material and the second material comprise a same material. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Dai et al. and Zhou et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable material of the third material with respect to the second material.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US Pub. 20190096666) in view of Dai et al. (US Pub. 20170345913), and deVilliers et al. (US Pub. 20170316939) as applied to claim 15 above and further in view of Dai et al. (US Pub. 20160042950), hereafter Dai950 as evidenced by Kim et al. (US Pub. 20180374915)
Regarding claim 20, Zhou et al. fails to disclose
wherein the third material is titanium nitride.
Zhou discloses in Fig. 12A the third material 120 is a gap fill material.
Dai950 discloses in Fig. 1E, paragraph [0017]
wherein the third material [114] is metal nitride.
Titanium nitride is a known metal nitride as evidenced in paragraph [0058] of Kim et al. and therefore it would have been obvious to select titanium nitride based on its suitability for use as the metal nitride in the method of Dai950. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Dai950 into the method of Zhou et al. to include wherein the third material is titanium nitride. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zhou et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable material of the third material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8-9, 11-15, 17-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected and the Action is made FINAL.
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 SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893