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 Objections
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented objections and thus the objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) other than those included below and therefore the unrecited rejections have been withdrawn.
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, 3-10, 12-17, and 21-22 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.
In claims 1 and 10, the limitation “a high tilt angle of at least 20°” is not fully supported by the original specification. The specification describes that the high tilt angle may be “at least 45°” or between 60° and 80° on pg. 3 as well as that the angle may be between 20° and 30° on pg. 9; however, these disclosures only provide support for angles between 20° and 30° or 45° and greater but does not support angles between 30° and 45°, which are included in the claimed limitation. Therefore, the claims are not fully supported.
Claims 3-9, 12-17, and 21-22 depend on claims 1 and 10 and thus lack written description support by virtue of depending on unsupported claims.
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 9 and 17 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.
In claims 9 and 17 , the limitation “a twist angle” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this twist angle is intended to be the same as the twist angle recited in claims 1 and 10 or a different twist angle. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claims to recite “the twist angle”..
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 12-17, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 20210389679 A1) in view of Gronheid (US 20180173109 A1) and Godet (US 20120082942 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang (US 20210389679 A1) teaches a method of reducing line edge roughness and line width roughness (LER and LWR) of resist/photoresist walls (patterned photoresist) disposed on a substrate 202 (workpiece), where the resist pattern has a trench width D1 (thickness known as a critical dimension) defined by sidewalls and where the workpiece is attached to a platen 304 capable of tilting about a tilt axis and rotating (twisting) about a rotation axis (para 0002, 0030-0032, 0037, 0039, 0055; Fig. 2, 3, 11A-11B). Huang also teaches the method includes orienting the workpiece on the platen by rotating/twisting the workpiece to a first position (selecting a twist angle) such that the ion travel direction (trajectory of an incoming ion beam) is aligned with the lengthwise direction of the resist trenches 210C (primary photoresist direction) parallel to the sidewalls defining the critical dimension D1 and tilting the resist walls relative to the ion beam travel direction at a tilt angle of 60° to 80° (selecting a high tilt angle of at least 20°), wherein the orienting of the workpiece is followed by a first ion implantation step and then a second ion implantation step, where the ion implantation steps include directing one or more ion beams toward the oriented workpiece (Abstract, para 0032, 0038-0039, 0056-0062; Fig. 1B, 1D, 3).
Furthermore, Huang teaches that the method may include a mix of two ion implantation recipes, where each recipe has different ion species, where more than one ion beam may be used (para 0032, 0050; Fig. 1D, 10). Therefore, because Huang teaches that such ion implantation methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a first ion beam using a first ion species and a second ion beam using a second ion species different from the first ion species to perform the first and second implantation steps, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Huang teaches an implant energy and ion dose are selected for each ion beam (implant energy and dose of the first species and of the second species) and the method results in reducing LER and LWR while not enlarging the width D1 (critical dimension) of the patterned photoresist by 1 nm or less (such that the critical dimension is affected by less than 1 nm) (para 0037, 0039, 0041, 0050, 0055, 0067).
Huang fails to explicitly teach LER and LWR are reduced by at least 10%. However, Gronheid (US 20180173109 A1), in the analogous art of patterning, teaches the line edge roughness and line width roughness may be reduced by at least 10% after etching treatment in order to improve device characteristics (Abstract, para 0051). Additionally, Godet (US 20120082942 A1), in the analogous art of patterning, teaches LER and LWR as well as CD loss of patterned resist features may be optimized by selecting an energy, type, and dose of ions where the LER and LWR may each be improved by 40% (para 0050, 0053, 0055, 0075-0076). Huang teaches reducing the line edge roughness and line width roughness using ion beams (para 0039, 0055). Therefore, because Gronheid and Godet teach that such methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select ion energies and doses of the Huang process such that the line edge roughness and line width roughness are reduced by at least 10% while not enlarging the critical dimension D1 by more than 1 nm with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Huang, Gronheid, and Godet teaches that the first species may comprise silicon ions (Huang para 0039, 0062).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Huang, Gronheid, and Godet teaches the second species may comprise argon or xenon (inert species) (Huang para 0039, 0062).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Huang, Gronheid, and Godet teaches the second inert species may comprise argon (Huang para 0039, 0062).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Huang, Gronheid, and Godet teaches the second species may comprise oxygen or nitrogen (Huang para 0039, 0062).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Huang, Gronheid, and Godet teaches the patterned photoresist includes a plurality of trenches 210c (photoresist lines) and the tilt angle is 60° to 80° (at least 45°) (Huang para 0029-0030, 0034, 0038; Fig. 3, 6B, 6D).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Huang, Gronheid, and Godet teaches the tilt angle is 60° to 80° (Huang para 0034, 0038).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Huang, Gronheid, and Godet teaches the substrate is rotated (selecting a twist angle) such that a lengthwise direction of the trenches 210c (primary photoresist direction) is aligned with the trajectory of the ion beam 212 (Huang para 0038, 0040; Fig. 1B, 6B) and therefore the angle between the primary photoresist direction and the trajectory of the incoming ion beam is approximately 0° (less than 5°).
Regarding claim 10, Huang (US 20210389679 A1) teaches a method of reducing line edge roughness and line width roughness (LER and LWR) of resist/photoresist walls (patterned photoresist) disposed on a substrate 202 (workpiece), where the resist pattern has a trench width D1 (thickness known as a critical dimension) defined by sidewalls and where the workpiece is attached to a platen 304 capable of tilting about a tilt axis and rotating (twisting) about a rotation axis (para 0002, 0030-0032, 0037, 0039, 0055; Fig. 2, 3, 11A-11B). Huang also teaches the method includes orienting the workpiece on the platen by rotating/twisting the workpiece to a first position (selecting a twist angle) such that the ion travel direction (trajectory of an incoming ion beam) is aligned with the lengthwise direction of the resist trenches 210C (primary photoresist direction) parallel to the sidewalls defining the critical dimension D1 and tilting the resist walls relative to the ion beam travel direction at a tilt angle of 60° to 80° (selecting a high tilt angle of at least 20°), wherein the orienting of the workpiece is followed by a first ion implantation step and then a second ion implantation step and repeating of the first and second ion implantation step, where the workpiece is rotated 180° after each ion implantation step, and where the ion implantation steps include directing one or more ion beams toward the oriented workpiece (Abstract, para 0032, 0038-0039, 0056-0062; Fig. 1B, 1D, 3).
Furthermore, Huang teaches that the method may include rotating the substrate to a first position and performing a first implanting step 121 before rotating the substrate to the opposite direction before performing a second implanting step 123 before repeating the implanting steps, wherein the ion implantation operation may use a mix of two ion implantation recipes with different ion species, where the two recipes may be two instances of the Fig. 1B embodiment (i.e., a first ion species is used in the first two implantation steps and then the process is repeated with a different ion species), and wherein more than one ion beam may be used (para 0032, 0039-0042, 0050; Fig. 1B). Therefore, because Huang teaches that such ion implantation methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a first ion beam including a first ion species for performing two ion implantation steps separated by rotating the substrate by 180° (directing a first ion beam toward the workpiece, rotating the workpiece 180°, and directing the first ion beam toward the workpiece a second time) and use a second ion beam including a second ion species different from the first ion species to perform the repeated implantation steps (directing a second ion beam toward the workpiece, rotating the workpiece 180°, and directing the second ion beam toward the workpiece a second time) with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Additionally, Huang teaches that the first ion beam may comprise silicon ions (para 0039, 0062) and therefore the second ion beam including a second ion species different from the first ion species necessarily contains a second species different from the silicon ions.
Huang teaches an implant energy and ion dose are selected for each ion beam (implant energy and dose of the first species and of the second species) and the method results in reducing LER and LWR while not enlarging the width D1 (critical dimension) of the patterned photoresist by 1 nm or less (such that the critical dimension is affected by less than 1 nm) (para 0037, 0039, 0041, 0050, 0055, 0067).
Huang fails to explicitly teach LER and LWR are reduced by at least 10%. However, Gronheid (US 20180173109 A1), in the analogous art of patterning, teaches the line edge roughness and line width roughness may be reduced by at least 10% after etching treatment in order to improve device characteristics (Abstract, para 0051). Additionally, Godet (US 20120082942 A1), in the analogous art of patterning, teaches LER and LWR as well as CD loss of patterned resist features may be optimized by selecting an energy, type, and dose of ions where the LER and LWR may each be improved by 40% (para 0050, 0053, 0055, 0075-0076). Huang teaches reducing the line edge roughness and line width roughness using ion beams (para 0039, 0055). Therefore, because Gronheid and Godet teach that such methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select ion energies and doses of the Huang process such that the line edge roughness and line width roughness are reduced by at least 10% while not enlarging the critical dimension D1 by more than 1 nm with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Huang, Gronheid, and Godet teaches the second species may comprise argon or xenon (inert species) (Huang para 0039, 0062).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Huang, Gronheid, and Godet teaches the inert species may comprise argon (Huang para 0039, 0062).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Huang, Gronheid, and Godet teaches the second species may comprise oxygen or nitrogen (Huang para 0039, 0062).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Huang, Gronheid, and Godet teaches the patterned photoresist includes a plurality of trenches 210c (photoresist lines) and the tilt angle is 60° to 80° (at least 45°) (Huang para 0029-0030, 0034, 0038; Fig. 3, 6B, 6D).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Huang, Gronheid, and Godet teaches the tilt angle is 60° to 80° (Huang para 0034, 0038).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Huang, Gronheid, and Godet teaches the substrate is rotated (selecting a twist angle) such that a lengthwise direction of the trenches 210c (primary photoresist direction) is aligned with the trajectory of the ion beam 212 (Huang para 0038, 0040; Fig. 1B, 6B) and therefore the angle between the primary photoresist direction and the trajectory of the incoming ion beam is approximately 0° (less than 5°).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Huang, Gronheid, and Godet teaches the method may include performing a first implanting step 121 on the substrate/workpiece before performing a second implanting step 123 on the substrate/workpiece before repeating the implanting steps, wherein the ion implantation operation may use a two ion implantation recipes with different ion species, where the two recipes may be two instances of the Fig. 1B embodiment (i.e, a first ion species is used in the first two implantation steps and then the process is repeated with a different ion species), and wherein a separate ion beam may be used for each implantation recipe (the first ion beam having the first species is directed toward the workpiece prior to the second ion beam having the second species) (Huang para 0032, 0039-0042, 0050, 0062; Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Huang, Gronheid, and Godet teaches the method may include performing a first implanting step 121 before performing a second implanting step 123 before repeating the implanting steps, wherein the ion implantation operation may use a two ion implantation recipes with different ion species, where the two recipes may be two instances of the Fig. 1B embodiment (i.e, a first ion species is used in the first two implantation steps and then the process is repeated with a different ion species), wherein a separate ion beam may be used for each implantation recipe, and wherein the first ion beam comprises silicon ions (a first ion beam having silicon ions is directed toward the workpiece prior to the second ion beam having the second species) (Huang para 0032, 0039-0042, 0050, 0062; Fig. 1B).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-19, and 21-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-10, 12-17, and 21-22 of copending Application No. 18/077812 (reference application) in view of Gronheid (US 20180173109 A1) and Godet (US 20120082942 A1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, the reference application teaches all limitations identically (claim 1) except for the preamble limitation of reducing line edge roughness and line width roughness, that the high tilt angle is greater than 20° (claim 7 – at least 45°), and that an implant energy and dose of first and second species are selected so that LER and LWR are reduced by at least 10% and the critical dimension of the patterned photoresist is affected by less than 1 nm; however, the method steps are identical and thus one skilled in the art would expect the line edge roughness and line width roughness to be inherently reduced at least slightly. The reference application teaches selecting implant energy and dose of each species where the critical dimension is affected by less than 1 nm (claim 1, 3, 10, 12) but fails to explicitly teach the dose and energy are selected so that LER and LWR are reduced by at least 10%. However, Gronheid (US 20180173109 A1), in the analogous art of patterning, teaches the line edge roughness and line width roughness may be reduced by at least 10% after etching treatment in order to improve device characteristics (Abstract, para 0051). Additionally, Godet (US 20120082942 A1), in the analogous art of patterning, teaches LER and LWR as well as CD loss of patterned resist features may be optimized by selecting an energy, type, and dose of ions where the LER and LWR may each be improved by 40% (para 0050, 0053, 0055, 0075-0076). Therefore, because Gronheid and Godet teach that such methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select ion energies and doses of the reference application process such that the line edge roughness and line width roughness are reduced by at least 10% to improve device characteristics with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claims 3, the reference application teaches the first species comprises silicon (claim 4).
Regarding claim 4, the reference application teaches the second species comprises an inert species (claim 5).
Regarding claim 5, the reference application teaches the second species comprises argon (claim 6).
Regarding claim 6, the reference application teaches the second species comprises oxygen or nitrogen (claim 5).
Regarding claim 7, the reference application teaches adjacent patterned photoresist lines (a plurality of photoresist lines) and a tilt angle of at least 45° (claim 1, 7).
Regarding claim 8, the reference application teaches the tilt angle is between 60 and 80° (claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, the reference application teaches selecting a twist angle such that an angle between the primary photoresist direction and the trajectory of the incoming ion beam is less than 5° (claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, the reference application teaches all limitations identically (claim 10) except for the preamble limitation of reducing line edge roughness and line width roughness, that the high tilt angle is greater than 20° (claim 15 – at least 45°), and that an implant energy and dose of first and second species are selected so that LER and LWR are reduced by at least 10% and the critical dimension of the patterned photoresist is affected by less than 1 nm; however, the method steps are identical and thus one skilled in the art would expect the line edge roughness and line width roughness to be inherently reduced at least slightly. The reference application teaches selecting implant energy and dose of each species where the critical dimension is affected by less than 1 nm (claim 1, 3, 10, 12) but fails to explicitly teach the dose and energy are selected so that LER and LWR are reduced by at least 10%. However, Gronheid (US 20180173109 A1), in the analogous art of patterning, teaches the line edge roughness and line width roughness may be reduced by at least 10% after etching treatment in order to improve device characteristics (Abstract, para 0051). Additionally, Godet (US 20120082942 A1), in the analogous art of patterning, teaches LER and LWR as well as CD loss of patterned resist features may be optimized by selecting an energy, type, and dose of ions where the LER and LWR may each be improved by 40% (para 0050, 0053, 0055, 0075-0076). Therefore, because Gronheid and Godet teach that such methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select ion energies and doses of the reference application process such that the line edge roughness and line width roughness are reduced by at least 10% to improve device characteristics with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claims 12-17, the reference application teaches all limitations (claims 10, 13-17) as described for claims 3-8.
Regarding claim 18, the reference application teaches all limitations identically except for the preamble limitation of reducing line edge roughness and line width roughness (claim 1, 5); however, the method steps are identical and thus one skilled in the art would expect the line edge roughness and line width roughness to be inherently reduced at least slightly.
Regarding claim 19, the reference application teaches selecting a twist angle such that an angle between the primary photoresist direction and the trajectory of the incoming ion beam is less than 5° (claim 9) and selecting a tilt angle of at least 45° (claim 7).
Regarding claim 21, the reference application teaches the first ion beam having the first species is directed toward the workpiece prior to the second ion beam having the second species (claim 21).
Regarding claim 22, the reference application teaches the first ion beam comprising silicon ions is directed toward the workpiece prior to the second ion beam having the second species (claim 22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Huang with Gronheid and Godet is improper because Gronheid refers to oxidative plasma etching not ion beam etching and Godet teaches ion beam etching that does is direct toward sidewalls not parallel to the primary photoresist direction and not having a tilt angle and including a CD reduced by 1.5 nm. This argument is not persuasive because Huang teaches that the LER and LWR may be improved while the critical dimension is impacted by less than 1 nm, which in combination with the teaching of Gronheid that a LER and LWR reduction of “at least 10%” is desirable for improved performance independent of the method used to achieve the reduction and the teaching of Godet that the LER, LWR, and CD loss may be optimized by controlling the energy, type, and dose of ions, make it obvious to one skilled in the art to control the dose, energy, and type of ions used in the Huang process to achieve a LER and LWR reduction of at least 10% while still maintaining a CD affected by less than 1 nm. It should also be noted that the combination would use the ion beam etching method of Huang with the secondary references serving as teachings and motivations to optimize the LER and LWR reduction achieved by the Huang process.
Applicant argues that the first implant adds structural support to the photoresist making it more resistant to the second implant, which is not disclosed by the cited references. This argument is not persuasive because the current claims do not require this limitation.
Applicant argues that claim 3 is not taught because Gronheid and Godet do not teach silicon ions. This argument is not persuasive because Huang teaches silicon ions and the combination with Gronheid and Godet does not change the potential inclusion of silicon ions.
Applicant argues that claim 21 is not taught by the cited references because Huang does not disclose a preferential order of the first ion beam and second ion beam. This argument is not persuasive because Huang teaches either of the beams can comprise silicon and therefore it would have been obvious to use either ion beam first.
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 PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights