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 § 112
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.
Claim 12 is 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 lines 24-29 the claim language “wherein a second opening is formed between the second spacer and the third spacer after the assistant feature is removed, wherein a third opening is formed between the second spacer and the third spacer after the second anti-reflective coating pattern is removed, wherein a width of the first opening is equal to a width of the third opening and is different from a width of the second opening” is unclear. The claim as written describes a structure with two openings (second and third openings) between the first and second spacer, which disagrees with the figures (specifically figure 10) and the specification. Examiner believes the claim language to be a typographical error intended to read “wherein a second opening is formed between the second spacer and the third spacer after the assistant feature is removed, wherein a third opening is formed between the third spacer and the fourth spacer after the second anti-reflective coating pattern is removed, wherein a width of the first opening is equal to a width of the third opening and is different from a width of the second opening”. At this time, claim 12 is not sufficiently clear to be fully examined on its merits.
Claims 13-14 are also rejected as dependents of claim 12.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "third opening" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 lacks sufficient clarity for Examiner to understand or infer what structure is referred to by “third opening”, and therefore claim 4 cannot be examined on its merits at this time. For this reason, claim 5 is also rejected as a dependent of claim 4.
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(s) 1-3, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abatchev (US 20060046200 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Abatchev discloses a semiconductor device structure, comprising: a first hard mask pattern (160, see attached figure) disposed over a metal layer (110; para. 54 "the substrate can comprise… a metal layer"), wherein the metal layer is made of metal selected from a group consisting of copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), and stainless steel (para. 54 "… a metal layer, such as a… copper layer"); and a second hard mask pattern disposed over the metal layer and spaced apart from the first hard mask
PNG
media_image1.png
398
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
pattern (see attached figure) to define a first opening (opening between first and second hard mask patterns) between the first hard mask pattern and the second mask pattern, wherein a bottom surface of the first hard mask pattern is coplanar with a bottom surface of the second hard mask pattern; wherein the first hard mask pattern and the second hard mask pattern partially cover the metal layer; wherein the bottom surface of the first hard mask pattern and the bottom surface of the second hard mask pattern are in direct contact with a top surface of the metal layer (see attached figure).
Regarding claim 2, Abatchev discloses wherein a material of the first hard mask pattern is the same as a material of the second hard mask pattern (Figs. 15-19 show that all hard masks 160 are made from a single initial layer, and therefore are made of the same material).
Regarding claim 3, Abatchev discloses wherein the first hard mask pattern and the second hard mask pattern includes carbon (Para. 85 "the additional mask layer 160 is preferably formed of amorphous carbon").
Regarding claim 6, Abatchev discloses a method for preparing a semiconductor device structure, comprising: providing a substrate (Fig. 2, 110), wherein the substrate comprises a metal layer (para. 54 "the substrate can comprise… a metal layer"), a hard mask layer (150) over the metal layer, and an anti-reflective coating layer (combination of 130 and 140; para. 58 "the material for the first hard mask layer 130 preferably comprises… a dielectric anti-reflective coating") over the hard mask layer, wherein the metal layer is made of metal selected from a group consisting of copper, nickel, and stainless steel (para. 54 "… a metal layer, such as a… copper layer"); etching the anti-reflective coating layer to form an anti-reflective coating pattern (Fig. 6); depositing a spacer layer (Fig. 7, 170) covering a top surface of the hard mask layer, and a top surface and the opposite sidewalls of the anti-reflective coating pattern (Shown in fig. 7); removing a first portion of the spacer layer on the
PNG
media_image2.png
320
286
media_image2.png
Greyscale
top surface of the hard mask layer and a second portion of the spacer layer on the top surface of the anti-reflective coating pattern (Fig. 8) to form a first spacer and a second spacer on opposite sidewalls of the anti-reflective coating pattern, wherein a top surface of the anti-reflective coating pattern is coplanar with a top surface of the first spacer and a top surface of the second spacer (see attached figure); forming an assistant feature (Fig. 9, 155) adjoining the first spacer and the second spacer and over the hard mask layer (Fig. 9 shows 155 adjoining first and second spacers and being positioned over the hard mask); removing the anti-reflective coating pattern and the assistant feature (Fig. 11); and etching the hard mask layer by using the first spacer and the second spacer as a mask (Figs. 11-14) to form a first hard mask pattern and a second hard mask pattern (Fig. 14; see attached figure); wherein a top surface of the
PNG
media_image3.png
275
635
media_image3.png
Greyscale
metal layer is exposed by an opening between the first hard mask pattern and the second hard mask pattern after the hard mask layer is etched; wherein a bottom surface of the first hard mask pattern and a bottom surface of the second hard mask pattern are coplanar with the top surface of the metal layer (see attached figure).
Regarding claim 9, Abatchev discloses wherein the anti-reflective coating pattern is separated from the assistant feature by the first spacer and the second spacer (Fig. 9, anti-reflective coating 130/140 is separated from assistant feature 155 by first and second spacers).
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 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abatchev (US 20060046200 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Abatchev’s first embodiment (Figs. 2-14) discloses the method of preparing the semiconductor device structure of claim 6. However, Abatchev’s first embodiment does not disclose wherein the hard mask layer of the substrate includes carbon.
On the other hand, Abatchev’s second embodiment (Figs. 14-19) discloses wherein a hard mask pattern (Fig. 19, 160) includes carbon (Para. 85 “the additional mask layer 160 is preferably formed of amorphous carbon”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Abatchev’s first embodiment according to the teachings of Abatchev’s second embodiment such that Abatchev’s first and second hard mask patterns (150) would be formed of amorphous carbon, in order to facilitate high fidelity transfer of intricate patterns (Para. 87 “Amorphous carbon of the additional mask layer 160, however, advantageously offers excellent resistance to conventional etch chemistries.... Accordingly, the additional mask layer 160 can effectively be used as a mask for etching through a plurality of substrate layers, or for forming high aspect ratio trenches".
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abatchev (US 20060046200 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 6, and 9 above, and further in view of Lu (US 20220293419 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Abatchev discloses the method for preparing a semiconductor device structure of claim 6. However, Abatchev does not disclose wherein the hard mask layer of the substrate is formed by a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition process.
On the other hand, Lu discloses wherein the hard mask layer of the substrate is formed by a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition process (Para. 23 "The hard mask layer 220 may be formed using… plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Abatchev according to the teachings of Lu such that the hard mask layer of the substrate would be formed by a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition process, in order to maintain low production costs and/or simplify manufacturing by using a common deposition technique in the art and form the hard mask at lower temperatures than if traditional chemical vapor deposition were used.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abatchev (US 20060046200 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 6, and 9 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20160203983 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Abatchev discloses the method for preparing a semiconductor device structure of claim 6. However, Abatchev does not disclose wherein the anti-reflective coating pattern and the assistant feature comprise different materials.
On the other hand, Kim discloses wherein the anti-reflective coating pattern and the assistant feature comprise different materials (Fig. 6; para. 35 "the upper mask layer 108 may be formed of silicon nitride or silicon oxynitride. In this case, the upper mask layer 108 may also serve as an anti-reflective layer"; para. 57 "the filling layer pattern 114 constitutes an [amorphous carbon layer]"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Abatchev according to the teachings of Kim such that the anti-reflective coating pattern and the assistant feature would comprise different materials, in order to allow the two materials to have different etching rates and for a controlled etch to be performed on them.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
For this reason, claim 5 would also be allowable as a dependent of claim 4.
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-13, filed 1/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new interpretation of the prior art.
Applicant argued (a) that Abatchev does not disclose the metal layer being made of a metal selected from a group consisting of copper, nickel, and stainless steel; (b) that Abatchev does not disclose a width of a first opening being equal to a width of a third opening, a width of a second opening being equal to a width of a fourth opening, and a width of a first opening being different from a width of a second opening; (c) that Abatchev does not disclose removing a first portion of the spacer layer on the top surface of the hard mask layer and a second portion of the spacer layer on the top surface of the anti-reflective coating pattern to a first spacer and a second space on opposite sidewalls of the anti-reflective coating pattern, wherein a top surface of the anti-reflective coating pattern is coplanar with a top surface of the first spacer and a top surface of the second spacer; (d) that Abatchev does not disclose the assistant feature being formed above the top surface of the anti-reflective coating pattern after the first spacer and the second spacer are formed; and (e) that Abatchev does not disclose a width of a first opening being equal to a width of a third opening and being different from a width of a second opening. Applicant further argued that the carbon hard masks of Dai would fail in the material context of the instant application, therefore it would not be obvious to combine the teachings of Abatchev with the teachings of Dai.
Regarding argument (a), claims 1, 6 and 12 only limit “metal layer” to the extent that the metal layer is made of copper and/or nickel and/or stainless steel. Examiner asserts that a layer comprising copper is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the metal layer as defined in the claims.
Regarding argument (b), Examiner agrees that Abatchev does not disclose each of the limitations added to amended claim 4, however claim 4 contains undefined terminology and therefore cannot be examined on its merits. See 112(b) rejection above.
Regarding argument (c), Examiner asserts that Abatchev clearly shows removing a first portion of the spacer layer (Figs. 7-8 show the removal of a portion of spacer layer 170 which is disposed on the top surface of the hard mask layer 150) and a second portion of the spacer layer (Figs. 7-8 show the removal of a portion of spacer layer 170 which is disposed on the top surface of the anti-reflective coating patterns 130/140), wherein a top surface of the anti-reflective coating pattern (Fig. 8, top surface of 130) is coplanar with a top surface of the first and second spacers (Fig. 8, highest point of spacers 175).
Regarding argument (d), Examiner agrees that amended claim 11 overcomes the previous rejection. Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent on a rejected parent claim.
Regarding argument (e), Examiner agrees that Abatchev does not disclose a width of the first opening being equal to a width of the third opening and being different from a width of the second opening. However, claim 12 lacks sufficient clarity to be examined on its merits at this time.
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 SAMUEL J SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-5706. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at (571) 272-2063. 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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817