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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/15/26.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 10-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2018-109552 to DeRoest et al.
Regarding Claim 1, DeRoest et al. teaches a method of treating a carbon hardmask layer, comprising: positioning a workpiece within a process region of a processing chamber, wherein the workpiece comprises a carbon hardmask layer (Page 5) disposed on or over an underlayer; and treating the carbon hardmask layer by exposing the workpiece to a sequential infiltration synthesis (SIS) process to produce an aluminum oxide (Al2O3) carbon hybrid hardmask which is denser (implicit) than the carbon hardmask layer, wherein the SIS process comprises one or more infiltration cycles (Pages 7-9), and each of the infiltration cycles comprises: exposing the carbon hardmask layer to an aluminum precursor (such as TMA); infiltrating the carbon hardmask layer with the aluminum precursor via pores contained in the carbon hardmask layer; purging the process region to remove gaseous remnants containing the aluminum precursor (Page 8, Line 19); exposing the carbon hardmask layer to an oxidizing agent (such as water); infiltrating the carbon hardmask layer with the oxidizing agent via the pores contained in the carbon hardmask layer to produce an aluminum oxide coating disposed on inner surfaces of the carbon hardmask layer; and purging the process region (second purge) to remove gaseous remnants containing the oxidizing agent.
Regarding Claim 5, DeRoest et al. teaches (implicit) the carbon hardmask layer comprises carbon- containing materials having polar functional groups, wherein the aluminum oxide coating is disposed on inner surfaces having the polar functional groups, and wherein the polar functional groups include C-H groups, C-O groups, C=O groups, or any combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 6, DeRoest et al. teaches (implicit) the carbon hardmask layer comprises about 30 atomic percent (at%) to about 80 at% of carbon, about 10 at% to about 50 at% of hydrogen, and about 10 at% to about 20 at% of oxygen.
Regarding Claim 10, DeRoest et al. teaches the aluminum precursor comprises an alkylaluminum compound (TMA).
Regarding Claim 11, DeRoest et al. teaches (Page 14, Lines 1-2) the oxidizing agent comprises water, ozone, atomic oxygen, oxygen plasma, hydrogen peroxide, or any combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 12, DeRoest et al. teaches (Page 8, Lines 17-21) the aluminum precursor comprises trimethyl aluminum (TMA) and the oxidizing agent comprises water.
Regarding Claim 13, DeRoest et al. teaches (Page 9) the infiltration cycle is repeated 2 times to about 50 times during the SIS process.
Regarding Claim 15, DeRoest et al. teaches the carbon hardmask layer is exposed to the aluminum precursor for about 1 minute to about 10 minutes (Page 8) while infiltrating the carbon hardmask layer with the aluminum precursor during each of the infiltration cycles.
Regarding Claim 16, DeRoest et al. teaches (Page 8) the carbon hardmask layer is exposed to a purge gas for about 1 minute to about 30 minutes while purging the process region to remove the gaseous remnants containing the aluminum precursor during each of the infiltration cycles.
Regarding Claim 17, DeRoest et al. teaches (Page 8) the carbon hardmask layer is exposed to the oxidizing agent for about 1 minute to about 10 minutes while infiltrating the carbon hardmask layer with the oxidizing agent during each of the infiltration cycles.
Regarding Claim 18, DeRoest et al. teaches (Page 8) the carbon hardmask layer is exposed to a purge gas for about 1 minute to about 30 minutes while purging the process region to remove the gaseous remnants containing the oxidizing agent during each of the infiltration cycles.
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 2-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018-109552 to DeRoest et al. in view of US Publication 2016/0027614 to Manna et al.
Regarding Claim 2, ‘552 teaches the method of the invention substantially as claimed, by does not expressly teach mask thickness 1-20 µm. However, the useful range for mask thickness is well known in the art of forming small scale semiconductor devices. For example, Manna et al. teaches (Paragraph 54) mask thickness greater than 1 µm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide mask thickness greater than 1 µm in the method of ‘552 with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 3, ‘552 teaches the method of the invention substantially as claimed, by does not expressly teach feature height 1 to 20 µm and width 5 to 250nm.
However, the achievable range for feature height and width is well known in the art of forming small scale semiconductor devices. For example, Manna et al. teaches (Paragraph 59) features smaller than 45nm and aspect ratio 10:1 to 75:1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide teach feature height 1 to 20 µm and width 5 to 250nm in the method of ‘552 with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 4, ‘552 teaches the method of the invention substantially as claimed, by does not expressly teach patterned layer aspect ratio 20 to 500. However, the achievable range for aspect ratio is well known in the art of forming small scale semiconductor devices. For example, Manna et al. teaches (Paragraph 59) aspect ratio 10:1 to 75:1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide aspect ratio greater than 20 to 500 in the method of ‘552 with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 8-9, ‘552 teaches the method of the invention substantially as claimed, by does not expressly teach underlayer materials such as silicon oxide and silicon nitride stack. However, Manna et al. teaches (Paragraph 30) the well known substrate materials for small scale semiconductor devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the well known substrate materials for small scale semiconductor devices with predictable results.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018-109552 (‘552) to DeRoest et al. in view of KR 2017-0056093 (‘093).
Regarding Claims 7 and 19, as applied above to Claim 1, ‘552 teaches the method of the invention substantially as claimed, by does not expressly teach the hardmask comprises about 50-90% carbon, 5-30% oxygen and 5-20% metal (Al).
However, ‘093 teaches (Paragraph 18) 5-85% carbon, 5-60% oxygen and 5-40% metal (Al) hardmask composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a composition within the broadly recited ranges in the method of ‘552 in order to optimize the physical and chemical hardmask properties such as strength, corrosion resistance and conductivity with predictable results.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018-109552 (‘552) to DeRoest et al. in view of WO 2018-109554 to DeRoest et al. (‘554)
Regarding Claim 14, ‘552 teaches the method of the invention substantially as claimed, by does not expressly teach pressure. However, ‘554 teaches (Paragraph 55) the process region of the processing chamber is at a pressure of about 0.01 Torr to about 250 Torr during the SIS process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a suitable pressure for infiltration with predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberts P Culbert whose telephone number is (571)272-1433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 7:30 AM-6 PM 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/ROBERTS P CULBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights