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 Arguments
Regarding Claims 1, 8 – 10, 12, & 18 – 19,
Applicant’s arguments in the reply filed 20 February 2026 against the rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the Office Action filed 20 November 2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection based on the newly cited primary reference KWON.
Regarding the prior art rejection of Claim 16,
Applicant’s arguments in the reply filed 20 February 2026 against the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the Office Action filed 20 November 2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
On page 11 of the aforementioned reply, Applicant argues:
Knaepen [is]…completely silent to disclosure related to the amount of metal compound to deposit…
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as KNAEPEN Col. 2, Lin. 50 states “[the] combination of a hardmask and infiltration processes can alter the properties (e.g. etch rate or even LER [or] width of patterned features) of the hardmask significantly” wherein the hardmask may be a carbon hardmask—KNAEPEN Col.2, Lin. 65, which comprises some initial and substantial amount of carbon—and the infiltration process may infiltrate the carbon hardmask with aluminum oxide—KNAEPEN Col. 5, Lin. 55, which introduces a substantial amount of aluminum and oxygen but does add or remove a substantial amount of carbon—thereby providing an aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask, which inherently comprises some substantial atomic percentage of aluminum, oxygen, and carbon.
On page 11 of the aforementioned reply, Applicant further argues:
…much less the amount of metal compound relative to the amount hardmask.
The Examiner concedes the relative amount of aluminum is not disclosed by KNAEPEN. However, the relative amounts claimed are held to be obvious, as described in the new rejection of Claim 1 in light of the new combination of KWON in view of KNAEPEN.
On page 11 of the aforementioned reply, Applicant further argues:
There is not enough disclosure within Knaepen…or evidence on the record to motivate one skilled in the art to modify…Knaepen…to be able to obtain an aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask comprising about 5 at% to about 20 at% of aluminum, about 5 at% to about 30 at% of oxygen, and about 50 at% to about 90 at% of carbon. The Examiner has not provided the required evidence to modify Knaepen…and arrived at the claimed subject matter. Specifically, one skilled in the art lacks motivation to obtain an aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask with the specifically claimed concentrations of aluminum, oxygen, and carbon…
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and has provided a new motivation statement pertaining thereto in light of the new combination of KWON in view of KNAEPEN. Specifically, as KNAEPEN Col. 2, Lin. 50 states “[the] combination of a hardmask and infiltration processes can alter the properties (e.g. etch rate or even LER [or] width of patterned features) of the hardmask significantly” wherein the hardmask may be a carbon hardmask—KNAEPEN Col.2, Lin. 65, which comprises some initial and substantial amount of carbon—and the infiltration process may infiltrate the carbon hardmask with aluminum oxide—KNAEPEN Col. 5, Lin. 55, which introduces a substantial amount of aluminum and oxygen but does add or remove a substantial amount of carbon—thereby providing an aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask, which inherently comprises some substantial atomic percentage of aluminum, oxygen, and carbon. That is, KNAEPEN recognizes the atomic percent of aluminum, oxygen, and carbon of said hybrid hardmask to affect at least the etch rate and width of the features of the hybrid hardmask. As such, said atomic percentages of the hybrid hardmask are result effective variables whereby decreasing the at% of aluminum and oxygen—by decreasing the amount of infiltrated aluminum oxide and, thus, increasing the at% of carbon—will increase—and, thus, negatively affect—the associated etch rate of the hybrid hardmask, and increasing the at% of aluminum and oxygen—by increasing the amount of infiltrated aluminum oxide and, thus, decreasing the at% of carbon—will increase—and, thus, negatively affect—the associated width of the features of the hybrid hardmask.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the result-effective variable of the atomic percent of aluminum, oxygen, and carbon of the hybrid hardmask in order to determine the optimum or workable ranges of said atomic percentages and arrive at the claimed invention (MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed ranges of atomic percentages are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention.
On page 11 of the aforementioned reply, Applicant further argues:
…on a patterned layer containing features separated by vias, gaps, or spaces containing widths having the specifically claimed values and features containing claimed aspect ratios having the specifically claimed values. The Examiner has been unable to find in the references disclosure of any of these claimed subject matters.
However, this portion of the argument is moot, as it is now covered by the new primary reference KWON.
As such, amending the claims as provided by Applicant in the aforementioned response is not deemed to patentably distinguish Applicant’s claimed invention from the known invention of KWON in view of KNAEPEN.
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 1 – 8 & 10 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KWON (US 20170207088 A1) in view of KNAEPEN (US 9916980 B1).
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the rejection of the claims to follow, consider both the original figures of the references cited as well as the annotated figure of KWON below.
PNG
media_image1.png
623
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1,
KWON discloses:
A method of forming a device (Fig. 1 – 4), comprising:
positioning a workpiece (104/110/112/118) within a process region of a processing chamber,
(Par. 34 discloses a suitable apparatus for performing at least the etching of the underlayer—as seen in Fig. 4—is a processing chamber. As such, during at least the etching of the underlayer, the workpiece may be positioned within said processing chamber where the process region of the processing chamber is inherently the region in which the workpiece is placed.)
wherein the workpiece (104/110/112/118) comprises:
a carbon hardmask layer (110; Par. 21) disposed on or over an underlayer (104), wherein:
the carbon hardmask layer (110) is a patterned layer (As seen in Fig. 2);
the patterned layer (110) contains features (Fig. 2: FTR) separated by vias, gaps, or spaces (202) which have a width (204) of about 5 nm to about 250 nm; and
(Par. 26 – 27: 306 may be between 20 nm and 100 nm, and 304 may be between 5 nm and 15 nm and uniform to within 1%. Therefore, 204 may be between 30 nm and 130 nm.)
the patterned layer (110) contains features (FTR) which have [a height of 1500 nm] (Par. 21);
a silicon-containing hardmask (112; Par. 22) disposed on or over the carbon hardmask layer (110); and
a patterned photoresist layer (118) having a feature pattern (As seen in Fig. 1) disposed on the silicon-containing hardmask (112);
etching (Fig. 2; Par. 24) the silicon-containing hardmask (112) and the carbon hardmask layer (110) to each have the feature pattern (As seen in Fig. 2) of the patterned photoresist layer (118);
…
then etching (Fig. 4; Par. 32) the underlayer (104) to have the feature pattern (As seen in Fig. 4) of the patterned photoresist layer (118).
KWON does not disclose:
the patterned layer (110) contains features (FTR) which have an aspect ratio of about 20 to about 500
Regardless, KWON Par. 6 states “as feature sizes of integrated device patterns decrease [to increase the associated device density], the critical dimension (CD) requirement of features becomes an increasingly important criterion for stable and repeatable device performance”. That is, KWON recognizes the feature sizes of the device formed by the disclosed method to affect the stability and repeatability of said device’s performance. As such, the feature sizes of the device formed by the disclosed method are a result-effective variable.
Further, as one such feature size is clearly the width of the features of said device, which is inherently and directly related to the width of the features of the carbon hardmask layer (patterned layer), the width of the features of the carbon mask layer (patterned layer) is also a result-effective variable. Further still, as KWON Par. 21 discloses the height of the features of the carbon hardmask layer (patterned layer) to be 1500 nm, the aspect ratio of the features of the carbon hardmask layer (patterned layer) is also a result-effective variable whereby decreasing said aspect ratio will decrease—and, thus, negatively affect—the associated device density, and increasing said aspect ratio will decrease—and, thus, negatively affect—the associated device performance stability and repeatability, KWON Par. 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the result-effective variable of the aspect ratio of the features of the carbon hardmask layer (patterned layer) in order to determine the optimum or workable ranges of said aspect ratio and arrive at the claimed invention (MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed range of aspect ratios is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention.
KWON does not disclose:
treating the carbon hardmask layer (110) by exposing the workpiece (104/110/112/118) to a sequential infiltration synthesis (SIS) process to produce an aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask which is denser than the carbon hardmask layer,
wherein the aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask comprises about 5 at% to about 20 at% of aluminum, about 5 at% to about 30 at% of oxygen, and about 50 at% to about 90 at% of carbon;
KNAEPEN discloses:
treating the carbon hardmask layer (Col. 2, Lin. 65) by exposing the workpiece (Fig. 2: 216) to a sequential infiltration synthesis (SIS) process (Fig. 1: Step 120; Col 4, Lin. 5: “the hardmask material may be infiltrated with an infiltration material during one or more infiltration cycles”) to produce an aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask (Col. 5, Lin. 55: the carbon hardmask may be infiltrated with aluminum oxide) which is denser than the carbon hardmask layer (Col. 4, Lin. 15: said treatment results “in a reinforcement of the hardmask material”. Further, aluminum oxide is inherently denser than carbon.)
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of KWON with those of KNAEPEN such that the SIS process of KNAEPEN replaces or precedes the deposition of the additional hardmask 302 of KWON to enable treating the carbon hardmask layer by exposing the workpiece to a sequential infiltration synthesis (SIS) process to produce an aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask which is denser than the carbon hardmask layer in KWON according to the teachings of KNAEPEN for the further advantage of decreasing the etch rate of said hybrid hardmask, KNAEPEN Col. 2, Lin. 50.
KNAEPEN does not disclose:
wherein the aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask comprises about 5 at% to about 20 at% of aluminum, about 5 at% to about 30 at% of oxygen, and about 50 at% to about 90 at% of carbon;
Regardless, KNAEPEN Col. 2, Lin. 50 states “[the] combination of a hardmask and infiltration processes can alter the properties (e.g. etch rate or even LER [or] width of patterned features) of the hardmask significantly” wherein the hardmask may be a carbon hardmask—KNAEPEN Col.2, Lin. 65, which comprises some initial and substantial amount of carbon—and the infiltration process may infiltrate the carbon hardmask with aluminum oxide—KNAEPEN Col. 5, Lin. 55, which introduces a substantial amount of aluminum and oxygen but does add or remove a substantial amount of carbon—thereby providing an aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask, which inherently comprises some substantial atomic percentage of aluminum, oxygen, and carbon. That is, KNAEPEN recognizes the atomic percent of aluminum, oxygen, and carbon of said hybrid hardmask to affect at least the etch rate and width of the features of the hybrid hardmask. As such, said atomic percentages of the hybrid hardmask are result effective variables whereby decreasing the at% of aluminum and oxygen—by decreasing the amount of infiltrated aluminum oxide and, thus, increasing the at% of carbon—will increase—and, thus, negatively affect—the associated etch rate of the hybrid hardmask, and increasing the at% of aluminum and oxygen—by increasing the amount of infiltrated aluminum oxide and, thus, decreasing the at% of carbon—will increase—and, thus, negatively affect—the associated width of the features of the hybrid hardmask.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the result-effective variable of the atomic percent of aluminum, oxygen, and carbon of the hybrid hardmask in order to determine the optimum or workable ranges of said atomic percentages and arrive at the claimed invention (MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed ranges of atomic percentages are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2,
KWON does not disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein
the SIS process comprises one or more infiltration cycles, and each of the infiltration cycles comprises:
exposing the carbon hardmask layer to an aluminum precursor;
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;
exposing the carbon hardmask layer to an oxidizing agent;
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 to remove gaseous remnants containing the oxidizing agent.
KNAEPEN discloses:
the SIS process (Step 120) comprises one or more infiltration cycles, and
(Col. 4, Lin. 5 teaches during 120 “the hardmask material may be infiltrated with an infiltration material during one or more infiltration cycles”.)
each of the infiltration cycles comprises:
exposing the carbon hardmask layer to an aluminum precursor;
(Col. 4, Lin. 5 teaches each infiltration cycle may comprise a “[s]tep 120a of providing a first precursor to the hardmask material” where “[t]he first precursor may be an alkyl compound of aluminum”, Col. 7, Lin. 55.)
infiltrating the carbon hardmask layer with the aluminum precursor via pores contained in the carbon hardmask layer;
(Col. 2, Lin. 60 teaches the carbon hardmask layer may be porous. Further, Col. 4, Lin 5 teaches during step 120a of 120, the carbon hardmask layer is infiltrated with a “first precursor” where “[t]he first precursor may be an alkyl compound of aluminum”, Col. 7, Lin. 55. Therefore, during step 120a, the carbon hardmask layer is infiltrated with the aluminum precursor—at least in part—via pores contained in the carbon hardmask layer.)
purging the process region to remove gaseous remnants containing the aluminum precursor;
(Col. 4, Lin. 10 teaches each infiltration cycle may comprise a “[s]tep 120b of removing a portion of the first precursor” where “[r]emoving the first…precursor may be accomplished by pumping the first…precursor out of the reaction chamber and alternatively or additionally by providing a purge gas in the reaction chamber to purge the first…precursor away”, Col. 4, Lin. 35. Further, Col. 4, Lin. 25 teaches “the precursors are preferably gases during the infiltration”.)
exposing the carbon hardmask layer to an oxidizing agent;
(Col. 4, Lin. 10 teaches each infiltration cycle may comprise a “[s]tep 120c of providing a second precursor to the hardmask material” where “[t]he second precursor may be an oxidant”, Col. 7, Lin. 60.)
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
(Col. 2, Lin. 60 teaches the carbon hardmask layer may be porous. Further, Col. 4, Lin 5 – 15 teaches during step 120c of 120, the carbon hardmask layer is infiltrated with a “second precursor” where “[t]he second precursor may be an oxidant”, Col. 7, Lin. 60. Therefore, during step 120c, the carbon hardmask layer is infiltrated with the oxidizing agent—at least in part—via pores contained in the carbon hardmask layer. Further still, Col. 4, Lin. 15 teaches during step 120c “the first and second precursor [are allowed] to react with each other forming the infiltration material, resulting in a reinforcement of the hardmask material” where said “infiltration material” may be aluminum oxide, Col. 8, Lin. 15. As both the aluminum precursor and the oxidizing agent are—at least in part—in the pores of the carbon hardmask layer during step 120c, the aluminum oxide coating formed in 120c is disposed—at least in part—on inner surfaces of the pores of the carbon hardmask layer.)
purging the process region to remove gaseous remnants containing the oxidizing agent.
(Col. 4, Lin. 15 teaches each infiltration cycle may comprise a “[s]tep 120d in which a portion of the second precursor may be removed” where “[r]emoving the...second precursor may be accomplished by pumping the…second precursor out of the reaction chamber and alternatively or additionally by providing a purge gas in the reaction chamber to purge the…second precursor away”, Col. 4, Lin. 35. Further, Col. 4, Lin. 25 teaches “the precursors are preferably gases during the infiltration”.)
Regarding Claim 3,
KWON does not disclose:
The method of claim 2, wherein
the aluminum precursor comprises an alkylaluminum compound, and
wherein the oxidizing agent comprises water, ozone, atomic oxygen, oxygen plasma, hydrogen peroxide, or any combination thereof.
KNAEPEN discloses:
the aluminum precursor comprises an alkylaluminum compound, and
(Col. 7, Lin. 55 teaches “[t]he first precursor may be an alkyl compound of aluminum”.)
wherein the oxidizing agent comprises water, ozone, atomic oxygen, oxygen plasma, hydrogen peroxide, or any combination thereof.
(Col. 7, Lin. 65 teaches “[t]he oxidant is chosen form the group comprising water, ozone, hydrogen peroxide, ammonia and hydrazine”.)
Regarding Claim 4,
KWON does not disclose:
The method of claim 2, wherein
the aluminum precursor comprises trimethyl aluminum and
the oxidizing agent comprises water, and wherein
the infiltration cycle is repeated 2 times to about 50 times during the SIS process.
KNAEPEN discloses:
the aluminum precursor comprises trimethyl aluminum and
(Col. 7, Lin. 55 teaches “[t]he first precursor may be an alkyl compound of aluminum selected from the group consisting of trimethyl aluminum (TMA), triethyl aluminum (TEA), and dimethylaluminumhydride (DMAH)”.)
the oxidizing agent comprises water, and wherein
(Col. 7, Lin. 65 teaches “[t]he oxidant is chosen form the group comprising water, ozone, hydrogen peroxide, ammonia and hydrazine”.)
the infiltration cycle is repeated 2 times to about 50 times during the SIS process.
(Col. 4, Lin. 20 teaches “[t]he infiltration sequence may be repeated N times, wherein N is…preferably 3 to 20”.)
Regarding Claim 5,
KWON does not disclose:
The method of claim 2, wherein:
the process region of the processing chamber is at a pressure of about 0.01 Torr to about 250 Torr during the SIS process;
the carbon hardmask layer is exposed to the aluminum precursor for about 1 minute to about 10 minutes while infiltrating the carbon hardmask layer with the aluminum precursor during each of the infiltration cycles;
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;
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; and
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.
KNAEPEN discloses:
the process region of the processing chamber is at a pressure of about 0.01 Torr to about 250 Torr during the SIS process;
(Col. 7, Lin. 50 teaches “[t]he pressure in the chamber may be controlled to a value…between 5 and 100 Torr”.)
the carbon hardmask layer is exposed to the aluminum precursor [for between 50 and 4000 seconds] while infiltrating the carbon hardmask layer with the aluminum precursor during each of the infiltration cycles;
(Col. 8, Lin. 30 teaches during each infiltration cycle “step 120a may comprise a supply of a first precursor, such as TMA, for a period T1 ranging from…preferably between 50 and 4000…seconds” and “[i]n this way a deep infiltration of the first precursor in the hard mask material is assured”, Col. 4, Lin. 45.)
the carbon hardmask layer is exposed to a purge gas [for between 50 and 4000 seconds] while purging the process region to remove the gaseous remnants containing the aluminum precursor during each of the infiltration cycles;
(Col. 8, Lin. 30 teaches during each infiltration cycle “step 120b may also then comprise a removal and/or a purge for the second period T2 between…50 and 4000…seconds” and “[r]emoving the first…precursor may be accomplished by pumping the first…precursor out of the reaction chamber and alternatively or additionally by providing a purge gas in the reaction chamber to purge the first…precursor away”, Col. 4, Lin. 35. Further, Col. 4, Lin. 25 teaches “the precursors are preferably gases during the infiltration”.)
the carbon hardmask layer is exposed to the oxidizing agent for [6 to 800 seconds] while infiltrating the carbon hardmask layer with the oxidizing agent during each of the infiltration cycles; and
(Col. 8, Lin. 35 teaches during each infiltration cycle “step 120c may then comprise a supply of a second precursor, such as water, for a period T3 ranging from…preferably 6 to 800 seconds”, therefore “allowing the first and second precursor to react with each other forming the infiltration material, resulting in a reinforcement of the hardmask material”, Col. 4, Lin. 15.)
the carbon hardmask layer is exposed to a purge gas for [1 to 10000 seconds] while purging the process region to remove the gaseous remnants containing the oxidizing agent during each of the infiltration cycles.
(Col. 8, Lin. 40 teaches during each infiltration cycle “step 120d may then comprise a second removal/purge having a fourth period T4 ranging from 1 to 10000 seconds” and “[r]emoving the…second precursor may be accomplished by pumping the…second precursor out of the reaction chamber and alternatively or additionally by providing a purge gas in the reaction chamber to purge the…second precursor away”, Col. 4, Lin. 35. Further, Col. 4, Lin. 25 teaches “the precursors are preferably gases during the infiltration”.)
KNAEPEN does not disclose:
the carbon hardmask layer is exposed to the aluminum precursor for about 1 minute to about 10 minutes;
the carbon hardmask layer is exposed to a purge gas for about 1 minute to about 30 minutes;
the carbon hardmask layer is exposed to the oxidizing agent for about 1 minute to about 10 minutes; and
the carbon hardmask layer is exposed to a purge gas for about 1 minute to about 30 minutes
Regardless, KNAEPEN Col. 4, Lin. 15 – 45 recognizes controlling said exposure times provides a means to control the level of infiltration of the aluminum precursor and/or the oxidizing agent into the carbon hardmask during said infiltration steps as well as the level of removal of said reactants from the process region during each purge step to yield an effective process. As such, said exposure times are result effective variables whereby increasing said exposure time to the aluminum precursor would lead to a decrease—and, thus, negatively affect—the rate and effectiveness of the infiltration of the aluminum precursor due to saturation of the carbon hardmask with as much, and decreasing said exposure time to the aluminum precursor would lead to a decrease—and, thus, negatively affect—the amount of aluminum precursor infiltrated into the carbon hardmask. Similarly, increasing said exposure time to the oxidizing agent would lead to a decrease—and, thus, negatively affect—the rate and effectiveness of the infiltration of the oxidizing agent due to saturation of the carbon hardmask with as much, and decreasing said exposure time to the oxidizing agent would lead to a decrease—and, thus, negatively affect—in the amount of oxidizing agent infiltrated into the carbon hardmask. Also, increasing said exposure time to the purge gas would lead to a decrease—and, thus, negatively affect—the amount of a given reactant remaining within the carbon hardmask after a given purge cycle, and decreasing said exposure time to the purge gas would lead to an increase—and, thus, negatively affect—the amount of a given reactant within the reaction chamber not infiltrated into the carbon hardmask after a given purge cycle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the result-effective variables of the aforementioned exposure times in order to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the exposure times and arrive at the claimed invention (MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed ranges of exposure times are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 6,
KWON discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein
the patterned photoresist layer (118) is produced by an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography process or a deep ultraviolet (DUV) lithography process (Par. 23).
Regarding Claim 7,
KWON discloses:
The method of claim 1,
wherein the device is a memory device, a logic device, or a microelectronic device, and
(Par. 20: “The material layers 104 are generally manufactured from materials in an arrangement suitable for forming three dimensional (3D) NAND devices”)
wherein the feature pattern (As described in Claim 1) is etched completely through a thickness of the silicon-containing hardmask (112).
(As seen in Fig. 2)
Regarding Claim 8,
KWON discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein
etching the silicon-containing hardmask (112) further comprises exposing the silicon-containing hardmask (112) to a fluorocarbon etchant and a process gas (Par. 24),
wherein the fluorocarbon etchant comprising tetrafluoromethane, trifluoromethane, difluoromethane, monofluoromethane, octafluorocyclobutane, hexafluoro-1,3-butadiene, or any combination thereof (Par. 24), and
wherein the process gas comprises argon, helium, nitrogen (N2), oxygen (02), or any combination thereof (Par. 24).
Regarding Claim 10,
KWON discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein
the feature pattern (As described for Claim 1) is partially etched (Par. 32) into a thickness of the underlayer (104), and
(As seen in Fig. 4)
partially etching the underlayer (104) further comprises
exposing the underlayer (104) to a fluorocarbon etchant and a process gas (Par. 34), wherein
the fluorocarbon etchant comprising tetrafluoromethane, trifluoromethane, difluoromethane, monofluoromethane, octafluorocyclobutane, hexafluoro-1,3-butadiene, or any combination thereof (Par. 34), and
the process gas comprises argon, helium, nitrogen (N2), oxygen (02), or any combination thereof (Par. 34).
Regarding Claim 11,
KWON discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein
the carbon hardmask layer (110) has a thickness of about 1 µm to about 20 µm.(Par. 21: 110 may have a thickness of 1.5 µm)
Regarding Claim 12,
KWON discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein:
the patterned layer (110) contains features (FTR) which have a height of about 1 µm to about 20 µm (Par. 21: FTR of 110 may have a height of 1.5 µm);
the patterned layer (110) contains features (FTR) separated by vias, gaps, or spaces (202) which have a width (204) of about 10 nm to about 250 nm; and
(Par. 26 – 27: 306 may be between 20 nm and 100 nm, and 304 may be between 5 nm and 15 nm and uniform to within 1%. Therefore, 204 may be between 30 nm and 130 nm.)
KWON and/or KNAEPEN do not disclose:
the patterned layer (110) contains features (FTR) which have an aspect ratio of about 30 to about 500.
Regardless, KWON Par. 6 states “as feature sizes of integrated device patterns decrease [to increase the associated device density], the critical dimension (CD) requirement of features becomes an increasingly important criterion for stable and repeatable device performance”. That is, KWON recognizes the feature sizes of the device formed by the disclosed method to affect the stability and repeatability of said device’s performance. As such, the feature sizes of the device formed by the disclosed method are a result-effective variable.
Further, as one such feature size is clearly the width of the features of said device, which is inherently and directly related to the width of the features of the carbon hardmask layer (patterned layer), the width of the features of the carbon mask layer (patterned layer) is also a result-effective variable. Further still, as KWON Par. 21 discloses the height of the features of the carbon hardmask layer (patterned layer) to be 1500 nm, the aspect ratio of the features of the carbon hardmask layer (patterned layer) is also a result-effective variable whereby decreasing said aspect ratio will decrease—and, thus, negatively affect—the associated device density, and increasing said aspect ratio will decrease—and, thus, negatively affect—the associated device performance stability and repeatability, KWON Par. 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the result-effective variable of the aspect ratio of the features of the carbon hardmask layer (patterned layer) in order to determine the optimum or workable ranges of said aspect ratio and arrive at the claimed invention (MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed range of aspect ratios is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 13,
KWON does not disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein:
the carbon hardmask layer comprises carbon-containing materials having polar functional groups;
the aluminum oxide coating is disposed on inner surfaces having the polar functional groups; and
the polar functional groups include C-H groups, C-O groups, C=0 groups, or any combination thereof.
KNAEPEN discloses:
the carbon hardmask layer comprises carbon-containing materials having polar functional groups;
(Col. 3, Lin. 5 teaches the carbon hardmask layer may comprise SiCOH, which has polar functional groups, C-H.)
the aluminum oxide coating is disposed on inner surfaces having the polar functional groups; and
(As stated for Claim 2, the aluminum oxide coating is disposed—at least in part—on inner surfaces of the pores of the carbon hardmask layer. As the pores of the carbon hardmask layer are part of the carbon hardmask layer, and the carbon hardmask layer comprises functional groups, C-H, the aluminum oxide coating is disposed—at least in part—on inner surfaces having the polar functional groups.)
the polar functional groups include C-H groups, C-O groups, C=0 groups, or any combination thereof.
(As previously stated, SiCOH has polar function groups, C-H.)
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of KWON with those of KNAEPEN such that the material of the carbon hardmask of KWON is that of the material of the carbon hardmask of KNAEPEN to enable the carbon hardmask of KWON to comprise SiCOH as taught by KNAEPEN—consequentially satisfying the limitations of this claim—because while KWON discloses the carbon hardmask to include carbonaceous materials, KWON does not disclose any specifics about the chemical composition of said materials. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for specifics about the chemical composition of said materials for a carbon hardmask recognized for its suitability and intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07). Further still, the specifics about the chemical composition of said materials for a carbon hardmask of KNAEPEN meet these criteria, as the disclosed processes of both KWON and KNAEPEN are from the same field of endeavor, and both make use of the carbon hardmask for the same purpose: to pattern an underlayer as a means of forming a semiconductor device with small device features, KWON Background; KNAEPEN Background.
Regarding Claim 14,
KWON discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein
the carbon hardmask layer (110) is deposited (Par. 21)…
KWON does not disclose:
the carbon hardmask layer (110) is deposited by a thermal chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process, a plasma-enhanced CVD (PE- CVD) process, a flowable CVD (FCVD) process, or a spin-on process.
KNAEPEN discloses:
the carbon hardmask layer is deposited by a thermal chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process, a plasma-enhanced CVD (PE- CVD) process, a flowable CVD (FCVD) process, or a spin-on process.
(Col. 3, Lin. 5 teaches the carbon hardmask layer may be deposited in a spin-on process.)
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of KWON with those of KNAEPEN such that the carbon hardmask of KWON is deposited via the method of depositing the analogous carbon hardmask of KNAEPEN to enable the carbon hardmask of KWON to be deposited via a spin-on process as taught by KNAEPEN because while KWON discloses the carbon hardmask is deposited, KWON does not disclose the method of deposition. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for an appropriate deposition method for a carbon hardmask recognized for its suitability and intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07). Further still, the method of depositing the carbon hardmask of KNAEPEN meets these criteria, as both KWON and KNAEPEN are from the same field of endeavor, and both make use of the carbon hardmask for the same purpose: to pattern an underlayer as a means of forming a semiconductor device with small device features, KWON Background; KNAEPEN Background.
Regarding Claim 15,
KWON and/or KNAEPEN do not disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein 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.
However, as described for Claim 13, KNAEPEN Col. 3, Lin. 5 teaches the carbon hardmask layer may comprise SiCOH. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of KWON with those of KNAEPEN such that the material of the carbon hardmask of KWON is that of the material of the carbon hardmask of KNAEPEN to enable the carbon hardmask of KWON to comprise SiCOH as taught by KNAEPEN because while KWON discloses the carbon hardmask to include carbonaceous materials, KWON does not disclose any specifics about the chemical composition of said materials. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for specifics about the chemical composition of said materials for a carbon hardmask recognized for its suitability and intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07). Further still, the specifics about the chemical composition of said materials for a carbon hardmask of KNAEPEN meets these criteria, as the disclosed processes of both KWON and KNAEPEN are from the same field of endeavor, and both make use of the carbon hardmask for the same purpose: to pattern an underlayer as a means of forming a semiconductor device with small device features, KWON Background; KNAEPEN Background.
In short, the carbon hardmask layer of KWON in view of KNAEPEN may comprise SiCOH. Therefore, the carbon hardmask layer of KWON in view of KNAEPEN inherently comprises some substantial atomic percent of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, wherein the exact atomic percentages depend upon which species—or mixture of species—of SiCOH is used therein.
As such, KWON in view of KNAEPEN discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed at% ranges for carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in the carbon hardmask layer. Further, KWON in view of KNAEPEN teaches the general condition of this claim in that the method disclosed is for the infiltration of reagents into the carbon hardmask layer to hybridize and, thereby, reinforce said carbon hardmask layer. Further still, Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed ranges of atomic percentages are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to experiment with different SiCOH species and/or mixtures thereof used for the carbon hardmask layer and thereby tune the at% for carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in the carbon hardmask layer to fall within their respectively claimed ranges as a means to optimize at least the porosity of the carbon hardmask layer for the sake of being readily infiltrated by the associated precursors since it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 16,
KWON and/or KNAEPEN do not disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein
the aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask (As described for Claim 1) comprises about 5 at% to about 10 at% of aluminum, about 5 at% to about 20 at% of oxygen, and about 70 at% to about 90 at% of carbon.
Regardless, KNAEPEN Col. 2, Lin. 50 states “[the] combination of a hardmask and infiltration processes can alter the properties (e.g. etch rate or even LER [or] width of patterned features) of the hardmask significantly” wherein the hardmask may be a carbon hardmask—KNAEPEN Col.2, Lin. 65, which comprises some initial and substantial amount of carbon—and the infiltration process may infiltrate the carbon hardmask with aluminum oxide—KNAEPEN Col. 5, Lin. 55, which introduces some substantial amount of aluminum and oxygen but does add or remove a substantial amount of carbon—thereby providing an aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask, which inherently comprises some substantial atomic percentage of aluminum, oxygen, and carbon. That is, KNAEPEN recognizes the atomic percent of aluminum, oxygen, and carbon of said hybrid hardmask to affect at least the etch rate and width of the features of the hybrid hardmask. As such, said atomic percentages of the hybrid hardmask are result effective variables whereby decreasing the at% of aluminum and oxygen—by decreasing the amount of infiltrated aluminum oxide and, thus, increasing the at% of carbon—will increase—and, thus, negatively affect—the associated etch rate of the hybrid hardmask, and increasing the at% of aluminum and oxygen—by increasing the amount of infiltrated aluminum oxide and, thus, decreasing the at% of carbon—will increase—and, thus, negatively affect—the associated width of the features of the hybrid hardmask.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the result-effective variable of the atomic percent of aluminum, oxygen, and carbon of the hybrid hardmask in order to determine the optimum or workable ranges of said atomic percentages and arrive at the claimed invention (MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed ranges of atomic percentages are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 17,
KWON discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein
the underlayer (104) comprises metal oxide, metal nitride, silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, dopants thereof, or any combination thereof (Par. 19).
Regarding Claim 18,
KWON discloses:
The method of claim 1,
wherein the underlayer (104) comprises a stack (Par. 19: 106/108) disposed on or over a substrate (102), and
wherein the stack (106/108) comprises alternating layers (Par. 19) of silicon oxide (106) and layers of silicon nitride (108).
Regarding Claim 19,
KWON discloses:
A method of forming a device (Fig. 1 – 4), comprising:
positioning a workpiece (104/110/112/118) within a process region of a processing chamber,
(Par. 34 discloses a suitable apparatus for performing at least the etching of the underlayer—as seen in Fig. 4—is a processing chamber. As such, during at least the etching of the underlayer, the workpiece may be positioned within said processing chamber where the process region of the processing chamber is inherently the region in which the workpiece is placed.)
wherein the workpiece (104/110/112/118) comprises:
a carbon hardmask layer (110; Par. 21) disposed on or over an underlayer (104), wherein:
the carbon hardmask layer (110) is a patterned layer (As seen in Fig. 2);
the patterned layer (110) contains features (FTR) separated by vias, gaps, or spaces (202) which have a width (204) of about 5 nm to about 250 nm; and
(Par. 26 – 27: 306 may be between 20 nm and 100 nm, and 304 may be between 5 nm and 15 nm and uniform to within 1%. Therefore, 204 may be between 30 nm and 130 nm.)
the patterned layer (110) contains features (FTR) which have [a height of 1500 nm] (Par. 21);
a silicon-containing hardmask (112; Par. 22) disposed on or over the carbon hardmask layer (110); and
a patterned photoresist layer (118) having a feature pattern (As seen in Fig. 1) disposed on the silicon-containing hardmask (112);
etching (Fig. 2; Par. 24) the silicon-containing hardmask (112) and the carbon hardmask layer (110) to each have the feature pattern (As seen in Fig. 2) of the patterned photoresist layer (118);
…
then etching (Fig. 4; Par. 32) the underlayer (104) to have the feature pattern (As seen in Fig. 4) of the patterned photoresist layer (118).
KWON does not disclose:
the patterned layer (110) contains features (FTR) which have an aspect ratio of about 20 to about 500
Regardless, KWON Par. 6 states “as feature sizes of integrated device patterns decrease [to increase the associated device density], the critical dimension (CD) requirement of features becomes an increasingly important criterion for stable and repeatable device performance”. That is, KWON recognizes the feature sizes of the device formed by the disclosed method to affect the stability and repeatability of said device’s performance. As such, the feature sizes of the device formed by the disclosed method are a result-effective variable.
Further, as one such feature size is clearly the width of the features of said device, which is inherently and directly related to the width of the features of the carbon hardmask layer (patterned layer), the width of the features of the carbon mask layer (patterned layer) is also a result-effective variable. Further still, as KWON Par. 21 discloses the height of the features of the carbon hardmask layer (patterned layer) to be 1500 nm, the aspect ratio of the features of the carbon hardmask layer (patterned layer) is also a result-effective variable whereby decreasing said aspect ratio will decrease—and, thus, negatively affect—the associated device density, and increasing said aspect ratio will decrease—and, thus, negatively affect—the associated device performance stability and repeatability, KWON Par. 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the result-effective variable of the aspect ratio of the features of the carbon hardmask layer (patterned layer) in order to determine the optimum or workable ranges of said aspect ratio and arrive at the claimed invention (MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed range of aspect ratios is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention.
KWON does not disclose:
treating the carbon hardmask layer by exposing the workpiece to a sequential infiltration synthesis (SIS) process to produce an aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask which is denser than the carbon hardmask layer,
wherein the aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask comprises about 5 at% to about 20 at% of aluminum, about 5 at% to about 30 at% of oxygen, and about 50 at% to about 90 at% of carbon, and
wherein the SIS process comprises one or more infiltration cycles, and
each of the infiltration cycles comprises:
exposing the carbon hardmask layer to an aluminum precursor for about 1 minute to about 10 minutes while infiltrating the carbon hardmask layer with the aluminum precursor via pores contained in the carbon hardmask layer;
exposing the carbon hardmask layer 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;
exposing the carbon hardmask layer to an oxidizing agent for about 1 minute to about 10 minutes while 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
exposing the carbon hardmask layer to the purge gas for about 1 minute to about 30 minutes while purging the process region to remove the gaseous remnants containing the oxidizing agent;
KNAEPEN discloses:
treating the carbon hardmask layer (Col. 2, Lin. 65) by exposing the workpiece (Fig. 2: 216) to a sequential infiltration synthesis (SIS) process (Fig. 1: Step 120; Col 4, Lin. 5: “the hardmask material may be infiltrated with an infiltration material during one or more infiltration cycles”) to produce an aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask (Col. 5, Lin. 55: the carbon hardmask may be infiltrated with aluminum oxide) which is denser than the carbon hardmask layer (Col. 4, Lin. 15: said treatment results “in a reinforcement of the hardmask material”. Further, aluminum oxide is inherently denser than carbon.)
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of KWON with those of KNAEPEN such that the SIS process of KNAEPEN replaces or precedes the deposition of the additional hardmask 302 of KWON to enable treating the carbon hardmask layer by exposing the workpiece to a sequential infiltration synthesis (SIS) process to produce an aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask which is denser than the carbon hardmask layer in KWON according to the teachings of KNAEPEN for the further advantage of decreasing the etch rate of said hybrid hardmask, KNAEPEN Col. 2, Lin. 50.
KNAEPEN does not disclose:
wherein the aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask comprises about 5 at% to about 20 at% of aluminum, about 5 at% to about 30 at% of oxygen, and about 50 at% to about 90 at% of carbon;
Regardless, KNAEPEN Col. 2, Lin. 50 states “[the] combination of a hardmask and infiltration processes can alter the properties (e.g. etch rate or even LER [or] width of patterned features) of the hardmask significantly” wherein the hardmask may be a carbon hardmask—KNAEPEN Col.2, Lin. 65, which comprises some initial and substantial amount of carbon—and the infiltration process may infiltrate the carbon hardmask with aluminum oxide—KNAEPEN Col. 5, Lin. 55, which introduces some substantial amount of aluminum and oxygen but does add or remove a substantial amount of carbon—thereby providing an aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask, which inherently comprises some substantial atomic percentage of aluminum, oxygen, and carbon. That is, KNAEPEN recognizes the atomic percent of aluminum, oxygen, and carbon of said hybrid hardmask to affect at least the etch rate and width of the features of the hybrid hardmask. As such, said atomic percentages of the hybrid hardmask are a result effective variable whereby decreasing the at% of aluminum and oxygen—by decreasing the amount of infiltrated aluminum oxide and, thus, increasing the at% of carbon—will increase—and, thus, negatively affect—the associated etch rate of the hybrid hardmask, and increasing the at% of aluminum and oxygen—by increasing the amount of infiltrated aluminum oxide and, thus, decreasing the at% of carbon—will increase—and, thus, negatively affect—the associated width of the features of the hybrid hardmask.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the result-effective variable of the atomic percent of aluminum, oxygen, and carbon of the hybrid hardmask in order to determine the optimum or workable ranges of said atomic percentages and arrive at the claimed invention (MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed ranges of atomic percentages are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention.
KNAEPEN discloses:
wherein the SIS process comprises one or more infiltration cycles, and
(Col. 4, Lin. 5 teaches during 120 “the hardmask material may be infiltrated with an infiltration material during one or more infiltration cycles”.)
each of the infiltration cycles comprises:
exposing the carbon hardmask layer to an aluminum precursor for [between 50 and 4000 seconds] while infiltrating the carbon hardmask layer with the aluminum precursor via pores contained in the carbon hardmask layer;
(Col. 2, Lin. 60 teaches the carbon hardmask layer may be porous. Col. 8, Lin. 30 teaches during each infiltration cycle “step 120a may comprise a supply of a first precursor, such as TMA, for a period T1 ranging from…preferably between 50 and 4000…seconds” and “[i]n this way a deep infiltration of the first precursor in the hard mask material is assured”, Col. 4, Lin. 45. Therefore, during step 120a, the carbon hardmask layer is infiltrated with the aluminum precursor—at least in part—via pores contained in the carbon hardmask layer.)
exposing the carbon hardmask layer to a purge gas for [between 50 and 4000 seconds] while purging the process region to remove the gaseous remnants containing the aluminum precursor;
(Col. 8, Lin. 30 teaches during each infiltration cycle “step 120b may also then comprise a removal and/or a purge for the second period T2 between…50 and 4000…seconds” and “[r]emoving the first…precursor may be accomplished by pumping the first…precursor out of the reaction chamber and alternatively or additionally by providing a purge gas in the reaction chamber to purge the first…precursor away”, Col. 4, Lin. 35. Further, Col. 4, Lin. 25 teaches “the precursors are preferably gases during the infiltration”.)
exposing the carbon hardmask layer to an oxidizing agent for [6 to 800 seconds] while 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
(Col. 2, Lin. 60 teaches the carbon hardmask layer may be porous. Further, Col. 8, Lin. 35 teaches during each infiltration cycle “step 120c may then comprise a supply of a second precursor, such as water, for a period T3 ranging from…preferably 6 to 800 seconds”. Therefore, during step 120c, the carbon hardmask layer is infiltrated with the oxidizing agent—at least in part—via pores contained in the carbon hardmask layer. Further still, Col. 4, Lin. 15 teaches during step 120c “the first and second precursor [are allowed] to react with each other forming the infiltration material, resulting in a reinforcement of the hardmask material” where said “infiltration material” may be aluminum oxide, Col. 8, Lin. 15. As both the aluminum precursor and the oxidizing agent are—at least in part—in the pores of the carbon hardmask layer during step 120c, the aluminum oxide coating formed in 120c is disposed—at least in part—on inner surfaces of the pores of the carbon hardmask layer.)
exposing the carbon hardmask layer to the purge gas for [1 to 10000 seconds] while purging the process region to remove the gaseous remnants containing the oxidizing agent;
(Col. 8, Lin. 40 teaches during each infiltration cycle “step 120d may then comprise a second removal/purge having a fourth period T4 ranging from 1 to 10000 seconds” and “[r]emoving the…second precursor may be accomplished by pumping the…second precursor out of the reaction chamber and alternatively or additionally by providing a purge gas in the reaction chamber to purge the…second precursor away”, Col. 4, Lin. 35. Further, Col. 4, Lin. 25 teaches “the precursors are preferably gases during the infiltration”.)
KNAEPEN does not disclose:
exposing the carbon hardmask layer to the aluminum precursor for about 1 minute to about 10 minutes;
exposing the carbon hardmask layer to the purge gas for about 1 minute to about 30 minutes;
exposing the carbon hardmask layer to the oxidizing agent for about 1 minute to about 10 minutes; and
exposing the carbon hardmask layer to the purge gas for about 1 minute to about 30 minutes
Regardless, KNAEPEN Col. 4, Lin. 15 – 45 recognizes controlling said exposure times provides a means to control the level of infiltration of the aluminum precursor and/or the oxidizing agent into the carbon hardmask during said infiltration steps as well as the level of removal of said reactants from the process region after each purge step to yield an effective process. As such, said exposure times are result effective variables whereby increasing said exposure time to the aluminum precursor would lead to a decrease—and, thus, negatively affect—the rate and effectiveness of the infiltration of the aluminum precursor due to saturation of the carbon hardmask with as much, and decreasing said exposure time to the aluminum precursor would lead to a decrease—and, thus, negatively affect—the amount of aluminum precursor infiltrated into the carbon hardmask. Similarly, increasing said exposure time to the oxidizing agent would lead to a decrease—and, thus, negatively affect—the rate and effectiveness of the infiltration of the oxidizing agent due to saturation of the carbon hardmask with as much, and decreasing said exposure time to the oxidizing agent would lead to a decrease—and, thus, negatively affect—the amount of oxidizing agent infiltrated into the carbon hardmask. Also, increasing said exposure time to the purge gas would lead to a decrease—and, thus, negatively affect—the amount of a given reactant remaining within the carbon hardmask after a given purge cycle, and decreasing said exposure time to the purge gas would lead to an increase—and, thus, negatively affect—the amount of a given reactant within the reaction chamber not infiltrated into the carbon hardmask after a given purge cycle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the result-effective variables of the aforementioned exposure times in order to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the exposure times and arrive at the claimed invention (MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed ranges of exposure times are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 20,
KWON discloses:
The method of claim 19,
…
wherein the patterned layer (110) contains features (FTR) which have a height of about 1 um to about 20 um (Par. 21: FTR of 110 may have a height of 1.5 µm).
KWON and/or KNAEPEN do not disclose:
wherein 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
However, as described for Claim 13, KNAEPEN Col. 3, Lin. 5 teaches the carbon hardmask layer may comprise SiCOH. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of KWON with those of KNAEPEN such that the material of the carbon hardmask of KWON is that of the material of the carbon hardmask of KNAEPEN to enable the carbon hardmask of KWON to comprise SiCOH as taught by KNAEPEN because while KWON discloses the carbon hardmask to include carbonaceous materials, KWON does not disclose any specifics about the chemical composition of said materials. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for specifics about the chemical composition of said materials for a carbon hardmask recognized for its suitability and intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07). Further still, the specifics about the chemical composition of said materials for a carbon hardmask of KNAEPEN meets these criteria, as the disclosed processes of both KWON and KNAEPEN are from the same field of endeavor, and both make use of the carbon hardmask for the same purpose: to pattern an underlayer as a means of forming a semiconductor device with small device features, KWON Background; KNAEPEN Background.
In short, the carbon hardmask layer of KWON in view of KNAEPEN may comprise SiCOH. Therefore, the carbon hardmask layer of KWON in view of KNAEPEN inherently comprises some substantial atomic percent of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, wherein the exact atomic percentages depend upon which species—or mixture of species—of SiCOH is used therein.
As such, KWON in view of KNAEPEN discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed at% ranges for carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in the carbon hardmask layer. Further, KWON in view of KNAEPEN teaches the general condition of this claim in that the method disclosed is for the infiltration of reagents into the carbon hardmask layer to hybridize and, thereby, reinforce said carbon hardmask layer. Further still, Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed ranges of atomic percentages are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to experiment with different SiCOH species and/or mixtures thereof used for the carbon hardmask layer and thereby tune the at% for carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in the carbon hardmask layer to fall within their respectively claimed ranges as a means to optimize at least the porosity of the carbon hardmask layer for the sake of being readily infiltrated by the associated precursors since it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KWON in view of KNAEPEN and in further view of COMEAUX, “Etching characteristics of low-k SiCOH thin films under fluorocarbon-based plasmas”, May 2022
Regarding Claim 9,
KWON discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein
the feature pattern (As described in Claim1) is etched completely through a thickness of the carbon hardmask layer (110), and
(As seen in Fig. 2)
KWON and/or KNAEPEN do not disclose:
etching the carbon hardmask layer further comprises
exposing the carbon hardmask layer to an etchant gas and a passivation gas, wherein
the etchant gas comprises argon, oxygen, or a combination thereof, and
the passivation gas comprises methane, sulfur dioxide, carbonyl sulfide, or any combination thereof.
However, as described for Claim 13, KNAEPEN Col. 3, Lin. 5 teaches the carbon hardmask layer may comprise SiCOH. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of KWON with those of KNAEPEN such that the material of the carbon hardmask of KWON is that of the material of the carbon hardmask of KNAEPEN to enable the carbon hardmask of KWON to comprise SiCOH as taught by KNAEPEN because while KWON discloses the carbon hardmask to include carbonaceous materials, KWON does not disclose any specifics about the chemical composition of said materials. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for specifics about the chemical composition of said materials for a carbon hardmask recognized for its suitability and intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07). Further still, the specifics about the chemical composition of said materials for a carbon hardmask of KNAEPEN meet these criteria, as the disclosed processes of both KWON and KNAEPEN are from the same field of endeavor, and both make use of the carbon hardmask for the same purpose: to pattern an underlayer as a means of forming a semiconductor device with small device features, KWON Background; KNAEPEN Background.
In short, the carbon hardmask layer of KWON in view of KNAEPEN may comprise SiCOH.
COMEAUX discloses:
etching the carbon hardmask layer further comprises
exposing the carbon hardmask layer to an etchant gas and a passivation gas, wherein
the etchant gas comprises argon, oxygen, or a combination thereof, and
the passivation gas comprises methane, sulfur dioxide, carbonyl sulfide, or any combination thereof.
(Abstract teaches an etchant process for etching hydrogenated silicon oxy-carbide (SiCOH) carbon hardmask layer comprises exposing the SiCOH carbon hardmask layer to an etchant gas—oxygen—and a passivation gas—methane.)
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of KWON in view of KNAEPEN with those of COMEAUX such that the process of etching the carbon hardmask layer of KWON in view of KNAEPEN is replaced by the process of etching the carbon hardmask layer of COMEAUX to enable the process of etching the carbon hardmask of KWON in view of KNAEPEN to comprise exposing the carbon hardmask layer to an etchant gas, comprising oxygen, and a passivation gas, comprising methane, according to the teachings of COMEAUX, as these inventions are from the same field of endeavor, and the processes of etching the carbon hardmask layer of both KWON in view of KNAEPEN and COMEAUX are recognized in the art for the same purpose of etching, specifically, a carbon hardmask layer comprising SiCOH (MPEP 2144.06).
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 Kenneth S. Stephenson whose telephone number is (571)272-6686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. (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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
/K.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/Leonard Chang/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights