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 Interpretation
Claim 6 of the instant application, which depends from claim 1 of the instant application, recites that the carbon hardmask layer is deposited onto upper surfaces of the patterned photoresist layer while depositing the carbon hardmask layer into the feature pattern of the patterned photoresist layer. However, claim 1 of the instant application recites that the patterned photoresist layer is removed from the silicon-containing hardmask, and then the carbon hardmask layer is deposited. Thus, aforementioned limitation of claim 6 appears to contradict the scope of independent claim 1, as the carbon hardmask layer is deposited once the photoresist layer is removed, and thus it is unclear to the Examiner how the carbon hardmask layer is formed onto the upper surfaces of the patterned photoresist layer. For the purposes of examining claim 6 against the prior art, the Examiner is interpreting instant claim 6 to mean that the photoresist layer is removed, and the deposited carbon hardmask layer covers the silicon hardmask, which is consistent with Fig. 3C of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9916980 B1 (hereby referred to as Knaepen) in view of US 20090170322 A1 (hereby referred to as Bok).
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 5-6, Knaepen teaches a method of forming a structure on a substrate. A substrate is provided to a reaction chamber with a hardmask disposed upon the substrate (Knaepen, Col. 2 Line 54-58). The hardmask may be a spin on carbon layer (Knaepen, Col. 2 Line 66-67). The hardmask material is infiltrated with an infiltration material during one or more infiltration cycles (Knaepen, Col. 4 Line 3-6). The infiltration may be performed by a dedicated infiltration synthesis system (Knaepen, Col. 4 Line 51-59). The infiltration cycles comprise exposing the hardmask material on the substrate to a precursor (Knaepen, Col. 4 Line 7-10), which infiltrates the porous hardmask material (Knaepen, Col. 2 Line 59-65), purging the precursor (Knaepen, Col. 4 Line 11-12), introducing a second precursor to the hardmask material and reacting the first and second precursors with each other to form the infiltration material (Knaepen, Col. 4 Line 13-17). The second precursor is then purged (Knaepen, Col. 4 Line 18-20). The material infiltrated may be aluminum oxide (Al2O3) (Knaepen, Col. 5 Line 54-64 and Col. 8 Line 4-11). Infiltrating the spin on carbon hardmask layer with aluminum oxide would yield the aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask recited by instant claim 1.
However, Knaepen is silent in regards to a workpiece comprising the layers recited by instant claim 1. Bok teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device. The method is depicted in Fig. 2a to 2h of Bok (Bok, paragraph 0032). A semiconductor substrate is provided and a plurality of film layers are formed over the substrate (Bok, paragraph 0032). Particularly, a nitride film is formed over the substrate and a silicon-containing hardmask is formed over the nitride film (Bok, paragraph 0034). Over the film stack an anti-reflection film and a photoresist layer are formed (Bok, paragraph 0035). The photoresist layer is patterned to produce a photoresist pattern having an opening (Bok, paragraph 0037 and Fig. 2a). The film stack is then etched using the photoresist pattern as an etching mask (Bok, paragraph 0039). The silicon-containing hardmask is patterned to form a trench (Bok, paragraph 0044 and Fig. 2d). The photoresist layer is removed during patterning (Bok, paragraph 0043). The etching gas may be a mixture of HBr or Cl2 with O2 (Bok, paragraph 0045). A spin-on carbon layer is formed over the silicon hardmask and fills the opening formed in the silicon hardmask (Bok, paragraph 0046-0047 and Fig. 2e). Planarization is performed to remove excess spin-on carbon (Bok, paragraph 0048 and Fig. 2f). The silicon hardmask is then removed to reverse the pattern (Bok, paragraph 0050 and Fig. 2g).
Knaepen and Bok are analogous art because both references pertain to semiconductor device manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to perform the sequential infiltration synthesis (SIS) process taught by Knaepen on the carbon hardmask in the method of manufacturing a semiconductor device taught by Bok because the infiltration process reinforces the hardmask material, thus improving the patterning accuracy of the hardmask (Knaepen, Col. 4 Line 12-16). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to manufacture a device as taught by Bok using the SIS processed carbon hardmask taught by Knaepen because the device manufacturing method taught by Bok yields a device that has a reduced pattern defect ratio (Bok, paragraph 0057).
Regarding Claim 3, Knaepen teaches that the aluminum precursor may be a alkylaluminum compound, such as trimethyl aluminum (TMA), triethyl aluminum (TEA), or dimethylaluminumhydride (DMAH) (Knaepen, Col. 7 Line 55-60). The second precursor may be an oxidant, such as water, ozone, hydrogen peroxide, ammonia, or hydrazine (Knaepen, Col. 7 Line 61-65). The infiltration sequence may be performed 1 to 60 times, more preferably 5 to 12 times (Knaepen, Col. 4 Line 18-25).
Regarding Claim 4, Knaepen teaches that pressure in the reaction chamber is controlled to be between 0.001 and 1000 Torr, more preferably 10 to 50 Torr (Knaepen, Col. 7 Line 48-54). The first precursor (the aluminum precursor) is provided for preferably between 30 and 1500 seconds (0.5 to 25 minutes) (Knaepen, Col. 7 Line 4-8). The purge of the first precursor preferably lasts between 100 and 2000 seconds (1.67 to 33.3 minutes) (Knaepen, Col. 8 Line 28-36). The second precursor (the oxidant) is provided for 6 to 800 seconds (0.10 to 13.3 minutes) (Knaepen, Col. 8 Line 37-40). The purge of the oxidant preferably lasts between 6 to 800 seconds (0.10 to 13.3 minutes) (Knaepen, Col. 8 Line 40-42).
Regarding Claim 7, Knaepen teaches that the carbon layer is a patterned layer (Knaepen, Col. 3 Line 6-16). Knaepen and Bok are silent, however, in regards to the dimensions of the patterned hardmask.
However, Knaepen in view of Bok does teach the claimed invention except for the patterned layer containing the claimed pattern feature dimensions. Further, Knaepen in view of Bok does teach the general condition of this claim in that the method disclosed is for the patterning of a range of semiconductor devices, for which a patterned layer with the claimed features and associated claimed ranges are common. Further the instant application teaches no criticality of the claimed patterned layer features and associated claimed ranges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the features of the patterned layer to fall within their respective claimed ranges based on the device being fabricated, 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". Refer to MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding Claim 8, Knaepen teaches that the carbon layer comprises carbon-containing materials having polar functional groups (such as SiCOH or SiOC) (Knaepen, Col. 3 Line 1-5). The aluminum precursor infiltrates the porous material (Knaepen, Col. 2 Line 59-65).
Regarding Claim 9, Knaepen and Bok are silent in regards to the elemental content of the carbon hardmask and the aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask.
However, Knapen in view of Bok does teach the claimed invention except for the claimed at% ranges for carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in the carbon hardmask layer and the claimed at% ranges for aluminum, oxygen, and carbon in the aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask. Further, Knaepen in view of Bok does teach the general condition of this claim in that the method disclosed is for the infiltration of precursors into the carbon hardmask layer to reinforce and hybridize said mask. Further the instant application teaches no criticality of the at% ranges claimed herein. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the at% for carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in the carbon hardmask layer 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". Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to tune the at% for aluminum, oxygen, and carbon in the aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask to fall within their respectively claimed ranges as a means to optimize at least the level of reinforcement of the aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask layer for the sake of providing the desired critical dimensions and sidewall quality in the resulting patterned underlayer 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". Refer to MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9916980 B1 (hereby referred to as Knaepen) in view of US 20090170322 A1 (hereby referred to as Bok) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5312716 A (hereby referred to as Unoki).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Knaepen and Bok renders obvious the invention of instant claim 1. Bok teaches that the silicon-containing hardmask is removed to reverse the pattern, leaving the carbon hardmask layer (Bok, paragraph 0050). Bok teaches that the removal is performed using an aqueous solution (e.g. wet etching) (Bok, paragraph 0051).
However, Knaepen and Bok are silent in regards to an ICP etching process using an oxygen and argon mixture. Unoki teaches a process for producing a semiconductor. The process includes an etching process (Unoki, Col. 7 Line 36-49). The etching process may be a wet etching with a fluorine solvent (such as that employed by Bok) or a dry etching with a plasma of argon and/or oxygen (Unoki, Col. 7 Line 36-49).
Knaepen, Bok, and Unoki are analogous art because each reference pertains to semiconductor device manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to etch the silicon-based hardmask in the method obtained by combining the teachings of Knaepen and Bok using a plasma comprising a mixture of O2- and argon, as taught by Unoki, because it is taught in the art that wet etching and plasma etching are functionally equivalent for semiconductor manufacturing (Unoki, Col. 7 Line 36-49). Per MPEP 2143 I. B, a prima facie case of obviousness thus exists.
Claim(s) 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9916980 B1 (hereby referred to as Knaepen) in view of US 20090170322 A1 (hereby referred to as Bok) and US 20240096625 A1 (hereby referred to as Fang).
The Examiner notes that Fang has an effective filing date of 16 September 2022 and thus has an effective filing date earlier than the effective filing date of the instant application. Accordingly, Fang qualifies as prior art per 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding Claims 11-12 and 15-16, Knaepen teaches a method of forming a structure on a substrate. A substrate is provided to a reaction chamber with a hardmask disposed upon the substrate (Knaepen, Col. 2 Line 54-58). The hardmask may be a spin on carbon layer (Knaepen, Col. 2 Line 66-67). The hardmask material is infiltrated with an infiltration material during one or more infiltration cycles (Knaepen, Col. 4 Line 3-6). The infiltration may be performed by a dedicated infiltration synthesis system (Knaepen, Col. 4 Line 51-59). The infiltration cycles comprise exposing the hardmask material on the substrate to a precursor (Knaepen, Col. 4 Line 7-10), which infiltrates the porous hardmask material (Knaepen, Col. 2 Line 59-65), purging the precursor (Knaepen, Col. 4 Line 11-12), introducing a second precursor to the hardmask material and reacting the first and second precursors with each other to form the infiltration material (Knaepen, Col. 4 Line 13-17). The second precursor is then purged (Knaepen, Col. 4 Line 18-20). The material infiltrated may be aluminum oxide (Al2O3) (Knaepen, Col. 5 Line 54-64 and Col. 8 Line 4-11). Infiltrating the spin on carbon hardmask layer with aluminum oxide would yield the aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask recited by instant claim 1.
However, Knaepen is silent in regards to a workpiece comprising the layers recited by instant claim 1. Bok teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device. The method is depicted in Fig. 2a to 2h of Bok (Bok, paragraph 0032). A semiconductor substrate is provided and a plurality of film layers are formed over the substrate (Bok, paragraph 0032). Particularly, a nitride film is formed over the substrate and a silicon-containing hardmask is formed over the nitride film (Bok, paragraph 0034). Over the film stack an anti-reflection film and a photoresist layer are formed (Bok, paragraph 0035). The photoresist layer is patterned to produce a photoresist pattern having an opening (Bok, paragraph 0037 and Fig. 2a). The film stack is then etched using the photoresist pattern as an etching mask (Bok, paragraph 0039). The silicon-containing hardmask is patterned to form a trench (Bok, paragraph 0044 and Fig. 2d). The photoresist layer is removed during patterning (Bok, paragraph 0043). The etching gas may be a mixture of CF4 and O2 (Bok, paragraph 0040) or a mixture of HBr or Cl2 with O2 (Bok, paragraph 0045). A spin-on carbon layer is formed over the silicon hardmask and fills the opening formed in the silicon hardmask (Bok, paragraph 0046-0047 and Fig. 2e). Planarization is performed to remove excess spin-on carbon (Bok, paragraph 0048 and Fig. 2f). The silicon hardmask is then removed to reverse the pattern (Bok, paragraph 0050 and Fig. 2g).
However, Knaepen and Bok are silent in regards to the formation of a PR-ARC partially over the carbon hardmask layer. Fang teaches a hardmask structure and a method of forming a semiconductor structure. The semiconductor structure includes an ashable hardmask layer formed over some underlying layers (Fang, paragraph 0082 and Fig. 2D). The hardmask layer is a carbon-based material (Fang, paragraph 0084). An antireflective coating (ARC) is formed over the ashable hardmask (Fang, paragraph 0093 and Fig. 2E). A photoresist layer is formed over the ARC and patterned via a photolithography process (Fang, paragraph 0097-0098 and Fig. 2F). The pattern is then transferred to the ARC (Fang, paragraph 0099 and Fig. 3). As shown in Fig. 3 of Fang, the ARC covers a portion of the hardmask and leaves exposed a different portion of the hardmask. The exposed portion of the hardmask is then etched using the patterned ARC as an etching mask (Fang, paragraph 0101-0102 and Fig. 4). The ARC is then removed by an etching process, leaving the patterned hardmask (Fang, paragraph 0103-0104 and Fig. 5).
Knaepen, Bok, and Fang are analogous art because each reference pertains to semiconductor device manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to perform the sequential infiltration synthesis (SIS) process taught by Knaepen on the carbon hardmask in the method of manufacturing a semiconductor device taught by Bok because the infiltration process reinforces the hardmask material, thus improving the patterning accuracy of the hardmask (Knaepen, Col. 4 Line 12-16). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to manufacture a device as taught by Bok using the SIS processed carbon hardmask taught by Knaepen because the device manufacturing method taught by Bok yields a device that has a reduced pattern defect ratio (Bok, paragraph 0057). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to form an antireflective coating (ARC) over the carbon hardmask and pattern the hardmask based on the ARC pattern, as taught by Fang, in the method of obtained by combining the teachings of Knaepen and Bok because the use of the ARC allows for an increased alignment accuracy and thus pattern transferring is more precise (Fang, paragraph 0060).
Regarding Claim 13, Knaepen teaches that the aluminum precursor may be a alkylaluminum compound, such as trimethyl aluminum (TMA), triethyl aluminum (TEA), or dimethylaluminumhydride (DMAH) (Knaepen, Col. 7 Line 55-60). The second precursor may be an oxidant, such as water, ozone, hydrogen peroxide, ammonia, or hydrazine (Knaepen, Col. 7 Line 61-65). The infiltration sequence may be performed 1 to 60 times, more preferably 5 to 12 times (Knaepen, Col. 4 Line 18-25).
Regarding Claim 14, Knaepen teaches that pressure in the reaction chamber is controlled to be between 0.001 and 1000 Torr, more preferably 10 to 50 Torr (Knaepen, Col. 7 Line 48-54). The first precursor (the aluminum precursor) is provided for preferably between 30 and 1500 seconds (0.5 to 25 minutes) (Knaepen, Col. 7 Line 4-8). The purge of the first precursor preferably lasts between 100 and 2000 seconds (1.67 to 33.3 minutes) (Knaepen, Col. 8 Line 28-36). The second precursor (the oxidant) is provided for 6 to 800 seconds (0.10 to 13.3 minutes) (Knaepen, Col. 8 Line 37-40). The purge of the oxidant preferably lasts between 6 to 800 seconds (0.10 to 13.3 minutes) (Knaepen, Col. 8 Line 40-42).
Regarding Claim 18, Knaepen teaches that the carbon layer is a patterned layer (Knaepen, Col. 3 Line 6-16). Knaepen, Bok, and Fang are silent, however, in regards to the dimensions of the patterned hardmask.
However, Knaepen in view of Bok and Fang does teach the claimed invention except for the patterned layer containing the claimed pattern feature dimensions. Further, Knaepen in view of Bok and Fang does teach the general condition of this claim in that the method disclosed is for the patterning of a range of semiconductor devices, for which a patterned layer with the claimed features and associated claimed ranges are common. Further the instant application teaches no criticality of the claimed patterned layer features and associated claimed ranges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the features of the patterned layer to fall within their respective claimed ranges based on the device being fabricated, 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". Refer to MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding Claim 19, Knaepen teaches that the carbon layer comprises carbon-containing materials having polar functional groups (such as SiCOH or SiOC) (Knaepen, Col. 3 Line 1-5). The aluminum precursor infiltrates the porous material (Knaepen, Col. 2 Line 59-65).
Regarding Claim 20, Knaepen, Bok, and Fang are silent in regards to the elemental content of the carbon hardmask and the aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask.
However, Knapen in view of Bok and Fang does teach the claimed invention except for the claimed at% ranges for carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in the carbon hardmask layer and the claimed at% ranges for aluminum, oxygen, and carbon in the aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask. Further, Knaepen in view of Bok and Fang does teach the general condition of this claim in that the method disclosed is for the infiltration of precursors into the carbon hardmask layer to reinforce and hybridize said mask. Further the instant application teaches no criticality of the at% ranges claimed herein. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the at% for carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in the carbon hardmask layer 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". Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to tune the at% for aluminum, oxygen, and carbon in the aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask to fall within their respectively claimed ranges as a means to optimize at least the level of reinforcement of the aluminum oxide carbon hybrid hardmask layer for the sake of providing the desired critical dimensions and sidewall quality in the resulting patterned underlayer 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". Refer to MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9916980 B1 (hereby referred to as Knaepen) in view of US 20090170322 A1 (hereby referred to as Bok) and US 20240096625 A1 (hereby referred to as Fang) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 5312716 A (hereby referred to as Unoki).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Knaepen, Bok, and Fang renders obvious the invention of instant claim 11. Bok teaches that the silicon-containing hardmask is removed to reverse the pattern, leaving the carbon hardmask layer (Bok, paragraph 0050). Bok teaches that the removal is performed using an aqueous solution (e.g. wet etching) (Bok, paragraph 0051).
However, Knaepen, Bok, and Fang are silent in regards to an ICP etching process using an oxygen and argon mixture. Unoki teaches a process for producing a semiconductor. The process includes an etching process (Unoki, Col. 7 Line 36-49). The etching process may be a wet etching with a fluorine solvent (such as that employed by Bok) or a dry etching with a plasma of argon and/or oxygen (Unoki, Col. 7 Line 36-49).
Knaepen, Bok, Fang and Unoki are analogous art because each reference pertains to semiconductor device manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to etch the silicon-based hardmask in the method obtained by combining the teachings of Knaepen, Bok, and Fang using a plasma comprising a mixture of O2- and argon, as taught by Unoki, because it is taught in the art that wet etching and plasma etching are functionally equivalent for semiconductor manufacturing (Unoki, Col. 7 Line 36-49). Per MPEP 2143 I. B, a prima facie case of obviousness thus exists.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYSON D COSGROVE whose telephone number is (571)272-2153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-18:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/JAYSON D COSGROVE/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights