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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 25, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
The amendment made to claim 1, and the withdrawal of claims 26-30, as filed on February 25, 2026, are acknowledged.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed on February 25, 2026, with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to new ground(s) of rejection in this Office Action necessitated by the amendments made to the claims.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10, 14, 16-19 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaswamy et al. (US20070032082) in view of Reddy et al. (US20150093908).
Regarding claim 1, Ramaswamy discloses a method (abstract) comprising: exposing a surface of a semiconductor substrate in a processing chamber to a halogen-containing precursor, wherein the halogen-containing precursor is delivered to the processing chamber (a fluorocarbon reads on a halogen-containing precursor, paragraph 0092; Figs. 9 and 14); and depositing on the surface an ashable hard mask film (AHM) by a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) process (amorphous carbon hardmask reads on an ashable hard mask, paragraph 0161). Ramaswarmy is silent about the AHM having a hydrogen content of less than about 15 atomic %. However, Reddy teaches that using low frequency (LF) pulsed plasma is an effective technique to achieve low hydrogen (H) content (less than about 15%) in a PECVD deposited AHM film (paragraphs 0004 and 0063; claim 9). Reddy further teaches that low H content is beneficial for etch selectivity and AHM performance (paragraph 0063). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the PECVD process of Ramaswarmy using the teaching of Reddy to achieve desirable low H content of less than about 15%, in order to improve etch selectivity and AHM performance.
Regarding claim 2, Ramaswamy discloses wherein said exposing comprises delivering the halogen-containing precursor to the processing chamber (Figs. 9 and 14).
Regarding claim 3, Ramaswamy discloses wherein the halogen-containing precursor comprises a straight-chain aliphatic moiety (C2F4, paragraph 0115).
Regarding claim 4, Ramaswamy discloses wherein the one or more halo substitutions is provided on a sp2 carbon (C2F4, paragraph 0115).
Regarding claim 5, Ramaswamy discloses wherein the halogen-containing precursor comprises a halocarbon (C2F4, paragraph 0115).
Regarding claim 6, Ramaswamy discloses wherein said exposing further comprises delivering a process gas comprising the halogen-containing precursor and an inert gas (paragraph 0116).
Regarding claim 7, Ramaswamy discloses wherein said exposing comprises forming the halogen-containing precursor in situ within the processing chamber with an organic reactant and a halogen-containing reactant (hydrocarbon reads on an organic reactant, paragraph 0128).
Regarding claim 8, Ramaswamy discloses wherein the organic reactant comprises a pure hydrocarbon reactant (paragraph 0128).
Regarding claim 9, Ramaswamy discloses wherein the pure hydrocarbon reactant comprises an alkane, an alkene, or an alkyne (paragraphs 0128 and 0108).
Regarding claim 10, Ramaswamy discloses wherein the halocarbon reactant comprises an alkane, an alkene, or an alkyne comprising one or more halo substitutions (paragraphs 0128 and 0115).
Regarding claim 14, Ramaswamy discloses wherein the halogen-containing reactant comprises a halogen gas (F2, paragraph 0128).
Regarding claim 16, Ramaswamy discloses wherein the halogen-containing precursor comprises a ratio of carbon atoms to halogen atoms of 1:2 (C2F4, paragraph 0115).
Regarding claim 17, Ramaswamy discloses wherein said exposing further comprises delivering a hydrogen gas (H2, paragraph 0128).
Regarding claim 18, Ramaswamy discloses wherein said exposing further comprises delivering a hydrocarbon precursor with the halogen-containing precursor (paragraph 0128).
Regarding claim 19, Ramaswamy discloses wherein the hydrocarbon precursor comprises an alkane, an alkene, or an alkyne (paragraphs 0128 and 0108).
Regarding claim 22, Ramaswamy discloses wherein said PECVD process comprises igniting a plasma comprising a low frequency (LF) component and/or a high frequency (HF) component (paragraph 0089).
Regarding claim 23, Ramaswamy discloses wherein the method provides a multilayer stack comprising the AHM (paragraph 0161 and Fig. 43).
Regarding claim 24, Ramaswamy discloses patterning the AHM, thereby providing a patterned AHM; and etching the patterned AHM to define features of the AHM in the semiconductor substrate (paragraph 0161 and Fig. 43).
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 11 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaikh et al. (US20160225588) in view of Reddy et al. (US20150093908).
Regarding claim 1, Shaikh discloses a method (claim 1) comprising: exposing a surface of a semiconductor substrate in a processing chamber to a halogen-containing precursor, wherein the halogen-containing precursor is delivered to the processing chamber (claim 1); and depositing on the surface an ashable hard mask film (AHM) by a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) process (claims 1-2). Shaikh is silent about the AHM having a hydrogen content of less than about 15 atomic %. However, Reddy teaches that using low frequency (LF) pulsed plasma is an effective technique to achieve low hydrogen (H) content (less than about 15%) in a PECVD deposited AHM film (paragraphs 0004 and 0063; claim 9). Reddy further teaches that low H content is beneficial for etch selectivity and AHM performance (paragraph 0063). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the PECVD process of Shaikh using the teaching of Reddy to achieve desirable low H content of less than about 15%, in order to improve etch selectivity and AHM performance.
Regarding claim 2, Shaikh discloses wherein said exposing comprises delivering the halogen-containing precursor to the processing chamber (claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Shaikh discloses wherein said exposing further comprises delivering a process gas comprising the halogen-containing precursor and an inert gas (paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 7, Shaikh discloses wherein said exposing comprises forming the halogen-containing precursor in situ within the processing chamber with an organic reactant and a halogen-containing reactant (CH4 reads on an organic reactant, WF6 reads on a halogen-containing reactant, paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 8, Shaikh discloses wherein the organic reactant comprises a pure hydrocarbon reactant (CH4, paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 9, Shaikh discloses wherein the pure hydrocarbon reactant comprises an alkane (CH4, paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 11, Shaikh discloses wherein the hydrocarbon reactant having the leaving group comprises an alkane (CH4, H reads on a leaving group, paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 17, Shaikh discloses wherein said exposing further comprises delivering a hydrogen gas (H2, paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 18, Shaikh discloses wherein said exposing further comprises delivering a hydrocarbon precursor with the halogen-containing precursor (paragraph 0128).
Regarding claim 19, Shaikh discloses wherein the hydrocarbon precursor comprises an alkane (CH4, paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 20, Shaikh discloses wherein said exposing further comprises delivering a metal-containing reactant and said depositing provides a metal-doped AHM (paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 21, Shaikh discloses wherein the metal-containing reactant comprises a metal halide (WF6, paragraph 0037).
Claims 1 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luere et al. (US20150287612) in view of Reddy et al. (US20150093908).
Regarding claim 1, Luere discloses a method (abstract) comprising: exposing a surface of a semiconductor substrate in a processing chamber to a halogen-containing precursor, wherein the halogen-containing precursor is delivered to the processing chamber (a fluorocarbon reads on a halogen-containing precursor, paragraph 0019); and depositing on the surface an ashable hard mask film (AHM) by a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) process (carbon-containing layer 310 reads on an ashable hard mask, paragraph 0019 and Fig. 3). Luere is silent about the AHM having a hydrogen content of less than about 15 atomic %. However, Reddy teaches that using low frequency (LF) pulsed plasma is an effective technique to achieve low hydrogen (H) content (less than about 15%) in a PECVD deposited AHM film (paragraphs 0004 and 0063; claim 9). Reddy further teaches that low H content is beneficial for etch selectivity and AHM performance (paragraph 0063). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the PECVD process of Luere using the teaching of Reddy to achieve desirable low H content of less than about 15%, in order to improve etch selectivity and AHM performance.
Regarding claim 23, Luere discloses wherein the method provides a multilayer stack comprising the AHM (Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 24, Luere discloses patterning the AHM, thereby providing a patterned AHM (Fig. 3C); and etching the patterned AHM to define features of the AHM in the semiconductor substrate (Fig. 3D).
Regarding claim 25, Luere discloses etching one or more layers in the semiconductor substrate underlying the patterned AHM (Fig. 3D); and removing the patterned AHM (paragraph 0027 and Fig. 3E).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaikh et al. (US20160225588) in view of Reddy et al. (US20150093908) as applied to claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 15, Shaikh discloses wherein said exposing further comprises delivering a process gas comprising the organic reactant, an inert gas and the halogen-containing reactant (paragraph 0037). Shaikh is silent about the organic reactant is delivered with a first inert gas and the halogen-containing reactant is delivered with a second inert gas. However, selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 IV C.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method wherein the hydrocarbon reactant having the leaving group comprises a halosulfonyl group, a sulfonate group, a cyano group, a nitrous oxide group, or a nitrate group, in the context of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method wherein the hydrocarbon reactant having the leaving group comprises an alkyl sulfonyl halide, an aryl sulfonyl halide, an alkyl triflate, an aryl triflate, an alkyl mesylate, an aryl mesylate, a cyanoalkane, a cyanoaromatic, an alkyl nitrate, or an aryl nitrate, in the context of the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIONG-PING LU whose telephone number is (571) 270-1135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am – 5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua L Allen, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JIONG-PING LU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights