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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 9/4/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendments to claim 1. Claims 1-26 remain pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/4/2026, are directed to newly added claim requirements that are specifically addressed hereinafter and therefore are deemed moot.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 27 is withdrawn as directed to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-2, 4-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005087974, hereinafter WO 974 taken collectively with US 20200091018 by Rodrigo et al.
Claim 1: WO 974 discloses a method of forming an ashable hard mask (AHM) film (0051), comprising: exposing a substrate to a process gas comprising a hydrocarbon precursor gas and a fluorine precursor; and depositing on the substrate the AHM film by a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) process using the process gas (abstract “wherein the processing gas comprises a carrier gas, hydrogen, and one or more precursor compounds, generating a plasma of the processing gas by applying power from a dual-frequency RF source, and depositing an amorphous carbon layer on the substrate”).
WO 974 discloses including fluorine compounds for PECVD process to remove/react with hydrogen in the plasma (0044 “ fluorine based compounds allows for an increase in the atomic concentration of carbon in the deposited amorphous carbon layer as the fluorine in the fluorine based compounds react and remove, i.e., scavenges, hydrogen from the deposition process and deposited material.) and discloses NF3 or F2; however, fails to disclose the claimed compounds. However, Rodrigo, also in the art of plasma processing discloses fluorine gases that scavenge hydrogen (0062, “fluorine plasma effluents may then perform the same or similar operations as in method 400 with respect to the interaction with the hydrogen, but may scavenge residual hydrogen material within the processing chamber”) and discloses known fluorine gases include e.g. NF3 or F2, same as exemplified by WO 974, but also disclose xenon difluoride (0058) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have used XeF2 as the fluorine providing gas, as both references are concerned with fluorine gases in plasma environment and WO 974 discloses examples of fluorine gases include NF3 or F2 and Rodrigo discloses in alternative to NF3 or F2 using XeF2.
As for the “deposition enhancer molecule”, the prior art makes obvious XeF2 as evidenced by claim 2 (and applicant’s specification) would meet the requirements of the claim properties of the material as it is the same material as claimed by the applicant. In other words, since the prior art discloses XeF2 and applicant’s discloses Xenon fluoride is a deposition enhancer molecule, XeF2 meet the requirements as claimed. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979).
Claim 2: WO 974 discloses fluorine as a deposition enhancer molecule (0044).
Claim 4-5: WO 974 discloses propylene (0035).
Claim 6: WO 974 the volumetric flow ratio of gases in a ratio that overlaps the claimed range and thus makes obvious such (0049). At the very least, WO 974 discloses the fluorine provide a benefit of adjusting the carbon amount (see 0044) and thus a result effective variable, directly affecting the film properties and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have determined the optimum fluorine amount through routine experimentation.
Claim 7: WO 974 discloses a deposition rate that overlaps the claimed range and thus makes obvious such (“deposition rate for the amorphous carbon layer in the range of about 100 A/min to about 5000 A/min.”, 0061). Additionally, the deposition rate as claimed is disclosed as a function of the claimed process steps, i.e. a result of process, and the prior art discloses each and every process step that the applicant’s disclose and claim as being required to achieve the claimed deposition rate, as such, by disclosing the claimed steps, the prior art will result in the claimed deposition rate. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)
Claim 8: WO 974 with Rodrigo fails to explicitly disclose the formation of HF during depositing the AHM film; however, WO 974 discloses the fluorine reacts and removes the hydrogen (“ fluorine in the fluorine based compounds react and remove, i.e., scavenges, hydrogen from the deposition process and deposited material”, 0044) and therefore would reasonably read on forming HF as claimed (i.e. fluorine reacted with hydrogen). Additionally, this is disclosed as a result of performing the claimed process steps, i.e. a result, and the prior art discloses each and every process step using the same precursors that the applicant’s disclose and claim as being required to achieve the claimed formation of HF, as such, by disclosing the claimed steps, the prior art will result in the claimed formation of HF. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)
Claim 9-10: WO 974 discloses carrier gas as claimed, including He and Ar (0047).
Claim 11: WO 974 discloses the process gas comprises the hydrocarbon precursor gas, the deposition enhancer molecule, and the inert gas (0043-0047).
Claim 12: WO 974 discloses the substrate is positioned on a pedestal while depositing the AHM film (0033), and the pedestal has a temperature between about 500C or less (Figure 6 and accompanying text, 0044, “the fluorine presence allows for effective amorphous carbon deposition at temperature of about 550°C or less”). The temperature range of the prior art is within the range as claimed and therefore making obvious the claimed range.
Claim 13: WO 974 discloses the fluorine reacts and removes the hydrogen (“fluorine in the fluorine based compounds react and remove, i.e., scavenges, hydrogen from the deposition process and deposited material”, 0044) and therefore meets this claim requirement. Additionally, while the reference fails to explicitly disclose the deposition enhancer molecule inhibits an etch process resulting from hydrogen radicals, ions, or both bonding with carbon atoms in the deposited AHM film; however, this is disclosed as a result of performing the claimed process steps, i.e. a result, and the prior art discloses each and every process step using the same precursors that the applicant’s disclose and claim as being required inhibit the etch process as claimed, as such, by disclosing the claimed steps as well as the deposition enhancer, the prior art will result in the claimed inhibition of the etching process. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)
Claim 14: WO 974 fails to explicitly disclose the deposition enhancer molecule does not cause etching of the AHM film; however, this is disclosed as a result of performing the claimed process steps, i.e. a result, and the prior art discloses each and every process step using the same precursors that the applicant’s disclose and claim as being required to achieve the claimed formation of HF, as such, by disclosing the claimed steps as well as the deposition enhancer, the prior art will result in the deposition enhancer not causing etching of the AHM film. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)
Claim 15: WO 974 discloses the PECVD process comprises igniting a plasma generated by a dual radio frequency (RF) plasma source including a high frequency (HF) component and a low frequency (LF) component (0062).
Claim 16-17: WO 974 discloses the HF component has a power of power in a range of about 200 watts to about 1600 watts (see 0062) and LF component of 1 watt to about 1000 watts (0062), each squarely in the range. WO 974 additionally discloses a range of powers that encompass/overlap the claimed range and thus makes obvious the instant claimed power.
Claim 18: WO 974 discloses the PECVD process is performed at a pressure between about 1 Torr and about 20 Torr, (see 0061), fully encompassing or overlapping and making obvious the claimed range.
Claims 19, 21-24: WO 974 fails to explicitly disclose the modulus, stress, hardness of AHM film, extinction coefficient, and refractive index of the deposited film; however, this is disclosed as a result of performing the claimed process steps, i.e. a result, and the prior art discloses each and every process step using the same precursors that the applicant’s disclose and claim as being required to achieve the claimed hardness of AHM film, extinction coefficient, and refractive index of the deposited film, as such, by disclosing the claimed steps as well as the deposition enhancer and AHM formation steps, the prior art will result in the hardness of AHM film, extinction coefficient, and refractive index of the deposited film. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Claim 20: WO 974 discloses a thickness of 200 to 1100A (0003), overlapping and thus making obvious the claimed range (0054 “Typically, the amorphous carbon layer has a thickness of about 200 A to about 1100 A”).
Claim 25: WO 974 discloses mostly carbon (0050 ”The amorphous carbon layer comprises carbon and hydrogen atoms, which may have an adjustable carbon:hydrogen ratio that ranges from about 10 % hydrogen to about 60 % hydrogen. Controlling the hydrogen ratio of the amorphous carbon layer is desirable for tuning the respective optical properties, etch selectivity, and chemical mechanical polishing resistance properties.”).
Claim 26: WO 974 discloses about 10% hydrogen, within and/or abuts the range as claimed and thus makes obvious such (0050 ”The amorphous carbon layer comprises carbon and hydrogen atoms, which may have an adjustable carbon:hydrogen ratio that ranges from about 10 % hydrogen to about 60 % hydrogen. Controlling the hydrogen ratio of the amorphous carbon layer is desirable for tuning the respective optical properties, etch selectivity, and chemical mechanical polishing resistance properties.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
