DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to method, in the reply filed on 10/7/2025 is acknowledged. Examiner agrees with the Applicant’s statements regarding the claim number in the lack of unity requirement, claims 1-26 are directed to the elected invention. Claim 27 is withdrawn as directed to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claim(s) 1-19, 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 20150093915 by Reddy et al.
Claim 1: Reddy discloses a method of forming an ashable hard mask (AHM) film, comprising: exposing a substrate to a process gas comprising a hydrocarbon precursor gas and a deposition enhancer molecule (see e.g. claims 2-3 below); and depositing on the substrate the AHM film by a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) process using the process gas (0022-0026, 0031).
Claim 2-3: Reddy discloses SF6 as a deposition enhancer molecule (0026).
Claim 4-5: Reddy discloses propylene (0025).
Claim 6: Reddy discloses carbon precursor at 2500 sccm and sulfur additive at 50 sccm (0066), which is within the claimed range. See also 0029.
Claim 7: Reddy fails to disclose the deposition rate; however, 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: Reddy fails to disclose the formation of HF during depositing 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, 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: Reddy discloses carrier gas as claimed, including He, Ar, N2 (0027).
Claim 11: Reddy discloses the process gas comprises the hydrocarbon precursor gas, the deposition enhancer molecule, and the inert gas (0027).
Claim 12: Reddy discloses the substrate is positioned on a pedestal while depositing the AHM film, and the pedestal has a temperature between about 20° C. and about 750° C. (Figure 3 and accompanying text, 0030)
Claim 13: Reddy 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: Reddy 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: Reddy 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 (0031, Figure 3 and accompany text).
Claim 16-17: Reddy discloses the HF component has a power of 400 W(see 0065) and LF component of 1000 W (0065), each squarely in the range.
Claim 18: Reddy discloses the PECVD process is performed at a pressure of about 1 to about 11 Torr (see 0028).
Claim 19: Reddy discloses a modulus of 30 to 50 GPa (0034), see also Table 1.
Claims 21, 23 and 24: Reddy fails to explicitly disclose the 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 22: Reddy discloses an internal stress within the range as claimed (00034, table 1)
Claim 25: Reddy discloses mostly carbon (0067).
Claim 26: Reddy fails to explicitly disclose the hydrogen content 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 hydrogen content 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 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) 1-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy.
Claims 1-19, 21-26: While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above and incorporates herein the rejection above, the examiner notes Reddy explicitly discloses the PECVD deposition of AHM using carbon precursor, sulfur precursor and inert gas (0025-0027) and discloses propylene and SF6 are known precursors to be used and therefore selecting these known precursors from a finite list of such precursors and using them together would have been obvious as predictable.
Claim 6: As for the volumetric flow ratio of gases, the prior art discloses the flow rates of each of the carbon and sulfur materials that result in a ratio that overlaps the claimed range and thus makes obvious such (0029).
Claim 12: Reddy discloses the substrate is positioned on a pedestal while depositing the AHM film, and the pedestal has a temperature between about 20° C. and about 750° C. (Figure 3 and accompanying text, 0030), fully encompassing and making obvious the claimed range.
Claim 16-17: Reddy discloses the HF component has a power of 400W (see 0065) and LF component of 1000 W (0065), each squarely in the range and additionally discloses a range of powers that encompass/overlap the claimed range and thus makes obvious the instant claimed power.
Claim 18: Reddy discloses the PECVD process is performed at a pressure of about 1 to about 20 Torr (see 0028), fully encompassing and making obvious the claimed range.
Claim 19: Reddy discloses a modulus of 30 to 50 GPa (0034), see also Table 1, within the claimed range and thus making obvious the claimed range.
Claim 20: Reddy discloses a thickness of 1000 A to 90,000 A (0003), fully encompassing and thus making obvious the claimed range.
Claim 22: Reddy discloses an internal stress within the range as claimed (00034, table 1) and discloses a range that overlaps the claimed range (0034) and thus making obvious the claimed range.
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