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.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
The amendment made to claim 1, the withdrawal of claims 13-15, and the addition of claims 16-17, as filed on December 3, 2025, are acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the gap of 0.80 inches or more” is outside the range “a gap of 0.85 inches or more” recited in claim 1, upon which the instant claim depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weimer et al. (WO2020243342) in view of Saikh (US20180144903).
Regarding claim 1, Weimer discloses a method of forming an ashable hard mask (AHM) film (abstract), comprising: exposing a substrate to a process gas at a pressure between about 0.5 Torr to 1.5 Torr (paragraph 0048), the process gas comprising a hydrocarbon precursor gas (paragraph 0048); and depositing on the substrate an AHM film by a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) process (paragraph 0041), wherein the PECVD process comprises igniting a plasma between a showerhead and a pedestal (paragraphs 0041 and 0082), wherein the showerhead and the pedestal are separated by a gap between about 0.25 inches and about 0.75 inches (paragraph 0057). The pressure range disclosed by Weimer overlaps with the corresponding ranges recited in the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Weimer fails to disclose wherein the showerhead and the pedestal are separated by a gap of about 0.85 inches or more. However, Weimer teaches that as the RF power of the plasma increases, the gap between the pedestal and the showerhead may be increased without reducing the quality of the deposited AHM (paragraph 0057). In addition, Saikh teaches that in a PECVD process, the gap needs to be optimized to give optimum deposition thickness uniformity (paragraphs 0031 and 0037, Fig. 1). 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 gap between the showerhead and the pedestal, which is a result-effective variable for improving film deposition uniformity as taught by Saikh, to achieve desirable film thickness uniformity in the method of Weimer, with a reasonable expectation of success. Additionally, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation and there is no evidence of the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 2, Weimer discloses wherein the hydrocarbon precursor gas comprises compounds having a molecular weight of at most about 50 g/mol (acetylene, paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 3, Weimer discloses wherein the hydrocarbon precursor gas comprises compounds having a C:H ratio of at least about 0.5 (acetylene, paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 4, Weimer discloses wherein the hydrocarbon precursor gas comprises acetylene (paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 5, Weimer discloses wherein the hydrocarbon precursor gas has a partial pressure between about 2% and about 20% of a pressure of the process gas (total pressure of 0.5 Torr to 20 Torr, partial pressure of 0.01 Torr to 4 Torr, paragraph 0048), which overlaps with the range recited in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Weimer discloses wherein the method is performed in a multi-station reactor (paragraph 0069).
Regarding claim 7, Weimer discloses wherein the method is performed in a single-station reactor (paragraph 0069).
Regarding claims 8-10, the limitation recited in the “wherein” clauses in the method claims simply express the intended results of the recited process; therefore, they are not accorded patentability weight. See MPEP 2111.04.
Regarding claim 11, Weimer discloses patterning the deposited AHM film and etching the patterned AHM film to define features of the AHM film in the substrate (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Weimer discloses etching layers in the substrate underlying the AHM film (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Saikh teaches that prior to depositing a film on a substrate, translating the pedestal relative to the showerhead to a desired gap (moving one of the showerhead or the substrate support electrode toward or away from each other, claims 9 and 12).
Regarding claim 17, the limitation recited in the “wherein” clause in the method claim simply expresses the intended result of the recited process; therefore, it is not accorded patentability weight. See MPEP 2111.04.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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