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 .
Amendment to the claims was submitted on 06/17/2026, claim 2 is canceled.
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 3-12 are under consideration
Claim 2 is canceled
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 4, 6-8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manna (US20150194317A1, published 2015) in view of Srivastava (US 20180158723 A1, published 2018) and Perel (US20130072008A1, published 2013).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, and 12,
Manna teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device comprising forming an amorphous carbon layer (dielectric, film layer) on an underlayer with an underlying substrate (stack of layers), implanting a dopant (ion) into the amorphous carbon layer, and forming a patterned photoresist (patterned by exposure using a photolithography process) over the amorphous carbon layer [0005, claim 15, 0036, 0040, 0023 fig 2C-2D], reading on instant claims 4, 6, and 10.
Manna teaches examples of implanted ions include atomic boron, carbon, silicon, nitrogen, phosphorous, arsenic, aluminum and tungsten [0025].
Manna fails to explicitly teach iodine as the implanted ion.
Perel, analogous art, teaches a method for ion implanting a target [abstract] for semiconductor device manufacturing [0002]. Perel teaches the implant species (ion species) may be boron (B), aluminum (Al), carbon (C), silicon (Si), phosphorous (P), arsenic (As), and iodine (I) [0043].
As both Manna and Perel a method for ion implanting a target for semiconductor device manufacturing, where the ions may be boron (B), aluminum (Al), carbon (C), silicon (Si), phosphorous (P), or arsenic (As), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using the iodine ions of Perel in the implantation process of Manna would result in an expected and comparable implanted film for use in a semiconductor device., reading on instant claims 7 and 12.
That is, the substitution of the iodine ions of Perel for the ion species of Manna, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of forming an implanted film for use in a semiconductor device. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Manna is silent to the composition of their photoresist film.
Srivastava, analogous art, teaches a resist layer may be a metal oxide photoresist, also known as a molecular organometallic photoresist. A metal oxide photoresist can be directly patterned using an exposure source, such as an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) exposure source, and can be etched with a higher selectivity than organic films, such as a conventional organic photoresist [0011-0012].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the metal oxide photoresist of Srivastava as the photoresist of Manna for the benefits disclosed by Srivastava, reading on instant claims 1 and 8.
Further, the substitution of the metal oxide photoresist of Srivastava for the photoresist of Manna, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of forming a patterned photoresist layer. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manna (US20150194317A1, published 2015) in view of Srivastava (US 20180158723 A1, published 2018) and Perel (US20130072008A1, published 2013) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Park (US20200273704A1, published 2020).
Regarding claims 5 and 11,
Manna et al. teaches the above limitations set forth.
Manna teaches forming an underlayer [claim 15].
Manna fails to teach forming underlying tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS) and spin-on carbon (SOC) layers.
Park, analogous art, a photolithography patterning stack and method [abstract]. Park teaches the stack may contain a TEOS layer formed over a substrate, with an overlying organic planarization layer which may be SOC [0025, 0027], and further teaches additional layers including amorphous carbon and silicon-containing anti-reflective coating layers [0025, 0028], reading on instant claims 5 and 11.
As both Park and Manna teach multilayer stacks for use with photolithography which may include amorphous carbon layers, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using the TEOS and SOC underlayers of Park as the underlayers of Manna would result in a comparable and expected patterning stack.
That is, the substitution of the TEOS AND SOC layers of Park for the underlayer of Manna, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of forming an overlying patterned photoresist layer. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US20190164745A1, published 2019) in view of Srivastava (US 20180158723 A1, published 2018) and Perel (US20130072008A1, published 2013).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, and 12,
Yang teaches a method for forming semiconductor structures [0006] comprising depositing a target layer (film layer) over a substrate, ion-implanting the target layer, coating a photoresist layer, and exposing and developing the photoresist layer to form a resist pattern [claim 1], reading on instant claim 6.
Yang teaches the target layer is an ARC (anti-reflective coating) layer which may be silicon (dielectric, silicon anti-reflective coating) [0012], reading on instant claims 3-4 and 9-10.
Yang teaches the implanting ions may be selected from, but not restricted to, the group consisting of boron, phosphorus, arsenic, germanium, fluorine, silicon, aluminum, nitrogen, carbon, argon, oxygen, and hydrogen [0013].
Yang fails to explicitly teach iodine as the implanted ion.
Perel, analogous art, teaches a method for ion implanting a target [abstract] for semiconductor device manufacturing [0002]. Perel teaches the implant species (ion species) may be boron (B), aluminum (Al), indium (In), carbon (C), silicon (Si), germanium (Ge), phosphorous (P), arsenic (As), oxygen (O), and iodine (I) [0043].
As both Yang and Perel a method for ion implanting a target for semiconductor device manufacturing, where the ions may be boron (B), aluminum (Al), carbon (C), silicon (Si), germanium (Ge), phosphorous (P), arsenic (As), or oxygen (O), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using the iodine ions of Perel in the implantation process of Yang would result in an expected and comparable implanted film for use in a semiconductor device., reading on instant claims 7 and 12.
That is, the substitution of the iodine ions of Perel for the ion species of Yang, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of forming an implanted film for use in a semiconductor device. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Yang is silent to the composition of their photoresist film.
Srivastava, analogous art, teaches a resist layer may be a metal oxide photoresist, also known as a molecular organometallic photoresist. A metal oxide photoresist can be directly patterned using an exposure source, such as an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) exposure source, and can be etched with a higher selectivity than organic films, such as a conventional organic photoresist [0011-0012].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the metal oxide photoresist of Srivastava as the photoresist of Yang for the benefits disclosed by Srivastava, reading on instant claims 1 and 8.
Further, the substitution of the metal oxide photoresist of Srivastava for the photoresist of Yang, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of forming a patterned photoresist layer. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US20190164745A1, published 2019) in view of Srivastava (US 20180158723 A1, published 2018) and Perel (US20130072008A1, published 2013) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Park (US20200273704A1, published 2020).
Regarding claims 5 and 11,
Yang et al. teaches the above limitations set forth.
Yang teaches their substrate may contain one or more layers of material or composition (multiple underlayers) [0011].
Yang fails to teach forming underlying tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS) and spin-on carbon (SOC) layers.
Park, analogous art, a photolithography patterning stack and method [abstract]. Park teaches the stack may contain a TEOS layer formed over a substrate, with an overlying organic planarization layer which may be SOC [0025, 0027], and further teaches additional layers including amorphous carbon and silicon-containing anti-reflective coating layers [0025, 0028], reading on instant claims 5 and 11.
As both Park and Yang teach multilayer stacks for use with photolithography which may include silicon ARC layers, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using the TEOS and SOC underlayers of Park as the underlayers of Yang would result in a comparable and expected patterning stack.
That is, the substitution of the TEOS AND SOC layers of Park for the underlayer of Yang, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of forming an overlying patterned photoresist layer. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/17/2026 with respect to the 103 rejections in view of Ohashi have been fully considered and are persuasive, particularly in view of the new claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Perel.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2261. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5:30 EST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at (571) 272-3458. 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.
/A.N.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/KEITH WALKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights