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
All remaining method claims will be examined based on applicant’s amendment and argument filed January 7, 2026.
Claims 1-15 and 21-25 are under examination.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2018/0358299 A1) in view of Nauman et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2011/0248633 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Fischer et al. teach depositing a hard mask layer over a substrate by high power impulse magnetron sputtering (HiPIMS). The hard mask layer can be a metal, metalloid, a nitride (i.e. metal nitride), an oxide or an oxynitride. (Paragraphs 0031, 0055) It should be noted that HiPIMS inherently occurs in a deposition chamber for deposition.
The difference between Fischer et al. and Claim 1 is that the depositing comprising applying a cyclic plurality of pulses, each cycle comprising a primary negative pulse on a target electrode to dislodge target atoms from the target electrode and a secondary positive pulse to accelerate the dislodged target atoms towards the substrate, wherein the secondary positive pulse in one of the cycles is different from the secondary positive pulse in another one of the cycles is not discussed.
Regarding the depositing comprising applying a cyclic plurality of pulses, each cycle comprising a primary negative pulse on a target electrode to dislodge target atoms from the target electrode and a secondary positive pulse to accelerate the dislodged target atoms towards the substrate, wherein the secondary positive pulse in one of the cycles is different from the secondary positive pulse in another one of the cycles (Claim 1), Nauman et al. teach depositing comprising applying a cyclic plurality of pulses, each cycle comprising a primary negative pulse on a target electrode to dislodge target atoms from the target electrode and a secondary positive pulse to accelerate the dislodged target atoms towards the substrate, wherein the secondary positive pulse in one of the cycles is different from the secondary positive pulse in another one of the cycles. (Paragraph 0111-0119; Fig. 10; Paragraph 0113 - As depicted, during the second time period 1004, the pulse width 1042 of the positive DC pulses 1040 is greater than the pulse width 1022 of positive pulses 1020 during the first time period 1002 and the pulse height B of the pulses during the second time period 1004 is less than the pulse height A of the of positive pulses 1020 during the first time period 1002.)
PNG
media_image1.png
278
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the secondary positive pulse in one of the cycles has a different pulse width than the secondary positive pulse in another one of the cycles.
Regarding claim 2, Nauman et al. teach wherein the secondary positive pulse in one of the cycles has a different pulse width than the secondary positive pulse in another one of the cycles. (Paragraph 0113)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a first pulse width of the 3. secondary positive pulse in the one of the cycles is 1.5 times to 20 times the 3 times a second pulse width of the secondary positive pulse in the another one of the cycles.
Regarding claim 3, Nauman et al. teach the secondary positive pulse in one of the cycles has a different pulse width than the secondary positive pulse in another one of the cycles. (Paragraph 0113) Nauman et al. et al. teach the pulse widths are adjustable to achieve a desired property. (Paragraph 0132, 0157)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the pulse width within Applicant’s claimed range to achieve a desired property in the film because optimization of ranges has been held to be obvious. (See MPEP 2144.05 – Obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts and proportions)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the secondary positive pulse in one of the cycles has a different pulse potential than the secondary positive pulse in another one of the cycles.
Regarding claim 4, Nauman et al. teach wherein the secondary positive pulse in one of the cycles has a different pulse potential than the secondary positive pulse in another one of the cycles. (Paragraph 0113, Fig. 10)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Nauman et al. is that it allows for satisfying layer properties. (Paragraph 0114, 0119)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Fischer et al. by utilizing the features of Nauman et al. because it allows for satisfying layer properties.
Claim(s) 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Nauman et al. as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Rumer et al. (U.S. PUB. 2016/0035569 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein one of the cycles deposits a first layer of the metal containing layer at a first density and the another one of the cycles deposits a second layer of the metal containing layer at a second density different from the first density.
Regarding claim 5, Rumer et al. teach depositing multiple layers for a hard mask via sputtering. Rumer et al. teach depositing layers at different amounts of nitrogen via “first and second cycles.” First cycle at a different amount of nitrogen and second amount at a different amount of nitrogen. (Paragraphs 0041-0048; Fig. 2) From Fig. 2 the layers are shown with different amounts of nitrogen. (See Fig. 2)
PNG
media_image2.png
452
1202
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nauman et al. discussed above teach depositing utilizing cycles 1002 and 1004 and wants layer control. (Paragraph 0113, Fig. 10)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nauman et al.’s cycles by utilizing different levels of nitrogen during the cycles as taught by Rumer et al. because it allows for depositing good adhesive layers for hard masks on dielectric layers.
With regard to the first density and the second density since the layers as taught by Rumer et al. teach higher nitrogen content in one layer and lower nitrogen content in another layer the layers would have different densities. The lower the N content the more metallic and the higher density. The higher the N content the less metallic and the lower density. (Paragraphs 0041-0048; Fig. 2)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein after depositing the metal containing layer, the metal containing layer comprises a stack of alternating first layer and second layer.
Regarding claim 6, Rumer et al. teach after depositing the metal containing layer, the metal containing layer comprises a stack of alternating first layer and second layer. (Fig. 10)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein one of the cycles deposits a first layer of the metal containing layer at a first intrinsic stress and the another one of the cycles deposits a second layer of the metal containing layer at a second intrinsic stress different from the first intrinsic stress.
Regarding claim 7, Rumer et al. teach higher nitrogen content in one layer and lower nitrogen content in another layer the layers would have different stresses. The lower the N content the more metallic and the lower compressive stress. The higher the N content the less metallic and the higher compressive stress. (Paragraphs 0041-0048; Fig. 2)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first intrinsic stress is compressive and the second intrinsic stress is tensile.
Regarding claim 8, Rumer et al. teach higher nitrogen content in one layer and lower nitrogen content in another layer the layers would have different stresses. The lower the N content the more metallic and the lower compressive stress and lower tensile stress. The higher the N content the less metallic and the higher compressive stress. (Paragraphs 0041-0048; Fig. 2)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein after depositing the metal containing layer, the metal containing layer comprises a stack of alternating first layer and second layer.
Regarding claim 9, Rumer et al. teach wherein after depositing the metal containing layer, the metal containing layer comprises a stack of alternating first layer and second layer. (See Fig. 2)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Rumer et al. because it allows for depositing good adhesive layers for hard masks on dielectric layers. (Paragraph 0005)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nauman et al. by utilizing the features of Rumer et al. because it allows for depositing good adhesive layers for hard masks on dielectric layers.
Claim(s) 10-12, 14, 15, 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumer et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2016/0035569 A1) in view of Fischer et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2018/0358299 A1) and Nauman et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2011/0248633 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
Regarding claim 10, Rumer et al. teach a method comprising: positioning a substrate into a plasma processing chamber, the substrate comprising a layer stack of alternating layers; forming a hard mask layer over a surface of the layer stack. (Paragraphs 0041-0048; Fig. 2, 7)
The difference between Rumer et al. and claim 10 is that using a high-power impulse magnetron sputtering system is not discussed (Claim 10) and generating a first pulse having a first polarity; and driving ions of a metal target to the surface of the substrate by generating a second pulse having a second polarity opposite the first polarity is not discussed (Claim 10).
Regarding using a high-power impulse magnetron sputtering system (Claim 10), Fischer et al. teach depositing a hard mask layer over a substrate by high power impulse magnetron sputtering (HiPIMS). The hard mask layer can be a metal, metalloid, a nitride (i.e. metal nitride), an oxide or an oxynitride. (Paragraphs 0031, 0055) It should be noted that HiPIMS inherently occurs in a deposition chamber for deposition.
Regarding generating a first pulse having a first polarity; and driving ions of a metal target to the surface of the substrate by generating a second pulse having a second polarity opposite the first polarity (Claim 10), Nauman et al. teach generating a first pulse having a first polarity; and driving ions of a metal target to the surface of the substrate by generating a second pulse having a second polarity opposite the first polarity. (Paragraph 0111-0119; Fig. 10; Paragraph 0113 - As depicted, during the second time period 1004, the pulse width 1042 of the positive DC pulses 1040 is greater than the pulse width 1022 of positive pulses 1020 during the first time period 1002 and the pulse height B of the pulses during the second time period 1004 is less than the pulse height A of the of positive pulses 1020 during the first time period 1002.)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is repeating the generating and the driving, the second pulse having a different pulse parameter during the repeating.
Regarding claim 11, Nauman et al. teach repeating the generating and the driving, the second pulse having a different pulse parameter during the repeating. (Paragraph 0113)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the metal target includes tungsten.
Regarding claim 12, Rumer et al. teach wherein the target includes tungsten. (Paragraph 0047)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the forming the hard mask layer includes forming a plurality of layers of alternating densities.
Regarding claim 14, With regard to the plurality of layers of alternating densities since the layers as taught by Rumer et al. teach higher nitrogen content in one layer and lower nitrogen content in another layer the layers would have different densities. The lower the N content the more metallic and the higher density. The higher the N content the less metallic and the lower density. (Paragraphs 0041-0048; Fig. 2)
PNG
media_image2.png
452
1202
media_image2.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the forming the hard mask layer includes forming a plurality of layers having alternating intrinsic stress.
Regarding claim 15, Rumer et al. teach higher nitrogen content in one layer and lower nitrogen content in another layer the layers would have different stresses. The lower the N content the more metallic and the lower intrinsic stress. The higher the N content the less metallic and the higher intrinsic stress. (Paragraphs 0041-0048; Fig. 2)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 21:
Regarding claim 21, Rumer et al. teach a method comprising: positioning a substrate into a plasma processing chamber, the substrate comprising a layer stack of alternating layers; depositing a hard mask layer over the layer stack, the hard mask comprising a metal containing layer. (Paragraphs 0041-0048; Fig. 2, 7)
The difference between Rumer et al. and claim 21 is that using a high-power impulse magnetron sputtering system is not discussed (Claim 21), the depositing comprising applying a cyclic plurality of pulses, each cycle comprising a primary negative pulse on a target electrode to dislodge target atoms from the target electrode and a secondary positive pulse to accelerate the dislodged target atoms towards the substrate is not discussed (Claim 21) and wherein the second positive pulse in one of the cycles is different from the secondary positive pulse in another of the cycles is not discussed (Claim 21).
Regarding using a high-power impulse magnetron sputtering system (Claim 21), Fischer et al. teach depositing a hard mask layer over a substrate by high power impulse magnetron sputtering (HiPIMS). The hard mask layer can be a metal, metalloid, a nitride (i.e. metal nitride), an oxide or an oxynitride. (Paragraphs 0031, 0055) It should be noted that HiPIMS inherently occurs in a deposition chamber for deposition.
Regarding depositing comprising applying a cyclic plurality of pulses, each cycle comprising a primary negative pulse on a target electrode to dislodge target atoms from the target electrode and a secondary positive pulse to accelerate the dislodged target atoms towards the substrate (Claim 21), Nauman et al. teach applying a cyclic plurality of pulses, each cycle comprising a primary negative pulse on a target electrode to dislodge target atoms from the target electrode and a secondary positive pulse to accelerate the dislodged target atoms towards the substrate. (Paragraph 0111-0119; Fig. 10; Paragraph 0113 - As depicted, during the second time period 1004, the pulse width 1042 of the positive DC pulses 1040 is greater than the pulse width 1022 of positive pulses 1020 during the first time period 1002 and the pulse height B of the pulses during the second time period 1004 is less than the pulse height A of the of positive pulses 1020 during the first time period 1002.)
Regarding wherein the second positive pulse in one of the cycles is different from the secondary positive pulse in another of the cycles (Claim 21), Nauman et al. teach wherein the second positive pulse in one of the cycles is different from the secondary positive pulse in another of the cycles. (Paragraph 0113; Fig. 10)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 22:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the secondary positive pulse in one of the cycles has a different pulse width than the secondary positive pulse in another one of the cycles.
Regarding claim 22, Nauman et al. teach wherein the secondary positive pulse in one of the cycles has a different pulse width than the secondary positive pulse in another one of the cycles. (Paragraph 0113)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 23:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the secondary positive pulse in one of the cycles has a different pulse potential than the secondary positive pulse in another one of the cycles.
Regarding claim 23, Nauman et al. teach wherein the secondary positive pulse in one of the cycles has a different pulse potential than the secondary positive pulse in another one of the cycles. (Paragraph 0113, Fig. 10)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 24:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the metal target includes tungsten.
Regarding claim 24, Rumer et al. teach wherein the target includes tungsten. (Paragraph 0047)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 25:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein one of the cycles deposits a first layer of the hard mask layer at a first density and the another one of the cycles deposits a second layer of the hard mask layer at a second density different from the first density.
Regarding claim 25, Rumer et al. teach depositing multiple layers for a hard mask via sputtering. Rumer et al. teach depositing layers at different amounts of nitrogen via “first and second cycles.” First cycle at a different amount of nitrogen and second amount at a different amount of nitrogen. (Paragraphs 0041-0048; Fig. 2) From Fig. 2 the layers are shown with different amounts of nitrogen. (See Fig. 2)
PNG
media_image2.png
452
1202
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nauman et al. discussed above teach depositing utilizing cycles 1002 and 1004 and wants layer control. (Paragraph 0113, Fig. 10)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nauman et al.’s cycles by utilizing different levels of nitrogen during the cycles as taught by Rumer et al. because it allows for depositing good adhesive layers for hard masks on dielectric layers.
With regard to the first density and the second density since the layers as taught by Rumer et al. teach higher nitrogen content in one layer and lower nitrogen content in another layer the layers would have different densities. The lower the N content the more metallic and the higher density. The higher the N content the less metallic and the lower density. (Paragraphs 0041-0048; Fig. 2)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Fischer et al. is that it allows for defining a region. (Paragraph 0030)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Nauman et al. is that it allows for satisfying layer properties. (Paragraph 0114, 0119)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Rumer et al. by utilizing the features of Fischer et al. and Nauman et al. because it allows for defining a region and for controlling layer properties.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumer et al. in view of Fischer et al. and Nauman et al. as applied to claims 10-12, 14, 15, 21-25 above, and further in view of Park et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2024/0347346 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the substrate is a silicon substrate and the forming the hard mask layer includes forming a tungsten silicide film on the surface of the substrate.
Regarding claim 13, Park et al. teach wherein the substrate is a silicon substrate (Paragraph 0028) and the forming the hard mask layer includes forming a tungsten silicide film on the surface of the substrate (Paragraph 0074 - PVD, Paragraph 0073 – the first patterned mask 212A and the second patterned mask 212B each include a tungsten-containing material, such as tungsten silicide (WSi), tungsten silicon nitride (WSiN), or both).
The motivation for utilizing the features of Park et al. is that it allows for formation of semiconductor devices. (Paragraph 0003)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Park et al. because it allows for formation of semiconductor devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
January 28, 2026