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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 12/27/2023 and 1/15/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 11 of Claim 14 includes the limitation “depositing a second layer of the diamond-like carbon film”, when it should be written “depositing a second layer of the doped diamond-like carbon film” to maintain consistent antecedent basis with the previously established “a doped diamond-like carbon film” in line 6 of Claim 14.
Lines 1-2 of Claim 17 include the limitation “wherein thermally annealing the doped diamond-like carbon film is performed for about 4 minutes to about 6 minutes”, which appears to be referring to a thermal annealing process that was not yet claimed (either in Claim 14 or Claim 17). Said language of the claim would read clearer if written as “further comprising.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottheim et al (US 2021/0327752 A1, hereafter Gottheim) in view of Ji et al (US 2014/0094035 A1, hereafter Ji).
Re Claim 1, Gottheim discloses a method (FIG. 8; [0148]-[0164]), comprising:
positioning a substrate (790; [0148]) on an electrostatic chuck (750; [0148]) in a processing volume of a processing chamber (700; [0148]);
generating a plasma at the substrate (790; [0161]) by applying a RF bias to the electrostatic chuck (750; [0161]);
depositing a first layer of a diamond-like carbon film (“gapfill”; [0164]) in an opening of the substrate (750; [0164]) by flowing a first deposition gas (“gas precursor”; [0164]) comprising a hydrocarbon compound into the processing volume (of 700; [0164]).
Gottheim does not explicitly disclose the method comprising:
etching the first layer (“gapfill”) to remove a portion of the first layer (“gapfill”); and
depositing a second layer of the diamond-like carbon film in the opening to fill an upper portion of the opening by flowing a second deposition gas into the processing volume (of 700).
However, Ji teaches a method (FIG. 1; [0038]-[0064]) comprising:
etching the first layer (205; [0041]) to remove a portion of the first layer (205; [0041]); and
depositing a second layer (205; [0043], step 107 of repeating process) of the diamond-like carbon film (205) in the opening (203; [0043]) to fill an upper portion of the opening (203) by flowing a second deposition gas into the processing volume (“process chamber”; [0043]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the limitations taught by Gottheim with the limitations taught by Ji to etch and then repeat the deposition process to reduce void content in the gapfill material as taught by Ji ([0031]).
Re Claim 8, Gottheim and Ji teach the method according to Claim 1, while Gottheim further teaches wherein the first and second deposition gases comprise at least one of helium, argon, xenon, neon, nitrogen (N2), and hydrogen (H2) ([0171]).
Re Claim 9, Gottheim and Ji teach the method according to Claim 1, while Ji further teaches wherein the substrate (201; [0038]) comprises a plurality of hardmask structures (205) disposed thereon ([0043]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify method as discussed for Claim 1 with the limitations taught by Ji to etch and then repeat the deposition process (resulting in a plurality of stacked hardmask structures) to reduce void content in the gapfill material as taught by Ji ([0031]).
Claims 2-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottheim and Ji, as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Venkatasubramanian et al (US 2021/0407801 A1, hereafter Venkatasubramanian).
Re Claim 2, Gottheim and Ji teach the method according to Claim 1, but they do not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second layers of diamond-like carbon film (Gottheim: “gapfill”) comprise a doped diamond-like carbon film comprising one or more dopants.
However, Venkatasubramanian teaches a method (FIG. 3; [0057]-[0087]) comprising wherein the diamond-like carbon film (412; [0086]) comprise a doped diamond-like carbon film (412) comprising one or more dopants ([0086]).
Venkatasubramanian does not explicitly disclose a plurality of doped diamond-like carbon film layers, but this limitation would follow in the combination with Gottheim and Ji (as the doping happens during deposition), as Ji teaches the production of multiple diamond-like carbon film layers.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as discussed for Claim 1 with the limitations taught by Venkatasubramanian to substitute the gapfill material (Gottheim: “gapfill”) formed in process step 940 of Gottheim with the diamond-like carbon material (Venkatasubramanian: 412) (using “deposition gas” of Venkatasubramanian; [0023]) formed in process step 340 of Venkatasubramanian to use the latter as a functionally equivalent diamond-like carbon material material with desired etch selectivity as taught by Venkatasubramanian (see Table II following [0093]) (see [0033] of Gottheim for preferred bulk characteristics of the gapfill material).
Re Claim 3, Gottheim, Ji, and Venkatasubramanian teach the method according to Claim 2, while Venkatasubramanian further teaches wherein the one or more dopants comprise hydrogen or a metal ([0024] or Table II).
See Claim 2 for motivation statement (no further modification made).
Re Claim 4, Gottheim, Ji, and Venkatasubramanian teach the method according to Claim 2, while Venkatasubramanian further teaches wherein the doped diamond-like carbon film (412) has a density of greater than or equal to about 2.5 g/cc ([0031] or Table II).
See Claim 2 for motivation statement (no further modification made).
Re Claim 5, Gottheim, Ji, and Venkatasubramanian teach the method according to Claim 2, while Venkatasubramanian further teaches wherein the doped diamond-like carbon film (412) has an atomic percent of dopant from about 0.01 atomic percent to about 30 atomic percent ([0030] or Table II).
See Claim 2 for motivation statement (no further modification made).
Re Claim 6, Gottheim, Ji, and Venkatasubramanian teach the method according to Claim 3, while Venkatasubramanian further teaches wherein the hydrocarbon compound comprises at least one of ethyne, propene, methane, butene, 1,3-dimethyladamantane, bicyclo[2.2.1]hepta-2,5-diene, adamantine, or norbornene ([0076]).
See Claim 2 for motivation statement (no further modification made).
Re Claim 7, Gottheim, Ji, and Venkatasubramanian teach the method according to Claim 3, while Venkatasubramanian further teaches wherein the metal comprises at least one of tungsten, ruthenium, tantalum, molybdenum, cobalt, or titanium ([0024]).
See Claim 2 for motivation statement (no further modification made).
Re Claim 10, Gottheim, Ji, and Venkatasubramanian teach the method according to Claim 2, while Venkatasubramanian further teaches wherein the doped diamond-like carbon film (412) has an elastic modulus of greater than 150 GPa ([0056] or Table II).
See Claim 2 for motivation statement (no further modification made).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottheim in view of Venkatasubramanian and Ji.
Re Claim 14, Gottheim discloses a method (FIG. 8; [0148]-[0164]), comprising:
positioning a substrate (790; [0148]) on an electrostatic chuck (750; [0148]) in a processing volume of a processing chamber (700; [0148]);
generating a plasma at the substrate (790; [0161]) by applying a RF bias to the electrostatic chuck (750; [0161]);
depositing a first layer of a diamond-like carbon film (“gapfill”; [0164]) in an opening of the substrate (750; [0164]) by flowing a first deposition gas (“gas precursor”; [0164]) comprising a hydrocarbon compound into the processing volume (of 700; [0164]) that is maintained at a pressure of about 0.5 mTorr to about 10 mTorr ([0141]).
Gottheim does not explicitly disclose the method comprising:
wherein the diamond-like carbon film (“gapfill”) is doped;
etching the first layer (“gapfill”) to remove a portion of the first layer (“gapfill”); and
depositing a second layer of the diamond-like carbon film in the opening to fill an upper portion of the opening by flowing a second deposition gas into the processing volume (of 700).
However, Venkatasubramanian teaches a method (FIG. 3; [0057]-[0087]) comprising wherein the diamond-like carbon film (412; [0086]) is doped ([0086]).
Additionally, Ji teaches a method (FIG. 1; [0038]-[0064]) comprising:
etching the first layer (205; [0041]) to remove a portion of the first layer (205; [0041]); and
depositing a second layer (205; [0043], step 107 of repeating process) of the diamond-like carbon film (205) in the opening (203; [0043]) to fill an upper portion of the opening (203) by flowing a second deposition gas into the processing volume (“process chamber”; [0043]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the limitations taught by Gottheim with the limitations taught by Venkatasubramanian to substitute the gapfill material (Gottheim: “gapfill”) formed in process step 940 of Gottheim with the diamond-like carbon material (Venkatasubramanian: 412) (using “deposition gas” of Venkatasubramanian; [0023]) formed in process step 340 of Venkatasubramanian to use the latter as a functionally equivalent diamond-like carbon material material with desired etch selectivity as taught by Venkatasubramanian (see Table II following [0093]) (see [0033] of Gottheim for preferred bulk characteristics of the gapfill material).
It would have also been obvious to modify the limitations taught by Gottheim and Venkatasubramanian with the limitations taught by Ji to etch and then repeat the deposition process to reduce void content in the gapfill material as taught by Ji ([0031]).
Re Claim 15, Gottheim, Venkatasubramanian, and Ji teach the method according to Claim 14, while Venkatasubramanian further teaches wherein the one or more dopants comprise hydrogen or a metal ([0024] or Table II).
See Claim 14 for motivation statement (no further modification made).
Re Claim 16, Gottheim, Venkatasubramanian, and Ji teach the method according to Claim 14, while Venkatasubramanian further teaches wherein the doped diamond-like carbon film (412) has an atomic percent of dopant from about 0.01 atomic percent to about 30 atomic percent ([0030] or Table II).
See Claim 14 for motivation statement (no further modification made).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Claims 11-13 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable (providing outstanding objections were fixed for Claim 17) if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re Claim 11, the prior art cannot anticipate, or render obvious, the limitations of: thermally annealing the doped diamond-like carbon film, in combination with the additionally claimed features of Claim 11.
Re Claim 17, the prior art cannot anticipate, or render obvious, the limitations of: thermally annealing the doped diamond-like carbon film is performed for about 4 minutes to 6 minutes, in combination with the additionally claimed features of Claim 17.
Re Claim 18, the prior art cannot anticipate, or render obvious, the limitations of: thermally annealing the dopant to the doped diamond-like carbon film, in combination with the additionally claimed features of Claim 18.
In Re Claims 19-20, they are allowable due to their dependence from Claim 18.
In Re Claims 12-13, they are objected to due to their dependence from Claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN RUSSELL MCCUTCHEON whose telephone number is (703)756-1897. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 12:30-9:30 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, DREW N RICHARDS can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/COLIN RUSSELL MCCUTCHEON/Examiner, Art Unit 2892
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights