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 .
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10, 17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (US 2021/0013037 A1; hereinafter, “Sun”, of record).
Regarding claim 1:
Sun discloses a method of forming a structure comprising a photoresist underlayer, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a substrate 102 (Fig. 1 and [0064]) within a reaction chamber [0037];
forming an underlayer 104 (Fig. 1 and [0065], Note: Layer 104 reads on an underlayer as required by the current claim language) on a surface of the substrate;
selecting a photoresist 108 (Fig. 1 and [0063]) to deposit onto an adhesion layer 106 (Fig. 1, [0070] and note [0009], wherein layer 106 can be referred to as an adhesion layer);
manipulating process conditions for use during the step of forming the adhesion layer, including surface free energy (SFE) ([0070] and [0092]), to tune surface chemistry properties of the adhesion layer based on the selected photoresist ([0011], [0070] and [0092], and in paragraph [0011], the desired adhesion/underlayer properties can depend on the type of photoresist, i.e., the desired properties of layer 106 depends on the type of photoresist that will be deposited on top of it; accordingly, process conditions are manipulated to tune surface chemistry properties of the adhesion layer based on the selected photoresist), wherein the SFE of the adhesion layer is within a desired range of an SFE of the selected photoresist ([0011], i.e., any SFE obtained by the manipulation process is considered to be within a desired range of an SFE of the selected photoresist); and
using a cyclical deposition process [0084], forming the adhesion layer on a surface of the underlayer.
Therefore, claim 1 is anticipated by Sun.
Regarding claims 2-4, 10, 17 and 19-21:
Sun further discloses:
re claim 2, the method of claim 1, wherein the photoresist underlayer 104 comprises one or more of silicon oxide [0065] (e.g., native oxide on silicon substrate [0064]), silicon oxycarbide, silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, silicon carbon nitride, silicon oxygen carbon nitride, metal oxide, metal nitride, metal oxycarbide, metal oxynitride, metal oxygen carbon nitride, and metal carbon nitride;
re claim 3, the method of claim 1, further comprising a step of forming a photoresist layer 108 (Fig. 1 and [0074]) overlying and in contact with the adhesion layer, wherein the photoresist layer comprises extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography photoresist;
re claim 4, the method of claim 1, comprising a step of forming a photoresist layer 108 (Fig. 1) overlying and in contact with the adhesion layer 106, wherein the photoresist layer comprises a chemically amplified resist [0074];
re claim 10, the method of claim 1, wherein the process conditions [0092] are selected from one or more of reaction chamber temperature, reaction chamber pressure, gap between electrodes, precursor flowrate, reactant flowrate, precursor dilution, reactant dilution, precursor purge time, number of deposition cycles plasma power, and plasma power pulse time;
re claim 17, the method of claim 1, wherein the cyclical deposition process comprises a plasma-enhanced deposition process [0084];
re claim 19, the method of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the adhesion layer is greater than 0 nm and less than 2 nm [0025] (i.e., less than 5nm);
re claim 20, a structure 600 (Fig. 6, [0073]) formed according to the method of claim 1; and
re claim 21, A system for forming an adhesion layer 106 (Fig. 1), the system comprising:
a reaction chamber [0037];
a silicon precursor source fluidly coupled to the reaction chamber [0010];
an inert gas source ([0084], last line) fluidly coupled to the reaction chamber; and
a controller configured to perform the method according to claim 1 (i.e., a controller is inherent to the deposition system [0092]).
Therefore, Sun anticipates 1-4, 10, 17 and 19-21.
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.
Claim(s) 5-9, 11-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Ran et al. (US 2023/0340663 A1; hereinafter, “Ran”, of record).
Regarding claims 5 and 6:
Sun anticipates claim 1 but does not disclose providing an oxygen-fee reactant into the reaction chamber; however, it is noted Sun discloses the adhesion layer 106 comprises SiOC [0069].
Ran teaches a method of forming a silicon oxycarbide layer by providing an oxygen free reactant [0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sun by incorporating an oxygen free reactant in order to acquire a low-k adhesion layer.
Regarding claims 7-9, 11-16 and 18:
re claim 7, Ran discloses wherein the oxygen-free reactant comprises one or more of argon [0010], helium, neon, krypton, xenon and hydrogen;
re claims 8-9, Ran discloses the oxygen-free reactant is provided continuously [0026, 0027] during one or more cycles of the cyclical deposition process;
re claim 11, Sun discloses the underlayer 104 can be silicon [0065], wherein such a layer would require a silicon precursor;
re claim 12, Ran discloses the silicon precursor comprises a molecule as recited [0039];
re claims 13-15 and 18, Although Ran does not explicitly disclose the formula in claim 13, Ran discloses two silicon-oxygen bonds, two silicon-carbon bonds, carbon-carbon bond (abstract), and the silicon precursor does not comprise nitrogen [0039] (second listed backbone); accordingly, these claims are deemed obvious because Ran discloses forming a silicon oxycarbide layer; and
re claim 16, Sun discloses at least tetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane [0010].
Therefore, claims 7-9, 11-16 and 18 are rendered obvious by Sun (in view of Ran).
Remarks
The rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendment to independent claims 1.
Applicant’s remarks have been carefully reviewed and considered; however, they are not persuasive primarily for reasons provided hereinbefore, especially with respect to claim 1. Specifically, regarding claim 1, applicant asserts (in the first paragraph of pp. 2 of the remarks) the Office Action does not identify any disclosure in Sun of manipulating process conditions during formation of a separate adhesion layer on an underlayer to tune the SFE of that adhesion layer based on the selected photoresist as claimed. As stated in the rejection of claim 1, in at least paragraphs [0011], [0070] and [0090], Sun discloses manipulating process conditions as currently claimed. Furthermore, it is noted current claim 1 recites “manipulating process conditions…to tune surface chemistry”; however, the claim does not specify what is included or excluded by “manipulating process conditions”; accordingly, the current claim language would be broad enough the read on any process used during the step of forming the adhesion layer. In other words, when forming the adhesion layer, flow of process gas(es) is(are) started and/or stopped, pressure within the deposition/forming chamber must be controlled, etc., etc. Therefore, a layer forming process would require some level of manipulating process conditions, and because Sun discloses (in [0011]) the adhesion layer can be formulated to have desired surface energy properties, Sun discloses the limitations in claim 1.
On the remainder of pp. 2 and most of pp. 3, applicant appears to map Sun according to a narrow interpretation of the current claim language. It is noted the prior and current Office action does not explicitly map elements 1421, 1422, 1433 to any of the currently claimed elements, but rather, the Office action maps element 104 (of Sun) to the currently claimed underlayer and element 106 to the currently claimed adhesion layer. It appears applicant disregards the mapping in the Office action and presents arguments based on different subject matter that requires a narrow interpretation of the current claim language. The examiner respectfully notes the current claim language does not require what appears to be applicant’s narrow interpretation.
Regarding claim 19, applicant asserts (bottom of pp. 3) Sun does not identify the narrower claimed adhesion-layer thickness of greater than 0 nm and less than 2 nm. It is noted the current claims require “a” thickness of greater than 0 nm and less than 2 nm; however, such “a” thickness need not be a maximum thickness nor a minimum thickness such that the claimed range could distinguish from “a” thickness of less than 5 nm (as disclosed by Sun [0025]). In other words, for Sun’s adhesion layer to exist, it must have a thickness greater than 0 nm, and even if Sun’s adhesion layer were to have a thickness of 2 nm up to, but not including, 5 nm, it is clear that such a thick adhesion layer has, at very least, “a” thickness that is greater than 0 nm and less than 2 nm. For example, a claim reciting a layer having “a” thickness that is greater than 0 nm and less than 2 nm does not exclude a layer that is 4 nm thick because the claimed thickness has not been specified to be either a maximum or minimum thickness such that the claimed thickness range could exclude thicker layers.
Regarding claim 11, applicant asserts the rejection does not identify evidence showing that the specific precursor limitation of claim 11 would necessarily flow from Sun’s disclosure (pp. 5, last complete paragraph). It is noted claim 11 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Ran, and it appears applicant disregards Ran entirely. In other words, Sun discloses the underlayer can be silicon, which would require a silicon precursor; and Ran discloses providing a silicon precursor when forming a layer comprising silicon (e.g., Fig. 1); accordingly, claim 11 is rendered obvious by Sun (in view of Ran) as stated in the prior and current Office action.
Regarding the remaining claims, applicant appears to assert the prior art does not disclose amended claim 1, or cure the deficiencies noted with respect to amended claim 1. The examiner maintains Sun anticipates claim 1 and Sun in view of Ran renders obvious all claims not anticipated by Sun.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LEX H MALSAWMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1903. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (4-12 Hours, between 5:30AM-10PM).
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, N. Drew 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.
/LEX H MALSAWMA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights