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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the adhesion layer" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, in the last line of claim 1, it is unclear whether “an adhesion layer” refers to the same adhesion layer in line 5.
Claims 2-21 are indefinite because the depend from indefinite independent claim 1.
For the purpose examination, claim 1 will be interpreted as follows:
(As interpreted) A method of forming a structure comprising a photoresist underlayer, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a substrate within a reaction chamber;
forming an underlayer on a surface of the substrate;
selecting a photoresist to deposit onto an adhesion layer;
manipulating process conditions for use during the step of forming the adhesion layer to tune properties of the adhesion layer based on the selected photoresist; and
using a cyclical deposition process, forming the adhesion layer on a surface of the underlayer.
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 (all as interpreted) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (US 2021/0013037 A1; hereinafter, “Sun”).
Regarding claim 1 (as interpreted):
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]) 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 underlayers are sometimes referred to as adhesion layers);
manipulating process conditions for use during the step of forming the adhesion layer to tune properties of the adhesion layer based on the selected photoresist [0070 and 0092]; 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 (all as interpreted):
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”).
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 3, 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 11, Sun discloses at least tetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane [0010].
Therefore, claims 7-9, 11-16 and 18 are rendered obvious by Sun (in view of Ran).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references listed on the attached PTO-892 disclose methods of forming and treating photoresist underlayers, wherein the methods have some similarity to that of the current invention.
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