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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 1 is rejected under prior art. Claims 2-16 are objected and claim 17-20 are allowed.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Marchegiani (US 2023/0197465).
With respect to claim 1, Marchegiani describes a method comprising: depositing an amorphous carbon hardmask 106 or claimed first layer of an implant hard mask on a SiO 104a or claimed screen layer on a substrate 102; depositing an antireflective layer 108 or claimed second layer of the implant hardmask on the amorphous carbon hardmask layer (para 221), which provides wherein the first and second layer of the implant hardmask are different materials and only one is amorphous carbon.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Xie et al. (CN 110323181A).
With respect to claim 1, Xie describes a method comprising: depositing an amorphous mask layer 150 or claimed first layer of the implant hardmask on a screen layer including oxide layer 146; depositing a dielectric anti-reflective coating 152 on the amorphous carbon mask 150 or claimed second layer of the implant hardmask (fig. 2; pages 5 and 6), which provides wherein the first and second layer of the implant hardmask are different materials and only one is amorphous carbon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 2 and its dependent claims 3-9, neither Marchegiani nor Xie teaches the screen layer is an amorphous carbon (a-C) layer with a first thickness of approximately 20nm to approximately 100nm, the first layer of the implant hardmask is an oxide layer with a second thickness of approximately 100nm to approximately 3000nm, and the second layer of the implant hardmask is an amorphous layer (a-C) with a third thickness of approximately 100nm to approximately 3000nm. Both Marchegiani and Xie teach an amorphous carbon in between an oxide and antireflective layer.
With respect to claims 10 and its dependent claims 11-16, neither Marchegiani nor Xie teaches the steps of forming the screen layer is an oxide layer with a first thickness of approximately 20nm to approximately 100nm, the first layer of the implant hard mask is an amorphous carbon a-C layer with a second thickness of approximately 100nm to approximately 3000nm, and the second layer of the implant hard mask is an oxide layer with a third thickness of approximately 100nm to approximately 3000nm. Marchegiani discloses an example with a thickness for amorphous carbon layer of 350nm on the oxide layer or screen layer having a thickness of 2000nm (para 261, 264). Xie only discloses the oxide layer 146 or claimed screen layer thickness is 2000angstrom or 200nm (para 41 of the original document) and doesn’t disclose a thickness for the amorphous carbon layer. Furthermore more, neither prior art teaches the second layer of the implant hard mask is an oxide layer with a third thickness of approximately 100nm to approximately 3000nm on the amorphous carbon first layer of the implant hardmask.
Claims 17-20 are allowed for the same reasons as that of allowable claim 10 in combination with etching step in independent claims 17 and 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references, Marchegiani and Xie, fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the screen layer is formed directly on the substrate surface) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, claim 1 doesn’t recite any specific type of materials for the screen layer, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, see MPEP 2111, any known materials used in the semiconductor process would provide claimed screen layer.
In response to applicant's argument that the references, Marchegiani and Xie, fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., forming implant hard masks on substrate with high temperature and high ion energy blocking capabilities) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 doesn’t recite any specific type of materials for the second layer of the implant hard mask, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, see MPEP 2111, any known materials used in the semiconductor process would provide claimed second layer.
In response to applicant's argument that Marchigiani and Xie do not teach using the antireflective as a layer of an implant hard mask, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The antireflective layer from Marchigiani and Xie would certainly can be used as a layer of an implant hard mask because it provides a pattern on the substrate, on which a process with reactive ion species of a reactive ion etching, used by Marchiginai (para 217, 218) and Xie (page 6, 7) is performed. An implant hard mask would involve the use of ion species as described by the specification. Furthermore claim 1 doesn’t recite any ion implantation step beside a general step of “depositing a second layer of the implant hard mask” with no specific material for the second layer; therefore, the antireflective layer provided by Marchigiani and Xie would still read on claimed a second layer of the implant hard mask.
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 DUY VU NGUYEN DEO whose telephone number is (571)272-1462. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-272-3176. 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.
/DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713 4/9/2026
Prosecution Insights