DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18433320 application filed February 5, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102:
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention..
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 11-12 and 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ko et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20170358450), hereinafter “Ko”:
--Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16: Ko teaches a method for patterning (Fig. 18), comprisingforming a mandrel 720 on a substrate 712, the mandrel may comprise a resist, an amorphous carbon film or spin-on-carbon (Fig. 7A, [0049, 0064]);exposing the mandrel to a direct current superposition (DCS) plasma to deposit a protection layer on the mandrel ([0049]), wherein the protection layer may comprise silicon that is sputtered from a silicon electrode ([0049, 0065]);performing a plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (PEALD) to form a protection layer on the mandrel, the PEALD comprises exposing the mandrel and the protection layer to an oxygen plasma to form a silicon oxide spacer layer on the mandrel ([0050-0051, 0066], Fig. 7B);removing a top portion of the silicon oxide layer to form spacers 768 by using a spacer etch mandrel pull process by using a gas mixture comprising H2/Ar ([0050, 0067], Fig. 7C), wherein the spacers 768 may be used as a mask for pattern transfer ([0012, 0044]). It is noted that amorphous carbon is an organic material. Ko further teaches that the protection layer protects the mandrel during the PEALD step, and prevent spacer leaning problem ([0051-0052]). Thus, the protection layer hardens the mandrel. Alternately, although Ko does not disclose the deposit the protection layer on the mandrel hardens the mandrel, since the protection layer adds width to the mandrel it would have been obvious that it adds stiffness and hardens the mandrel.--Claims 6, 7: It is noted that the performing a plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition may be considered comprising a first period wherein the protection layer comprising silicon reacts with the oxygen plasma to form a first layer of silicon oxide, and a second period wherein the protection layer comprising silicon further reacts with the oxygen plasma to form a second layer of silicon oxide.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2-3 and 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Sandhu et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20090115064), hereinafter “Sandhu”.--Claim 2, 13: Ko teaches the invention as above. Ko is silent about the details of the spacer etch mandrel pull process.Sandhu teaches a method of forming mandrel spacers that may be used as etch masks, comprising(i) forming a mandrel layer 130 on an underlying layer 122, then patterning the mandrel layer 130 by using photolithography to form a mandrel 131a (Fig. 2, 3B and 4B, [0048-0051]);(ii) forming a spacer layer 140 on the mandrel 131a (Fig. 5B, [0052-0054]);(iii) etching a portion of the spacer layer 140 to expose the mandrel 131a and the underlying layer 122, wherein a spacer portion 145 of the spacer layer 140 remains on the sidewall of the mandrel 131a (Fig. 6B, [0055);(iv) removing the mandrel 131a, wherein the spacer portion 145 remains on the underlying layer 122 (Fig. 7B, [0056]);(v) etching the underlying layer 122 by using the spacer portion 145 as a mask (Fig. 9, [0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the method taught by Sandhu, i.e. steps (iii) and (iv), as the spacer etch mandrel pull process in the invention of Ko because Ko teaches that the spacer etch mandrel pull process forms mask by etching to remove a portion of the spacer layer in the structure shown in Fig. 7B but is silent about the details, and Sandhu teaches that such method would be effective.--Claims 3, 14: It is noted that the above reads on the steps recited in claim 3 and 14.
Claims 8-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lubomirsky et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20060033678), hereinafter “Lubomirsky”.--Claim 8: Ko teaches the invention as above. Ko further teaches that the DCS process may be performed in a plasma chamber ([0070-0072], Fig. 19), which can also operate as an RIE etch reactor ([0073, 0077]), and may be modified to perform deposition process and the spacer etch mandrel pull process ([0079]). Ko fails to teach the claimed feature that the forming the mandrel is performed in a first chamber, exposing the mandrel to the DCS plasma is performed in a second chamber, and forming the silicon oxide spacer layer is performed in a third chamber. Lubomirsky teaches that multiple processes may be performed simultaneously in a cluster tool comprising a plurality of process chambers, wherein a robot simultaneously insert and remove substrates to/from the plurality of processing chambers ([0077], Fig. 2), wherein each of the process chamber may be configured to perform ALD or CVD deposition, plasma etching, heat treatment, etc. ([0091, 0107, 0143, 0205]). Lubomirsky teaches that such cluster tool results in fewer defects compared to processing substrates in multiple processing systems ([0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to form the mandrel in a first chamber, expose the mandrel to the DCS plasma in a second chamber, and form the silicon oxide spacer layer in a third chamber in the cluster tool as taught by Lubomirsky because Lubomirsky teaches that this would advantageously enable processing multiple substrates simultaneously, and results in fewer defects compared to processing substrates in multiple processing systems.--Claims 9, 10: Since Ko teaches that a process chamber may be modified to perform DCS process, RIE etching process, deposition process and the spacer etch mandrel pull process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to form the mandrel and expose the mandrel to the DCS plasma in the same chamber and forming the silicon oxide spacer layer in a different chamber, or to perform each of the above processes in different chambers in order to provide manufacturing flexibility.
Claims 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Lubomirsky:--Claims 17, 18, 19, 20: Ko teaches a method for patterning (Fig. 18), comprisingforming a mandrel 720 on a substrate 712, the mandrel may comprise a resist, an amorphous carbon film or spin-on-carbon (Fig. 7A, [0049, 0064]);exposing the mandrel to a direct current superposition (DCS) plasma to deposit a protection layer on the mandrel ([0049]), wherein the protection layer may comprise silicon that is sputtered from a silicon electrode ([0049, 0065]);performing a plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (PEALD) to form a protection layer on the mandrel, the PEALD comprises exposing the mandrel and the protection layer to an oxygen plasma to form a silicon oxide spacer layer on the mandrel ([0050-0051, 0066], Fig. 7B);removing a top portion of the silicon oxide layer to form spacers 768 by using a spacer etch mandrel pull process by using a gas mixture comprising H2/Ar ([0050, 0067], Fig. 7C), wherein the spacers 768 may be used as a mask for pattern transfer ([0012, 0044]). It is noted that amorphous carbon is an organic material. Ko further teaches that the protection layer protects the mandrel during the PEALD step, and prevent spacer leaning problem ([0051-0052]). Thus, the protection layer hardens the mandrel. Ko further teaches that the DCS process may be performed in a plasma chamber ([0070-0072], Fig. 19), which can also operate as an RIE etch reactor ([0073, 0077]), and may be modified to perform deposition process and the spacer etch mandrel pull process ([0079]). Ko fails to teach the claimed feature that the forming the mandrel is performed in a first chamber, exposing the mandrel to the DCS plasma is performed in a second chamber, and forming the silicon oxide spacer layer is performed in a third chamber. Lubomirsky teaches that multiple processes may be performed simultaneously in a cluster tool comprising a plurality of process chambers, wherein a robot simultaneously insert and remove substrates to/from the plurality of processing chambers ([0077], Fig. 2), wherein each of the process chamber may be configured to perform ALD or CVD deposition, plasma etching, heat treatment, etc. ([0091, 0107, 0143, 0205]). Lubomirsky teaches that such cluster tool results in fewer defects compared to processing substrates in multiple processing systems ([0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to form the mandrel in a first chamber, expose the mandrel to the DCS plasma in a second chamber, and form the silicon oxide spacer layer in a third chamber in the cluster tool as taught by Lubomirsky because Lubomirsky teaches that this would advantageously enable processing multiple substrates simultaneously, and results in fewer defects compared to processing substrates in multiple processing systems. Since Ko teaches that a process chamber may be modified to perform DCS process, RIE etching process, deposition process and the spacer etch mandrel pull process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to form the mandrel and expose the mandrel to the DCS plasma in the same chamber and forming the silicon oxide spacer layer in a different chamber, or to perform each of the above processes in different chambers in order to provide manufacturing flexibility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713