DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18433320 application filed February 5, 2024, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on June 18, 2026. 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 § 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 1, 4-7, 11-12 and 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ko et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20170358450), hereinafter “Ko”:
--Claims 1, 4, 5, 11: 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 be a silicon layer that is sputtered from a silicon electrode ([0049, 0052, 0065]);performing a plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (PEALD) to form a spacer 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), wherein the silicon protection layer is oxidized during the first O2 plasma cycle of the PEALD ([0052, 0066]);removing a top horizontal portion and a bottom horizontal portion of the silicon oxide spacer layer, and the mandrel 720 to form spacers 768 by using a post spacer etch mandrel pull process by using a gas mixture comprising H2/Ar ([0050, 0067], Step 1816 in Fig. 18, Fig. 7C), wherein the spacers 768 may be used as a mask for pattern transfer ([0012, 0044]). It is noted that the amorphous carbon mandrel 720 reads on the organic mandrel, the protection layer reads on the silicon-based layer, and the silicon oxide spacer layer reads on the spacer layer recited in claim 1. 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. Although Ko fails to disclose that the protection layer remaining on a side of the silicon oxide spacer layer, since the silicon protection layer is oxidized during the first O2 plasma cycle of the PEALD to become silicon oxide, it becomes a part of the silicon oxide spacer layer. Since the vertical portion of the silicon oxide spacer layer remains as the spacers 768, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to perform the spacer etch mandrel pull process such that at least a portion of the silicon protection layer, which has been oxidized to become silicon oxide and a part of the silicon oxide spacer layer, remains on vertical sidewalls of the silicon oxide spacer layer.--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. It is noted that the first layer of silicon oxide reads on the silicon-based layer made of silicon dioxide recited in claim 6.--Claims 12, 15, 16: It is noted that the amorphous carbon mandrel 720 reads on the organic mandrel, the substrate 712 reads on the underlying layer, the protection layer reads on the protective layer, and the silicon oxide spacer layer reads on the spacer layer recited in claim 12.
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 further teaches that the post spacer etch mandrel pull process is known in the art, but is silent about the details of the post 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. step (iv), as the post 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 claims 3 and 14.
Claims 8-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious 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 obvious over Ko in view of Lubomirsky:--Claims 17, 18, 19: 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 be a silicon layer that is sputtered from a silicon electrode ([0049, 0052, 0065]);performing a plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (PEALD) to form a spacer 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), wherein the silicon protection layer is oxidized during the first O2 plasma cycle of the PEALD ([0052, 0066]);removing a top horizontal portion and a bottom horizontal portion of the silicon oxide spacer layer, and the mandrel 720 to form spacers 768 by using a post spacer etch mandrel pull process by using a gas mixture comprising H2/Ar ([0050, 0067], Step 1816 in Fig. 18, Fig. 7C), wherein the spacers 768 may be used as a mask for pattern transfer ([0012, 0044]). It is noted that the amorphous carbon mandrel 720 reads on the organic mandrel, the protection layer reads on the silicon-based layer, and the silicon oxide spacer layer reads on the spacer layer recited in claim 1. 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. Although Ko fails to disclose that the protection layer remaining on a side of the silicon oxide spacer layer, since the silicon protection layer is oxidized during the first O2 plasma cycle of the PEALD to become silicon oxide, it becomes a part of the silicon oxide spacer layer. Since the vertical portion of the silicon oxide spacer layer remains as the spacers 768, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to perform the spacer etch mandrel pull process such that at least a portion of the silicon protection layer, which has been oxidized to become silicon oxide and a part of the silicon oxide spacer layer, remains on vertical sidewalls of the silicon oxide spacer layer. 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.--Claim 20: It is noted that the performing the 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. It is noted that the first layer of silicon oxide reads on the silicon-based layer made of silicon dioxide recited in claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 18, 2026 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the previously cited prior arts do not teach the amended feature, this arguments is not persuasive. Although Examiner stated during the interview filed 5/29/2026 that “although from a cursory check it appears that the prior arts do not explicitly disclose the proposed amendments, further consideration would be needed due to the time limitation during the interview since the amendments would substantially change the scope of the claim”, upon further consideration of the cited prior arts it has been found that Ko implies the amended feature, as explained above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 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
Prosecution Insights