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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the smaller thickness of the second layer compared to the thickness of the first layer and the smaller thickness of the second layer compared to the thickness of the third layer, as presented in claim 17, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-12, 14, and 18-19 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.
Claims 1-12, 14, and 18-19 recite limitations which include an “extinction coefficient”. The meets and bounds of the limitations including an, “extinction coefficient,” of these claims are unclear because of a lack of clarity in the term, “extinction coefficient”. It is unclear whether the phrase, “extinction coefficient,” is referring to the optical extinction coefficient which is the imaginary component of the complex index of refraction of the material, or is referring to Beer-Lambert law extinction coefficient which is related to the amount or concentration of a particular material in a bulk substance. For the purpose of this office action, the phrase, “extinction coefficient,” is interpreted to have the following meaning: optical extinction coefficient.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "wherein the target mask" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to, “a target layer,” of line 1 of claim 19, or refers to, “a hard mask,” of line 1 of claim 19. For the purpose of this office action, this limitation is interpreted to have the following meaning: wherein the target layer.
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, 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.
Claims 1-10, 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dakshina-Murthy et al. (US 7084071 B1; hereinafter referred to as "Dakshina-Murthy”) in view of Won et al. (US PGPub 20100258526 A1; hereinafter referred to as "Won”).
Re claim 1: Dakshina-Murthy teaches a hard mask (abstract) comprising: a first layer (FIG. 6: el. 62; col. 6: line 1-8); and a second layer (FIG. 6: el. 64, 66; col. 6: line 1-8 | second layer formed of amorphous carbon layers 64 and 66) on the first layer (FIG. 6: el. 62), wherein the first layer and the second layer each include an amorphous carbon layer (FIG. 6: el. 62, (64, 66); col. 6: line 1-8), the first layer has a first optical extinction coefficient (FIG. 6: el. 62; col. 6: line 30-49 | first layer formed of undoped amorphous carbon layer 62 has a first optical extinction coefficient), the second layer has a second optical extinction coefficient (FIG. 6: el. 64, 66; col. 6: line 30-49 | second layer formed of undoped layer 66 and doped layer 64 has a second optical extinction coefficient), the second optical extinction coefficient is different from the first optical extinction coefficient (Park, as an evidentiary reference, shows that PECVD deposited nitrogen doped amorphous carbon layers have different and higher optical extinction coefficients than undoped PECVD deposited nitrogen doped amorphous carbon layers - "Nitrogen doped high selectivity amorphous carbon film for high aspect ratio etch process", FIG. 5, pg. 1-6, Park et al). Dakshina-Murthy is silent as to the first optical extinction coefficient and the second optical extinction coefficient each in a range of 0.4 to 0.7.
In a similar field of endeavor, Won teaches an amorphous carbon hard mask layer (para. 74) having an optical extinction coefficient of 0.41 or 0.42, for the benefit of enabling an amorphous carbon hard mask layer to have adequate selectivity with respect to silicon oxide (para. 62). Won further teaches the optical extinction coefficient as a result-effective variable to result in adequate selectivity of an amorphous carbon hard mask layer (para. 62). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the first optical extinction coefficient and the second optical extinction coefficient, as Won has identified the optical extinction coefficient of an amorphous carbon hard mask layer as a result-effective variable. In the absence of an indication that the claimed range produces unexpected results or has criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at first and second optical extinction coefficients between 0.4 and 0.7, in order to achieve the desired selectivity of the amorphous carbon hard mask layers.
Re claim 2: The combination of Dakshina-Murthy and Won teaches the hard mask of claim 1, wherein the first optical extinction coefficient is smaller than the second optical extinction coefficient (Dakshina-Murthy – FIG. 6: el. 62, (64, 66); col. 6: line 30-49 |optical extinction coefficient of undoped first layer 62 is smaller than the optical extinction coefficient of a second layer including both doped sub-layer 64 and an undoped sub-layer 66, as evidenced by the differing and higher optical extinction coefficient of nitrogen doped amorphous carbon compared to undoped amorphous carbon by Park).
Re claim 7: The combination of Dakshina-Murthy and Won teaches the hard mask of claim 1, further comprising: a third layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 68; col. 6: line 1-8) on the second layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 64, 66; col. 6: line 1-8), wherein the second layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 64, 66; col. 6: line 1-8) is between the first layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 62; col. 6: line 1-8) and the third layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 68; col. 6: line 1-8), the third layer has a third optical extinction coefficient, and the third optical extinction coefficient is different from the first optical extinction coefficient (Dakshina-Murthy – FIG. 6: el. 68, 62; col. 6: line 30-49 |optical extinction coefficient of doped third layer 68 is different from the optical extinction coefficient of the undoped first layer 62, as evidenced by the differing and higher optical extinction coefficient of nitrogen doped amorphous carbon compared to undoped amorphous carbon by Park).
Re claim 8: The combination of Dakshina-Murthy and Won teaches the hard mask of claim 1, further comprising: a third layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 68; col. 6: line 1-8) on the second layer, wherein the second layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 64, 66; col. 6: line 1-8) is between the first layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 62; col. 6: line 1-8) and the third layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 68; col. 6: line 1-8), the third layer has a third optical extinction coefficient, the first optical extinction coefficient is smaller than the second optical extinction coefficient, and the second optical extinction coefficient is smaller than the third optical extinction coefficient (Dakshina-Murthy – FIG. 6: el. 62, (64, 66), 68; col. 6: line 30-49 | optical extinction coefficient of undoped first layer 62 is smaller than the optical extinction coefficient of a second layer including both doped sub-layer 64 and an undoped sub-layer 66, and optical extinction coefficient of a second layer including both doped sub-layer 64 and an undoped sub-layer 66 is smaller than the optical extinction coefficient of doped third layer 68, as evidenced by the differing and higher optical extinction coefficient of nitrogen doped amorphous carbon compared to undoped amorphous carbon by Park).
Re claim 9: The combination of Dakshina-Murthy and Won teaches the hard mask of claim 8, wherein the second layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 64, 66; col. 6: line 1-8) includes a first sub-layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 64; col. 6: line 1-8) having a fourth optical extinction coefficient and a second sub-layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 66; col. 6: line 1-8) having a fifth optical extinction coefficient, and the fourth optical extinction coefficient is different from the fifth optical extinction coefficient (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 64, 66; col. 6: line 30-49 |optical extinction coefficient of first doped sub-layer 64 is different than optical extinction coefficient of second undoped sub-layer 66, as evidenced by the differing and higher optical extinction coefficient of nitrogen doped amorphous carbon compared to undoped amorphous carbon by Park).
Re claim 10: The combination of Dakshina-Murthy and Won teaches the hard mask of claim 9, wherein the fourth optical extinction coefficient is greater than the first optical extinction coefficient, and the fifth optical extinction coefficient is smaller than the third optical extinction coefficient (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 64, 66; col. 6: line 30-49 |optical extinction coefficient of first doped sub-layer 64 is greater than optical extinction coefficient of second undoped sub-layer 66, as evidenced by the differing and higher optical extinction coefficient of nitrogen doped amorphous carbon compared to undoped amorphous carbon by Park).
Re claim 1 (alternate mapping): Dakshina-Murthy teaches a hard mask (abstract) comprising: a first layer (FIG. 6: el. 64; col. 6: line 1-8); and a second layer (FIG. 6: el. 66; col. 6: line 1-8) on the first layer (FIG. 6: el. 64), wherein the first layer and the second layer each include an amorphous carbon layer (FIG. 6: el. 64, 66; col. 6: line 1-8), the first layer has a first optical extinction coefficient (FIG. 6: el. 64; col. 6: line 30-49 | first layer formed of doped amorphous carbon layer 64 has a first optical extinction coefficient), the second layer has a second optical extinction coefficient (FIG. 6: el. 66; col. 6: line 30-49 | second layer formed of undoped layer 66 has a second optical extinction coefficient), the second optical extinction coefficient is different from the first optical extinction coefficient (Park, as an evidentiary reference, shows that PECVD deposited nitrogen doped amorphous carbon layers have different and higher optical extinction coefficients than undoped PECVD deposited nitrogen doped amorphous carbon layers - "Nitrogen doped high selectivity amorphous carbon film for high aspect ratio etch process", FIG. 5, pg. 1-6, Park et al). Dakshina-Murthy is silent as to the first optical extinction coefficient and the second optical extinction coefficient each in a range of 0.4 to 0.7.
In a similar field of endeavor, Won teaches an amorphous carbon hard mask layer (para. 74) having an optical extinction coefficient of 0.41 or 0.42, for the benefit of enabling an amorphous carbon hard mask layer to have adequate selectivity with respect to silicon oxide (para. 62). Won further teaches the optical extinction coefficient as a result-effective variable to result in adequate selectivity of an amorphous carbon hard mask layer (para. 62). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the first optical extinction coefficient and the second optical extinction coefficient, as Won has identified the optical extinction coefficient of an amorphous carbon hard mask layer as a result-effective variable. In the absence of an indication that the claimed range produces unexpected results or has criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at first and second optical extinction coefficients between 0.4 and 0.7, in order to achieve the desired selectivity of the amorphous carbon hard mask layers.
Re claim 3: The combination of Dakshina-Murthy and Won teaches the hard mask of claim 1, further comprising: a third layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 68; col. 6: line 1-8), on the second layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 66; col. 6: line 1-8), wherein the second layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 66) is between the first layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 64) and the third layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 68), the third layer has a third optical extinction coefficient, and the third optical extinction coefficient is different from the second optical extinction coefficient (Dakshina-Murthy – FIG. 6: el. 68, 66; col. 6: line 30-49 |optical extinction coefficient of doped third layer 68 is different from the optical extinction coefficient of undoped second layer 66, as evidenced by the differing and higher optical extinction coefficient of nitrogen doped amorphous carbon compared to undoped amorphous carbon by Park).
Re claim 4: The combination of Dakshina-Murthy and Won teaches the hard mask of claim 3, wherein the first optical extinction coefficient and the third optical extinction coefficient are equal to each other (Dakshina-Murthy – FIG. 6: el. 64, 68; col. 6: line 30-49 |optical extinction coefficient of doped first layer 64 is the same as the optical extinction coefficient of doped third layer 68 due to the equivalent materials of the two layers).
Re claim 5: The combination of Dakshina-Murthy and Won teaches the hard mask of claim 4, wherein the second optical extinction coefficient is smaller than the first optical extinction coefficient (Dakshina-Murthy – FIG. 6: el. 66, 64; col. 6: line 30-49 |optical extinction coefficient of undoped second layer 66 is smaller than the optical extinction coefficient of doped first layer 64, as evidenced by the differing and higher optical extinction coefficient of nitrogen doped amorphous carbon compared to undoped amorphous carbon by Park).
Re claim 6: The combination of Dakshina-Murthy and Won teaches the hard mask of claim 4, wherein the second layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 66; col. 6: line 1-8|annotated FIG. 6 showing the second undoped layer 66 considered as two sub-layers is provided below) includes a first sub-layer having a fourth optical extinction coefficient (Dakshina-Murthy - annotated FIG. 6: el. 1st sub-layer of layer 66) and a second sub-layer having a fifth optical extinction coefficient (Dakshina-Murthy - annotated FIG. 6: el. 2nd sub-layer of layer 66), the fourth optical extinction coefficient is smaller than the first optical extinction coefficient, and the fifth optical extinction coefficient is smaller than the first optical extinction coefficient (Dakshina-Murthy – FIG. 6: el. 66, 64; col. 6: line 30-49 |optical extinction coefficient of undoped 1st sub-layer of second layer 66 is smaller than the optical extinction coefficient of doped first layer 64 and the optical extinction coefficient of undoped 2nd sub-layer of second layer 66 is smaller than the optical extinction coefficient of doped first layer 64, as evidenced by the differing and higher optical extinction coefficient of nitrogen doped amorphous carbon compared to undoped amorphous carbon by Park).
PNG
media_image1.png
464
1217
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 12: Dakshina-Murthy teaches a hard mask (abstract) on a substrate, the hard mask comprising: an amorphous carbon layer (FIG. 6: el. 60; col. 6: line 1-8) having a first layer (FIG. 6: el. 62, 64; col. 6: line 1-8) and a second layer (FIG. 6: el. 66; col. 6: line 1-8) on the first layer (FIG. 6: el. 62, 64; col. 6: line 1-8), the first layer has a first optical extinction coefficient (FIG. 6: el. 62, 64; col. 6: line 30-49 | first layer formed of undoped amorphous carbon layer 62 and doped amorphous carbon layer 64 has a first optical extinction coefficient), the second layer has a second optical extinction coefficient (FIG. 6: el. 66; col. 6: line 30-49 | second layer formed of undoped layer 66 has a second optical extinction coefficient), and the second optical extinction coefficient is different from the first optical extinction coefficient (Park, as an evidentiary reference, shows that PECVD deposited nitrogen doped amorphous carbon layers have different and higher optical extinction coefficients than undoped PECVD deposited nitrogen doped amorphous carbon layers - "Nitrogen doped high selectivity amorphous carbon film for high aspect ratio etch process", FIG. 5, pg. 1-6, Park et al). Dakshina-Murthy is silent as to an optical extinction coefficient of the hard mask in a range of 0.4 to 0.7.
In a similar field of endeavor, Won teaches an amorphous carbon hard mask layer (para. 74) having an optical extinction coefficient of 0.41 or 0.42, for the benefit of enabling an amorphous carbon hard mask layer to have adequate selectivity with respect to silicon oxide (para. 62). Won further teaches the optical extinction coefficient as a result-effective variable to result in adequate selectivity of an amorphous carbon hard mask layer (para. 62). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the optical extinction coefficient, as Won has identified the optical extinction coefficient of an amorphous carbon hard mask layer as a result-effective variable. In the absence of an indication that the claimed range produces unexpected results or has criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at an optical extinction coefficient of between 0.4 and 0.7, in order to achieve the desired selectivity of the amorphous carbon hard mask.
Re claim 13: The combination of Dakshina-Murthy and Won teaches the hard mask of claim 12, wherein the hard mask has a thickness in a range of 500 A to 700 A (Dakshina-Murthy – col. 5: line 29-42). Dakshina-Murthy further teaches the thickness of the amorphous carbon hard mask as a result-effective variable to result in a mask which provides adequate protection for patterning a desired target layer thickness (Dakshina-Murthy - col. 5: line 43-53). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the thickness, as Dakshina-Murthy has identified the thickness of an amorphous carbon hard mask as a result-effective variable. In the absence of an indication that the claimed range produces unexpected results or has criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the thickness between 1500 A and 80000 A, in order to achieve the desired patterning protection of the amorphous carbon hard mask.
Re claim 14: The combination of Dakshina-Murthy and Won teaches the hard mask of claim 12, further comprising: a third layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 68, 70; col. 6: line 1-8) on the second layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 66; col. 6: line 1-8), wherein the third layer (FIG. 6: el. 68, 70) has a third optical extinction coefficient, the second layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 66) is disposed between the first layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 62, 64) and the third layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 68, 70), and the third optical extinction coefficient is different from the second optical extinction coefficient (Dakshina-Murthy – FIG. 6: el. (68, 70), 66; col. 6: line 30-49 |optical extinction coefficient of a third layer including both doped sub-layer 68 and undoped sub-layer 70 is different from the optical extinction coefficient of the undoped second layer 66, as evidenced by the differing and higher optical extinction coefficient of nitrogen doped amorphous carbon compared to undoped amorphous carbon by Park).
Re claim 15: The combination of Dakshina-Murthy and Won teaches the hard mask of claim 14, wherein a thickness of the second layer is in a range of 10% to 40% of a total thickness of the hard mask (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 66, 60; col. 6: line 1-18|thickness of second layer is 20% of the total thickness of the hard mask 60).
Re claim 16: The combination of Dakshina-Murthy and Won teaches the hard mask of claim 14, wherein the first layer and the third layer have a same thickness (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. (62, 64), (68, 70); col. 6: line 1-18|first layer formed of sub-layers 62 and 64 has same thickness as third layer formed of sub-layers 68 and 70).
Re claim 17: The combination of Dakshina-Murthy and Won teaches the hard mask of claim 14, wherein a thickness of the second layer is smaller than a thickness of the first layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 66, (62, 64); col. 6: line 1-18|thickness of second layer 66 is smaller than thickness of first layer formed of sub-layers 62 and 64), and the thickness of the second layer is smaller than a thickness of the third layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 66, (68, 70); col. 6: line 1-18|thickness of second layer 66 is smaller than thickness of third layer formed of sub-layers 68 and 70).
Re claim 18: The combination of Dakshina-Murthy and Won fails to directly disclose the hard mask of claim 12, wherein each of the first optical extinction coefficient and the second optical extinction coefficient is in a range of 0.4 to 0.7. However, Won teaches an amorphous carbon hard mask layer (Won - para. 74) having an optical extinction coefficient of 0.41 or 0.42, for the benefit of enabling an amorphous carbon hard mask layer to have adequate selectivity with respect to silicon oxide (Won - para. 62). Won further teaches the optical extinction coefficient as a result-effective variable to result in adequate selectivity of an amorphous carbon hard mask layer (Won - para. 62). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the first optical extinction coefficient and the second optical extinction coefficient, as Won has identified the optical extinction coefficient of an amorphous carbon hard mask layer as a result-effective variable. In the absence of an indication that the claimed range produces unexpected results or has criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at first and second optical extinction coefficients between 0.4 and 0.7, in order to achieve the desired selectivity of the amorphous carbon hard mask layers
Re claim 19: Dakshina-Murthy teaches a hard mask on a target layer (FIG. 6: el. 50, 60; col. 5: line 29-53|amorphous carbon hard mask 60 on target layer 50), the hard mask comprising an amorphous carbon layer (FIG. 6: el. 60; col. 5: line 29-53) having a first layer (FIG. 6: el. 62; col. 6: line 1-8) and a second layer (FIG. 6: el. 64; col. 6: line 1-8) on the first layer, the first layer has a first optical extinction coefficient (FIG. 6: el. 62; col. 6: line 30-49 | first layer formed of undoped amorphous carbon layer 62 has a first optical extinction coefficient), the second layer has a second optical extinction coefficient (FIG. 6: el. 64; col. 6: line 30-49 | second layer formed of doped layer 64 has a second optical extinction coefficient), and the second optical extinction coefficient is different from the first optical extinction coefficient (Park, as an evidentiary reference, shows that PECVD deposited nitrogen doped amorphous carbon layers have different and higher optical extinction coefficients than undoped PECVD deposited nitrogen doped amorphous carbon layers - "Nitrogen doped high selectivity amorphous carbon film for high aspect ratio etch process", FIG. 5, pg. 1-6, Park et al), wherein the target mask includes semiconductor layer (FIG. 6: el. 50; col. 5: line 43-53|target layer includes polysilicon transistor gate layer 50). Dakshina-Murthy is silent to the optical extinction coefficient of the hard mask in a range of 0.4 to 0.7.
In a similar field of endeavor, Won teaches an amorphous carbon hard mask layer (para. 74) having an optical extinction coefficient of 0.41 or 0.42, for the benefit of enabling an amorphous carbon hard mask layer to have adequate selectivity with respect to silicon oxide (para. 62). Won further teaches the optical extinction coefficient as a result-effective variable to result in adequate selectivity of an amorphous carbon hard mask layer (para. 62). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the optical extinction coefficient, as Won has identified the optical extinction coefficient of an amorphous carbon hard mask layer as a result-effective variable. In the absence of an indication that the claimed range produces unexpected results or has criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at an optical extinction coefficient of between 0.4 and 0.7, in order to achieve the desired selectivity of the amorphous carbon hard mask.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dakshina-Murthy in view of Won as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yeh et al. (US PGPub 20100239979; hereinafter referred to as "Yeh”).
Re claim 11: The combination of Dakshina-Murthy and Won teaches the hard mask of claim 8, wherein the second layer includes a first sub-layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 64; col. 6: line 1-8) having a fourth optical extinction coefficient, a second sub-layer (Dakshina-Murthy - FIG. 6: el. 66; col. 6: line 1-8) having a fifth optical extinction coefficient. The combination of Dakshina-Murthy and Won fails to teach a third sub-layer having a sixth optical extinction coefficient, the sixth optical extinction coefficient is smaller than the third optical extinction coefficient, the fifth optical extinction coefficient is smaller than the sixth optical extinction coefficient, the fourth optical extinction coefficient is smaller than the fifth optical extinction coefficient, and the first optical extinction coefficient is smaller than the fourth optical extinction coefficient. Dakshina-Murthy further teaches varying the number, arrangement, and doping of the amorphous carbon hard mask layers as result-effective variables for obtaining a desired internal stress characteristic of the amorphous carbon hard mask (Dakshina-Murthy - para. 27-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to adjust, through routine optimization of the identified result-effective variables, the number and doping of the amorphous carbon hard mask layers. In the absence of an indication of criticality or unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a third sub-layer having a sixth optical extinction coefficient, wherein the sixth optical extinction coefficient is smaller than the third optical extinction coefficient, the fifth optical extinction coefficient is smaller than the sixth optical extinction coefficient, the fourth optical extinction coefficient is smaller than the fifth optical extinction coefficient, and the first optical extinction coefficient is smaller than the fourth optical extinction coefficient, in order to achieve the desired internal stress of the amorphous carbon hard mask.
Furthermore, in a similar field of endeavor, Yeh teaches that this is achievable. Yeh teaches a graded amorphous carbon film having an increasing optical extinction coefficient through the graded film (FIG. 4A: el. 302; para. 49-53|annotated FIG. 4A showing the gradient amorphous carbon film considered as 5 sub-layers is provided below). Yeh teaches an amorphous carbon hard mask, wherein the second layer includes a first sub-layer having a fourth optical extinction coefficient (annotated FIG. 4A: el. 1st sub-layer; para. 49-50), a second sub-layer having a fifth optical extinction coefficient (annotated FIG. 4A: e el. 2nd sub-layer; para. 49-50), and a third sub-layer having a sixth optical extinction coefficient (annotated FIG. 4A: el. 3rd sub-layer; para. 49-50), the sixth optical extinction coefficient is smaller than the third optical extinction coefficient (annotated FIG. 4A: el. 3rd sub-layer, 3rd layer; para. 49-50), the fifth optical extinction coefficient is smaller than the sixth optical extinction coefficient (annotated FIG. 4A: 2nd sub-layer, 3rd sub-layer; para. 49-50), the fourth optical extinction coefficient is smaller than the fifth optical extinction coefficient (annotated FIG. 4A: el. 1st sub-layer, 2nd sub-layer; para. 49-50), and the first optical extinction coefficient is smaller than the fourth optical extinction coefficient (annotated FIG. 4A: el. 1st layer, 1st sub-layer; para. 49-50).
PNG
media_image2.png
323
1069
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dakshina-Murthy in view of Won as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Yang (KR 20170093003 A; hereinafter referred to as "Yang”).
Re claim 20: The combination of Dakshina-Murthy and Won fails to disclose the hard mask of claim 19, wherein the target layer includes a plurality of semiconductor layers and a plurality of mold insulating layers alternately stacked on top of each other.
In a similar field of endeavor, Yang teaches a multi-layer amorphous carbon film for use as a hard mask (para. 2; FIG. 4b). Yang further teaches forming the hard mask on a target layer stack of alternating oxide and nitride films for the benefit of enabling the formation of transistor gates of a 3D NAND structure (para. 3). Yang teaches a multi-layer amorphous carbon hard mask, wherein the target layer (para. 1-5) includes a plurality of semiconductor layers (para. 3|nitride layers) and a plurality of mold insulating layers (para. 3|oxide layers) alternately stacked on top of each other (para. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang with the teachings of the combination of Dakshina-Murthy and Won, to enable using the target layer of Yang in the amorphous carbon hard mask of the combination of Dakshina-Murthy and Won, for the benefit of enabling the formation of transistor gates of a 3D NAND structure and the benefit of enabling the amorphous carbon hard mask to be applied to a transistor gate structure with an increased density and improved degree of integration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited art provides evidence of a relative difference between the optical extinction coefficient of amorphous carbon films and nitrogen doped amorphous carbon films.
33. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN GOODLING whose telephone number is (571)272-2552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
/D.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights