Attorney Docket Number: CNT C1158-US
Filing Date: 11/30/2023
Claimed Priority Date: 7/13/2023 (PRO 63/513,452)
Inventors: Wang et al.
Examiner: Thomas McCoy
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the application filed 11/30/2023.
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 to 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 a 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/30/2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the reference is not included within the file wrapper. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 12347687 B2) in view of Tsai (US 20160218199 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang (see, e.g., fig. 3), shows most aspects of the instant invention including a method comprising:
Forming a patterning stack (e.g., SiN hardmask 210) over a workpiece (e.g., substrate 202);
Performing a hot ion implantation process (e.g., ion implant 214 + paragraph 25 “…the ion implant 214 is a high-temperature (e.g., between 150° C. and 550° C.)”) to form implanted regions (see, e.g., paragraphs 24 or 26) in the workpiece (e.g., substrate 202);
While Zhang (see, e.g., fig. 3) does not explicitly disclose the hot ion implantation process removes condensation defects from the etching, it does disclose a hot ion implantation process of substantially similar setup, configuration, and structure, and it should be noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol).
Zhang (see, e.g., fig. 3), however, fails to explicitly teach this ion implantation process is performed after a lithography process on the patterning stack.
Tsai (see, e.g., fig. 2), in a similar device to Zhang, teaches a lithography process (e.g., photolithography of paragraph 31) performed on a patterning stack (e.g., mask pattern 120) before performing ion implantation (e.g., first impurity ions 140, see fig. 5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the lithography process of Tsai within the method of Zhang, as lithography was a well-known technique to be included within a method of forming a hardmask at the time of filing the invention, as taught by Tsai.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Tsai further in view of Chun (US 20110192993 A1) and Tohnoe (US 20110244680 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang shows wherein performing the hot ion implantation process to form the implanted regions in the workpiece includes performing an ion implantation process.
Zhang in view of Tsai, however, fails to teach including performing a pre-heat process and tuning pre-heat process parameters to remove the condensation defects, wherein the pre-heat process parameters include a pre-heat temperature that is greater than a boiling point of the condensation defects.
Chun (see, e.g., par. 60), in a similar device to Zhang in view of Tsai, teaches a pre-heat process (see, e.g., paragraph 60 “The mask can also be preheated to help handle the heat of the implantation beams”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the preheating phase of Chun within the method of Zhang in view of Tsai, in order to improve the stability if the mask profile during ion implantation, as taught by Chun.
Zhang in view of Tsai further in view of Chun, however, fails to teach tuning pre-heat process parameters to remove the condensation defects, wherein the pre-heat process parameters include a pre-heat temperature that is greater than a boiling point of the condensation defects.
Tohnoe (see, e.g., fig. 1B), in a similar device to Zhang in view of Chun, teaches a heat treatment parameters including a pre-heat temperature that is greater than a boiling point of the condensation defects (see, e.g., paragraph 36 “The heat-treating may be performed at a temperature that is approximately equal to or greater than the boiling point of a material in the CMP residue 109”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the treatment temperature>residue boiling point configuration of Tohnoe within the method configuration of Zhang in view of Chun, in order to achieve the expected result of removing residue from a substrate/mask surface.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang (see, e.g., fig. 3), shows most aspects of the instant invention including a method comprising:
Performing an etching process (see, e.g., paragraphs 10-12) to form a multilayer implant mask (e.g., masking layer 210) over a workpiece (e.g., substrate 202);
Performing a hot ion implantation process (e.g., ion implant 214 + paragraph 25 “…the ion implant 214 is a high-temperature (e.g., between 150° C. and 550° C.)”) in the workpiece (e.g., substrate 202);
Wherein the hot ion implantation process (e.g., ion implant 214 + paragraph 25 “…the ion implant 214 is a high-temperature (e.g., between 150° C. and 550° C.)”) uses the multilayer implant mask (e.g., masking layer 210), and
Removing (see, e.g., paragraph 27 “Next, as shown in FIG. 4, an etch process 228 may be performed to the device 200 to remove the masking layer 210”) the multilayer implant mask (e.g., masking layer 210);
While Zhang (see, e.g., fig. 3) does not explicitly disclose the hot ion implantation process removes condensation defects from the etching, it does disclose a hot ion implantation process of substantially similar setup, configuration, and structure, and it should be noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Chun (US 20110192993 A1) further in view of Tohnoe.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows the hot ion implantation process (e.g., ion implant 214 + paragraph 25 “…the ion implant 214 is a high-temperature (e.g., between 150° C. and 550° C.)”) includes an ion implantation phase (see, e.g., paragraph 25).
Zhang (see, e.g., fig. 3), however, fails to teach a pre-heating phase wherein a pre-heat temperature of the pre-heating phase is greater than a boiling point of the condensation defects.
Chun (see, e.g., par. 60), in a similar device to Zhang, teaches a pre-heating phase (see, e.g., paragraph 60 “The mask can also be preheated to help handle the heat of the implantation beams”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the preheating phase of Chun within the method of Zhang, in order to improve the stability if the mask profile during ion implantation, as taught by Chun.
Zhang in view of Chun, however, fails to teach wherein a pre-heat temperature of the pre-heating phase is greater than a boiling point of the condensation defects.
Tohnoe (see, e.g., fig. 1B), in a similar device to Zhang in view of Chun, teaches a heat treatment being greater than the boiling point of a residue material (see, e.g., paragraph 36 “The heat-treating may be performed at a temperature that is approximately equal to or greater than the boiling point of a material in the CMP residue 109”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the treatment temperature>residue boiling point configuration of Tohnoe within the method configuration of Zhang in view of Chun, in order to achieve the expected result of removing residue from a substrate/mask surface.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Chun further in view of Tohnoe and Wang (US 20210098605 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang in view of Chun further in view of Tohnoe fails to teach wherein the etching process includes performing a first dry etch on a patterning stack, wherein the first dry etch implements a fluorine-containing etch gas; and performing a second dry etch on the patterning stack, wherein the second dry etch implements an oxygen-containing etch gas.
Wang (see, e.g., fig. 1C), in a similar device to Zhang in view of Chun further in view of Tohnoe, teaches an etching process (e.g., dry etch of paragraph 44) can utilize a fluorine-containing etch gas (see, e.g., paragraph 44 “…the dry etch process may implement… a fluorine-containing gas…)”) while it also teaches an etching process can utilize an oxygen-containing etch gas (see, e.g., paragraph 44 “…the dry etch process may implement an oxygen-containing gas…)”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the dry etch materials of Wang within the patterning stack etch step of Zhang in view of Chun further in view of Tohnoe, as both fluorine and oxygen were well-known etching gases to be included within an etching process at the time of filing the invention, as taught by Wang.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Chun further in view of Tohnoe, Wang, and Bayati (US 20230178424 A1).
Wang (see, e.g., fig. 1C) teaches the fluorine-containing etch gas includes CF4 (see, e.g., paragraph 44).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the CF4 of Wang within the fluorine-containing etch gas of Zhang in view of Chun further in view of Tohnoe and Wang, as CF4 was a well-known gas to be included within a fluorine-containing etching gas at the time of filing the invention, as taught by Wang.
Zhang in view of Chun further in view of Tohnoe and Wang, however, fails to teach wherein the oxygen-containing etch gas includes O2 and COS, and the condensation defects are caused by residual oxygen-containing etch gas, and the condensation defects include SO3(s).
Bayati (see, e.g., paragraph 48), in a similar device to Zhang in view of Chun further in view of Tohnoe and Wang, teaches an etch comprising O2 and COS (see, e.g., paragraph 48 “…etch may be conducted…any one or more of the following gases…oxygen (O.sub.2)…carbonyl sulfide (COS)…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the O2 and COS of Bayati within the oxygen etch of Zhang in view of Chun further in view of Tohnoe and Wang, as O2 and COS were well-known gases at to be included within an etching gas at the time of filing the invention, as taught by Bayati.
While Zhang (see, e.g., fig. 3) in view of Chun further in view of Tohnoe, Wang, and Bayati fails to explicitly disclose the condensation defects are caused by residual oxygen-containing etch gas, and the condensation defects include SO3(s), it does disclose etching of substantially similar materials in a substantially similar environment, and it should be noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol).
Regarding claim 14, while Zhang (see, e.g., fig. 3) in view of Chun further in view of Tohnoe, Wang, and Bayati fails to explicitly disclose wherein performing the hot ion implantation process includes tuning parameters of the hot ion implantation process to cause SO3(s) to become SO3(g), it does disclose a hot ion implantation process of a substantially similar configuration in a substantially similar environment, and it should be noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Claims 3-8, 11, and 15-17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 18, Zhang (US 12347687 B2) in view of Tsai (US 20160218199 A1) teaches most aspects of the method.
However, Zhang in view of Tsai fails to teach forming an etch mask by patterning the top layer of the tri-layer patterning stack, forming an implant mask by performing a first dry etch on the middle layer of the tri-layer patterning stack and a second dry etch on the bottom layer of the tri-layer patterning stack, wherein each of the first dry etch and a second dry etch use the etch mask, and wherein the hot ion implantation process uses the implant mask and a temperature of the hot ion implantation process is greater than a boiling point of condensation defects on the implant mask to cause the condensation defects to transition from a solid state to a gas state.
Therefore, the above limitations in the entirety of the claim are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee, and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such admissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Thomas McCoy at (571) 272-0282 and between the hours of 9:30 AM to 6:30 PM
(Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Thomas.McCoy@uspto.gov. If attempts
to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be
reached on (571) 272-1705. 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.
/THOMAS WILSON MCCOY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2814 /WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814