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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on December 18, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office Action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the unit “MHZ” should be “MHz”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prasad et al. (US20200357640).
Regarding claim 1, Prasad discloses a method for forming a semiconductor structure (paragraph 0009 and abstract), comprising: providing a substrate (silicon blanket wafer, paragraph 0036); forming an initial carbon film layer on a surface of the substrate (as deposited amorphous carbon film reads on an initial carbon film layer, paragraph 0036), wherein the initial carbon film layer includes SP2 hybrid bonds (C=C graphitic character indicating SP2 hybrid bonds, paragraph 0033); and implanting modifying ions into the initial carbon film layer (paragraph 0067), wherein the modifying ions convert the SP2 hybrid bonds into SP3 hybrid bonds to obtain a target carbon film layer (paragraphs 0033 and 0112).
Regarding claim 2, Prasad discloses wherein a hardness of the target carbon film layer is greater than a hardness of the initial carbon film layer (paragraph 0112).
Regarding claim 3, Prasad discloses wherein an etching selectivity of the target carbon film layer is higher than an etching selectivity of the initial carbon film layer (paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 4, Prasad discloses wherein a step of forming the initial carbon film layer having SP2 hybrid bonds comprises: plasma-bombarding a carbon-containing gas at a first preset temperature, a first preset power, a first preset frequency, and a first preset pressure to form an initial carbon film attached to the surface of the substrate (paragraphs 0050 and 0056).
Regarding claim 7, Prasad discloses wherein a step of implanting the modifying ions into the initial carbon film layer to convert the SP2 hybrid bonds into SP3 hybrid bonds to obtain the target carbon film layer comprises: ionizing a modifying gas at a second preset temperature to form the modifying ions (the temperature at which the ions of the raw materials are formed reads on a second preset temperature, paragraph 0066); accelerating the modifying ions to form a high-energy ion beam (paragraph 0069); and injecting the high-energy ion beam into the initial carbon film layer to form the target carbon film layer after the high-energy ion beam passes through an electric field (paragraph 0069).
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.
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Prasad et al. (US20200357640) as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 5, Prasad discloses wherein the carbon-containing gas comprises C3H6 (paragraph 0036). Because cyclopropane is one of two structural isomers of C3H6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose cyclopropane out of the two possible choices for C3H6, in the method of Prasad, with a reasonable expectation of success. It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. See MPEP 2143 I.(E).
Regarding claim 6, Prasad discloses wherein the first preset temperature has a range of about 300° C to about 700° C (paragraph 0056), the first preset power has a range of 2000 W to 2500 W (paragraph 0087), and the first preset frequency has a range of 1 MHz to 200 MHZ (paragraph 0050), and the first preset pressure has a range of 5 torr to 8 torr (paragraph 0056). The temperature range and the frequency ranges encompass the corresponding ranges recited in the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Prasad et al. (US20200357640) as applied to claim 7 above, in view of Colvin et al. (US20180144904).
Regarding claim 8, Prasad discloses wherein the modifying gas is carbon precursor material, and wherein the modifying ions are carbon ions (paragraph 0066). Prasad is silent about the carbon precursor is carbon monoxide. However, Calvin teaches that carbon monoxide is a common dopant gas source for carbon implantation (paragraph 0006). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a known carbon implantation precursor material such as carbon monoxide as taught by Colvin, in the method of Prasad for ion implantation, with a reasonable expectation of success. It has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143 I.(A).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Prasad et al. (US20200357640) as applied to claim 7 above, in view of Nguyen et al. (US20140273524).
Regarding claim 9, Prasad discloses wherein the modifying gas is boron precursor material, and wherein the modifying ions are boron ions (paragraph 0066). Prasad is silent about the boron precursor is diborane. However, Nguyen teaches that diborane is a precursor material for boron implantation doping (paragraph 0038). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a known boron implantation precursor material such as diborane as taught by Nguyen, in the method of Prasad for ion implantation, with a reasonable expectation of success. It has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143 I.(A).
Claims 10- 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Prasad et al. (US20200357640) as applied to claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 10, Prasad discloses wherein the second preset temperature is in a range from about 0 degree Celsius to about 50 degree Celsius (paragraph 0072), which encompasses the range recited in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, Prasad discloses wherein a thickness of the initial carbon film layer comprises a range of 10 nm-500 nm (paragraph 0087), which encompasses the range recited in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Prasad is silent about wherein an implantation depth of the modifying ions of the initial carbon film layer is less than ⅔ of a thickness of the initial carbon film layer. However, Prasad teaches that the implant energy can be adjusted to control the depth of the implantation target (paragraph 0069). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation and there is no evidence of the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 13, Prasad discloses wherein an implantation amount of the modifying ions is in a range of 5×1014 ions/cm2 to 2x1015 ions/cm2 (paragraph 0087), which overlaps with the range recited in the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIONG-PING LU whose telephone number is (571) 270-1135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am – 5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua L Allen, can be reached at telephone number (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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JIONG-PING LU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713