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 .
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 20190057862 A1).
CLAIM 1. Yang teaches a method of depositing an amorphous or crystalline carbon film on a substrate (Yang ¶[0007-8, 19, 34-35 & 53]), the method comprising:
flowing one or more carbon-containing precursors into a reaction chamber(Yang ¶[0056 & 81) toward a substrate in the reaction chamber (Yang ¶[0056 & 79-81]),each of the carbon-containing precursors having at least one of: one or more C-C bonds or one or more C-H bonds (Yang ¶[0057, 89 & 103] – Note: ¶57 discloses using hydrocarbon compounds which contain these bonds.);
generating, from a source gas, radicals of the source gas in a remote plasma source (RPS 197) that is positioned upstream of the one or more carbon-containing precursors (Yang ¶[038, 43-45, 63, 88, 95, 102]); and
introducing the radicals of the source gas into the reaction chamber toward the substrate (Yang ¶[0030, 45]), wherein the radicals are in an energy state sufficient to activate C-C bonds and/or C-H bonds and form activated carbon radical-containing precursors in an environment adjacent to the substrate (Yang ¶[0102-103]), wherein the activated carbon radical-containing precursors deposit to form an amorphous or crystalline carbon film on the substrate (Yang ¶[0007, 76 & 102-103]).
CLAIM 2. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the source gas comprises hydrogen gas and the radicals of the source gas are radicals of hydrogen (Yang ¶[0043 & 60]).
CLAIM 3. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 2, wherein the radicals of hydrogen are radicals of hydrogen in a ground state in an environment adjacent to the substrate (Yang ¶[0043-44] – Describes these as radicals generated remotely to avoid high energy ion bombardment at the substrate.).
CLAIM 4. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises a non-metal layer of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon, or carbon, and the amorphous or crystalline carbon film being deposited on the non-metal layer (Yang ¶[0055]).
CLAIM 15. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 1, wherein an amount of sp3 carbon bonding in the amorphous or crystalline carbon film is equal to or greater than about 25% (Yang ¶[0117] – discloses “diamond like carbon” or high hardness” films, which are chemically defined by sp3 content.).
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(s) 5-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20190057862 A1) in view of Ramaswamy et al. (US 20070032082 A1).
CLAIM 5. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises a metal layer, and the amorphous or crystalline carbon film being deposited on the metal layer (Yang ¶[0021]). Yang is silent upon specific metal layers such as the recited of copper, cobalt, molybdenum, tungsten, or ruthenium. Such recited metals, were however conventional at the time of the invention, as supported by Ramaswamy paragraphs 146-156 disclosing an analogous carbon mask formed by a analogous hydrogen radical remote plasma deposition formed on copper. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to of copper, cobalt, molybdenum, tungsten, or ruthenium, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 6. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the one or more carbon-containing precursors comprise at least one of a linear alkene, linear alkyne, branched alkene, branched alkyne, cyclic alkene, or cyclic alkyne group (Yang ¶[0057 & 89]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a known carbon containing precursor, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 7. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the one or more carbon-containing precursors comprise a branched alkane group or cyclic alkane group (Yang ¶[0057 & 89]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a known carbon containing precursor, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 8. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the one or more carbon-containing precursors comprise a halo-substituted alkane, halo-substituted alkene, or halo-substituted alkyne group (Yang ¶[0057 & 89]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a known carbon containing precursor, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 9. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the one or more carbon-containing precursors comprise a haloalkyl-substituted alkane, haloalkyl- substituted alkene, haloalkyl- substituted alkyne, carboxyl-substituted alkane, carboxyl-substituted alkene, carboxyl-substituted alkyne, cyano-substituted alkane, cyano-substituted alkene, cyano-substituted alkyne, carbonyl- substituted alkane, carbonyl-substituted alkene, carbonyl-substituted alkyne, sulfonyl-substituted alkane, sulfonyl-substituted alkene, sulfonyl-substituted alkyne, nitro-substituted alkane, nitro- substituted alkene, nitro-substituted alkyne, sulfonyl halide-substituted alkene, sulfonyl halide- substituted alkene, sulfonyl halide-substituted alkyne, sulfonamide-substituted alkane, sulfonamide-substituted alkene, or sulfonamide-substituted alkyne group (Yang ¶[0057 & 89]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a known carbon containing precursor, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 10. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the one or more carbon-containing precursors comprise an alcohol-substituted alkane, alcohol-substituted alkene, alcohol-substituted alkyne, ether-substituted alkane, ether-substituted alkene, ether-substituted alkyne, ether-substituted alkane, ether-substituted alkene, ether-substituted alkyne, 0-acyl-substituted alkane, 0-acyl- substituted alkene, 0-acyl-substituted alkyne, amine-substituted alkane, amine-substituted alkene, amine-substituted alkyne, N-acyl-substituted alkane, N-acyl-substituted alkene, or N- acyl-substituted alkyne group (Yang ¶[0057 & 89]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a known carbon containing precursor, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 11. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the amorphous or crystalline carbon film is an amorphous carbon film having a adjustable hydrogen content (Yang ¶[0060, 102]) however may be silent upon the specific range between about 20 atomic % and about 70 atomic %.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the ratio through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the ratio is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
CLAIM 12. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 11, however may be silent upon wherein the substrate has one or more recessed features, the amorphous or crystalline carbon film being deposited in the one or more recessed features and having a step coverage equal to or greater than about 90%.
It is noted, paragraph 76 of Yang et al. discloses that such disclosed carbon hardmask deposition is often used in “high aspect ration etch applications”. This would be understood to infer deposition in high aspect ratio recesses, which are are known to require high step coverage in order to properly deposit in high aspect ratio recesses. Further, Ramaswamy paragraphs 8-10, 70 & 144 and figures 11A-12 disclose the conventional understanding of desired high step coverage when depositing carbon in recesses using the analogous deposition process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the ratio through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the ratio is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
CLAIM 13. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 11, wherein the amorphous carbon film has a refractive index between about 1.5 and about 2.5 and a density between about 1.1 g/cm3 and about 3.5 g/cm3 (This limitation is not understood to provide any further manipulative distinction. A film formed of the analogous process is expected to achieve analogous results.).
CLAIM 14. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 11, wherein the amorphous carbon film is deposited at a deposition rate equal to or greater than about 4 A per minute at a deposition temperature between about 500C and about 5500C (Yang ¶[0060 & 74] – Note: deposition rate is a known optimizable parameter based on gas flow, power/frequency, pressure and temperature. It would be understood the rate would be expected to be greater than 4A/min.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the rate through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the rate is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
CLAIM 16. Yang et al. teaches a method of depositing an amorphous hydrogenated carbon film on a substrate, the method comprising: flowing one or more carbon-containing precursors into a reaction chamber toward a substrate in the reaction chamber, each of the carbon-containing precursors having at least one of: one or more C-C bonds or one or more C-H bonds (Yang ¶[0056-57, 79, 89]);
generating, from a hydrogen source gas, radicals of hydrogen in a remote plasma source that is positioned upstream of the one or more carbon-containing precursors (Yang ¶[0043, 88]); and
introducing the radicals of hydrogen into the reaction chamber and toward the substrate, wherein the radicals are in an energy state sufficient to activate the one or more C-C bonds and/or the one or more C-H bonds and form activated carbon-containing precursors in an environment adjacent to the substrate (Yang ¶[0102]), wherein the activated carbon-containing precursors deposit to form an amorphous hydrogenated carbon film on the substrate, a hydrogen content between about 20 atomic % and about 70 atomic % (Yang ¶[0007. 76, 102]);.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the ratio through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the ratio is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
CLAIM 17. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 16, wherein the amorphous hydrogenated carbon film has a density between about 1.1 g/cm3 and about 3.5 g/cm3 (This limitation is not understood to provide any further manipulative distinction. A film formed of the analogous process is expected to achieve analogous results.).
CLAIM 18. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 16, wherein the one or more carbon-containing precursors comprise at least one of a linear alkene, linear alkyne, branched alkene, branched alkyne, cyclic alkene group, or cyclic alkyne group (Yang ¶[0057 & 89]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a known carbon containing precursor, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 19. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 16, wherein the one or more carbon-containing precursors comprise a branched alkane group and/or cyclic alkane group (Yang ¶[0057 & 89]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a known carbon containing precursor, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 20. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 16, , however may be silent upon wherein the substrate has one or more recessed features, the amorphous or crystalline carbon film being deposited in the one or more recessed features and having a step coverage equal to or greater than about 90%.
It is noted, paragraph 76 of Yang et al. discloses that such disclosed carbon hardmask deposition is often used in “high aspect ration etch applications”. This would be understood to infer deposition in high aspect ratio recesses, which are are known to require high step coverage in order to properly deposit in high aspect ratio recesses. Further, Ramaswamy paragraphs 8-10, 70 & 144 and figures 11A-12 disclose the conventional understanding of desired high step coverage when depositing carbon in recesses using the analogous deposition process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the ratio through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the ratio is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
2/5/2025
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898