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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/24/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 06/26/2026. Claims 1-18 are pending in the current office action. Claims 1, 2, and 10 have been amended by the applicant. Claims 19-20 are cancelled.
Status of the Rejection
All 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and 112(d) rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
The Double Patenting rejections from the previous office action are substantially maintained and modified only in response to the amendments to the claims.
Some 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are substantially maintained and modified only in response to the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Hautala (US-20200027733-A1) and Huatala (US-20230135735-A1, hereafter Huatala ‘735).
Regarding Claim 10, Lin teaches a method of forming a pattern in a device structure formed on a substrate (Paragraph [0029] method is taught that includes forming a pattern), comprising:
forming one or more patterning layers over a surface of a device structure formed on the substrate (Paragraph [0034] Figure 5A mask material (element 505) is formed over a surface of mask cap material (element 410) and mask features (element 210), which together can be considered the "device structure"), wherein:
the device structure comprises a plurality of device features having a first lateral dimension in a first direction,
the plurality of device features is spaced apart in the first direction by a first distance (Paragraph [0035] Figure 5B Mask structures (elements 210), which can be considered equivalent to the "device features", have a dimension in the first direction (equivalent to X axis in Figure 5B) and are spaced apart in that direction), and
the first direction is parallel to the surface of the device structure (Figures 5A and 5B X-axis is parallel to top surface of mask cap material (element 410));
forming patterning features in the one or more patterning layers, wherein:
each of the patterning features comprises a patterned opening having a first critical dimension (CD) in the first direction (Paragraph [0034] Figure 5A mask material (element 505) is patterned to have openings 510A and 512A. Openings have widths W1 and W2), and exposes a first portion of a first device feature and a second portion of a second device feature of the plurality of device features (Figure 5A opening (element 512A) exposes mask structures (elements 210) below it. Note although in the drawings it may be possible to interpret the mask structures (210) as NOT exposed underneath opening 512A, Figure 5B displays the elements 210 as exposed and the descriptions of the method teach them as exposed: Paragraph [0038] in reference to Figure 7, which has the same relative depiction of elements 210 and 410, describes that the opening 512A has "re-expose a top surface of mask structures (210)" Device features are exposed as claimed, see Reference Image 1);
depositing a film layer over a surface of the one or more patterning layers and the patterning features (Paragraphs [0036-0037] Figure 6 a thin film material (element 615) is deposited over mask material (element 505)), wherein:
the film layer has a thickness that is measured in the first direction and a second thickness measured in a second direction that is at an angle to the first direction and is parallel to the surface of the device structure (Paragraph [0037] Figures 5B 6, thin film material (element 615) has a thickness T1 that is in the x-axis, equivalent to the claimed first direction, the thin film material also has a thickness in the second direction that can be considered the same direction as L2 within Figure 5B, that is such that the opening is not fully occluded, thus meeting the instant limitation), and
one or more surfaces of the film layer exposed within each of the patterned openings define a film layer opening that is smaller than the first critical dimension (CD) of the patterned opening (Paragraph [0038] Figure 7 the lateral dimension of opening 512A has been reduced to be less than it was before the film layer was deposited),
the film layer opening is disposed over at least a portion of the first portion of the first device feature, and
the second portion of the second device feature of the plurality of device features is not exposed within the film layer opening (Paragraph [0038] Figure 7 the opening 512A is disposed over the first portion of the first device feature and the second portion of the second device feature is not exposed by the opening 512A, see Reference Image 2); and
etching the at least the first portion of the first device feature of the plurality of device features that is exposed within each of the film layer openings, wherein the etching is performed while the film layer remains on sidewalls of each of the patterning openings (Paragraph [0041] at least some of the underlying mask structures are removed with a suitable etch process. Paragraph [0038] residual space may be left along the sidewalls of the opening).
Reference Image 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
502
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference Image 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
556
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lin fails to teach that depositing the film layer on a surface of the one or more patterning layers and the patterning features is done directionally.
Hautala teaches methods for patterning a structure (Paragraph [0004]) Hautala teaches depositing in a directional manner to selectively deposit material on 3-D structures on a substrate (Paragraph [0022]). Hautala teaches that the directional disposition process can be controlled to selectively deposition material on a first sidewall without deposition on a second sidewall, which would allow for new process integration schemes (Paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method Lin such that the deposition process for the film layer was a directional deposition process, as taught by Hautala.
This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because Hautala teaches methods for controlling the deposition of a film layer and the method of Lin requires control over the film layer deposited, and the methods taught by Hautala would allow for further flexibility with regards to that control of film deposition. Additionally, this modification would have been obvious as it can be considered the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The directional deposition process taught by Hautala would have had the same function and the predictable result within the method of Lin of providing a film layer over the surface of the patterning layer and patterning features. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Lin teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as outlined above. Lin further teaches wherein each of the plurality of device features have a second lateral dimension that is measured in a second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction, and the first critical dimension (CD) is less than the second lateral dimension (Paragraph [0035] Figure 5B mask structures (elements 210) have a lateral dimension in the y-axis that is larger than the widths W1 or W2).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Lin teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as outlined above. Lin further teaches wherein the film layer comprises carbon, silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon, or a self-assembled monolayer (SAM) (Paragraph [0036] the film may be a (CHM) carbon hardmask material which would comprise carbon).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Lin teaches all the limitations of claims 10 and 12 as outlined above.
Modified Lin fails to teach wherein the one or more patterning layers comprises carbon.
However, Lin teaches that the mask material (element 505, equivalent to the patterning layer) can be any material (Paragraph [0034]). Lin further teaches that suitable mask materials for use in other structures can be carbon-based hardmask materials, silicon carbides, or carbon-doped oxides (Paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Lin by selecting as the mask material carbon-based hardmask materials, silicon carbides, or carbon-doped oxides since these materials are known as suitable masking materials and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Lin teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as outlined above.
Modified Lin fails to teach wherein the one or more patterning layers comprises an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) resist material.
However, Lin teaches that the mask material (element 505, equivalent to the patterning layer) can be any material (Paragraph [0034]). Lin further teaches that EUV materials can be used as a mask material for use in other structures (Paragraph [0032] mask structures can be formed by extreme UV, which would require the use of a EUV resist material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Lin by selecting as the mask material a EUV resist material since this material is known as suitable masking materials and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Lin teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as outlined above. Lin further teaches the device features of the device structure comprise silicon or a metal (Paragraph [0030] mask structures (elements 210) can include silicon oxides, silicon nitrides, silicon carbides, and metals).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Lin teaches all the limitations of claims 10 and 15 as outlined above. Lin further teaches wherein the substrate comprises a silicon substrate and a dielectric layer that is disposed between the silicon substrate and the device structure (Paragraph [0022] Figure 3 substrate (element 102) has dielectric material (element 105) on it, where mask structures (elements 210) are formed such that the dielectric material is between them and the substrate. Paragraph [0029] the workpiece can be a silicon wafer).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Lin teaches all the limitations of claims 10 and 15 as outlined above. Lin further teaches that a layer is disposed with the space formed in the first direction between each of the plurality of device features (Paragraph [0033] Figure 3 mask cap material (element 410) backfills mask features (element 210)).
Modified Lin fails to teach that this material is a dielectric material.
However, Lin teaches that the mask cap material (element 410, equivalent to the dielectric layer) can be "any material known to be suitable as a mask material compatible with subsequent processing" (Paragraph [0033]). Lin further teaches suitable mask materials include silicon oxide and carbon-doped oxides and that these materials are dielectric materials (Paragraph [0030] silicon oxide and carbon-doped oxides listed both a dielectric materials and masking materials suitable for use in the method).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Lin by selecting as the mask cap material silicon oxide or a carbon-doped oxide since these materials are known as suitable masking materials and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Lin teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 6, and 8 as outlined above. Lin further teaches removing the one or more patterning layers from the surface of the device structure; etching the dielectric layer disposed in the space between each of the plurality of device features of the device structure and a portion of the substrate; and removing the plurality of device features (Paragraph [0042] mask material (element 505), equivalent to patterning layers, and mask cap material (element 410), equivalent to dielectric layer, can be etched and removed. Paragraph [0044] Figure 10 a portion of dielectric material (element 105), which can be considered a portion of the substrate, has been etched and the mask structures (elements 210), equivalent to the device features, have been removed).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/912,134 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons:
Regarding Claim 1, within each application the limitations for this claim are the same, except that the instant application requires that the feature opening expose a first portion of a first device feature and a second portion of a second device feature and that the etching is performed while the film layer remains on sidewalls, and the reference application requires that the critical dimension of the feature opening be greater than the first lateral dimension of the first device feature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a feature opening that has a critical dimension greater than the first lateral dimension of the first device may also expose a second device and that the film deposited on the sidewalls could remain on the sidewall during the etching step. Also, a deposition of a non-conformal film, as required by claim 1 of the reference application, would meet all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. Further, as the reference application requires that the non-conformal film have one or more surfaces within the feature openings define a film layer opening and have a second thickness measured in a direction parallel to the surface of the device structure, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the non-conformal film on both of the sidewalls of the feature opening such that it would define a film layer opening, thereby meeting the limitations of the instant application.
Regarding Claims 2-9, which are dependent upon claim 1, the limitations within each of these claims for the instant application and the reference application are identical.
Regarding Claim 10, within each application the limitations for this claim are the same, except that the instant application requires that the feature opening expose a first portion of a first device feature and a second portion of a second device feature and that the etching is performed while the film layer remains on sidewalls, and the reference application requires that the critical dimension of the feature opening be greater than the first lateral dimension of the first device feature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a feature opening that has a critical dimension greater than the first lateral dimension of the first device may also expose a second device and that the film deposited on the sidewalls could remain on the sidewall during the etching step. Further, as the reference application requires that the non-conformal film have one or more surfaces within the feature openings define a film layer opening and have a second thickness measured in a direction parallel to the surface of the device structure, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the non-conformal film on both of the sidewalls of the feature opening such that it would define a film layer opening, thereby meeting the limitations of the instant application.
Regarding Claims 11-18, which are dependent upon claim 10, the limitations within each of these claims for the instant application and the reference application are identical.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pg. 3-4, filed 06/15/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been fully considered and are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues that cited prior art fails to teach that the deposited layer has different thicknesses when the thicknesses are measured in different non-parallel in-plane directions.
Examiner partially agrees. Examiner agrees that the cited prior art does fail to teach the specific limitation that the thickness of the deposited layer is different (such that the claimed “first thickness” is greater than the claimed “second thickness”) when the second thickness is measured in a direction that is orthogonal to the direction that the first thickness is measured.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees with other aspects of the argument presented. Applicant argues that “Claim 10… requires… directional thickness asymmetry”. Examiner notes that Claim 10, as amended, does not require any thickness asymmetry. The amended Claim 10 only requires that there is a “first thickness” and a “second thickness” which is “measured in a second direction that is at an angle to the first direction and is parallel to the surface of the device structure”. The specific limitation requiring “the first thickness is larger than the second thickness” was removed from the amended Claim 10. As outlined in the rejection above, the cited prior art does teach a second thickness, thereby meeting the limitations currently claimed.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pg. 5, filed 06/15/2026, with respect to the Double Patenting rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the instant application requires “direction-dependent, asymmetric modification of a feature opening to control exposure of underlying device features” while the cited application requires “directional deposition in a specific patterning flow to reduce feature size”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claimed differences noted are patentably distinct. Examiner notes that the cited application specifically claims non-conformal deposition that results in a film that has a first and second thickness which are different magnitudes and measured in different directions. It is not clear by what metric applicant is arguing this is distinct from the “direction-dependent, asymmetric modification” applicant refers to as being critical within the instant claims. Examiner takes the position that this requirement by the cited application is patentably the same as the requirements within the instant application claims.
Applicant argues that the cited application is used to “reduce feature size” while the instant application is used to “control exposure of underlying device features”.
This appears to argue that there is some distinct difference in the etching steps that occur in the dependent claims. However, the claims in the instant application and the cited application regarding further steps are identical. For example, claims 6, 8, and 9 recite the exact same limitations in both applications. Further, examiner takes the position that the claims of the instant application specifically use steps that “reduce feature size” in order to accomplish the goal of “control exposure of underlying device features” as argued. For these reasons, examiner takes the position that this requirement by the cited application is patentably the same as the requirements within the instant application claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KEELAN LAOBAK whose telephone number is (703)756-5447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 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 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.
/A.K.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights