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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/10/2025.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “the deposition step”, and the claim also recites “preferentially deposit” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR 20060051802, machine translation cited below) in view of Abraham (US 11,823,859).
With respect to claim 1, Kim discloses a method of etching an underlying layer (Abstract; p. 2), wherein the method depicted in figs. 2a-c comprises: patterning a mask layer of “any suitable composition” (which includes the claimed “nonmetal”) to form an “imaging layer” (i.e. claimed “etch mask”) [20] comprising openings [22] to expose the underlying material [18] (fig. 2c; p. 5), with an example of “any suitable composition” being amorphous carbon (p. 5); depositing a “protective coating” (i.e. claimed “metal shell”) [26] on the etch mask [20] and exposed surfaces of the underlying material [18] (fig. 2c; p. 5); etching the underlying material [18] through the openings [22] of the etch mask [20] after the depositing of the metal shell [26] to form openings [28],[30] (fig. 2c; p. 5 and 7).
However Kim is limited in that while sputtering is suggested to deposit the metal shell [26] (Abstract; p. 5), the sputtering being magnetron sputtering using bipolar pulses is not specifically suggested.
Abraham teaches a method of depositing a layer of metal onto a substrate having trenches or vias using high-energy density plasma (HEDP) magnetron sputtering with pulsing power (Abstract; fig. 5C; col. 21, lines 10-41; col. 25, lines 13-20; col. 41, lines 16-26), similar to the sputtering of the metal shell [26] of Kim. Abraham further shows in figs. 14A-B the pulsing power for the HEDP magnetron sputtering is a series of bipolar pulses to “ignite high-density plasma” and “control the energy of ions coming to the substrate” (col. 14, lines 58-61; col. 30, lines 64-67; col. 31, lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the HEDP magnetron sputtering with series of bipolar pulses taught by Abraham for the sputtering of the metal shell [26] of Kim to gain the advantages of igniting high-density plasma and controlling energy of ions coming to the substrate.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of references Kim and Abraham is cited as discussed for claim 1, with it being held that mere duplication of parts (i.e. repeating the depositing and etching) has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04, VI, C). In this case, repeating the depositing and etching would produce the expected result of providing a protective coating (i.e. metal shell) prior to further etching the underlying material.
With respect to claim 4, modified Kim further depicts in fig. 2b the etch mask [20] is patterned via etching to form the openings [22] to expose the underlying material [18] (p. 5), wherein at least some portion [e.g. atom(s) or molecule(s)] of the underlying layer [18] is etched when forming the openings [22].
With respect to claim 5, Abraham further teaches in figs. 14A-B interspersing a series of negative pulses [814] into the series of bipolar pulses, the series of bipolar pulses having a higher negative voltage at peaks [811] than the series of negative pulses [814] (col. 31, lines 1-9).
With respect to claim 6, modified Kim further suggests the metal shell [26] is selected from TiN (titanium nitride), TaN (tantalum nitride), “or the like” (p. 5), with the “or the like” considered to be the other refractory metal nitrides besides the TiN and TaN, such as WN (tungsten nitride), ZrN (zirconium nitride), VN (vanadium nitride), chromium nitride (CrN), niobium nitride (NbN), molybdenum nitride (Mo2N), and hafnium nitride (HfN).
With respect to claims 7 and 8, modified Kim suggests for the etch mask [20] (of the mask layer) to comprise amorphous carbon (p. 5).
With respect to claim 9, Kim discloses a method of etching an underlying layer (Abstract; p. 2), wherein the method depicted in figs. 2a-c comprises: depositing a “protective coating” (i.e. claimed “metal shell”) [26] directly onto an etch mask [20] of carbon (fig. 2c; p. 5); and etching the underlying material [18] of an oxide, photoresist, or carbon (e.g. claimed “dielectric material”) through the openings [22] of the etch mask [20] after the depositing of the metal shell [26] to form openings [28],[30] (fig. 2c; p. 5 and 7).
However Kim is limited in that while sputtering is suggested to deposit the metal shell [26] (Abstract; p. 5), the sputtering being magnetron sputtering using bipolar pulses is not specifically suggested.
Abraham teaches a method of depositing a layer of metal onto a substrate having trenches or vias using high-energy density plasma (HEDP) magnetron sputtering with pulsing power applied to a metal cathode target (Abstract; fig. 5C; col. 21, lines 10-41; col. 25, lines 13-20; col. 41, lines 16-26), similar to the sputtering of the metal shell [26] of Kim. Abraham further shows in figs. 14A-B the pulsing power for the HEDP magnetron sputtering is a series of bipolar pulses to “ignite high-density plasma” and “control the energy of ions coming to the substrate” (col. 14, lines 58-61; col. 30, lines 64-67; col. 31, lines 1-15); figs. 14A-B also show the series of bipolar pulses comprise a higher power negative pulse to dislodge metal atoms and a positive pulse to accelerate the metal atoms to the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the HEDP magnetron sputtering with series of bipolar pulses taught by Abraham for the sputtering of the metal shell [26] of Kim to gain the advantages of igniting high-density plasma and controlling energy of ions coming to the substrate.
With respect to claim 10, the combination of references Kim and Abraham is cited as discussed for claim 1, with it being held that mere duplication of parts (i.e. repeating the depositing and etching) has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04, VI, C). In this case, repeating the depositing and etching would produce the expected result of providing a protective coating (i.e. metal shell) prior to further etching the underlying material.
With respect to claim 11, modified Kim further depicts in fig. 2b the etch mask [20] is patterned via etching to form the openings [22] to expose the underlying material [18] (p. 5), wherein at least some portion [e.g. atom(s) or molecule(s)] of the underlying layer [18] is etched when forming the openings [22].
With respect to claim 12, Abraham further teaches in figs. 14A-B interspersing a series of lower negative pulses [814] into the series of bipolar pulses (col. 31, lines 1-9). Since the combination of references Kim and Abraham teaches the claim requirements of claims 9 and 12, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established that the combination of references also teaches the resulting ‘interspersing a series of lower negative pulses [814] into the series of bipolar pulses’ yields the claimed property of “increasing an upper surface deposition rate of the metal shell relative to a sidewall deposition rate of the metal shell” (MPEP 2112.01, I).
With respect to claims 13 and 14, Abraham further teaches the pulsing power in figs. 14A-B while HDEP magnetron sputtering the layer onto the substrate (e.g. sputtering the metal shell [26] of Kim), wherein a high-power resonance AC power pulses is interspersed into the series the series of bipolar pulses, such that for each of the bipolar pulses, an AC pulse is applied to the metal cathode target after the higher power negative pulse and before the positive pulse (col. 30, lines 46-67; col. 31, lines 1-9).
With respect to claim 15, modified Kim further suggests the etch mask [20] (of the mask layer) comprises amorphous carbon and the metal shell [26] is selected from TiN (titanium nitride), TaN (tantalum nitride), “or the like” (p. 5), with the “or the like” considered to be the other refractory metal nitrides besides the TiN and TaN, such as WN (tungsten nitride), ZrN (zirconium nitride), VN (vanadium nitride), chromium nitride (CrN), niobium nitride (NbN), molybdenum nitride (Mo2N), and hafnium nitride (HfN). (p. 5). Modified Kim further suggests the underlying material [18] of the dielectric material is the oxide (p. 5 and 7), wherein a mask (which includes the underlying material [18]) comprises silicon with the oxide (p. 3 and 5); thus the dielectric material of the oxide is silicon oxide.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR 20060051802, machine translation cited below) and Abraham (US 11,823,859) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cai et al (CN 109585280, machine translation cited below).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of references Kim and Abraham is cited as discussed for claim 1. However the combination of references is limited in that a metal-containing layer on etch mask [20] prior to the patterning is not suggested.
Cai teaches a method of etching using a mask (Abstract), similar to the method of Kim. Cai further teaches in figs. 1A-C a dielectric film [116] is deposited as a multi-layer stack on a lower layer [114] to form a patterned etch mask (fig. 1C; p. 6-7), wherein the dielectric film [116] comprises titanium and is deposited via chemical vapor deposition onto the lower layer [114] prior to patterning (fig. 1C; p. 7). Cai further teaches in figs. 1D-F the patterning comprises forming openings in both the dielectric film (i.e. claimed “metal-containing layer”) [116] and lower layer [114] to form the patterned etch mask (p. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the metal-containing-layer [116] onto the mask layer [of nonmetal prior to patterning of the combination of references to yield the predictable result of forming an etch mask [20].
In summary, the combination of references Kim, Abraham, and Cai has Cai depositing the dielectric film (i.e. additional metal-containing layer) onto the mask layer of Kim, followed by the patterning of Kim to form openings in both the additional metal-containing layer and mask layer to form the etch mask [20] of Kim, followed by the depositing of the metal shell [26] of Kim (via the HEDP magnetron sputtering of Abraham) onto the additional-metal containing layer of the etch mask [20]. Since the combination of references teaches the claim requirements of claim 1 and 3, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established that the combination of references also teaches the resulting metal shell [26] on the additional metal-containing layer yield the claimed property of “decreases surface roughness” of the additional metal-containing layer (MPEP 2112.01, I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm EST.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights