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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that applied prior art, Ito’s laminated film having the intended uses, and the technical problems to be solved are totally different than that the claimed invention as the instant invention address lies in insufficient etching resistance of conventional mask films.
In response to the arguments, examiner states that such argument is not commensurate with the claim because the invention is a carbon-containing hard mask that contained the claimed concentration ratio of a methylene group and a methyl group that satisfy the expression (1) in the claim 1.
Examiner pointed out that applicants acknowledged that the numerical range of the CH2 ratio to overlap with the range in claim 1.
Applicants also argue that Ito expresses the CH2 content as the ratio of CH2 per the total of CH, CH2, and CH3 which additionally includes the methine group (CH) (see paragraph [0015]). Thus, these two formulas are different from each other.
In response, examiner states that Ito discloses the ratio of CH.sub.2 per the total of CH, CH.sub.2 and CH.sub.3 in the hydrocarbon vapor-deposited film is calculated by the FT-IR measurement. Concretely, upon taking the FT-IR measurement of the hydrocarbon vapor-deposited film, peaks stemming from CH, CH.sub.2 and CH.sub.3 appear in the region of wavenumbers of 3200 to 2600 cm.sup.-1 and from these peaks, the ratio of CH.sub.2 can be calculated [0017] and the peak for the -CH group (Sp3 CH) is very minor compare to the CH2 and CH3 group (see Figure 3; [0017]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would easily optimize and additionally, the primary reference Won already teaches a carbon-containing hard mask that is laminated on an etching target film and Ito is introduced to show an improved carbon-containing film and one of ordinary skill in the art would easily motivated to employ Ito’s teaching for better etch selectivity a suggested in the office action.
Further, it has been held that, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art in the absence of evidence indicating that said concentration is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Therefore, the previous office action is repeated here in as follows:
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won et al (US 212/0276743) in view of Ito et al (US 2015/0030792).
Regarding claim 1, Won et al disclose a hard mask layer including a diamond-like carbon, etching the hard mask layer to form a hard mask layer pattern, and etching the insulation layer to form an insulation layer pattern using the hard mask layer pattern as an etching mask ([0011]; Figures 6-9), wherein the hard mask layer (220) is laminated on an etching target film (210) [0076].
Won et al also disclose that the carbon-containing hard mask 220 layer is formed by a deposition process using the ICP deposition apparatus illustrated in FIG. 1, for example, by an ICP-PECVD process. A process gas for generating a plasma may include helium gas or argon gas. A reactive gas that may be activated by a collision with the plasma to form the hard mask layer 220 on the insulation layer 210 may include a hydrocarbon compound gas including, e.g., C.sub.3H.sub.6, C.sub.4H.sub.8 or C.sub.6H.sub.12 [0079].
Unlike the instant invention, Won et al fail to disclose the deposited hard mask layer having a concentration ratio of methylene group (CH2) and a methyl group (CH3) satisfies the claimed equation as recited in claim 1.
However, Ito et al disclose a hydrocarbon film is vapor-deposited on the surface of a base material, and includes two layers of a high CH.sub.2 layer having a ratio of CH.sub.2 per the total of CH, CH.sub.2 and CH.sub.3 of not less than 40% [0015]; and aforesaid teaching appears to overlaps the claimed range as expressed in the equation 1 in the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Ito et al's teaching of depositing the hydrocarbon layer with the configuration of a carbon film that contain more CH2 than CH3 into the teaching of Won et al for achieving a hard mask layer suggested by Ito et al and additionally, such better etching selectivity than amorphous carbon layer as required in the Won et al ([0076] in Won et al).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights