DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 8-14 in the reply filed on 07/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not sufficient burden to search both groups. This is not found persuasive because the process / controller steps are distinct in that the Group III actually requires depositing bulk metal on the doped hard mask which is not required by Group II, and Group II does not require etching the doped hard mask specifically of Groups I and II, neither of the groups require the specific carbon hard mask of Group I. The groups are sufficiently different that it would be a burden to examine all three.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: it does not end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
As a matter of interpretation, there is no specific order of steps between the first “deposit” and the “etch” steps. There is also no specific requirement that the carbon-containing gas source in claim 8 is used for the process claimed in claim 8.
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.
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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (2022/0392765) in view of Hsu (2021/0125877).
Han teaches a processing chamber comprising:
- a substrate support assembly disposed in a process volume of a chamber, see Fig. 6 and related text, particularly [0092] wherein the system includes a controller to control the process steps and a substrate support, 610
- the system as noted includes a gas flow control system 620 and is understood to have various gas sources,
- depositing a hard mark with a dopant, see wherein a hard mask 142 is deposited, see [0028-47], the second hard mask includes the same materials as the first and includes such materials as tungsten-based compounds and also silicon films, see also Fig. 1H,
- and the teachings further include various etch steps in the process, see particularly [0030, 34, 35 and 43], the claim is not particularly limiting as to an exact order or exactly what is etched – it is understood per the Figs. 1A-L that the etch process produces the trench features and
- thereafter depositing a bulk metal – see Fig. 1L and [0047].
All elements of the claim are taught except for the hard mask being doped. Hsu, however, teaches that a functional hard mask is one of tungsten carbide and/or silicon and combinations of those [0050]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the tungsten carbide / silicon hard mask of Hsu in the process (controller steps) of Han as an operable alternative to the “tungsten-based compounds and/or silicon films” of Han. The teachings are not limiting on the combination of tungsten carbide and silicon and wherein all elements are taught, reasonably includes silicon-doped tungsten carbide – wherein the doping is a matter of the amount of silicon combined with the tungsten carbide. In combination of the teachings, it would be understood that the gas delivery system would further include a metal precursor gas source (to deposit the metal fill of Han and/or the tungsten), a carbon-containing gas source (to deposited the carbide material) and a dopant source gas, to deposit the silicon dopant.
In further regard to the use of silicon-doped tungsten carbide, wherein both references teach silicon films and tungsten films, and Hsu teaches tungsten carbide specifically, to form a doped film as argued is a mere matter of forming a third composition for the same purpose as the described compositions. As per MPEP 2144.06: "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 9, the doped hard mask is tungsten carbide doped with silicon as argued above.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Hsu teaches using CVD [0050] therefore it would be understood that the claimed gases are flowed towards a substrate; Han also teaches CVD [0032], and, as argued above, the dopant is silicon.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, the teachings do not include any tungsten or silicon precursors, but the Office takes Official notice that the claimed precursors would have been obvious selections as they are pervasive in the industry for the noted purpose.
Regarding claim 13, the teachings are silent on the amount of dopant material, however, because it is well settled that "where the principal difference between the claimed process and that taught by the reference is a temperature difference, it is incumbent upon applicant to establish criticality of that temperature difference", see Ex Parte Khusid 174 USPQ 59. This principle clearly is analogous to other process parameters such as dopant material in a doped layer. Absent evidence showing such criticality, use of the claimed dopant amount would have been prima facie obvious – it is particularly noted that, as above, the teachings include a non-limited combination of the claimed materials.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
