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 without traverse of Groups I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on June 25, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 25, 2026.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manna et al (U.S. Patent # 9,624,577) in view of Qi et al (U.S. Patent # 11,276,573).
In the case of claims 1, 2 and 13, Manna teaches a method for forming a multi-metal hardmask film on a substrate disposed in a processing chamber wherein the multi-metal hardmask was in the form of a metal-doped amorphous carbon hardmask comprising multiple transition metal including an alloy of tungsten and titanium (Abstract and Column 9 Line 66 through Column 10 Line 20). The method of Manna comprised flowing a main deposition gas mixture comprising metal-containing precursors and carbon-containing precursors into a process chamber to form the hardmask (Column 7 Line 57 through Column 8 Line 52). Manna further teaches that while forming the hardmask radio-frequency power/plasma was supplied to turn the gas mixture into a plasma during formation/deposition (Column 9 Lines 16-49).
Manna does not teach having flowed at least one pretreatment gas in to the processing chamber. Specifically, a pretreatment gas comprised of one or more hydrogen containing gases and nitrogen containing gas while also supplying RF power.
Qi teaches a method for forming a hardmask in a processing chamber by vapor deposition (Abstract and Column 1 Lines 7-10) which used plasma enhanced deposition powered by RF power to form the hardmask (Column 5 Lies 36-52 and Column 10 Lies 1-18). Qi teaches that prior to forming the hardmask a pretreatment gas comprising hydrogen and/or nitrogen was supplied into the process chamber and turned into a plasma to treat the substrate on which the hardmask was to be formed in order to improve adhesion between the substrate and the formed hardmask (Column 8 Lines 20-48).
Based on the teachings of Qi, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have flowed a pretreatment gas comprised of one or more or hydrogen containing gas and a nitrogen containing gas while supplying RF power because it was known in the art to pretreatment a substrate with hydrogen and/or nitrogen plasma in order to improve the adhesion between the substrate and the deposited hardmask film.
As for claims 3, 4 and 16, as was discussed previously, the hardmask of Manna comprised a non-metal in the form of carbon.
As for claims 5-10 and 15, as was discussed previously, the hardmask of Manna comprised a plurality of transition metal including tungsten and titanium Furthermore, Manna teaches that the main deposition gas mixture comprised a plurality of metal containing precursors and non-metal containing precursors in the form of carbon-containing precursors. Furthermore, Manna teaches that the metal-containing precursors included halide precursors and metal-organic precursors. (Column 6 Lines 48-57 and Column 7 Line 57 through Column 8 Line 52)
As for claims 11 and 12, Manna teaches that the gas mixture further comprised a dilution/carrier gas comprised of argon and/or helium (Column 7 Lines 44-56).
As for claim 14, Manna teaches that the RF power comprised a high frequency RF power between 1 to 2000 watts (Column 11 Lines 26-51), which overlapped with the claimed range of 300 to 3000 watts. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See section 2144.05.I of the MPEP.
As for claims 17 and 18, Manna teaches that the formation process was performed at a temperature in the range of 200 to 500 ℃ at a pressure of 1 to 20 torr (Column 10 Line 66 through Column 11 Line 7).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin (U.S. Patent # 8,623,468) teaches method for forming a metal hard mask using at least one, and therefore multiple, metal reactant/precursor gases while applying RF power to form a hardmask with at least one metal.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 18 have been rejected. Claims 19 and 20 have been withdrawn. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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 P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights