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 .
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 1-5, 7-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,197,131. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations presented in the claims of the instant application have already been recited in USP12197131.
Regarding claim 1, USP12197131 recites the limitations of a method, comprising:
forming a photoresist layer over a substrate (column 15, line 37);
patterning the photoresist layer to form a resist pattern having trenches surrounded by first resist walls extending lengthwise along a first direction and second resist walls extending lengthwise along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the trench is longer along the first direction than along the second direction (column 15, lines 37-43);
tilting the substrate and the resist pattern so that an ion travel direction forms a tilt angle of at least 40 degrees with respect to an axis perpendicular to a top surface of the resist pattern (column 15, lines 47-50); and
first implanting ions into the resist pattern along the ion travel direction, wherein the first implanting of the ions reduces a dimension of the second resist walls by a first amount and reduces a dimension of the first resist walls by a second amount, and the first amount is greater than the second amount (column 15, lines 54-61).
Regarding claim 2, USP12197131 fails to recite the first amount is at least four times greater than the second amount.
However, given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum implantation amounts involved because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. See In re Aller, Lacey, and Hall (10 USPQ 23 3-237) "It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of ether the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that tile chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 3, USP12197131 recites the limitations of the ions during the first implanting include one or more of ion species selected from arsenic, boron, carbon, indium, boron fluoride (BF2), germanium, gallium, fluorine, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, silicon, xenon, argon, and silicon fluoride (SF3) (claim 5)
Regarding claim 4, USP12197131 recites the limitations of before the first implanting, the method further includes: first rotating the substrate and the resist pattern around the axis to a first position so that the ion travel direction is in a plane containing the first direction and the axis, wherein the first implanting is performed at the first position (column 15, lines 51-53).
Regarding claim 5, USP12197131 recites the limitations of: after the first implanting, second rotating the substrate and the resist pattern around the axis by 180 degrees to a second position; and second implanting ions into an opposite side of the second resist walls with the substrate and the resist pattern at the second position (claim 2).
Regarding claim 7, USP12197131 recites the limitations of an ion dose applied in the first implanting is equal to an ion dose applied in the second implanting (claim 6).
Regarding claim 8, USP12197131 recites the limitations of repeating the first rotating, the first implanting, the second rotating, and the second implanting (claim 3).
Regarding claim 9, USP12197131 recites the limitations of the substrate includes a patterning layer, further comprising: after the first implanting, etching the patterning layer with the resist pattern as a first etch mask; and forming line trenches in the substrate using the etched patterning layer as a second etch mask (claim 4).
Regarding claim 11, USP12197131 recites the limitations of rotating the substrate and the resist pattern around the axis to multiple ion implantation positions; and implanting ions into the first and second resist walls at the multiple ion implantation positions, wherein the rotating of the substrate and the resist pattern includes rotating to a first implantation position by a first angle that is less than 90 degrees, wherein the multiple ion implantation positions include the first implantation position (claim 12)
Regarding claim 12, USP12197131 recites the limitations of a method, comprising:
forming a photoresist layer over a substrate (column 14, line 27);
patterning the photoresist layer to form a resist pattern having trenches surrounded by first resist walls extending lengthwise along a first direction and second resist walls extending lengthwise along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the trench is longer along the first direction than along the second direction (column 14, lines 27-33);
tilting the substrate and the resist pattern so that an ion travel direction forms a tilt angle of at least 40 degrees with respect to an axis perpendicular to a top surface of the resist pattern (column 14, lines 37-39 and column 13, line 48-50); and
positioning the substrate and the resist pattern to an initial position so that the ion travel direction is in a plane containing the first direction and the axis (column 14, lines 40-42);
after the positioning, rotating the substrate and the resist pattern around the axis to multiple ion implantation positions (column 14, lines 43-45); and
implanting ions into the first and second resist walls at the multiple ion implantation positions, wherein the implanting of the ions reduces a dimension of the second resist walls in the first direction by a first amount and reduces a dimension of the first resist walls in the second direction by a second amount, wherein the first amount is greater than the second amount (column 14, lines 46-52)
Regarding claim 13, USP12197131 recites the limitations of the rotating comprises: rotating the substrate and the resist pattern to a first implantation position by a first angle that is less than 90 degrees, wherein the multiple ion implantation positions include the first implantation position (claim 10).
Regarding claim 14, USP12197131 recites the limitations of the rotating further comprises: rotating the substrate and the resist pattern from the first implantation position to a second implantation position by a second angle that is less than a sum of 90 degrees and a complementary angle of the first angle, wherein the multiple ion implantation positions include the second implantation position (claim 11).
Regarding claim 15, USP12197131 recites the limitations of the rotating further comprises: rotating the substrate and the resist pattern from the second implantation position to a third implantation position by a third angle that is less than a supplementary angle of the second angle; and rotating the substrate and the resist pattern from the third implantation position to a fourth implantation position by a fourth angle that is less than a sum of 90 degrees and a complementary angle of the third angle, wherein the multiple ion implantation positions include the third and fourth implantation positions (claim 11).
Regarding claim 17, USP12197131 recites the limitations of a method, comprising:
forming a photoresist layer over a substrate (column 17, line 34);
patterning the photoresist layer to form a resist pattern having trenches surrounded by first resist walls extending lengthwise along a first direction and second resist walls extending lengthwise along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the trench is longer along the first direction than along the second direction (column 17, line 34 to column 18, line 3);
tilting the substrate and the resist pattern so that an ion travel direction forms a first tilt angle of at least 40 degrees with respect to an axis perpendicular to a top surface of the resist pattern (column 18, lines 7-10); and
implanting ions into the resist pattern along the ion travel direction, wherein the implanting of the ions reduces a dimension of the second resist walls in the first direction at a first rate, and reduces a dimension of the first resist walls in the second direction at a second rate, and the first rate is different from the second rate (column 18, lines 11-17);
after the implanting, transferring the trench in the resist pattern into a dielectric layer of the substrate, thereby forming a dielectric trench (column 18, lines 18-20); and
filling the dielectric trench with a metal material (column 18, line 21).
Regarding claim 18, USP12197131 recites the limitations of a method, the implanting of ions includes: rotating the substrate and the resist pattern around the axis to multiple ion implantation positions; and implanting ions into the first and second resist walls at the multiple ion implantation positions (claim 2, that teaches repetition of rotating the substrate and then implanting).
Regarding claim 19, USP12197131 recites the limitations of the implanting of ions further includes: tilting the substrate and the resist pattern to a second tilt angle at one or more of the multiple ion implantation positions (Claim 13), the second tilt angle being different from the first tilt angle (claim 14)
Regarding claim 20, USP12197131 recites the limitations of the first rate is greater than the second rate such that a dimension of the first resist walls is reduced by a first amount, a dimension of the second resist walls is reduced by a second amount, and the first amount is greater than the second amount (column 18, lines 11-17)
USP12197131 fails to recite the amount is by at least four times.
However, given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum implantation amounts involved because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. See In re Aller, Lacey, and Hall (10 USPQ 23 3-237) "It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of ether the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that tile chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. USP12197131 in view of Yang et al, US Patent 6,127,070.
Regarding claim 10, USP12197131 recites the limitations filling the line trenches with one or more metallic materials (claim 18, lines 22); but fails to teach performing a chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) process to the metallic materials to form metal lines.
Yang teaches performing a chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) process to the metallic materials to form metal lines (column 3, lines 38-40) as a generally-known process that is performing to remove the unwanted metallic material from the substrate in forming the metal layer in a trench.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang with that of USP12197131 because chemical mechanical planarization is a generally-known process that is performing to remove the unwanted metallic material from the substrate in forming the metal layer in a trench.
Regarding claim 16, USP1219713 recites the limitation of the substrate includes a patterning layer, further comprising: after the implanting, etching the patterning layer with the resist pattern as a first etch mask; forming line trenches in the substrate using the etched patterning layer as a second etch mask; filling the line trenches with one or more metallic materials (column 18, lines 19-22); but fails to teach performing a chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) process to the metallic materials to form metal lines.
Yang teaches performing a chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) process to the metallic materials to form metal lines (column 3, lines 38-40) as a generally-known process that is performing to remove the unwanted metallic material from the substrate in forming the metal layer in a trench.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang with that of USP12197131 because chemical mechanical planarization is a generally-known process that is performing to remove the unwanted metallic material from the substrate in forming the metal layer in a trench.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention including “...the second implanting reduces a dimension of the second resist walls by a third amount and reduces a dimension of the first resist walls by a fourth amount, wherein the third amount is greater than the second amount...” in combination with the remaining limitations. The cited prior art(s) of record teach all of the limitations presented, but fail to recite the limitation above. Further, no other prior art was found that would meet the limitations of these claims, either in anticipatory or in combination with other references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-4PM.
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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
QVJ
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights