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 .
Continued Examination
The present application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 18/501,283, filed on November 3, 2023, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/314,445, filed on May 7, 2021, now U.S. Patent No. 11,848,209, issued on December 19, 2023, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No.63/154,001, filed on February 26, 2021. Now pending in this application are claims 1-20.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 7/24/2024 have been accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted up to this point have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0043], “regions 100A and 100C” should apparently read “regions 100A and 100B” (see FIG. 13).
In paragraph [0030], the second occurrence of “mandrel 124A” should apparently read “mandrel 124B.”
In paragraphs [0035] and [0038], SiH4 and SiH2Cl2 are described as “carbon-comprising” precursors having a carbon to nitrogen ratio, but these compounds contain no carbon or nitrogen.
In paragraph [0041], “may not result in reduced of patterning control” is grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4, 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, “wherein the plurality of spacers comprises second spacers on the sidewalls of the second mandrel” introduces second spacers a second time, claim l already reciting “second spacers of the plurality of spacers”; the limitation should apparently read “wherein the second spacers are on sidewalls of the second mandrel.” Further, “wherein the method further comprises transferring a pattern of the second spacers and the second mandrel to the first mask” should apparently read “wherein patterning the first mask further comprises transferring a pattern of the second spacers and the second mandrel to the first mask,” consistent with the patterning of the first mask recited in claim 2.
In claim 4, “a third spacers of the plurality of spacers” should apparently read “third spacers of the plurality of spacers,” and “protect the first mandrel, second mandrel, and the second spacers” should apparently read “protect the first mandrel, the second mandrel, and the second spacers.”
In claims 14 and 15, “forming the carbon-comprising layer” should apparently read “depositing the carbon-comprising layer,” consistent with claim 11, which recites “depositing a carbon-comprising layer.”
In claim 14, “in a same deposition chamber as the oxide layer” should apparently read “in a same deposition chamber as depositing the oxide layer.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 “after removing the third mandrel, removing the remaining portions of the third mask; and transferring a pattern of the third mandrel to the first mask.” Claim 4, from which claim 5 depends, recites “selectively removing the third mandrel.” It is unclear how the pattern of a mandrel that has been removed is transferred to the first mask. The specification describes patterning hard mask 108 in the region from which the mandrels were removed using spacers 128 as the mask ([0046-4 7]; FIGS. 16-18). Amending “transferring a pattern of the third mandrel” in claim 5 to “transfe1Ting a pattern of the third spacers” would overcome the rejection. For examination, the limitation is interpreted as transferring a pattern of the third spacers to the first mask.
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 11-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-13 and 15 of US # 12266529 in view of Kato-477 (US # 20170018477).
Reference claim 10 recites the steps of claim 11 except the thickness of 5 to 15 angstroms; the masking of the first mandrel and the first spacers while the second spacers are removed is provided in reference claim 10 by the oxide layer, the remaining portions of which are removed only after the second spacers are removed.
Reference claims 11, 12, 13 and 15 recite the added limitations of claims 12, 13, 14 and 15, respectively, reference claim 13’s “same atomic layer deposition (ALD) chamber” being a species of the “same deposition chamber” of claim 14. Kato-4 77 teaches a hydrocarbon-based layer on an oxide layer at a thickness of more than zero and less than about 1.0 nm, or of 0.3 nm to 3 nm where it is the only protective layer ([0042-43]), which improves the chemical resistance of the layer it covers ([0042, 73]); it would have been obvious to form the carbon-comprising layer of reference claim 10 at a thickness in those ranges for that reason, a claimed range that overlaps a disclosed range being prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(1)). Claim 11 would therefore have been obvious over reference claim 10 in view of Kato-477, and claims 12-15 over reference claims 11, 12, 13 and 15, respectively, each of which includes every limitation of reference claim 10, in view of Kato-477 for the same reason.
The present application is a continuation of application 18501283, which is a continuation of application 17314445. The election of species requirement made in application 17314445 does not bar these rejections because the protection of 35 U.S.C. 121 extends only to divisional applications and the original application, not to continuations (Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2009); G.D. Searle LLC v. Lupin Pharm., Inc., 790 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng-602 (US 20180315602) in view of Ko-450 (US 20170358450).
Regarding Claim 1, Tseng-602 teaches a method comprising (method 100; FIG. 1, [0011])
depositing a first mask (material layer 220, a tri-layer stack of layers 222, 224 and 226);
forming a plurality of mandrels (mandrels 240A) over the first mask (see Fig. 4);
forming a plurality of spacers (260) on sidewalls of the plurality of mandrels (see Fig. 5B);
depositing a second mask (270) over the plurality of mandrels and the plurality of spacers (see Fig. 6);
forming a capping layer (lowest layer of 280; [0023] describes tri-layer in which the lowest layer is similar to layer 252; [0017] describes layer 252 as “a carbon rich polymer material”) over the second mask,
patterning the second mask through the capping layer (see Fig. 8) to expose a first mandrel (right mandrel, as shown in Fig. 8) of the plurality of mandrels and first spacers (260-2 and 206-1 are exposed) of the plurality of spacers; and
selectively removing the first spacers (shown in Fig. 9) while remaining portions of the second mask protect a second mandrel (left-side mandrel) of the plurality of mandrels and second spacers of the plurality of spacers (spacers under layer 280 remain).
Although Tseng-602 discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the method comprising forming the capping layer wherein a carbon concentration of the capping layer is at least 30%.
Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Ko-450 is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches a method comprising forming a layer wherein a carbon concentration of the layer is at least 30% (organic layer 612 is formed in a stack with SiARC Layer 608, which is under resist pattern 604; [0064] teaches carbon at concentrations that are within the claimed range).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the lowest layer of the tri-layer of Tseng-602 with the material suggested by Ko-450 would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Ko-450 would be to employ a method comprising forming the capping layer wherein a carbon concentration of the capping layer is at least 30%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to use such a material with high carbon concentration since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 16, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including patterning the first mask by masking it with the second mandrel, the first mandrel and the first spacers.
Claims 17-20 are allowable at least based on their dependency on claim 16.
Claims 2-4 and 6-10 are 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 2, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including the method of claim 1 further comprising: after removing the first spacers, removing the remaining portions of the second mask; after removing the remaining portions of the second mask, patterning the first mask, wherein patterning the first mask comprises transferring a pattern of the first mandrel to the first mask; and transferring a pattern of the first mask to the target layer.
Claims 3-4 are allowable at least based on their dependency on claim 2.
Regarding Claim 6, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including the method of claim 1 further comprising prior to selectively removing the first spacers, removing remaining portions of the capping layer.
Regarding Claim 7, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including the method of claim 1, wherein a same vacuum environment is maintained for depositing the second mask and forming the capping layer.
Claims 8-10 are allowable at least based on their dependency on claim 7.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9475. The examiner can normally be reached normally working Monday to Friday between 9 am and 6 pm Eastern Time.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached on (408) 918-7532. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights