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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji (US 2014/0094035 A1) in view of Henri (US 2022/0199417 A1).
Claims 1-2, 9-10, 12:
Ji teaches a method for using amorphous carbon to provide gap fill for gap features during semiconductor processing [0003]. The process steps are illustrated in Fig. 1 and include a deposition step of depositing an amorphous carbon layer in a gap 103, followed by conducting etching to remove deposited carbon at gap entry 105, and repeating the deposition and etching 107 until the gap is filled 111. The entire process takes place in a PECVD apparatus where the deposition step is PECVD [0039] and the etching step is plasma etching [0046]. Both processes use a combination of high and low radio frequency to generate the plasma (Table 1).
Ji does not teach carbon dioxide as the sole etching gas, but rather teaches H2 and Ar [0041].
However, Henri teaches a similar method of depositing and etching amorphous carbon (abstract) wherein the etching gas is carbon dioxide or H2, possibly including diluents including Ar [0026]. The deposition and etching can occur simultaneously [0146] or sequentially [0155].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the H2 and Ar etching gas of Ji with the sole etching gas of carbon dioxide. Henri establishes carbon dioxide is a suitable etching gas for the purpose of etching amorphous carbon.
Claim 3:
Etching a carbon layer will necessarily result in the production of a carbon compound.
Claim 4:
According to Applicant’s spec., the formation of non-volatile carbon compound layer is the result of using carbon dioxide to etch amorphous carbon [62]. Henri teaches the same chemistry [0098-0102], and the formation of non-volatile carbon compound layer is considered inherent.
Claim 5, 11:
Ji teaches the substrate temp, RF power, and pressure (Table 1). Henri teaches power [0098] and carbon dioxide flow rate [0103] including that it is highly tunable to achieve the desired etch rate (Id.). See also Henri Table II.
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji (US 2014/0094035 A1) in view of Henri (US 2022/0199417 A1) in view of Lee (US 2025/0243585 A1; PCT/US2023/015209, PCT Filing Date 3/14/23).
Previously cited prior art is discussed above but does not teach an exposing step. However, Lee teaches the process of simultaneously etching and depositing a deposition layer (abstract). The material being etched includes amorphous carbon and the etch gas includes an oxygen component such as carbon dioxide [0020]. Lee further teaches a post etch step [0022;0031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include a post etch step for exposing a portion of the pattern wall because Lee establishes it is suitable to do so when performing gap fill for semiconductor processing.
Claim(s) 8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji (US 2014/0094035 A1) in view of Henri (US 2022/0199417 A1) in view of Lee (US 2025/0243585 A1; PCT/US2023/015209, PCT Filing Date 3/14/23) in view of Davis (US 2004/0200574 A1).
Previously cited prior art does not teach a CMP process. However, Davis teaches post-etch processes include CMP [0028]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a CMP process after etching as a post-etch step.
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 ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights