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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-2, 4-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fairbairn et al. (US 2003/0091938).
Regarding Claims 1-2, Fairbairn et al. (US’938) teach a method for forming a hydrogen-containing carbon film, the method comprising: loading a substrate into a chamber (Fig. 1; [0027]); supplying a carbon precursor (e.g. hydrocarbon; propylene, or C3H-6) into the chamber [0031,0033]; raising a temperature of the substrate to a predetermined temperature [0027]; and discharging the carbon precursor in the chamber to deposit a carbon film on the substrate, wherein the carbon precursor is one type of a compound including carbon and hydrogen and having 3 or more carbon atoms [0035], wherein a content of hydrogen contained in the deposited carbon film is between about 10 and 60 atomic percent [0038]. US’938 fails to teach precisely the claimed range “40 atomic percent or higher”; however, the range in US’938 substantially and obviously overlaps the claimed range. Additionally, US’938 provides evidence that hydrogen content in the carbon layer is a result-effective variable, known in the prior art to affect its optical properties and etch resistance [0038]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify the process of US’938 by forming a carbon film with a hydrogen content within the recited range through routine optimization.
Regarding Claim 4, US’938 teaches an inert carrier gas (Abstract; [0014]).
Regarding Claims 5-6, US’938 teaches that the deposition of the carbon film is performed at a substrate temperature of about 100 to 500°C [0036]. US’938 fails to teach the precise ranges of temperature. However, the claimed and taught ranges substantially and obviously overlap. Additionally, US’938 provides evidence that process temperature is a result-effective variable, known in the prior art at the time of invention to affect the refractive index and absorption coefficient of the carbon layers [0018,0039]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of US’938 to heat the substrate to a temperature within the recited range through routine optimization. Also, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.
Regarding Claims 7-8, US’938 teaches an RF power in a range of about 3 W/in2 to about 20 W/in2 and a substrate diameter of 200 mm (about 8 inches)[0036]. US’938 fails to teach an RF power in units of W. However, the power in Watts (W) depends directly on the size of the substrate. A circular 8-inch wafer has a surface area of about 50.27 in2. Therefore, the range of RF power for a wafer that size would be between about 151 W and 1000 W (Area of wafer x power/Area: ex. 50.27 in2 x 3 W/in2 = 150.80 W), which substantially and obviously overlaps the claimed range. Additionally, a change in size of a substrate is prima facie obvious, which renders obvious the RF power as a function of the size of the substrate. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to optimize the RF power to within the recited range used to achieve the goal of providing a typical deposition rate.
Regarding Claim 9, US’938 suggests an obvious method for forming a hydrogen-containing carbon film, the method comprising: depositing a carbon film using a single type (e.g. organic compound, hydrocarbon[0035], propylene [0031]) of a carbon precursor including carbon and hydrogen and having at least 3 carbon atoms [0031,0035] in a PECVD process [0014, 0025,0030] such that the deposited carbon film has a hydrogen content in a range of about 40 atomic % or greater (see rejection of Claim 1 above); and performing a post-plasma treatment (e.g. etching) on the deposited carbon film (Claim 8).
Regarding Claim 11, US’938 fails to teach specifically performing deposition and post-plasma treatment “in an in-situ manner.” However, “in situ” can reasonably be interpreted as being generally in the same location (e.g. city, building, room, apparatus, or chamber). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of US’938 by performing the deposition of the carbon and post-plasma treatment generally in the same location, apparatus, or chamber in order to save space and time required for transferring a substrate from one location to another. Additionally, the deposition chamber of US’938 is capable of generating a plasma, which suggests the feasibility of performing both deposition and a post-plasma treatment in situ.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fairbairn et al. (US 2003/0091938) in view of Park et al. (US 2008/0293248).
Regarding Claim 3, US’938 fails to teach a precursor with the formula C6H12. Park et al. (US’248) is analogous art in the field of PECVD deposition of a hydrogen-containing amorphous carbon layer from hydrocarbon precursors (Abstract; Fig. 1; [0040]) and suggests a precursor with the formula C6H12 [0014,0037,0049,0057]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of US’938 by supplying a precursor with the formula C6H12 as a precursor, because US’248 is analogous art which suggests it for an analogous process for depositing the identical or obviously similar hydrogen-containing amorphous carbon layer.
Regarding Claim 10, US’938 teaches a post-plasma treatment etching plasma including oxygen, ozone, or ammonia plasma (Claim 8). US’938 fails to teach a hydrogen or NF3 plasma. US’248 is analogous art. See rejection of Claim 3 above for discussion. US’248 teaches a post-plasma treatment etching NF3 plasma [0030]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of US’938 with a post-plasma treatment etching with NF3 plasma, because US’248 is analogous art which teaches a NF3 plasma capable of performing post-plasma treatment etching.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712