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 § 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.
Claims 9-11 and 13 are 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 9 recites the limitation “wherein the substrate” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner considers the limitation to include the interpretation “wherein a substrate.”
Claims 10-11 and 13 are rejected as depending from rejected Claim 9.
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, 4-8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konecni et al. (US 2012/0129351).
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 12, Konecni et al. (US’351) teaches a method for forming a hydrogen-containing carbon film, the method comprising: loading a substrate into a chamber [0007]; supplying a carbon precursor into the chamber (hydrocarbon gas) [0007]; raising a temperature of the substrate to a predetermined temperature [0017,0020]; 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 [0019], wherein the substrate comprises an amorphous carbon film hard mask, and wherein the carbon film is deposited on the amorphous carbon film hard mask (two layers, one carbon hardmask layer 206B on another amorphous carbon hardmask layer, deposited directly on a substrate, the substrate, including an oxide layer 204) (Figs. 1,2A-2B; [0024,0027]). US’351 fails to teach that a content of hydrogen contained in the deposited carbon film is about 40 atomic percent or higher. However, US’351 teaches that the layers consist essentially of carbon and hydrogen, and precursors include propylene (C3H6), of which composition the hydrogen atom represents a ratio of 6/9 >40%. 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’351 to result in a carbon layer with the recited concentration range of hydrogen, because the layer would have been expected to reflect the ratio of hydrogen in the precursor. Additionally, 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 Claim 4, US’351 teaches that the carbon precursor is supplied into the chamber with a carrier gas [0016].
Regarding Claims 5-6, US’351 teaches that the deposition of the carbon film is performed at a chamber temperature of between about 300 C and about 480 C. US’351 fails to teach the specific range of 100-300 C. However, US’351 also provides evidence that temperature is a result-effective variable, known in the prior art to affect stress levels in a deposited carbon film [0017-0018]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process with a substrate temperature within the recited range through routine optimization. Additionally, generally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical.
Regarding Claims 7-8, US’351 teaches an RF power of between 100 and 3000 W at a frequency of 13.56 MHz [0020]. US’351 fails to teach the recited ranges of 300-600W or 350-450 W. US’351 provides evidence that RF power is a result-effective variable, known in the prior art to affect the rate of reaction [0016] and stress levels of a deposited film [0017]. 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’351 with the recited ranges of RF power through routine optimization.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konecni et al. (US 2012/0129351) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2008/0293248).
Regarding Claim 3, US’351 teaches a number of specific hydrocarbon precursors, including both alkanes and alkenes [0019]. US’351 fails to teach a C6H12 precursor. 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’351 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.
Claim(s) 9, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konecni et al. (US 2012/0129351) in view of Fairbairn et al. (US 2003/0091938).
Regarding Claims 9 and 13, Konecni et al. (US’351) teaches a method for forming a hydrogen-containing carbon film, the method comprising: depositing 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 in a PECVD process [0019], wherein the substrate comprises an amorphous carbon film hard mask, and wherein the carbon film is deposited on the amorphous carbon film hard mask (two layers, one carbon hardmask layer 206B on another amorphous carbon hardmask layer, deposited directly on a substrate, the substrate, including an oxide layer 204) (Figs. 1,2A-2B; [0024,0027]). US’351 fails to teach that a content of hydrogen contained in the deposited carbon film is about 40 atomic percent or higher. However, US’351 teaches that the layers consist essentially of carbon and hydrogen, and precursors include propylene (C3H6), of which composition the hydrogen atom represents a ratio of 6/9 >40%. 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’351 to result in a carbon layer with the recited concentration range of hydrogen, because the layer would have been expected to reflect the ratio of hydrogen in the precursor. Additionally, 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.
US’351 fails to teach a post-plasma treatment on the deposited carbon film. Fairbairn et al. (US’938) is analogous art in the field of forming amorphous carbon layers by PECVD (Abstract; [0031]) and teaches 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]. In addition, US’938 suggests a post-plasma treatment on the deposited carbon film, including removing one or more amorphous carbon layers with an ozone, oxygen, or NH3 plasma (Claim 8) to etch it and transfer a pattern [0043-0048]. 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’351 by performing a post-plasma treatment on the deposited carbon film, because US’938 is analogous art, which suggests post-plasma treatment on the deposited carbon film a post-plasma treatment on the deposited carbon film, including removing one or more amorphous carbon layers with an ozone, oxygen, or NH3 plasma (Claim 8) to etch it and transfer a pattern [0043-0048].
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of references 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 the combination of references 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 each reference is capable of generating a plasma, which suggests the feasibility of performing both deposition and a post-plasma treatment in situ.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konecni et al. (US 2012/0129351) in view of Fairbairn et al. (US 2003/0091938) as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2008/0293248).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of U’351 in view of US’938 suggests 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 in the field of PECVD deposition of a hydrogen-containing amorphous carbon layer from hydrocarbon precursors (Abstract; Fig. 1; [0040]), including a precursor with the formula C6H12 [0014,0037,0049,0057]. In addition, 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 the combination of U’351 in view 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, suggested also in US’938.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fairbairn et al. (US 2003/0091938) in view of Konecni et al. (US 2012/0129351).
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 12, 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.
Additionally, US’938 teaches embodiments of the invention which includes multiple layers of amorphous carbon, which can function as an anti-reflective coating [0039]. Because the previous Office Action considered only the embodiment in US’938 in which amorphous carbon is deposited as a hard mask, this rejection does not express an opinion as to whether the embodiment of depositing multiple stacked layers of amorphous carbon as anti-reflective coating may be obvious over the deposition of the hardmask embodiment. US’351 is analogous art in the field of depositing an identical or obviously similar amorphous carbon hardmask with an identical or obviously similar PECVD process using an identical precursor (polypropylene). See the rejection of Claim 1 over Konecni et al. (US 2012/0129351) above. In addition, US’351 teaches that a carbon film is deposited on the amorphous carbon film hard mask (two layers, one carbon hardmask layer 206B on another amorphous carbon hardmask layer, deposited directly on a substrate, the substrate, including an oxide layer 204) (Figs. 1,2A-2B; [0024,0027]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of US’938 by depositing a carbon film on a substrate comprising an amorphous carbon film hard mask with the steps recited in Claim 1, because US’351 suggests a composite hardmask, produced by depositing one amorphous carbon film on another by performing multiple cycles of the steps taught in US’938.
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 Claims 9 and 13, 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). Additionally, US’938 teaches embodiments of the invention which includes multiple layers of amorphous carbon, which can function as an anti-reflective coating [0039]. Because the previous Office Action considered only the embodiment in US’938 in which amorphous carbon is deposited as a hard mask, this rejection does not express an opinion as to whether the embodiment of depositing multiple stacked layers of amorphous carbon as anti-reflective coating may be obvious over the deposition of the hardmask embodiment. US’351 is analogous art in the field of depositing an identical or obviously similar amorphous carbon hardmask with an identical or obviously similar PECVD process using an identical precursor (polypropylene). See the rejection of Claim 1 over Konecni et al. (US 2012/0129351) above. In addition, US’351 teaches that a carbon film is deposited on the amorphous carbon film hard mask (two layers, one carbon hardmask layer 206B on another amorphous carbon hardmask layer, deposited directly on a substrate, the substrate, including an oxide layer 204) (Figs. 1,2A-2B; [0024,0027]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of US’938 by depositing a carbon film on a substrate comprising an amorphous carbon film hard mask with the steps recited in Claim 1, because US’351 suggests a composite hardmask, produced by depositing one amorphous carbon film on another by performing multiple cycles of the steps taught in US’938.
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 the combination of US’938 in view of US’351 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 Konecni et al. (US 2012/0129351) as applied to Claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2008/0293248).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of US’938 in view of US’351 fails to teach a precursor with the formula C6H12. 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 in view of US’351 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). The combination of US’938 in view of US’351 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 the combination of US’938 in view of US’351 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Fairbairn does not disclose a two-layer structure of a hard mask (Remarks, p. 6), Konecni et al. (US 2012/0129351) is now cited to show the obviousness of performing Applicant’s method two deposit an amorphous carbon layer over an amorphous carbon layer (e.g. a hardmask) on a substrate.
In response to Applicant’s argument that in order to function as a hardmask it must have high etch resistance (Remarks, p. 6, bottom), the argument is not persuasive, because whatever Applicant considers “high,” the prior art includes etching a hard mask (see, for example US’248, Abstract and [0026,0029]), and the etch selectivity is controlled by varying the concentration of inert carrier gas, not by ratio of carbon to hydrogen in a layer [0026].
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights