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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-11 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/16/26.
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 2, 5-6 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 2 is rejected for the phrase “high ion energy” including a relative term.
Claims 5-6 are rejected for including Markush group selected from an open list using “comprising”. MPEP 2173.05(h).
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weimer (US 2022/0282366 A1).
Claim 1:
Weimer teaches a method for depositing and using an ashable hard mask in semiconductor processing (abstract). The ashable hard mask is an amorphous carbon film [0021] and is deposited by PECVD [0023], which includes flowing carbon precursor and inert gas into the chamber (Fig. 3), generating a plasma to deposit the amorphous carbon film (Id.), patterning the amorphous carbon film (Fig. 1), and etching the pattern into the underlying material layer (Id.).
Weimer details the different process parameters associated with the deposition of the amorphous carbon film including: low pressure to increase carbon ion energy thus improving density [0031], higher wattages of the RF power are associated with reduced hydrogen content [0076], and higher temperatures are associated with increased carbon content and higher density [0071]. Overall, the low pressure PECVD uses the low pressure combined with control over HF power, LF power, and process temperature to routinely optimize modulus, hardness, hydrogen content, and deposition rate [0037]. In particular, the pressure is about 3-30 mTorr [0067], HF power is up to 2500 W [0075], LF power is 0-10000 W [0077], and temperature is above about 200°C [0071].
Weimer does not teach each of the claimed parameters in a single embodiment, and therefore does not anticipate the claim. However, Weimer does teach each of the claim parameters, their ranges, the mechanism of action, and the results of modifying the parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Weimer and routinely optimize the cited parameters to arrive at a fully functional process.
Claims 2, 11:
The wattages of the RF power are discussed above. The minimum ion energy is 100 eV [0047], which is considered a high ion energy.
Claims 3-4:
The dual frequency RF power source with a LF in the hundreds of kHz and a HF at 13.56 MHz [0073]. The RF power source is electrically connected to the substrate support (Fig. 9A; 906, 926, 924, 920).
Claim 5:
At least methane [0068].
Claim 6:
At least helium [0056].
Claim 7:
The flow rate for the hydrocarbon precursor can be between 1-225 sccm [0070].
Claim 8:
The hydrocarbon precursor is between 1-45% of the total flow rate with the inert comprising the rest [0070]. This overlaps the claimed ratio.
Claim 9:
The pressure is between 3-500 mTorr [0067].
Claim 10:
The gap between the pedestal and showerhead is the analogous measure and is less than 0.75 inches [0080]. This gap is also adjustable (Fig. 9A-9C).
Conclusion
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