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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the prior art does not teach bias power. Demmin teaches on p 9-10 a bias voltage (which is related to power and can be calculated by the formula v=p/a). However, Demmin teaches modifying a bias voltage in this section, and generally the bias, to affect the results obtained. This section of Demmin: “As is well known, there are many operating conditions of a plasma etching process that can have an effect on the results obtained. These conditions include, for example, the type of plasma etching (for example, reactive ion etching, plasma etching, and high-density etching), etching composition flow rate, wafer temperature, pressure, power, time, and bias. The interrelationship of these parameters is a function of the hardware configuration and the material being etched. One skilled in the art of plasma etching and cleaning can vary these parameters accordingly to etch a desired material satisfactorily.” Demmin marks bias power/voltage in this section as result effective variables, dependent upon desired results and reaction conditions.
Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955). Further, in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding regarding result effective variables as well (MPEP 2144.05)
The applicant further argues that bias power is critical and not a result effective variable as it results in a differing selection ratio. However, in Example 15 of the instant specification, Table 2 shows several differences in selection ratio between different powers, revealing a trend and making the change in ratio not unexpected. Thus, there are no unexpected results required to overcome a routine experimentation rejection. Further, it is noted that the unexpected result cited is not commensurate in scope with the claims, which is also required to overcome a result effective variable rejection. Etching time is not claimed, for example, as it is also used in the data given in Table 2. Further, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the rejections are maintained.
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 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demmin et al. (WO 1999/034428 A1)
As to claim 1, Demmin teaches etching a SiN film on a substrate by converting an etching gas containing iodine heptafluoride into plasma (pg 3). Both silicon nitride and silicon oxide films are etched on p3. Demmin is not explicit regarding the etch rates of the SiN vs SiO films. However, Demmin teaches modifying the experimental conditions to tailor the etch rates of particular films in Examples 1-8 and Table 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify these rates by routine experimentation to obtain the desired results. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955). Further, in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding regarding result effective variables as well (MPEP 2144.05)
Carrier/inert gas is added on Demmin p 8. Demmin additionally teaches iodidine heptafluoride as its etching compound in the abstract. Demmin further identifies that its etching compound may be no less than 5% of volume of the mixture on p 6 lines 24-29, meaning that Demmin teaches a concentration of 5% or more and thus includes the claimed range.
As to bias power, Demmin teaches on p 9-10 a bias voltage. However, Demmin teaches modifying a bias voltage in this section, and generally the bias, to affect the results obtained. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955). Further, in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding regarding result effective variables as well (MPEP 2144.05)
As to claims 6 the pressure is taught on p 9.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomura et al. (US 2019/0074190 A1) in view of Demmin et al.
As to claim 1, Tomura teaches etching a SiN film on a substrate by converting an etching gas containing iodine heptafluoride into plasma (para 0016-0019) in an amount of 2.5% or more, including the claimed range. Both silicon nitride and silicon oxide films are etched in paras 0016-0019 and 0027. Tomura does not teach the relative selectivities of the etching rates and the bias power. Demmin teaches these features or renders them obvious as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Tomura to include the features of Demmin as Demmin teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such. Inert gas is added to the fluorine gas in Tomura para 0060.
As to bias power, Demmin teaches on p 9-10 a bias voltage. However, Demmin teaches modifying a bias voltage in this section, and generally the bias, to affect the results obtained. Further, Tomura teaches applying bias power in paras 0034 and 0043-0044 to attract the substrate to the holder and to draw the etching ions into the substrate or workpiece. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955). Further, in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding regarding result effective variables as well (MPEP 2144.05)
As to claim 6, the pressure range is taught in Tomura para 0068.
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 KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718