DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 17674127 application filed February 17, 2022, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on August 7, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 .
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 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.
Patent Board Decision 37 CFR 41.50(b)
In the Patent Board (the Board) Decision (the Decision) files June 8/2026 regarding the Final Office action filed December 30, 2024, - the rejection of claims 1-5, 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Korolik are affirmed.- the rejection of claims 1-5, 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Korolik are affirmed. - the rejection of claims 6, 7, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Korolik in view of Kanarik are affirmed. - the rejection of claims 12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Korolik in view of Luong are affirmed.- The Board entered a non-final, new ground of rejection of claims 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19 based on Korolik in view of Luong. - The Board entered a non-final, new ground of rejection of claims 13 based on Korolik in view of Yamada and Luong.According to 37 CFR 41.50(b)“(b) New ground of rejection. Should the Board have knowledge of any grounds not involved in the appeal for rejecting any pending claim, it may include in its opinion a statement to that effect with its reasons for so holding, and designate such a statement as a new ground of rejection of the claim. A new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review. When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellant, within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection is binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the opinion of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the claims, appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection and state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing is sought.” (all emphases added) Applicant has made the following amendments (a) the amended claim 1, that is the previous claim 1 including a new limitation “wherein a pressure is maintained at less than 30 mTorr during the semiconductor processing method”. (b) the amended claim 8, that is the previous claim 1 including a new limitation “a pressure within the semiconductor processing chamber is maintained at less than 10 m Torr”.(c) the amended claim 12, that is the previous claim 12 incorporating the previous claim 15, which is “wherein a pressure is maintained at less than 30 mTorr during the semiconductor processing method”.(d) the amended claim 15, that is the previous claim 15 including a new limitation “wherein the pressure is maintained at less than or 10 mTorr during the semiconductor processing method”.(e) the amended claim 20, that is the previous claim 20 including a new limitation “wherein a pressure is maintained at less than 30 mTorr during the semiconductor processing method”.--Regarding (a), the Board affirmed that it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Korolik and Luong to maintain the pressure up to 200 mTorr, such as 50 mTorr…, or less than 50 mTorr as Examiner argued in the Final Office action (Page 7 and 8 of the Decision). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Korolik and Luong to maintain the pressure at less than 30 mTorr during routine experimentations when practicing the invention of Korolik modified by Luong.--Regarding (b), the Board affirmed that it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Korolik and Luong such that “the selective etching may be at a pressure up to 200 mTorr, such as 50 mTorr…, or less than 50 mTorr” as Examiner argued in the Final Office action (Page 7 and 8 of the Decision). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Korolik and Luong to maintain the pressure at less than 10 mTorr during routine experimentations when practicing the invention of Korolik modified by Luong. --Regarding (c), the Board affirmed that it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Korolik and Luong to maintain the pressure up to 200 mTorr, such as 50 mTorr…, or less than 50 mTorr as Examiner argued in the Final Office action (Page 7 and 8 of the Decision). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Korolik and Luong to maintain the pressure at less than 30 mTorr during routine experimentations when practicing the invention of Korolik modified by Luong. --Regarding (d), the Board affirmed that it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Korolik and Luong to maintain the pressure up to 200 mTorr, such as 50 mTorr…, or less than 50 mTorr as Examiner argued in the Final Office action (Page 7 and 8 of the Decision). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Korolik and Luong to maintain the pressure at less than 10 mTorr during routine experimentations when practicing the invention of Korolik modified by Luong. --Regarding (e), the Board affirmed that it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Korolik and Luong to maintain the pressure up to 200 mTorr, such as 50 mTorr…, or less than 50 mTorr as Examiner argued in the Final Office action (Page 7 and 8 of the Decision). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Korolik and Luong to maintain the pressure at less than 30 mTorr during routine experimentations when practicing the invention of Korolik modified by Luong. --Regarding claim 13, the Board affirmed that it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Korolik, Yamada and Luong to maintain the pressure up to 200 mTorr, such as 50 mTorr…, or less than 50 mTorr during routine experimentations when practicing the invention of Korolik modified by Yamada and Luong.
The details of the rejection are shown below. To further clarify the rejections, alternate grounds of rejection based on Takeya instead of Luong, to supply the feature of the process pressure are also shown below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 14-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Korolik et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20150126039), hereinafter “Korolik”, in view of Luong (U.S. PGPub. No. 20120129354), hereinafter “Luong”:--Claims 1, 2, 3: Korolik teaches a method of selectively etching a silicon with respect to a silicon germanium ([0006]), comprisingobtaining a substrate comprising a first layer and a second layer, wherein the first layer has a chemical composition Si(1-x)Gex and the second layer has a chemical composition Si(1-y)Gey, wherein x>y ([0018]);loading the substrate into a processing region of an apparatus (Step 110 of Fig. 1, [0024]);flowing NF3 into a remote plasma system (Fig. 3A; Step 120 of Fig. 1; [0020, 0044]);flowing NH3 into a remote plasma system (Step 125 of Fig. 1, [0020]);igniting a plasma, and flowing plasma effluents into the processing region (Step 130 of Fig. 1, [0021-0022]);selectively etching the first layer with respect to the second layer, wherein the etch selectivity may be greater than 10:1 or greater than 100:1 (Step 135 of Fig. 1, [0019, 0023]). Korolik further teaches that the process gases may pass through a remote plasma system through a first gas channel 1012, the chamber plasma region 1020, and a perforated showerhead 1053 to the substrate processing region 1070. Alternately the fluorine-containing precursor may bypass the remote plasma region 1010 and flow directly into a chamber plasma region 1020 through a second channel 1013 (Fig. 3A), wherein an AC potential applied between a lid 1021 and the showerhead 1053 generates a plasma in chamber plasma region 1020 [0041]). Korolik further teaches that “(t)he combination of chamber plasma region 1020 and/or remote plasma system 1010 may be referred to as a remote plasma system herein”, wherein a perforated showerhead 1053 is positioned between the region 1020 and the region 1070, wherein the perforated showerhead allows excited species to travel from the region 1020 to the region 1070 (Fig. 3A, [0041]). Korolik further teaches that the perforated showerhead has 60-2000 large holes, each having a diameter of 0.5-20 mm; and 100-5000 small holes, each having a diameter of 0.1-2 mm (Fig. 3B, [0046]), and that the substrate is a 300 mm wafer ([0061]). It is noted that the maximum combine area of the holes is about 650,000 mm2, which is about 10 times the surface area of the wafer. Therefore, the region 1020 and 1070 are in fluid communication with each other, and the combination of the chamber plasma region 1020 and the substrate processing region 1070 is considered the claimed “process region” recited in claim 1. Thus, the process gases are flown into the region 1020 of the process region, then an AC potential strikes a plasma from the process gases in the region 1020 of the process region. Alternately, since Korolik further discloses that “"(p)lasma-free" does not necessarily mean the region is devoid of plasma. A relatively low concentration of ionized species and free electrons created within the plasma region do travel through pores (apertures) in the partition (showerhead/ion suppressor) due to the shapes and sizes of through-holes 1056” ([0055]). Furthermore, Korolik clearly teaches that “(a)n adjustable electrical bias may also be applied to showerhead 1053 as an additional means to control the flow of ionic species through showerhead 1053” ([0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to generate some plasma at least in the vicinity of the showerhead inside the substrate processing region 1070 from this electrical bias, or from the interaction between the ionized species that pass through the showerhead and the process gases Alternately, since Korolik teaches that a plasma may be ignited within the region 1070 below a showerhead 1053 ([0051], Fig. 3A) by applying an AC voltage between showerhead 1053 and the pedestal or bottom of the chamber ([0051-0052]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to form at least some plasma of the process gases in the process region 1070 during the etching by using the RF applied to the showerhead 1053. Korolik further teaches that the pressure in “the substrate processing region is between about 0.1 Torr and about 50 Torr” ([0029], emphasis added) or “below or about 5 Torr” ([0059], emphasis added). Korolik is silent about the range of the pressure “about” 0.1 Torr. Luong, also directed to a selective plasma etching of Si with respect to silicon germanium (abstract), teaches that the selective etching may be at a pressure “up to 200 mTorr, e.g. 50 mTorr” ([0035], emphasis added), or “less than about 50 mTorr” ([0059], emphasis added). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a pressure less than 50 mTorr, such as about 30 mTorr or about 10 mTorr in the selective plasma etching of Si with respect to silicon germanium of Korolik because Korolik teaches that the pressure may be about 0.1-50 Torr or below 5 Torr, and Luong teaches that pressure “up to 200 mTorr, e.g. 50 mTorr” ([0035], emphasis added), or “less than about 50 mTorr” would be effective for such selective etching. It is noted that due to normal fluctuations during manufacturing, the actual pressure in a process chamber may deviate from the pressure setpoint by some amount.--Claims 4, 5: Korolik further teaches that the plasma may be generated by using a RF power 10-5000 W ([0028]).--Claims 8, 12, 15: Korolik further teaches that the pressure and temperature in the processing region is about 0.1-50 Torr ([0029, 0059]), and 30-300°C ([0130]), respectively, while Luong teaches the selective etching may be at a pressure “up to 200 mTorr, e.g. 50 mTorr” ([0035], emphasis added), or “less than about 50 mTorr” ([0059], emphasis added)These overlaps the claimed ranges recited in claims 8, 12 and 15.--Claim 9: Korolik further teaches to supply inert gases, such as argon, to the remote plasma system. It is noted that the gases from remote plasma system would flow into the processing region.([0025, 0033, 0044, 0055]).--Claim 10: Korolik further teaches that the NF3 gas flow may be 5-500 sccm and the NH3 gas flow may be 20-2000 sccm ([0056]). These overlaps the claimed ranges recited in claim 10.--Claim 11: Korolik further teaches that the plasma is devoid of oxygen (claim 14).--Claims 12, 18: It is noted that NH3 is both a hydrogen-containing precursor and a nitrogen-containing precursor.--Claims 14, 17, 19: Although Korolik fails to disclose the fluorine-containing precursor and the nitrogen-containing precursor form a passivation compound and an etch compound when contacting the at least one layer of silicon-containing material and the at least one layer of silicon-and-germanium-containing material, wherein the passivation compound comprises carbon, hydrogen, and fluorine materials, and wherein the etch compound comprises nitrogen, hydrogen, and fluorine materials, or the fluorine-containing precursor, the nitrogen-containing precursor, the hydrogen-containing precursor, and an inert precursor form the passivation compound and the etch compound; the passivation compound passivates the at least one layer of silicon-and- germanium-containing material; and the etch compound removes the at least one layer of silicon-containing material, since the process gases, the plasma and the substrate taught by Korolik are the same as Appellant’s, such effect must occur, as taught by Appellant. According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.--Claim 16: Korolik further teaches that “(s)ilicon germanium may have an atomic silicon percentage greater than 28%, 35%, 45%, 55% or 65% in embodiments” ([0038]).
Claims 6-7 and 20 rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korolik in view of Luong as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Kanarik et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20130119018), hereinafter “Kanarik”: --Claims 6, 7, 20: Korolik modified by Luong teaches the invention as above. Korolik fails to teach pulsing the RF power. Kanarik teaches that when plasma etching a substrate, it would be advantageous to pulse RF power and gas flows ([0016-0017]) to improve ion-to-radical flux ratios, selectivity, uniformity and reverse RIE lag effect ([0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to pulse the RF power and gas flows in the etching taught by Korolik because Kanarik teaches that this would advantageously improve ion-to-radical flux ratios, selectivity, uniformity and reverse RIE lag effect. Kanarik further teaches that the pulsing duty cycle may vary as needed for a particular process ([0025]), such as 40% ([0018]), and that the pulsing frequency is lower than the RF frequency, such as 100 Hz ([0017]).
Claim 13 rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korolik in view of Luong as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5331180), hereinafter “Yamada”: --Claim 13: Korolik modified by Luong teaches the invention as above. Korolik further teaches that other sources of fluorine, such as a fluorocarbon, may be used to augment NF3 ([0020]). Korolik fails to teach the process gas comprises CF4. Yamada teaches that reactive ion etching of silicon may be performed using CF4 (Col. 27, Lines 59-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use CF4 as the fluorocarbon to augment NF3 in the etching taught by Korolik because Yamada teaches that this would be effective.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 14-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Korolik in view of in view of Takeya et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20170309478), hereinafter “Takeya”:--Claims 1, 2, 3: Korolik teaches a method of selectively etching a silicon with respect to a silicon germanium ([0006]), comprisingobtaining a substrate comprising a first layer and a second layer, wherein the first layer has a chemical composition Si(1-x)Gex and the second layer has a chemical composition Si(1-y)Gey, wherein x>y ([0018]);loading the substrate into a processing region of an apparatus (Step 110 of Fig. 1, [0024]);flowing NF3 into a remote plasma system (Fig. 3A; Step 120 of Fig. 1; [0020, 0044]);flowing NH3 into a remote plasma system (Step 125 of Fig. 1, [0020]);igniting a plasma, and flowing plasma effluents into the processing region (Step 130 of Fig. 1, [0021-0022]);selectively etching the first layer with respect to the second layer, wherein the etch selectivity may be greater than 10:1 or greater than 100:1 (Step 135 of Fig. 1, [0019, 0023]). Korolik further teaches that the process gases may pass through a remote plasma system through a first gas channel 1012, the chamber plasma region 1020, and a perforated showerhead 1053 to the substrate processing region 1070. Alternately the fluorine-containing precursor may bypass the remote plasma region 1010 and flow directly into a chamber plasma region 1020 through a second channel 1013 (Fig. 3A), wherein an AC potential applied between a lid 1021 and the showerhead 1053 generates a plasma in chamber plasma region 1020 [0041]). Korolik further teaches that “(t)he combination of chamber plasma region 1020 and/or remote plasma system 1010 may be referred to as a remote plasma system herein”, wherein a perforated showerhead 1053 is positioned between the region 1020 and the region 1070, wherein the perforated showerhead allows excited species to travel from the region 1020 to the region 1070 (Fig. 3A, [0041]). Korolik further teaches that the perforated showerhead has 60-2000 large holes, each having a diameter of 0.5-20 mm; and 100-5000 small holes, each having a diameter of 0.1-2 mm (Fig. 3B, [0046]), and that the substrate is a 300 mm wafer ([0061]). It is noted that the maximum combine area of the holes is about 650,000 mm2, which is about 10 times the surface area of the wafer. Therefore, the region 1020 and 1070 are in fluid communication with each other, and the combination of the chamber plasma region 1020 and the substrate processing region 1070 is considered the claimed “process region” recited in claim 1. Thus, the process gases are flown into the region 1020 of the process region, then an AC potential strikes a plasma from the process gases in the region 1020 of the process region. Alternately, since Korolik further discloses that “"(p)lasma-free" does not necessarily mean the region is devoid of plasma. A relatively low concentration of ionized species and free electrons created within the plasma region do travel through pores (apertures) in the partition (showerhead/ion suppressor) due to the shapes and sizes of through-holes 1056” ([0055]). Furthermore, Korolik clearly teaches that “(a)n adjustable electrical bias may also be applied to showerhead 1053 as an additional means to control the flow of ionic species through showerhead 1053” ([0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to generate some plasma at least in the vicinity of the showerhead inside the substrate processing region 1070 from this electrical bias, or from the interaction between the ionized species that pass through the showerhead and the process gases Alternately, since Korolik teaches that a plasma may be ignited within the region 1070 below a showerhead 1053 ([0051], Fig. 3A) by applying an AC voltage between showerhead 1053 and the pedestal or bottom of the chamber ([0051-0052]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to form at least some plasma of the process gases in the process region 1070 during the etching by using the RF applied to the showerhead 1053. Korolik further teaches that the pressure in “the substrate processing region is between about 0.1 Torr and about 50 Torr” ([0029], emphasis added) or “below or about 5 Torr” ([0059], emphasis added). Korolik is silent about the range of the pressure “about” 0.1 Torr. Takeya, also directed to a selective plasma etching of Si with respect to silicon germanium (abstract), teaches that the selective etching may be at a pressure 1.33-133 Pa (10 mTorr to 1000 mTorr) ([0070, 0010], Claim 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use a pressure less than 0.1 Torr, such as less than 30 mTorr or less than 10 mTorr, in the selective plasma etching of Si with respect to silicon germanium of Korolik because Korolik teaches that the pressure may be about 0.1-50 Torr or below 5 Torr, and Takeya teaches that pressure of 10-1000 mTorr would be effective for such selective etching. It is noted that due to normal fluctuations during manufacturing, the actual pressure in a process chamber may deviate from the pressure setpoint by some amount.--Claims 4, 5: Korolik further teaches that the plasma may be generated by using a RF power 10-5000 W ([0028]).--Claim 8: Korolik further teaches that the temperature in the processing region is 30-300°C ([0130]).--Claim 9: Korolik further teaches to supply inert gases, such as argon, to the remote plasma system. It is noted that the gases from remote plasma system would flow into the processing region.([0025, 0033, 0044, 0055]).--Claim 10: Korolik further teaches that the NF3 gas flow may be 5-500 sccm and the NH3 gas flow may be 20-2000 sccm ([0056]). These overlaps the claimed ranges recited in claim 10.--Claim 11: Korolik further teaches that the plasma is devoid of oxygen (claim 14).--Claims 12, 15, 18: It is noted that NH3 is both a hydrogen-containing precursor and a nitrogen-containing precursor.--Claims 14, 17, 19: Although Korolik fails to disclose the fluorine-containing precursor and the nitrogen-containing precursor form a passivation compound and an etch compound when contacting the at least one layer of silicon-containing material and the at least one layer of silicon-and-germanium-containing material, wherein the passivation compound comprises carbon, hydrogen, and fluorine materials, and wherein the etch compound comprises nitrogen, hydrogen, and fluorine materials, or the fluorine-containing precursor, the nitrogen-containing precursor, the hydrogen-containing precursor, and an inert precursor form the passivation compound and the etch compound; the passivation compound passivates the at least one layer of silicon-and- germanium-containing material; and the etch compound removes the at least one layer of silicon-containing material, since the process gases, the plasma and the substrate taught by Korolik are the same as Appellant’s, such effect must occur, as taught by Appellant. According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.--Claim 16: Korolik further teaches that “(s)ilicon germanium may have an atomic silicon percentage greater than 28%, 35%, 45%, 55% or 65% in embodiments” ([0038]).
Claims 6-7 and 20 rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Korolik in view of Takeya as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Kanarik: --Claims 6, 7, 20: Korolik modified by Takeya teaches the invention as above. Korolik fails to teach pulsing the RF power. Kanarik teaches that when plasma etching a substrate, it would be advantageous to pulse RF power and gas flows ([0016-0017]) to improve ion-to-radical flux ratios, selectivity, uniformity and reverse RIE lag effect ([0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to pulse the RF power and gas flows in the etching taught by Korolik because Kanarik teaches that this would advantageously improve ion-to-radical flux ratios, selectivity, uniformity and reverse RIE lag effect. Kanarik further teaches that the pulsing duty cycle may vary as needed for a particular process ([0025]), such as 40% ([0018]), and that the pulsing frequency is lower than the RF frequency, such as 100 Hz ([0017]).
Claim 13 rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Korolik in view of Takeya as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yamada: --Claim 13: Korolik modified by Takeya teaches the invention as above. Korolik further teaches that other sources of fluorine, such as a fluorocarbon, may be used to augment NF3 ([0020]). Korolik fails to teach the process gas comprises CF4. Yamada teaches that reactive ion etching of silicon may be performed using CF4 (Col. 27, Lines 59-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use CF4 as the fluorocarbon to augment NF3 in the etching taught by Korolik because Yamada teaches that this would be effective.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 7, 2026 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the previously cited prior arts do not teach the amended feature in Claims 1, 12 and 20, this argument is not persuasive. The Board decision clearly states that one of skill in the art may perform the selective etching at 30 mTorr in the invention of Korolik modified by Luong.--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the previously cited prior arts do not teach the amended feature in Claims 8 and 15, this argument is not persuasive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a pressure less than 10 mTorr in the selective plasma etching of Si with respect to silicon germanium of Korolik because Korolik teaches that the pressure may be about 0.1-50 Torr or below 5 Torr, and Luong teaches that pressure “up to 200 mTorr, e.g. 50 mTorr” ([0035], emphasis added), or “less than about 50 mTorr” would be effective for such selective etching.--To further clarify the rejections, alternate grounds of rejection based on Takeya instead of Luong, to supply the feature of the process pressure are shown above.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights