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 1-8 and 18-19 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “plasma generator” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “plasma structure that is connected to an RF power supply (i.e. electrode or coil),” while the accepted meaning is “RF power supply.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Additionally, on paragraph [0052], the specification indicates that the first RF power supply 62 serves as an exemplary plasma generator. Hence, it’s unclear in claim 1 how a first radio-frequency power supply is configured to supply a first radio-frequency power to a plasma generator (i.e. first RF power supply).
For purpose of examination, a plasma generator is an upper electrode 30 (par.[0030]).
In light of the above, dependent claims 2-8 and 18-19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) at least due to dependency to rejected claim 1.
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.
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) 1-8 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson et al. (U.S. 2020/0066540) in view of Katsunuma (U.S. 2019/0362984) or Yokoyama et al. (U.S. 2021/0143017).
Referring to Figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0017]-[0032]), Hudson et al. disclose a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a plasma processing chamber 249 having at least one gas inlet (Fig. 2, par.[0018]); a substrate holder 208, 234 located in the plasma processing chamber (Fig. 2, par.[0018]); a plasma generator 206 located above the substrate holder (Fig. 2, par.[0018]); a first radio-frequency power supply 230 configured to supply a first radio-frequency power to the substrate holder or the plasma generator (Fig. 2, par.[0018]); a second radio-frequency power supply 230 configured to supply a second radio-frequency power to the substrate holder (Fig. 2, par.[0018]); and circuitry 235, 300 (Fig. 2, pars.[0018]-[0021]) configured to: perform control so that a substrate is placed on the substrate holder (Fig. 2); perform control so that to form a protective layer 112, 424 on a surface of a side wall defining a recess in a layer of the substrate (Figs. 1, 4D, par.[0025]), the protective layer containing phosphorus (par.[0032]), and perform control to etch the layer to increase a depth of the recess after the protective layer is formed (Fig. 4F, par.[0029]).
Hudson et al. is silent of the layer of the substrate includes an organic layer.
Referring to paragraphs [0035]-[0036], Katsunuma teach a plasma processing apparatus wherein it is conventionally known in the art for the layer EF of the substrate W includes an organic layer since it is conventionally known material used for a substrate for an electronic device. Referring to paragraphs [0067], Yokoyama et al. teach a plasma processing apparatus wherein it is conventionally known in the art for the layer MK of the substrate W includes an organic layer since it is conventionally known material used for a substrate for an electronic device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the substrate of Hudson et al. such that the layer of the substrate includes an organic layer as taught by Katsunuma or Yokoyama et al. since it is a conventionally known material used for a substrate for an electronic device. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
PNG
media_image1.png
840
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the plasma processing apparatus of Hudson et al. further includes wherein during the forming of the protective layer 112, 424: a precursor layer is formed on the surface of the side wall with a first gas 116 (Fig. 1, par.[0017]), and the protective layer is formed from the precursor layer with a second gas 120 (Fig. 1, par.[0017]), wherein the first gas or the second gas contains phosphorus (oar.[0032]).
With respect to claim 3, the plasma processing apparatus of Hudson et al. further includes wherein a plurality of layer deposition cycles, each including the forming of the precursor layer and the forming of the protective layer from the precursor layer, are performed sequentially (Fig. 1, par.[0025]).
With respect to claim 4, the plasma processing apparatus of Hudson et al. further includes wherein the plurality of layer deposition cycles include at least one layer deposition cycle in which the forming of the precursor layer (i.e. priming layer) is performed under a condition different from a condition under which at least another one of the plurality of layer deposition cycles (i.e. priming layer) is performed (pars.[0024]-[0025], i.e. different reactants [0031]-[0034]).
With respect to claim 5, the plasma processing apparatus of Hudson et al. further includes wherein the plurality of layer deposition cycles include at least one layer deposition cycle in which the forming of the protective layer from the precursor layer (i.e. by plasmaless process) is performed under a condition different than in which at least another one of the plurality of layer deposition cycles (i.e. priming layer by plasma) is performed (pars.[0024]-[0025], i.e. different reactants [0031]-[0034]).
With respect to claim 6, the plasma processing apparatus of Hudson et al. further includes wherein the circuitry 235, 300 is configured to sequentially perform a plurality of cycles that include the forming of the protective layer and the etching of the layer (Fig. 1, pars. [0025], [0029]).
With respect to claim 7, the plasma processing apparatus of Hudson et al. further includes wherein the plurality of cycles include at least one cycle in which the forming of the protective layer is performed under a condition (i.e. temperature) different from a condition under which at least another one of the plurality of cycles is performed (par.[0037]).
With respect to claim 8, the plasma processing apparatus of Hudson et al. further includes wherein the plurality of cycles include at least one cycle in which the etching of the layer is performed under a condition (i.e. temperature) different than in which at least another one of the plurality of cycles is performed (par.[0037]).
With respect to claim 18, the plasma processing apparatus of Hudson et al. further includes wherein the protective layer is formed by chemical vapor deposition or atomic layer deposition (pars.[0024], [0031]).
With respect to claim 19, the plasma processing apparatus of Hudson et al. further includes wherein the process gas contains at least one of O2, CO2, N2,H2, H20, or an inorganic compound with an N-H bond (par.[0032]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,350 in view of Hudson et al. (U.S. 2020/0066540).
Referring to claims 1 and 17, U.S. Patent No. 11,355,350 teach that a substrate is placed on the substrate holder; to form a protective layer on a surface of a side wall defining a recess in a layer of the substrate, the protective layer containing phosphorus, the layer of the substrate includes an organic layer, to etch the layer to increase a depth of the recess after the protective layer is formed.
U.S. Patent No. 11,355,350 is silent on the conventional apparatus components to perform the plasma process.
Hence, referring to Figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0017]-[0032]), Hudson et al. disclose a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a plasma processing chamber 249 having at least one gas inlet (Fig. 2, par.[0018]); a substrate holder 208, 234 located in the plasma processing chamber (Fig. 2, par.[0018]); a plasma generator 206 located above the substrate holder (Fig. 2, par.[0018]); a first radio-frequency power supply 230 configured to supply a first radio-frequency power to the substrate holder or the plasma generator (Fig. 2, par.[0018]); a second radio-frequency power supply 230 configured to supply a second radio-frequency power to the substrate holder (Fig. 2, par.[0018]); and circuitry 235, 300 (Fig. 2, pars.[0018]-[0021]) configured to: perform an etching process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the etching method of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,350 with the structural components of a plasma processing chamber having at least one gas inlet; a substrate holder located in the plasma processing chamber; a plasma generator located above the substrate holder; a first radio-frequency power supply configured to supply a first radio-frequency power to the substrate holder or the plasma generator; a second radio-frequency power supply configured to supply a second radio-frequency power to the substrate holder; and circuitry configured to: perform an etching method as taught by Hudson et al. since it is a conventionally known plasma processing apparatus that can be programmed to perform the desired etching method.
With respect to claim 2, the plasma processing apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,350 in view of Hudson et al. further includes wherein during the forming of the protective layer 112, 424: a precursor layer is formed on the surface of the side wall with a first gas 116 (Hudson et al.- Fig. 1, par.[0017]), and the protective layer is formed from the precursor layer with a second gas 120 (Hudson et al.- Fig. 1, par.[0017]), wherein the first gas or the second gas contains phosphorus (Hudson et al.- par.[0032]).
With respect to claim 3, the plasma processing apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,350 in view of Hudson et al. further includes wherein a plurality of layer deposition cycles, each including the forming of the precursor layer and the forming of the protective layer from the precursor layer, are performed sequentially (Hudson et al.- Fig. 1, par.[0025]).
With respect to claim 4, the plasma processing apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,350 in view of Hudson et al. further includes wherein the plurality of layer deposition cycles include at least one layer deposition cycle in which the forming of the precursor layer (i.e. priming layer) is performed under a condition different from a condition under which at least another one of the plurality of layer deposition cycles (i.e. priming layer) is performed (Hudson et al.- pars.[0024]-[0025], i.e. different reactants [0031]-[0034]).
With respect to claim 5, the plasma processing apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,350 in view of Hudson et al. further includes wherein the plurality of layer deposition cycles include at least one layer deposition cycle in which the forming of the protective layer from the precursor layer (i.e. by plasmaless process) is performed under a condition different than in which at least another one of the plurality of layer deposition cycles (i.e. priming layer by plasma) is performed (Hudson et al.- pars.[0024]-[0025], i.e. different reactants [0031]-[0034]).
With respect to claim 6, the plasma processing apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,350 in view of Hudson et al. further includes wherein the circuitry 235, 300 is configured to sequentially perform a plurality of cycles that include the forming of the protective layer and the etching of the layer (Hudson et al.- Fig. 1, pars. [0025], [0029]).
With respect to claim 7, the plasma processing apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,350 in view of Hudson et al. further includes wherein the plurality of cycles include at least one cycle in which the forming of the protective layer is performed under a condition (i.e. temperature) different from a condition under which at least another one of the plurality of cycles is performed (Hudson et al.- par.[0037]).
With respect to claim 8, the plasma processing apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,350 in view of Hudson et al. further includes wherein the plurality of cycles include at least one cycle in which the etching of the layer is performed under a condition (i.e. temperature) different than in which at least another one of the plurality of cycles is performed (Hudson et al.- par.[0037]).
With respect to claim 18, the plasma processing apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,350 in view of Hudson et al. further includes wherein the protective layer is formed by chemical vapor deposition or atomic layer deposition (Hudson et al.- pars.[0024], [0031]).
With respect to claim 19, the plasma processing apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,350 in view of Hudson et al. further includes wherein the process gas contains at least one of O2, CO2, N2,H2, H20, or an inorganic compound with an N-H bond (Hudson et al.- par.[0032]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new references Katsunuma’984 or Yokoyama et al.’017 teach a layer of the substrate includes an organic layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ishikawa’260 and Watanabe’415 teach a layer of the substrate includes an organic layer.
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 Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/Michelle CROWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716