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 with respect to claim(s) 21-34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to “causing the substrate support to be set to a temperature of less than about 0°C”, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2016/0308112 to Tan et al in view of United States Patent No. 5972794 to Katakura et al is presented below.
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.
Claim(s) 21-24 and 26-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2016/0308112 to Tan et al in view of United States Patent No. 5972794 to Katakura et al.
In regards to Claim 21, Tan teaches an apparatus Fig. 5 for processing a substrate 519 having a substrate surface (top of 517 [0079]), the apparatus comprising: a process chamber 501, 524 comprising a showerhead (plurality of gas flow inlets 560, 570, process gases [0081-0082]) and a substrate support 517 for holding the substrate having a material (see material of substrates in 300 Fig. 3A-3F [0047-0053]), a plasma generator 539, 541, 533 [0080], and a controller 530 having at least one processor and a memory [0018; 0090-0092], wherein the at least one processor and the memory are communicatively connected with one another, the at least one processor is at least operatively connected with flow-control hardware [0018; 0081-0082], and the memory stores machine-readable instructions for etching a refractory metal (ruthenium) on the substrate (as shown in Fig. 3A-3F), the machine-readable instructions comprising: causing the substrate comprising an exposed refractory metal surface to be provided to the process chamber 202 Fig. 2; causing the exposed refractory metal surface to be exposed to a modification gas to modify the exposed refractory metal surface and form a modified refractory metal surface step 206 [0059-0069] forming 450b/absorbed layer; and causing the modified refractory metal surface to be exposed to an energetic particle 440 to preferentially remove the modified refractory metal surface relative to an underlying unmodified refractory metal surface [0063-0064]; wherein the exposed refractory metal surface after removing the modified refractory metal surface is as smooth or smoother than the substrate surface before exposing the substrate surface to the modification gas (as shown in the comparison of surface texture of Fig. 4A-4F, Fig. 4F being smother with the flat line of 411 [0028-0109].
Tan teaches the substrate support is set to a temperature that is between 10-250°C but can be changed depending on the process operation and specific recipe [0085].
Tan does not expressly teach that the temperature is set to a temperature of less than about 0°C.
Katakura teaches that dry etching can be performed at extremely low temperatures, wherein there is selective metal etching, and the temperature is preferable performed at -100 to -120°C substrate temperature (see claims 1-20; Col. 3 line 45-Col. 8 line 30). Katakura teaches that etching at these temperatures allows for anistropic etching controllable (Col. 5 lines 6-11).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Tan to set the temperature of the substrate (and thus implicitly the substrate support, as the substrate chuck controls the temperatures of the process operation in Tan which is also implicit in Katakura) to below 0°C, or -120°C as per the teachings of Katakura for the desired processing of dry etching/anistropic etching. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of controlling the etching for desired anistropic etching. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
In regards to Claim 22, Tan teaches the apparatus further comprises an inert gas source for delivering an inert gas to the plasma generator to generate the energetic particle [0057; 0028-0109].
In regards to Claim 23, Tan teaches the apparatus further comprises an oxygen-containing gas source to provide oxygen-containing gas in the modification gas [0048; 0028-0109].
In regards to Claim 24, Tan teaches the apparatus further comprises an chlorine-containing gas source to provide chlorine-containing gas in the modification gas [0062-0063; 0028-0109].
In regards to Claim 26, Tan does not expressly teach no bias is applied to the substrate support when the exposed refractory metal surface is exposed to the modification gas.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Tan is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Tan would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to “have no bias is applied to the substrate support when the exposed refractory metal surface is exposed to the modification gas”, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Tan and that of the claim.
In regards to Claim 27, Tan teaches the plasma generator generates the energetic particle by applying a power of about 100-1000W [0106; 0028-0109].
In regards to Claim 28, Tan teaches the machine-readable instructions to cause the exposed refractory metal surface to be exposed to the modification gas comprises machine-readable instructions to set a duration of the exposure to about 0.1-5 seconds [0098; 0028-0109].
In regards to Claim 9, Tan teaches the controller further comprises machine-readable instructions to set a pressure of the process chamber to about 50-100mT when the exposed refractory metal surface is exposed to the modification gas [0098; 0028-0109].
In regards to Claim 30, Tan teaches a bias is applied to the substrate support when the modified refractory metal surface is exposed to the energetic particle [0056; 0028-0109].
In regards to Claim 31, Tan teaches the bias is applied at a power of about 10- 150V [0056; 0028-0109].
In regards to Claim 32, Tan teaches the machine-readable instructions to cause the modified refractory metal surface to be exposed to the energetic particle comprises machine-readable instructions to set a duration of the exposure to about 0.1-10 seconds [0098; 0028-0109].
In regards to Claim 33, Tan teaches the controller further comprises machine- readable instructions to set a pressure of the process chamber to about 0.5-20mT when the modified refractory metal surface is exposed to the energetic particle [0098; 0028-0109].
In regards to Claim 34, Tan teaches the substrate support is set to a temperature of about -70°C to 150°C [0085; 0028-0109].
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2016/0308112 to Tan et al in view of United States Patent No. 5972794 to Katakura et al, as per the rejection of Claim 21 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2006/0016781 to Kuwabara et al.
The teachings of Tan in view of Katakura are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 25, Tan in view of Katakura does not expressly teach the controller comprises machine-readable instructions for causing a mixture of about 10-20% oxygen-containing gas and about 90- 80% chlorine-containing gas to be introduced to the process chamber.
Kuwabara teaches that the etching gas formula can have a 10% oxygen gas added to chloring gas [0026; 0015-0041].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Tan in view of Katakura to have the 10% oxygen gas and 90% chlorine gas, as per the teachings of Kuwabara, for plasma etching. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The change in the recipe/method would also implicitly change the controller and its machine readable instructions and thus would have instructions for causing a mixture of about 10-20% oxygen-containing gas and about 90- 80% chlorine-containing gas to be introduced to the process chamber. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
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 TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716