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 .
(RCE)Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission of an RCE filed on 11/26/2025 has been entered.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 #1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2005/0101093), hereinafter referred to as "Cheng" as modified by Li et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0270749), hereinafter referred to as "Li" and in further view of Allen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0173067), hereinafter referred to as "Allen".
Cheng shows, with respect to claim #1, an etching method, comprising:(a) providing a substrate (fig. #2B, item 201)(paragraph 0015), the substrate including a first region (fig. #Ex1, item FR1) and a second region (fig. #Ex1, item SR1), the second region comprising silicon oxide (fig. #2B, item 209) (paragraph 0015), the first region (fig. #Ex1, item FR1) comprising a material (polysilicon; fig. #Ex1, item 207) different from a material for the second region (paragraph 0014).
[AltContent: textbox (First Region; FR1)][AltContent: ]
[AltContent: textbox (Ex1)][AltContent: textbox (Second Region; SR1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
533
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cheng substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Cheng fails to show, with respect to claim #1, a method comprising; forming a deposit selectively on the first region and not on the second region with a first plasma generated from a first process gas containing a carbon monoxide gas or a carbonyl sulfide gas; and(c) etching the second region.
Li teaches, with respect to claim #1, a method comprising; forming a deposit selectively (at least a portion) on the first region and not on the second region with a first plasma generated from a first process gas containing a carbon monoxide gas or a carbonyl sulfide gas; and etching the second region (paragraph 0110, 0118).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #1, to modified the invention of Cheng as modified by the invention of Li, which teaches a method comprising; forming a deposit selectively on the first region and not on the second region with a first plasma generated from a first process gas containing a carbon monoxide gas or a carbonyl sulfide gas; and etching the second region, to incorporate a structural condition with high purity deposition and faster growth rates, as taught by Li
Cheng as modified by Li substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Cheng as modified by fail to show, with respect to claim #1, a method comprising wherein the first region and the second region being exposed and plasma etching the second region while the first region covered by the deposit.
Allen teaches, with respect to claim #1, a method comprising wherein the first region (fig. #2, item 102; ARC layer) and the second region (fig. #2, item 104) being exposed and plasma etching the second region while the first region covered by the deposit (paragraph 0005-0006, 0013).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #1, to modified the invention of Cheng as modified by the invention of Li, with the invention of Allen, which teaches a method comprising wherein the first region and the second region being exposed and plasma etching the second region while the first region covered by the deposit, to incorporate a structural condition with material that can be etched without damage to the underline area, as taught by Allen.
//
Claim #2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2005/0101093), hereinafter referred to as "Cheng" as modified by Li et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0270749), hereinafter referred to as "Li" and Allen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0173067), hereinafter referred to as "Allen", as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above, and in further view of Coburn et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2001/0012694), hereinafter referred to as "Coburn".
Cheng as modified by Li and Allen, substantially shows the invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Cheng as modified by Li and Allen, fails to show, with respect to claim #2, an etching method wherein the second region comprises silicon oxide, and includes forming a different deposit containing a fluorocarbon on the substrate with plasma generated from a second process gas containing a fluorocarbon gas, and etching the second region by feeding ions in plasma generated from a noble gas to the substrate on which the different deposit is formed.
Coburn teaches, with respect to claim #2, an etching method wherein the second region (fig. #1, item 18) comprises silicon oxide (paragraph 0008), and includes forming a different deposit containing a fluorocarbon on the substrate with plasma generated from a second process gas containing a fluorocarbon gas (paragraph 0006, 0014), and etching the second region by feeding ions (fig. #1, item 23) (paragraph 0008) in plasma generated from a noble gas to the substrate on which the different deposit is formed (paragraph 0008, 0014).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #2, to modified the invention of Cheng as modified by Li and Allen, with the modification of the invention of Coburn, which teaches, an etching method wherein the second region comprises silicon oxide, and includes forming a different deposit containing a fluorocarbon on the substrate with plasma generated from a second process gas containing a fluorocarbon gas, and etching the second region by feeding ions in plasma generated from a noble gas to the substrate on which the different deposit is formed, to incorporate a structural condition that would provide a means of selectively etching oxide films against an underlying silicon containing layer, as taught by Coburn.
Cheng as modified by Li , Allen and Coburn, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #2 above.
Cheng as modified by Li and Allen, fails to show, with respect to claim #3, an etching method wherein (b) and (c) are repeated alternately.
Coburn teaches, with respect to claim #3, an etching method wherein (b) and (c) are repeated alternately (paragraph 0008, 0014).
The Examiner notes, Cheng as modified by Li, Allen and Coborn discloses the claimed invention except explicitly stating the repeating of steps. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to repeat the steps as taught by Lei as modified by Coborn to obtain the desired thickness or depth, since it has-been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #3, to modified the invention of Cheng as modified by Li, with the modification of the invention of Coburn, which teaches, an etching method wherein an etching method wherein (b) and (c) are repeated alternately, as taught by Coburn.
Cheng as modified by Li and Allen, fail to show, with respect to claim #4, an etching method wherein side and bottom portions of the second region are surrounded by the first region and is etched in a self-aligned manner.
Coburn teaches, with respect to claim #4, an etching method wherein side and bottom portions of the second region are surrounded by the first region and is etched in a self-aligned manner (fig. #1, item 14 and 18) (paragraph 0008, 0014, 0022).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #4, to modified the invention of Cheng as modified by Li and Allen, with the modification of the invention of Coburn, which teaches, an etching method wherein side and bottom portions of the second region are surrounded by the first region and is etched in a self-aligned manner, to incorporate a structural condition that would provide a means of selectively etching oxide films against an underlying silicon containing layer, as taught by Coburn.
Cheng as modified by Li and Allen, substantially shows the invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Cheng as modified by Li and Allen, fail to show, with respect to claim #5, an etching method wherein the first region includes a photoresist mask on the second region.
Coburn teaches, with respect to claim #5, an etching method wherein the first region includes a photoresist mask (fig. #1, item 16) on the second region (paragraph 0008, 0014, 0032).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #5, to modified the invention of Cheng as modified by Li and Allen, with the modification of the invention of Coburn, which teaches, an etching method wherein the first region includes a photoresist mask on the second region, to incorporate a structural condition that would provide a means of selectively etching oxide films against an underlying silicon containing layer, as taught by Coburn.
Cheng as modified by Li and Allen, fail to show, with respect to claim #6, an etching method wherein (b) and (c) are performed in a same chamber.
Coburn teaches, with respect to claim #6, an etching method wherein (b) and (c) are performed in a same chamber (fig. #4, item 63) (paragraph 0039).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #6, to modified the invention of Cheng as modified by Li and Allen, with the modification of the invention of Coburn, which teaches, an etching method wherein (b) and (c) are performed in a same chamber, to incorporate a production condition that would reduce possible contamination and disrupted manufacturing processes, as taught by Coburn.
//
Claim #7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2005/0101093), hereinafter referred to as "Cheng" as modified by Li et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0270749), hereinafter referred to as "Li" and Allen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0173067), hereinafter referred to as "Allen", as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above, and in further view of Cho et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 9,117,855), hereinafter referred to as "Cho".
Cheng as modified by Li and Allen, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Cheng as modified by Li and Allen, fail to show, with respect to claim #7, a method wherein (b) is performed in a first chamber, and (c) is performed in a second chamber.
Cho teaches, with respect to claim #7, a method wherein (b) is performed in a first chamber, and (c) is performed in a second chamber (column #13, line 53-64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #7, to modified the invention of Cheng as modified by Li and Allen, with the modification of the invention of Cho, which teaches, a method wherein (b) is performed in a first chamber, and (c) is performed in a second chamber, to incorporate a structural condition that would both reduce chances of contamination between successes process and reduce overall procedure time, as taught by Cho.
Cheng as modified by Li, Allen and Cho, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #7 above.
Cheng as modified by Li and Allen, fail to show, with respect to claim #8, a method further comprising: transporting the substrate from the first chamber to the second chamber through a vacuum environment between (b) and (c).
Cho teaches, with respect to claim #8, a method further comprising: transporting the substrate from the first chamber to the second chamber through a vacuum environment between (b) and (c) (column #13, line 53-64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #8, to modified the invention of Cheng as modified by Li and Allen, with the modification of the invention of Cho, which teaches, a method further comprising: transporting the substrate from the first chamber to the second chamber through a vacuum environment between (b) and (c), to incorporate a structural condition that would both reduce chances of contamination between successes process and reduce overall procedure time, as taught by Cho.
EXAMINATION NOTE
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andre’ Stevenson whose telephone number is (571) 272 1683 (Email Address, Andre.Stevenson@USPTO.GOV). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith can be reached on 571-272 2429. 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.
/Andre’ Stevenson Sr./
Art Unit 2899
12/15/2025
/ZANDRA V SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899