DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 17916643 application filed October 03, 2022, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on April 9, 2026. Claims 1-5 and 7-17 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 6 and 18-33 acknowledged. Claims withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 filed on April 9, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretations
Claim 1 recites “supplying multiple, sequential pulses of radiofrequency power to an electrode of the plasma processing chamber, each of the sequential pulses of radiofrequency power including a first duration over which a first radiofrequency power profile exists immediately followed by a second duration over which a second radiofrequency power profile exists, the first radiofrequency power profile having greater radiofrequency power than the second radiofrequency power profile, the first duration less than the second duration, and the sequential pulses of radiofrequency power separated from each other by a third duration, wherein a sum of the first duration, the second duration, and the third duration is less than or equal to about 10 milliseconds, and wherein the first duration is within a range extending from about 10 microseconds to about 100 microseconds.” (emphases added). Although the specification discloses “Multiple, sequential pulses of radiofrequency power are supplied to an electrode of a plasma processing chamber to control a plasma within the plasma processing chamber. Each of the pulses of radiofrequency power includes a first duration over which a first radiofrequency power profile exists, immediately followed by a second duration over which a second radiofrequency power profile exists. The first radiofrequency power profile has greater radiofrequency power than the second radiofrequency power profile. The first duration is less than the second duration. And, the sequential pulses of radiofrequency power are separated from each other by a third duration. A radiofrequency signal generation system is provided to generate and control the multiple, sequential pulses of radiofrequency power” (abstract), it does not define the term “radiofrequency power profile”. The term “radiofrequency power profile” is not a conventional term and is not defined in the specification. Although the specification discloses in paragraph [0065] that “In the RF power pulse profile 401 of FIG. 4, the first RF power profile p1 has a substantially constant RF power level P2. However, in some embodiments, the first RF power profile p1 can be non-constant, i.e., can vary as a function of time. FIG. 6 shows an RF power pulse profile 601 that represents single-level RF power pulsing in which the RF power is pulsed between zero and a set power level P1, with a first RF power profile p1 that exceeds the set power level P1 and is non-constant, in accordance with some embodiments. The RF power pulse profile 601 is essentially the same as the RF power pulse profile 401, with the exception of the first RF power profile p1. The first RF power profile p1 of the RF power pulse profile 601 initially jumps to the power level P2, then decreases over time from the power level P2 to the power level P1. Specifically, the first RF power profile p1 of the RF power pulse profile 601 decreases in three steps over time to go from the power level P2 to the power level P1, where a first step extends over a duration d601, a second step extends over a duration d603, and a third step extends over a duration d605.”, this is not considered a definition of the term “radiofrequency power profile” According to Google AI Overview, “(a) radiofrequency (RF) power profile defines how an RF system, like a Wi-Fi access point, manages its signal strength, frequency, and channels, crucial for optimizing performance, meeting regulations, and managing interference in complex deployments. It's a set of configurations controlling parameters like transmit power (e.g., in dBm), channel selection, and duty cycles, allowing network admins to group devices and tailor wireless behavior for specific coverage areas or use cases, rather than configuring each device individually.” Therefore, for the purpose of examining the term “radiofrequency power profile” will be interpreted as a set of power of a radiofrequency signal, wherein the set may comprise different power levels including positive power, negative power and zero power Furthermore, the phrase “supplying multiple, sequential pulses of radiofrequency power” is interpreted as supplying at least two separate, sequential pulses of radiofrequency power, wherein pulses may or may not be identical, and that each of the pulses has its own duration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention..
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 7-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20210104382), hereinafter “Kim”:--Claims 1, 8, 9, 10: Kim teaches a method of plasma etching a substrate in a process chamber (Fig. 1), comprisingsupplying a process gas 22 into the chamber ([0071, 0031-0032]), the chamber is provided with a source power 51 having an frequency of 60 MHz ([0115], Fig. 26), and a power of 5-10 KW ([0073]). Fig. 29 of Kim is reproduced and illustrated below. The first duration, second duration and third duration are arbitrarily selected as shown, wherein the first duration is selected to be 1/20 of the length of a cycle, and the second duration is selected to be 1/4 of the length of a cycle. Since Kim teaches that the pulse 518 has a pulse frequency of about 1 KHz, the sum of the first duration, second duration and third duration is about 1 millisecond (ms), the time length of the first duration is about 50 microseconds and the time length of the first duration is about 250 microseconds. It is noted that the first duration is shorter than the second duration, and a power profile in the first duration is higher than a power profile in the second duration. It is noted that these satisfy the features recited in claims 8, 9 and 10.
PNG
media_image1.png
412
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
--Claim 4: Alternately, consider pulse 53 in Fig. 30 of Kim, where the first duration, second duration, third duration and fourth duration are arbitrarily selected as shown, wherein the first duration is about 1/20 of the cycle, the third duration is about 1/2 of the cycle where there is no pulse.
PNG
media_image2.png
205
727
media_image2.png
Greyscale
--Claim 7: It is noted that the Fig. 30 above shows that the sum of the first duration and the second duration is less than the third duration.--Claim 11: Kim further teaches that the substrate comprises a conductive nano-dot that is exposed during the etching ([0098]). Kim further teaches that the etching is performed on a stack comprising layers 110 alternate with layers 151, wherein layer 110 and layer 151 may be selected from the group consisting of polysilicon, silicon oxide, silicon carbide, silicon oxynitride, or silicon nitride so that one of them may be selectively etched relative to the other ([0063-0065], Fig. 11), wherein layers 151 are etched laterally to expose an inner layer comprising a first semiconductor layer 130, such as silicon ([0097-0099]), a dielectric layer 140 ([0100]), a second semiconductor layer 135 ([0102-0103]) and a second dielectric layer 150, such as silicon oxide ([0102-0104]).. It is noted that silicon carbide is carbon-based and is capable of being a hard mask.--Claim 12: Fig. 29 shows that in duration 1 the first radiofrequency power profile is a substantially constant first radiofrequency power, and the second radiofrequency power profile is a substantially constant second radiofrequency power.
Claims 15-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morimoto et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140363977), hereinafter “Morimoto”:--Claims 15, 16, 17: Kim teaches the invention as above. Kim further teaches that “Control of plasma characteristics may be important when implementing plasma processing methods (e.g. plasma etching and plasma deposition). Additional control may be gained from utilizing pulsing techniques to provide source power and bias power to a processing chamber with appropriate timing. A technique that includes SP pulses and/or BP pulses may sometimes be referred to as an advance pulsing technique (APT). An APT may be implemented using one or more waveform generators and controllers to control the shape and timing of the applied power.
In particular, for example, an APT may be implemented as a cyclic sequence of pulses including two or more loosely define phases. An SP pulse may be applied to a coupling element (e.g. coils of a helical resonator) to generate a high-density plasma containing ions and radicals during a first phase (e.g. an SP phase or a plasma generation phase). One or more BP pulses may be applied to a substrate holder to couple energy to ions and direct them toward a substrate supported by a substrate holder during a second phase (e.g. a BP phase or an ion acceleration phase). A third phase may be utilized in which the SP and/or BP are off to allow control of by-products within the processing chamber (e.g. an off phase or by-product management phase).([0018-0019])” Kim fails to teach generating RF signals according to a frequency control function. Morimoto, also directed to a method of plasma processing a substrate during manufacturing a semiconductor device, teaches that when using a pulsed plasma it is difficult to stabilize the plasma, and teach to resolve the problem by generating a function from a RF power supply, wherein the control part set the modulating parameters for the pulses by using the function so that the pulse can be generated by using a wave generator, wherein time information for control for output pulsing of the electromagnetic wave generation power supply is transmitted from the pulse generation unit and time-controlled electromagnetic waves are generated. Similarly, the radio-frequency bias power supply also generates radio-frequency bias output which is time-controlled based on the information transmitted from the pulse generation unit 121 ([0045-0046]). 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 the method taught by Morinoto to generate the pulse RF signals in the invention of Kim because Morimoto teaches that this would be effective.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-10 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ranjan et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20210249225), hereinafter “Ranjan”:--Claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 10: Ranjan teaches a method of controlling a plasma, comprisingloading a substrate 65 on a stage 70 in a chamber ([0066, Fig. 6);providing a SP pulse as shown in Fig. 4(f), which is reproduced and illustrated as Fig. D1 below, each cycle of the SP pulse has a first duration 412, a second duration 416, and a third duration after the second duration 416. It is noted that the first duration is shorter and has a higher power than the second duration. It is noted that the first duration 412 is selected to be about 1/20 of the cycle and the second duration 416 is about 1/4 of the cycle. Ranjan further teaches that the frequency of SP may be about 13-26 MHz ([0029]), wherein each pulse cycle has any duration, such as 1 ms ([0037]). Thus the first duration is about 50 microseconds, the second duration is about 250 microseconds, and the third duration is about 700 microseconds.
Fig. D1 : first duration 412 is about 1/20 of the cycle and the second duration 416 is about 1/4 of the cycle
PNG
media_image3.png
626
487
media_image3.png
Greyscale
--Claim 3: Ranjan further teaches that the SP pulse power may be about 500W ([0044]), wherein the SP pulse is applied to a coil electrode 60 above and outside the chamber (Fig. 6, [0066-0071])..
--Claims 1, 3, 4, 12: Alternately, the first duration 412 may be selected to be about 1/10 of the cycle and the second duration 416 is about 1/2 of the cycle, as shown in Fig. D2 below: Fig. D2: first duration 412 is about 1/10 of the cycle and the second duration 416 is about 1/2 of the cycle
PNG
media_image4.png
622
521
media_image4.png
Greyscale
--Claims 15, 16, 17: Ranjan further teaches that the RF power pulses are generated and controlled by a waveform generator and is matched and filtered prior to being applied to the chamber ([0067-0068], Fig. 6), and the pulse may be 1 μs or having constant frequency (Fig. 5, [0058]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to control the resolution of the frequency control function to about 1 ms in the invention of Ranjan since 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, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranjan in view of Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Doh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10347500), hereinafter “Doh”.--Claim 11: Ranjan modified by Park teaches the invention as above. Ranjan modified by Park fails to teach etching a metal layer.Doh, also directed to etching using a plasma chamber, teaches that the chamber may be used to etch a metal layer (Col. 8, Lines 38-46). 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 etch a metal layer in the chamber, as taught by Doh, in the invention of Ranjan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026 have been fully considered as follows:--First, it is noted that claim 1 is very broad. Not only the term “radiofrequency power profile” is not well defined, but because of the open-ended conditions, i.e. “comprising”, “including”, there are many other correlations of "durations" that can be articulated with rational underpinning. Any selection of the first duration, second duration and third duration may be selected, as shown above, according to the requirement of the claims. Due to the broadness and complexity of the claims, many scenarios regarding the first, second, and third durations may be selected from the many embodiments in the prior arts that would satisfy all limitations in the claims. Please also see Claim Interpretations above. For compact prosecution only a few of the scenarios are shown above. Due to the poor resolution of the figures in the previous Office action that could have caused confusions, more figures are included in the current Office action in order to further clarify the rejection. It is noted that they are based on the same embodiments that were cited in the previous Office action.--In respond to Applicant’s amendment, new grounds of rejection based on the existing prior arts are shown and explained above
Conclusion
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