DETAILED ACTION
Claims 6, 9-10 and 13 are pending before the Office for review.
In the response filed August 14, 2026:
Claims 6 and 9 were amended.
No new matter is present.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 14, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHEN et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0103901).
With regards to claims 6 and 13, Shen discloses a plasma processing method of subjecting an Si substrate to deep etching by executing alternately and repeatedly a step of etching the Si substrate by using plasma, the etching stpe supplying a SF6 gas for generating plasma (Paragraphs [0122]-[0124]) and a step of depositing a protective film in a recess formed through the etching process by using plasma (Paragraphs [0024]-[0025], [0122]-[0125], [0138], [0147]), wherein in the depositing step, a plasma process gas being a mixed gas of C4F8 (Paragraph [0146]) and 2,3.3,3-tetrafluoropropene (Paragraphs [0125]-[0126]).
Shen does not explicitly disclose 2,3.3,3- tetrafluoropropene in the mixed gas and having a flow rate ratio of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene in the mixed gas being 20% or more and 50% or less is used as gas supplied for generating plasma; each depositing step occurs over a period of time, the period of time for each depositing step being controlled to form a thickness of the protective film such that a side wall rupture in the recess does not occur during a subsequent etching step, and the period of time is controlled for each depositing step such that the thickness of the protective film does not cause formation of a residue after a subsequent etching step.
However Shen discloses wherein the etching fluids and hydrogen polymer deposition fluids are introduced into the plasma chamber; wherein the flow rate ranges from approximately 0.1 sccm to approximately 1 slm; wherein the flow rate will vary from tool to tool wherein they are introduced separately into the chamber or a continuous flow of the hydrogen containing polymer deposition; wherein the flow rate of the etching fluid, fluid the hydrogen containing polymer deposition and inert gas may be adjusted to increase or decrease the number of radical species produced (Paragraphs [0139], [0144]). Shen in addition discloses wherein the hydrogen containing polymer fluid permit the etch rate to become more consistent notwithstanding the size of the aperture, the disclosed process may permit deep aperture silicon etching without the use of a stop layer (Paragraph [0135]) Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the flow rate ratio of 2,3.3,3- tetrafluoropropene in the mixed gas to amounts including 20% or more and 50% or less as claimed in order to adjust the concentration of radical species produced to permit deep aperture silicon etching without the use of a stop layer (Paragraphs [0135], [0139], [0144]) as taught by the modified teachings of Shen.
Shen further discloses wherein the a deposition step comprises flowing the precursor gas to form the polymer deposition layer wherein the formation of layer is formed to prevent any notching at the interface of the stop layer and Si layer (Paragraphs [0135]) wherein the introduction time of the deposition fluid is shorter than the interaction time of the etching fluid (Paragraph [0136]) wherein the polymer deposition is introduce for a duration such as 2 seconds and formation of a polymer deposition capable of forming polymers in deep etch apertures and easier to remove during the etching process (Paragraphs [0150]-0151]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the deposition step time to amounts including a period of time to form a thickness of protective film such that a die wall rupture does not occur and residue is not form after subsequent etching step because the reference of Shen teaches that such deposition times are enough to prevent any notching (Paragraph [0153]) and forming the polymer deep in the apertures while being easily removed (Paragraphs [0150]-[0151], MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). As such Shen renders obvious each depositing step occurs over a period of time, the period of time for each depositing step being controlled to form a thickness of the protective film such that a side wall rupture in the recess does not occur during a subsequent etching step, and the period of time is controlled for each depositing step such that the thickness of the protective film does not cause formation of a residue after a subsequent etching step.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Shen to include the flow rate ratio of 2,3.3,3- tetrafluoropropene in the mixed gas and a deposition step time as rendered obvious by Shen because the reference of Shen teaches that wherein the hydrogen containing polymer fluid permit the etch rate to become more consistent notwithstanding the size of the aperture, the disclosed process may permit deep aperture silicon etching without the use of a stop layer (Paragraph [0135]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired deposition and etching using the flow rate ratio and protective film deposition step time as rendered obvious by Shen. MPEP 2143D
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHEN et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0103901), as applied to claims 6, 13 above, and in further view of INOUE et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0001197).
With regards to claims 9 and 10, the modified teachings of Shen renders obvious wherein the etching step and the depositing step, the plasma is generated in a chamber (Paragraph [0143]).
The modified teachings of Shen are silent as to after the deep etching the substrate is completed, a cleaning process step of subjecting the chamber to a cleaning process is executed and wherein in the cleaning process step, the cleaning process is executed in the chamber by turning gas containing O2 into plasma and emission intensity of CO in the chamber is measured, and when a point at which an absolute value of a rate of change of the emission intensity of CO reaches 1 % or less is defined as an end point X, and when an elapsed time from start of execution of the cleaning process step to the end point X is defined as TO, a cleaning time T in the cleaning process step is determined by the following formula (1) T=1.5T0...(1).
Inoue discloses performing plasma processing process on a substrate wherein the plasma process comprises using a depositional gas and subsequent to processing the substrate; with either a substrate or no substrate in the chamber performing a cleaning process in the chamber wherein the plasma cleaning removes film deposited on the inner wall of the processing chamber; wherein an O2 gas is used in the plasma cleaning (Paragraphs [[0004], [0020]-[p0021], [0026][0046], [0051]-[0055]) which renders obvious a cleaning process step of subjecting the chamber to a cleaning process is executed and wherein in the cleaning process step, the cleaning process is executed in the chamber by turning gas containing O2 into plasma. Inoue further discloses if the processing time of the plasma cleaning is too short the deposit on the inner wall of the processing chamber cannot be removed and if too long specific parts in the processing chamber are changed in quality; wherein the processing time of the plasma cleaning need to be optimized by monitoring a transition of emission of light at a wavelength of a carbon component using a light emission detection unit during the plasma cleaning; wherein the time period required for the light emission intensity of the a carbon component to become less than 25% of a maximum value of the light emission intensities; a time period is in the range of the calculated time period to 1.5 time thereof is taken as an optimum value of the processing time of the plasma cleaning (Paragraph [0054]-[0055]). On of ordinary skill in the art would understand the cleaned carbon deposit to include CO with a cleaning gas of O2. As such Shen as modified by Inoue renders obvious to after the deep etching the substrate is completed, a cleaning process step of subjecting the chamber to a cleaning process is executed and wherein in the cleaning process step, the cleaning process is executed in the chamber by turning gas containing O2 into plasma and emission intensity of CO in the chamber is measured, and when a point at which an absolute value of a rate of change of the emission intensity of CO reaches 1 % or less is defined as an end point X, and when an elapsed time from start of execution of the cleaning process step to the end point X is defined as TO, a cleaning time T in the cleaning process step is determined by the following formula (1) T=1.5T0...(1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Shen to include cleaning and emission intensity as rendered obvious by Inoue because the reference of Inoue teaches that such plasma cleaning sufficiently removes unwanted deposition without the generating of additional particles which may contaminate the wafer to be processes (Paragraphs [0004], [0054]-[0055]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired substrate processing using the cleaning as rendered obvious by Inoue. MPEP 2143D
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 4-8 of Applicant’s response that the cited prior art does teach or render obvious Applicant’s claimed invention. In particular, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach or render obvious “… each depositing step occurs over a period of time, the period of time for each depositing step being controlled to form a thickness of the protective film such that a side wall rupture in the recess does not occur during a subsequent etching step, and the period of time is controlled for each depositing step such that the thickness of the protective film does not cause formation of a residue after a subsequent etching step.” Applicant argues that Shen does not teach nor discuss the control of the deposition time and therefore can be optimized. In addition Shen does not recognize the problem with eh protective film deposition step time and therefore cannot be optimized. Shen does not recognize that the time of the depositing step should be controlled to provide a sufficiently thick protective film to avoid the claimed side wall rupture during subsequent etching or creation of a residue during subsequent etching if the protective film is too thick.
Applicant argues that while Shen establishes a relationship between time of deposition and time of etching; there is nothing that teaches that the film deposition step on its own should be controlled in terms of thickness to avoid a later side wall rupture and later problematic residue after etching. It is Applicant’s position that the teachings in the cited paragraph do not tell the artisan that the timing of the deposition step is critical in avoiding the sidewall rupture problem and residue remaining after etching.
It is Applicant’s position that the control of the film depositing step is one that results in unexpected benefits as the sidewall rupture and residue problems noticed b the inventors. As such these are unexpected results and are a benefit that is not disclosed or discussed by Shen. As such, claim 6 is allowable over the prior art. The dependent claims are allowable based on their dependency. This is found unpersuasive.
It is the Examiner’s position that the cited prior art renders obvious Applicant’s claimed invention. In addition, it tis the Examiner’s position that the cited prior art renders obvious ““… each depositing step occurs over a period of time, the period of time for each depositing step being controlled to form a thickness of the protective film such that a side wall rupture in the recess does not occur during a subsequent etching step, and the period of time is controlled for each depositing step such that the thickness of the protective film does not cause formation of a residue after a subsequent etching step.”
Shen discloses:
[0135] As the disclosed hydrogen-containing polymer deposition fluids permit the etch rate to become more consistent notwithstanding the size of the aperture, the disclosed process may permit deep aperture silicon etching without the use of a stop layer. In addition to reducing processing costs and time associated with deposition of the stop layer, removal of the need for a stop layer using the disclosed hydrogen-containing polymer deposition fluids may also prevent any notching at the interface of the stop layer and Si layer.
[0136] The vapor of the etching fluid is introduced into a plasma reaction chamber having the substrate to be etched contained therein. The introduction time may range from approximately 0.001 seconds to approximately 30 seconds. The vapor of the hydrogen-containing polymer deposition fluid is subsequently introduced into the reaction chamber. The introduction time may range from approximately 0.001 seconds to approximately 30 seconds. The introduction time of the etching fluid is always longer than that of the hydrogen-containing polymer deposition fluid. The plasma etching and polymer deposition steps are repeated until the aperture has the desired aspect ratio. The resulting aperture may have an aspect ratio ranging from approximately 2:1 to approximately 100:1 and a width ranging from approximately 10 nm to approximately 2000 um (microns or micrometers). The length may range from 10 nm to 450 mm.
It is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the prior art as introducing deposition gas for a sufficient amount of time to deposit the polymer thus preventing the notching at the interface. In addition, the prior art of Shen discloses that during the cycle of polymer formation and etching a volatile by-produce is formed and removed (Paragraph [0147]); deposited polymers may be easily removed from the aperture (Paragraphs [0150]-[0151]). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the prior art of discussing the relationship between the polymer formation to prevent sidewall notching, removing deposited polymers during the etching step and removal of volatile by-products wherein such relationships may be optimized.
With regards to Applicant flow rat ratio, the Examiner maintains that Applicant’s showing of unexpected result is not commensurate in scope with the claim. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) MPEP 716.02(d) It is the Examiner’s position that Applicant’s specification does not show the criticality of the currently claimed range with regards to Applicant’s processing conditions. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 716.02(d)(II) Applicant has not demonstrated a sufficient number of test outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the range. The Examiner maintains that Applicant’s showing of unexpected results is not commensurate in scope with the claims as currently presented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE P. DUCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5502. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30 M-F.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 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 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.
/STEPHANIE P DUCLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights