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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species of Fig. 9 in the reply filed on 3/3/26 is acknowledged. Claims 18, 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/3/26.
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 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15-17 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. Claim 4 recites the recess. However, it is unclear which recess it is referring to since claim 1 recites a first recess and a second recess. Claim 7 recites the another film, the boundary and the recess. However, these elements were not previously recited in claim 1, and it is unclear what they are specifically referring and from whence those elements came from and their relation with the other elements in the claim. Further, it has the same issue regarding the recess when first and second recesses were mentioned in claim 1. Claim 8 recites the material. However, this material was not mentioned or introduced in claim 1, and it is unclear if this material is referring to a specific component or subcomponent of the organic/organic protective films or their entireties. Claim 11 recites the bottom and the recess. However, as discussed previously it is unclear which specific first or second recess it is referring to and the bottom of this ambiguous recess was also not mentioned. Claim 14 also recites the recess when it previously introduced a first and a second recess. Therefore, it is unclear which of the two recesses it is referring to. Claim 15 recites the oxygen gas, the fluorocarbon gas, the bottom, the boundary, the material. However, these elements were not previously introduced and it is unclear what their provenances are/how they came about and their relationships with the other claim elements. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Dependent claims 5, 16, 17 are also rejected by dependency to rejected claims 4, 15.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomura (US 20170323825) in view of Watanabe (US 20150325415).
Regarding claim 1. Tomura teaches in the drawings a plasma processing apparatus (plasma processing apparatus 10 [36] fig. 3), comprising: a chamber (process vessel 12 [36] fig. 3) having at least one gas inlet (eg gas inlet port 36c [45] allowing gas to enter 12 at the top fig. 3) and at least one gas outlet (eg gas outlet/discharge holes 34a [45] allow gas to flow out from the showerhead into the process space and/or bottom opening to exhaust pipe 52 for gas to exit 12 [49] fig. 3); a substrate support (wafer mount table pd [43 44]) disposed in the chamber (fig. 3); a plasma generator (RF generator 62 for plasma and/or plasma generating electrode LE [50 51]) configured to generate a plasma from a gas in the chamber ([50 51 56 59] fig. 3); and a controller (control unit cnt controls entire processing of the apparatus [53]) but does not teach it is configured to cause: (a) placing a substrate on the substrate support. However, Watanabe teaches in fig. 1, 3, 8 the controller (cnt [54-56]) configured to cause: (a) placing a substrate on the substrate support ([33] the control method step 1 placing wafer on support table PD). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Tomura in order to automate all the processing steps which would ensure process quality/reduce human error and efficiency due to automation and allow for control customization [54-55].
Tomura further teaches the substrate including an etching target film (the lower layer/layer portion of R1 formed in the recess between R2, fig 2ab), an organic film (R1 upper layer at the level above R2 and which is organic [34] fig. 2ab) on the etching target film (fig. 2ab, upper R1 layer on the lower R1 layer between said R2) and a mask (mask MK [33-34]) on the organic film (Fig. 2ab, MK on the upper R1); the controller configured to cause: (b) performing a first plasma etching to form a first recess in the organic film ([55-57] the controller controlled MT [53 54], including an initial phase of the plasma etch, as part of to create upper opening/recess OP1 that cuts thru most of the upper R1 layer, fig. 4a-7b [54-59]); (c) forming an organic protective film on a sidewall of the first recess in the organic film (fig. 4a-7b a fluorocarbon/organic layer FL [57 60-66 73 76] formed at least on sidewall of OP1 in the upper layer of R1);
(d) performing a second plasma etching to etch a bottom of the first recess in the organic film until the etching target film is exposed (as the said plasma etch progresses, an extended/second phase of said plasma etch that etches R1 and goes to the height of top of R2 where the lower layer R1 is and right before OP2); (e) performing a third plasma etching to etch the exposed etching target film through the mask and the etched organic film, thereby forming a second recess in the etching target film (the last phase of the plasma etch, that etches the top of the lower R1 layer, where the plasma must flow past MK, and the upper R1 layer before reaching the lower R1 layer, creating OP2 in the lower R1 layer, fig. 4a-7b, [57]); and (f) forming an additional organic protective film on a sidewall of the second recess in the etching target film (additional/extended FL layers are formed on sides of OP2 in the lower R1 layer, fig. 4a-7b).
Regarding claim 2. Tomura in view of Watanabe teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to alternately repeat (c) and (d) ([37] it is noted to those skilled in the art of plasma processing that said etching/forming polymer as part of the controlled etch that this is the Bosch process, where the FL is formed/built up as the etch progresses, hence as the c and d steps occur as the etch proceeds near the bottom of OP1, the etching of an incremental amount towards the base of OP1/top of OP2, followed by the FL polymer covering the newly etched/revealed sides of the bottom of OP1 and repeat).
Regarding claim 3. Tomura in view of Watanabe teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the mask contains silicon (it is noted that this is a detail of the workpiece and does not structurally limit the apparatus, MPEP 2114, 2115; various masks may be used and exchanged with different materials according to user requirement; further Tomura teaches organic material such as SiOCH [34] and it would be obvious to use this as another organic material for the mask, for instance to save material costs/improve process simplicity by using common materials instead of different types).
Regarding claim 4. Tomura in view of Watanabe teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the controller is configured to start (c) when an aspect ratio, of a depth of the recess divided by a width of the recess, is 5 or lower, however Tomura teaches in [86] an experiment between low aspect ratio of 1 (250/250) and vs 6.25 (250/40). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Tomura to apply at least the low aspect ratio case/AR 1 to the examples of Figs. 5, 6 for the upper recess, eg OP1 or steps a, b after most of OP1 is formed to make them comparable/consistent when comparing with experimental cases [64 86].
Regarding claim 5. Tomura in view of Watanabe teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the organic protective film is conformally formed on a surface of a substrate, that includes the organic film, after (b) is performed (the FL has the same linearity/curvature as the side surface of the substrate, i.e. sidewall of the upper layer of R1/OP1; after the main etch of OP1 since the FL coating is formed in tandem with the etch as prev discussed).
Regarding claim 7. Tomura in view of Watanabe teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to stop (b) before the bottom of the recess reaches the boundary between the another film and the organic film (the b phase formation of OP1 is stopped, as part of stopping the entire plasma etch before the bottom of OP1/2 reaches the boundary between R1 and R2, figs. 4-7).
Regarding claim 8. Tomura in view of Watanabe, teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the material of the organic protective film is different from the material of the organic film (FL is fluorocarbon while R1 is SiOCH [34 57]; further, this is directed to details of the substrate/product made which does not limit the apparatus, MPEP 2114 2115).
Regarding claim 9. Tomura in view of Watanabe, teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a density of the organic protective film is higher than a density of the organic film (again, this is directed to details of the substrate/product made which does not limit the apparatus, MPEP 2114 2115; furthermore, since this is the Bosch process as previously discussed, it would be obvious to those skilled in the art that the FL is a fluorocarbon polymer material thus formed of long chains of carbon based material vs simple organic with few/since carbon such as SiOCH and thus would have higher C density).
Regarding claim 10. Tomura in view of Watanabe, teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the organic protective film does not contain silicon (again, this is directed to details of the substrate/product made which does not limit the apparatus, MPEP 2114 2115; further, the FL is fluorocarbon and does not have Si).
Regarding claim 11. Tomura in view of Watanabe, teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the organic protective film is not formed on the bottom of the recess (again, this is directed to details of the substrate/product made which does not limit the apparatus, MPEP 2114 2115; further, in Fig. 6a, there is no FL at the bottom of the recess OP1/2).
Regarding claim 12. Tomura in view of Watanabe teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller is further configured to (h) remove the organic protective film after (d) is performed and before (c) is repeated (some of the FL is removed as part of the reduction [60 66 67] eg fig. 4ab 7ab, which occurs after the etches have been done to the lower R1 layer and before c is repeated, for instance for a new substrate).
Regarding claim 13. Tomura in view of Watanabe teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to perform a process including (a), (b), (c), and (d) using a substrate processing system including a plurality of processing modules (as discussed, the apparatus 10 is also a wafer process system w/ many processing modules/components such as cnt, 12, plasma parts, that all contribute to wafer processing).
Claim(s) 6, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomura (US 20170323825) in view of Watanabe (US 20150325415) and Lu (US 20190181041).
Regarding claim 6. Tomura in view of Watanabe, teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the controller is further configured to (g) perform an ashing process to remove the organic film after (e) is performed, however Lu teaches in fig. 10 perform an ashing process to remove the organic film ([22] ash removes organic 145 layer after etching thru at least one etch layer below such as 140 down to 130). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Tomura to create the device that has improve via, skip via and lessening bowing/bending [6].
Regarding claim 14. Tomura in view of Watanabe teaches a plasma processing apparatus, comprising: a chamber having at least one gas inlet and at least one gas outlet; a substrate support disposed in the chamber; a plasma generator configured to generate a plasma from a gas in the chamber; and a controller configured to cause: (a) placing a substrate on the substrate support, the substrate including an etching target film, an organic film on the etching film and a mask on the organic film; (b) performing a first plasma etching to form a first recess in the organic film; (c) forming an organic protective film on a sidewall of the first recess in the organic film; (d) performing a second plasma etching to etch a bottom of the first recess in the organic film until the etching target film is exposed; (e) performing a third plasma etching to etch the exposed etching target film through the mask and the etched organic film, thereby forming a second recess in the etching target film (all the previous, see claim 1) ; (f) performing an ashing process to remove the etched organic film (further in view of Lu, see claim 6); (g) forming an additional organic protective film on a sidewall of the second recess in the etching target film (see claim 1), wherein (c) is started when an aspect ratio, of a depth of the recess divided by a width of the recess, is 5 or lower (see claim 4), and the organic protective film is conformally formed on the sidewall of the first recess in the organic film (see claim 5; the FL has the same linearity/curvature as the side surface of the substrate, i.e. sidewall of the upper layer of R1/OP1 formed in the upper layer of R1).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US 20150325415) in view of Tomura (US 20170323825).
Regarding claim 15. Watanabe teaches a plasma processing apparatus ([36]), comprising: a chamber (chamber 12 [36]) having at least one gas inlet and at least one gas outlet (gas inlet 36c and at least gas outlets 34a and at 52 [46-50] exhaust which are equivalent to those disc in claim 1 as in Tomura); a substrate support disposed in the chamber (PD, [59] also same as disc in claim 1); a plasma generator configured to generate a plasma from a gas in the chamber (the RF power sources 62 64, and LE electrode, same as disc in claim 1); and a controller (the cnt, same as disc in claim 1) configured to cause: (a) providing a substrate (see claim 1, eg step ST1 as part of a controller process MT1) including a silicon-containing film (the etching target film in claim 1, which is the lower part/film part of 106, made of SiO [32-34]), but does not teach an organic film on the silicon-containing film; However, Tomura teaches the R1, equivalent to the first region, as SiOCH/organic as disc in claim 1. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Watanabe to use an alternate material to SiO [34].
Watanabe further teaches a mask on the organic film (mask 108 on 106); (b) forming a recess on the organic film (fig. 4a-5 showing the recess formed in the upper layer portion of 106) by etching the organic film using plasma generated from the oxygen-containing gas ([68-70] etching via plasma containing O2 gas); (c) forming an organic protective film on a side wall defining the recess (fig. 6a the PF fluorocarbon [66] formed on side of the recess); (d) performing an additional plasma etching on the organic film after (c) (more etching down fig. 6bc); (e) alternately repeating (b) and (c) (as disc previously, Watanabe also uses Bosch-like process, hence as can be seen fig. 6a-c as etch goes down, the PF also is formed in tandem, hence there is etch then PF formation repeatedly); and (f) etching the silicon-containing film by plasma generated from the fluorocarbon gas after the silicon-containing film is partially exposed by (d) (eg fig. 6ab where the lower layer portion of 106 is exposed as the FC plasma etch [22 25 26] proceeds downward),
wherein (b) is stopped before the bottom of the recess reaches the boundary between the silicon-containing film and the organic film (eg step Fig. 5a 6a the etch is stopped momentarily before reaching the top of the lower layer portion of 106/interface between lower and upper layer portions of 106, where in fig. 6a the PF is formed on the interface before etching/recess reaching the interface), the organic film is a spin-on carbon film or an amorphous carbon film (as disc, it is a carbon/organic film which contains carbon atoms; it is noted the film is based on the structure not the process, hence it is a solid and formed on the wafer, being same in structure as claimed; further Tomura teaches amorphous carbon [80] which may be used as an alternate), the organic film has a thickness of 3 um or more (the thickness is a result effective parameter since it affects temperature difference [66] and hence it would be obvious to optimize the thickness of the organic film to control thermal difference), the mask is an antireflection film containing silicon (as discussed, the substrate/workpiece details and materials are intended use and do not structurally limit the apparatus, MPEP 2115 2114; various materials may be used for the mask according to user requirement), and the material of the organic protective film is different from the material of the organic film (as discussed, fluorocarbon vs SiOCH).
Regarding claim 16. Watanabe in view of Tomura teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 15, wherein, in (b), the controller is configured to cause: (b1) adsorbing a first organic compound onto the surface of the substrate by supplying a first precursor gas containing the first organic compound to the substrate (as disc such as the fluorocarbon on the substrate supplying the fluorocarbon plasma gas materials to etch/deposit on the substrate via Bosch as prev discussed), and (b2) forming an organic protective film using a polymerization of the first organic compound and a second organic compound by supplying a second precursor gas containing the second organic compound to the substrate (such as the combination of difference fluorocarbons [47] as part of the plasma and used to form the fluorocarbon polymer coating), the second organic compound being different from the first organic compound ([47] the difference FC gases are used).
Regarding claim 17. Watanabe in view of Tomura teaches the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 16, wherein, in (b), the controller is further configured to cause heating the substrate to cause the polymerization of the first organic compound and the second organic compound (as discussed, the controlled processing plasma itself is energetic which heats up the substrate in the process also [55 54 59] another controlled heater is used to heat the wafer during the entire process).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUECHUAN YU whose telephone number is (571)272-7190. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/YUECHUAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights