CTNF 17/956,089 CTNF 87601 DETAILED ACTION This is the Office action based on the 17956089 application filed March 4, 2024, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on March 13, 2026. Claims 1-6, 8, 10-18, and 20-23 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s cancellation of claim 7, 9 and 19 acknowledged. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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.. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-27-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 5-6, 8 and 21-22 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 Oomori et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20170084467), hereinafter “Oomori”:--Claim 1, 2, 3, 6, 21, 22: Oomori teaches a method of etching, comprisingforming a stack comprising a hard mask layer 5 having an first opening over an amorphous carbon layer (ACL) 4, which is formed over a foundation layer 3 (Fig. 2C, [0003, 0007]);etching the ACL 4 through the opening in the hard mask layer 5 to form a second opening by using a plasma formed from a gas mixture comprising oxygen, an alkylsilane, an inert gas and an additive gas to adjust the etching rate and selectivity, such as hydrogen (Fig. 2D, [0033, 0037]), wherein the etching is performed at a temperature less than 50°C, preferably less than 20°C ([0042]) since a higher temperature reduces an amount of sidewall protection film so that a desired accuracy cannot be maintained ([0042]);etching the foundation layer 3 through the second opening ([0003]). Oomori further teaches that the gas mixture may consist of oxygen, alkylsilane, and the additive gas ([0037]), wherein oxygen is present at more than 10 vol%, preferably 90 vol% or more ([0035]), the alkylsilane is present at more preferably 0.1-4 vol.% relative to the flow rate of oxygen ([0034]), but is silent about a flow rate of the additive gas comprising hydrogen, and fails to teach the claimed O2: hydrogen-containing gas flow ratio. It is noted that Oomori does not discloses any sulfur-containing gas or halogen-containing gas, and that the above gases and temperature range overlaps the claimed range in claim 1. It is further noted that a plasma comprising H 2 and O 2 would form H 2 O vapor that would condense on the substrate, as taught by Applicant. Alternately, 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 an etching chemistry comprising a plasma generated from a gas mixture comprising H 2 and O 2 , selected from the list of possible gases provided by Oomori, to etch the ACL layer. It is noted that a plasma comprising H 2 and O 2 would form H 2 O vapor that would condense on the substrate, as taught by Applicant.--Claim 5: Oomori further teaches that the inert gas may comprise argon ([0036]).--Claim 8: Oomori further teaches that the etching may be an inductive coupled plasma (ICP) etching ([0044]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Oomori as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20200043744), hereinafter “Ito”:--Claim 4: Oomori teaches the invention as above. Oomori further teaches that the gas mixture may consist of oxygen , alkylsilane, an inert gas, and the additive gas, wherein oxygen is present at more than 10 vol%, preferably more than 90 vol% ([0035]), the alkylsilane is present at more preferably 0.1-4 vol.% relative to the flow rate of oxygen ([0035]), but is silent about a flow rate of the additive gas comprising hydrogen, and fails to teach the claimed O2: hydrogen-containing gas flow ratio Ito, also directed to etching an ACL ([0055]), teaches that the etching may use a plasma comprising 10 L/m of O 2 and 0.6 L/m of H 2 (Table 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, in routine experimentations, to use a gas mixture comprising 10 L/m of O 2 and 0.6 L/m of H 2 in the invention of Chang because Chang is silent about a gas flows of O 2 and H 2 , and Ito teaches that such gas flows would be effective. Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Oomori as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11195723, also published and referred herein as U.S. PGPub. No. 20220189781), hereinafter “Chang”:--Claim 10: Oomori teaches the invention as above, wherein Oomori teaches etching the foundation layer 3 through the second opening formed in the ACL. Oomori is silent about a chemical composition of the foundation layer. Chang teaches a method of etching, comprising depositing an ACL 306 over a silicon oxide layer over a substrate, then forming a mask layer 308 on the ACL 306 (Fig. 3A, [0035]); then etching the ACL 306 through the mask layer 308 to form an opening through the amorphous carbon layer (Fig. 3E, [0049-0050]), then etching into the silicon oxide layer through the opening to form a high aspect ratio trench, such as 50:1 ([0039-0040]). Since the trench has a high aspect ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use an anisotropic etching when etching the substrate in the invention of Chang. 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 a silicon oxide layer as the foundation layer 3 in the invention of Oomori because Oomori is silent about a chemical composition of the foundation layer and Chang teaches that etching such layer through the amorphous carbon mask layer is common in the art. Claims 11, 13-17 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Oomori in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20220199410), hereinafter “Zhang”, and Chang:--Claim 11, 13, 16, 17, 20: Oomori teaches a method of etching, comprisingforming a stack comprising a hard mask layer 5 having an first opening over an ACL 4, which is formed over a foundation layer 3 (Fig. 2C, [0003, 0007]);etching the ACL 4 through the opening in the hard mask layer 5 to form a second opening by using a plasma formed from a gas mixture comprising oxygen, an alkylsilane, an inert gas and an additive gas to adjust the etching rate and selectivity, such as hydrogen (Fig. 2D, [0033, 0037]);etching the foundation layer 3 through the second opening ([0003]). Oomori further teaches that the gas mixture may consist of oxygen, alkylsilane, and the additive gas ([0037]) and optionally comprise an inert gas, such as argon ([0036]), wherein oxygen is present at more than 10 vol%, preferably 90 vol% or more ([0035]), the alkylsilane is present at more preferably 0.1-4 vol.% relative to the flow rate of oxygen ([0034]), but is silent about a flow rate of the additive gas comprising hydrogen, and fails to teach the claimed O2: hydrogen-containing gas flow ratio. It is noted that Oomori does not discloses any sulfur-containing gas or halogen-containing gas, and that the above gases and temperature range overlaps the claimed range in claim 1. It is further noted that a plasma comprising H 2 and O 2 would form H 2 O vapor that would condense on the substrate, as taught by Applicant. Oomori further teaches that the etching is performed at a temperature less than 50°C, preferably less than 20°C ([0042]) since a higher temperature reduces an amount of sidewall protection film so that a desired accuracy cannot be maintained ([0042]), but failed to teach the claimed temperature range of -50°C or lower. Zhang, also directed to a method of forming a trench through an ACL by etching the ACL through a mask , teaches that the method comprises etching the ACL by using a gas mixture comprising oxygen to form a recess, forming a passivation layer on the sidewall of the recess, then repeating etching the ACL and the forming a passivation layer on the sidewall of the recess until the trench is completely etched through the ACL ([0026]). Zhang further teaches that the passivation layer may be deposited at -100°C to 200°C, and that the etching and the forming the passivation layer may be performed in the same chamber ([0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to perform the etching the ACL at -100°C to 200°C in the invention of Oomori because Oomori teaches that the etching is performed at a temperature less than 20°C to increase passivation layer forming on the sidewall, and Zhang teaches that the passivation layer is formed at such temperature range. Oomori is silent about a chemical composition of the foundation layer, and fails to teach the claimed aspect ratio. Chang teaches a method of etching, comprising depositing an ACL 306 over a silicon oxide layer over a substrate, then forming a mask layer 308 on the ACL 306 (Fig. 3A, [0035]); then etching the ACL 306 through the mask layer 308 to form an opening through the amorphous carbon layer (Fig. 3E, [0049-0050]), then etching into the silicon oxide layer through the opening to form a high aspect ratio trench, such as 50:1 ([0039-0040]). Since the trench has a high aspect ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use an anisotropic etching when etching the substrate in the invention of Chang. 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 a silicon oxide layer as the foundation layer 3, as taught by Chang, in the invention of Oomori because Oomori is silent about a chemical composition of the foundation layer and Chang teaches that etching such layer through the amorphous carbon mask layer is common in the art. –Claim 14: Oomori further teaches that the etching is preferably performed at pressure 0.05-10 Pa ([0041]), which is equivalent to 0.4-75 mT.--Claim 15: Chang further teaches that the opening may have width 70 nm ([0039]). Claim 12, 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Oomori in view of Zhang and Chang as applied to claims 11 and 17 above, and further in view of Ito:--Claims 12, 18: Oomori modified by Zhang and Chang teaches the invention as above. Oomori further teaches that the gas mixture may consist of oxygen , alkylsilane, an inert gas, and the additive gas, wherein oxygen is present at more than 10 vol%, preferably more than 90 vol% ([0035]), the alkylsilane is present at more preferably 0.1-4 vol.% relative to the flow rate of oxygen ([0035]), but is silent about a flow rate of the additive gas comprising hydrogen, and fails to teach the claimed O2: hydrogen-containing gas flow ratio Ito, also directed to etching an ACL ([0055]), teaches that the etching may use a plasma comprising 10 L/m of O 2 and 0.6 L/m of H 2 (Table 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, in routine experimentations, to use a gas mixture comprising 10 L/m of O 2 and 0.6 L/m of H 2 in the invention of Chang because Chang is silent about a gas flows of O 2 and H 2 , and Ito teaches that such gas flows would be effective. Claim 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Oomori in view of Zhang and Chang as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20250379062), hereinafter “Guo”: --Claim 23: Oomori modified by Zhang and Chang teaches the invention as above, wherein Oomori teaches that the etching agent contain oxygen may comprise oxygen ([0021]). Chang fails to teach the etching agent may comprise hydrogen peroxide. Guo, also directed to a method of plasma etching to form a high aspect ratio feature (abstract) by using a plasma comprising oxygen-containing gas, teaches that the oxygen-containing gas may include oxygen or hydrogen peroxide ([0016-0020]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, in routine experimentations, to use hydrogen peroxide as an equivalent substitution for oxygen, as taught by Guo, in the invention of Oomori. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed March 13, 2026 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the previously cited prior arts do not teach the amended feature, this arguments is persuasive. New grounds of rejection based on newly found prior arts are shown above. This Office action is made Non-Final. 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 Application/Control Number: 17/956,089 Page 2 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 17/956,089 Page 3 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 17/956,089 Page 4 Art Unit: 1713
Prosecution Insights