DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 12/12/2025. Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending in the current office action. Claims 1, 3, 7, 9-10, and 15-16 have been amended by the applicant. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 17-20 remain withdrawn.
Status of the Rejection
The drawing and Claim objections have been overcome by the applicant's amendments.
All 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and 112(d) rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 2 is obviated by the Applicant’s cancellation.
All 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections from the previous office action are substantially maintained and modified only in response to the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 3-4, 7-9, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuen et al. (US-6905800-B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yuen teaches a substrate treating method (Column 2 lines 5-13 a substrate processing method is taught), comprising:
inserting a substrate into a substrate treating apparatus (Column 2 lines 5-13 a substrate processing method is taught, substrate is provided in a process zone);
injecting a first process gas into the substrate treating apparatus (Column 10 lines 5-20 a first step comprises exposing the substrate to a first etchant gas);
generating a first plasma within the substrate treating apparatus using the first process gas (Column 6 lines 61-67 and Column 7 lines 1-14 etchant gases are energized to become plasma for the process);
etching the substrate using the first plasma (Column 10 lines 5-20 a first etching step is used to etch a layer);
injecting, after the etching using the first plasma, a second process gas and the first process gas into the substrate treating apparatus (Column 10 lines 5-20 a first step comprises exposing the substrate to a first etchant gas. The second step comprises exposing the substrate to a second etchant gas. The second etchant gas can comprise CHF3, CH2F2 and CH3F which are not present in the first etchant gas, and can further include CF4 which is in the first process gas. Therefore, it can be considered that a first and second process gas are injected);
generating a second plasma within the substrate treating apparatus using a combination of the second process gas and the first process gas (Column 10 lines 5-20. The first step can use CF4, the second step can use CHF3, CH2F2 and CH3F as well as and CF4. CF4 can be considered the first process gas then the second plasma uses the first process gas with another gas, which can be considered the second process gas, in the second plasma formed. Column 6 lines 61-67 and Column 7 lines 1-14 etchant gases are energized to become plasma for the process); and
simultaneously etching and depositing onto the substrate using the second plasma (Column 9 lines 30-35 the mask etch process may deposit polymeric material on the substrate and surfaces of the chamber. Column 10 lines 5-34 the second step comprises exposing the mask material to a process gas that comprises a polymer forming gas that deposits polymeric residue),
wherein at least some components of the second process gas differ from those of the first process gas (Column 10 lines 5-20 The second step comprises exposing the substrate to a second etchant gas. The second etchant gas can comprise CHF3, CH2F2 and CH3F which are not present in the first etchant gas).
Regarding Claim 3, Yuen teaches wherein the second process gas includes a first component that is also included in the first process gas and a second component that is not included in the first process gas (Column 10 lines 5-20. The first step can use CF4, the second step can use CHF3 and CF4. CF4 can be considered a component in the first process gas then the second plasma uses a component in the first process gas with another gas, CHF3, that is not included in the first process gas).
Regarding Claim 4, Yuen teaches wherein the first component is a fluorine component, and the second component is a hydrogen component (Column 10 lines 5-20. The first step can use CF4, which includes fluorine and therefore is a fluorine component. The second step can use CHF3, which includes hydrogen and therefore is a hydrogen component).
Regarding Claim 7, Yuen teaches wherein the first process gas is an etching gas and the second process gas is a deposition gas (Column 10 lines 5-34 the first step utilizes a first etchant gas, equivalent to the claimed first process gas and is used in etching processes and therefore can be considered an etching gas as claimed. Column 9 lines 30-35 the mask etch process may deposit polymeric material on the substrate and surfaces of the chamber. Column 10 lines 5-34 the second step comprises exposing the mask material to a process gas that comprises a polymer forming gas that can deposit polymeric residue and therefore can be considered a deposition gas).
Regarding Claim 8, Yuen teaches wherein the first process gas is CF4 gas, and the second process gas is CHF3 gas (Column 10 lines 5-20. The first step can use CF4, the second step can use CHF3).
Regarding Claim 9, Yuen teaches wherein the second process gas is mixed with the first process gas and then injected into the substrate treating apparatus (Column 4 lines 29-36 the process gas is supplied with one process gas source (element 122) into the chamber (element 110) and therefore when the process gas comprises CF4, equivalent to the claimed first process gas, and CHF3, equivalent to the claimed second process gas, these gases are mixed and then injected into the chamber, equivalent to the claimed substrate treating apparatus).
Regarding Claim 13, Yuen teaches wherein one of the first process gas and the second process gas is supplied via a first hole formed to penetrate an upper cover of the substrate treating apparatus, and the other gas is supplied via a second hole formed to penetrate a sidewall of the substrate treating apparatus, or the first process gas and the second process gas are supplied via one of the first hole and the second hole (Column 4 lines 29-36 the process gas is supplied with one process gas source (element 122) into the chamber (element 110), equivalent to the substrate treating apparatus, and this source can be a showerhead, equivalent to the claimed first hole, on the ceiling (element 115) of the chamber, thereby meeting the limitation that the gases are supplied via a hole on the upper cover of the substrate treating apparatus).
Regarding Claim 14, Yuen teaches wherein the substrate treating method includes an etch back process (Column 10 lines 5-7. The method includes etching a material that was previously deposited on the substrate and therefore can be considered an etch back process).
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.
Claim 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen in view of Puech et al. (US-20050103749-A1).
Regarding Claim 5 and 6, Yuen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Yuen fails to teach flow rates for the first and second process gases and therefore fails to teach wherein the second process gas is injected in a larger amount than the first process gas, as required by claim 5, and wherein the injection amount of the second process gas is 1.5 to 2 times greater than the injection amount of the first process gas, as required by claim 6.
Puech teaches methods related to etching in semiconductor manufacturing (Paragraph [0002]). Puech teaches a process where a first step of etching is conducted using a plasma of CF4 gas (Paragraph [0050] step a) comprises using plasma from a CF4 gas to etch a substrate) and a second step is conducted of treating a substrate with a plasma of CHF3 (Paragraph [0053] step b) comprises using a plasma of CHF3 to treat the substrate). Puech teaches that during the first step the flow rate of the process gas can be 10-200sccm (Paragraph [0052]). Puech teaches that during the second step the flow rate of the process gas can be 50-300 sccm (Paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Yuen by selecting flow rates for the first and second process gases from within the range of flow rates taught by Puech.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing suitable flow rates for a first and second process gas used in processing a substrate. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a flow rate for first process gas at a level within the disclosed range of 10-200sccm and a flow rate for the second process gas at a level within the disclosed range of 50-300sccm, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed result that the flow rate for the second process gas is injected in a larger amount than the first process gas, as required by claim 5, and the claimed result that the second process gas has 1.5 to 2 times greater injection amount compared to the first process gas, as required by claim 6. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen in view of Zhou et al. (US-20200243326-A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Yuen teaches all the limitations of claims 1 as outlined above.
Yuen fails to teach wherein the second process gas is injected into the substrate treating apparatus separately from the first process gas.
Zhou teaches a processing apparatus that can be used for performing etching processes (Paragraph [0028]). Zhou teaches that the processing apparatus can have a first gas injector that supplies gas from the top of the chamber and a second gas injector that supplies gas from the side of the chamber (Paragraph [0036] Figure 1 a first gas injector (element 104) is on the top of the plasma chamber (element 132) and a second gas injector (element 110) is on the side of the plasma chamber). Zhou teaches that gas can be supplied from each gas injector and that which gas is supplied to which injector can be controlled (Paragraph [0037-0038] both the first and second gas injectors can be used in some processes, manifolds control which gases are supplied to which gas supply lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Yuen by utilizing a processing apparatus as taught by Zhou, capable of injecting process gases separately into the processing chamber, and utilizing this capability to inject the first process gas separately from the second process gas, as taught by Zhou.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of providing a method to suitably supply two processes gases into a processing chamber for use in a single process. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 11, Yuen teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as outlined above.
Yuen fails to teach wherein the substrate treating apparatus comprises: a process gas supply source configured to supply the first process gas and the second process gas; and a process gas supplying line configured to connect the process gas supply source and the substrate treating apparatus, wherein the second process gas is mixed with the first process gas in the process gas supply source.
Zhou teaches a processing apparatus that can be used for performing etching processes (Paragraph [0028]). Zhou teaches that the processing apparatus contains a delivery system (Paragraphs [0037-0038] Figure 1 a delivery system (element 128) supplies gas to the chamber (element 132)). Zhou teaches that the gas supply is controlled and that gases can be mixed prior to injection in the chamber (Paragraphs [0036-0037] gas may be introduced into the chamber mixed with other gas before introduction. Manifolds control mixing gases in the delivery system prior to delivery into the chamber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Yuen by utilizing a processing apparatus as taught by Zhou that contained a process gas supply source that was capable of mixing a first and second process gas within the process gas supply source and supplying the mixed gas to the processing chamber.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of providing a method and apparatus to suitably supply two processes gases that had been mixed together into a processing chamber for use in a single process. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen in view of Kim et al. (US-20210287877-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Yuen teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as outlined above.
Yuen fails to teach wherein the substrate treating apparatus comprises: a first process gas supply source configured to supply the first process gas; a second process gas supply source configured to supply the second process gas; and a process gas supplying line having one end connected to the substrate treating apparatus and the other end branched and connected to the first process gas supply source and the second process gas supply source, respectively, wherein the second process gas is mixed with the first process gas when moving via the process gas supplying line.
Kim teaches an apparatus for use in treating substrates (Paragraph [0002]). Kim teaches that the apparatus comprises a gas supply line that connects to the processing apparatus, where the gas supply line branches to connect to two different process gas supply sources (Paragraphs [0073-0076] Figure 1 gas supply unit (element 400) connects two gas supply sources with the processing space (element 102)). Kim teaches that by supplying the gases through this system the gases are mixed (Paragraph [0076] the fifth gas is mixed with the fourth gas by this supply system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Yuen by utilizing the apparatus taught by Kim and using the capabilities of this apparatus to supply the first and second process gases as taught by Kim. The gas supply system taught by Kim can be considered equivalent to the claimed system, see Reference Image 1 below.
Reference Image 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
797
907
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of providing a method and apparatus to suitably supply two processes gases that had been mixed together into a processing chamber for use in a single process. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen in view of de Graff et al. (US-20100178722-A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Yuen teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Yuen fails to teach wherein the substrate treating method is applied when manufacturing a lens module of a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor.
de Graff teaches a method related to fabrication of an imaging array ([Abstract]). de Graff teaches methods related to CMOS imagers (Paragraph [0009]). de Graff teaches that a process for making a lens module can include steps of etching (Paragraph [0176] the fabrication of an imaging array that can become a lens includes etching steps).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Yuen such that the etching method outlined by Yuen was applied in the context of a process that was making a lens module as de Graff teaches an etching process is conducting during the fabrication of a lens module.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of providing a suitable etching process for use in the manufacturing of a lens module. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen in view of Puech and Roberts et al. (US-10361092-B1).
Regarding Claim 16, Yuen teaches a substrate treating method (Column 2 lines 5-13 a substrate processing method is taught), comprising:
inserting a substrate into a substrate treating apparatus (Column 2 lines 5-13 substrate is provided in a process zone);
injecting a first process gas into the substrate treating apparatus (Column 10 lines 5-20 a first step comprises exposing the substrate to a first etchant gas);
generating a first plasma within the substrate treating apparatus using the first process gas (Column 6 lines 61-67 and Column 7 lines 1-14 etchant gases are energized to become plasma for the process);
etching the substrate using the first plasma (Column 10 lines 5-20 a first step comprises exposing the substrate to a first etchant gas to etch a mask material);
after etching the substrate using the first plasma, injecting a second process gas into the substrate treating apparatus (Column 10 lines 5-20 The second step comprises exposing the substrate to a second etchant gas);
generating a second plasma within the substrate treating apparatus using a combination of the second and the first process gas (Column 10 lines 5-20 The second step comprises exposing the substrate to a second etchant gas. The second etchant gas can comprise CHF3 which is not present in the first etchant gas. The claimed first process gas can be considered CF4. The second etchant gas can comprise CF4 and CHF3. Column 6 lines 61-67 and Column 7 lines 1-14 etchant gases are energized to become plasma for the process); and
simultaneously etching and depositing onto the substrate using the second plasma (Column 9 lines 30-35 the mask etch process may deposit polymeric material on the substrate and surfaces of the chamber. Column 10 lines 5-34 the second step comprises exposing the mask material to a process gas that comprises a polymer forming gas that deposits polymeric residue),
wherein the second process gas includes a first component that is also included in the first process gas and a second component that is not included in the first process gas, the first component is a fluorine component and the second component is a hydrogen component (Column 10 lines 5-20 The second step comprises exposing the substrate to a second etchant gas. The first etchant gas can be CF4. The second etchant gas can comprise CHF3 which are not present in the first etchant gas. The second etchant gas can include CF4. Therefore, the claimed first process gas can be considered CF4, which contains fluorine and can be considered a fluorine component. And the claimed second process gas can comprise CHF3, which contains hydrogen and can be considered a hydrogen component, and CF4 which can be considered a first component that is included in the first process gas).
Yuen fails to teach continuously injecting the first process gas into the substrate treating apparatus while additionally injecting a second process gas.
Roberts teaches methods related to forming semiconductor devices that include etching steps (Column 1 lines 5-10 and 25-30). Roberts teaches a method that includes multiple etch steps where the first etch step utilizes a first etch gas and the second etch step utilizes the first etch gas and an additional process gas not used in the first etch step and teaches that the first etch gas is continuously flowed during both etching steps (Column 6 lines 8-31 Figure 5 A first etch step is conducted using a plasma formed from the first etch gas, then while the first etch gas continuously flows the second etch gas is supplied to conduct a second, further etching).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method Yuen by flowing the first etchant gas, that is utilized in both the first and second etching steps within the method, continuously during the time those methods are conducted as taught by Roberts.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had a predictable result of proving a suitable method of supplying a single gas that was used in two successive process steps. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Yuen fails to teach that the second process gas is injected in a larger amount than the first process gas.
Puech teaches methods related to etching in semiconductor manufacturing (Paragraph [0002]). Puech teaches a process where a first step of etching is conducted using a plasma of CF4 gas (Paragraph [0050] step a) comprises using plasma from a CF4 gas to etch a substrate) and a second step is conducted of treating a substrate with a plasma of CHF3 (Paragraph [0053] step b) comprises using a plasma of CHF3 to treat the substrate). Puech teaches that during the first step the flow rate of the process gas can be 10-200sccm (Paragraph [0052]). Puech teaches that during the second step the flow rate of the process gas can be 50-300 sccm (Paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Yuen by selecting flow rates for the first and second process gases from within the range of flow rates taught by Puech.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing suitable flow rates for a first and second process gas used in processing a substrate. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a flow rate for first process gas at a level within the disclosed range of 10-200sccm and a flow rate for the second process gas at a level within the disclosed range of 50-300sccm, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed result that the flow rate for the second process gas is injected in a larger amount than the first process gas. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pg. 2-3, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to teach the formation of a second plasma and that the second plasma simultaneously etches and deposits onto the substrate.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As outlined above, Yuen teaches that to etch layers on the substrate the processes gases are energized to form a plasma. Examiner takes the position that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that these teachings to energize the process gases into a plasma for the etching process would apply to both of the two etching steps taught by Yuen in the cited embodiment. Additionally, as outlined above, Yuen teaches in the cited embodiment that the second plasma is an etching step and includes a “polymer forming gas” and also teaches that the process to etch a mask may can deposit polymeric material on the substrate. Given these teachings, examiner takes the position that the second plasma would simultaneously etch and deposit.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KEELAN LAOBAK whose telephone number is (703)756-5447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:30pm.
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.
/A.K.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713