DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. This office action is responsive to applicant’s amendment filed on 02/25/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 4 are amended. Claims 12-20 are allowed by the examiner as indicated in previous office action. New ground of rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 are set forth as discussed below to address the applicant’s claims 1-11.
Response to Arguments
4. The applicant’s amendment filed on 02/25/2026 along with the remark were sufficient to overcome the examiner’s previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2).
Regarding to previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 103, the applicants stated:
“Independent claim 1 is amended to recite in part a source plasma power applied from a source power source to form plasma effluents of the deposition precursors is less than or about 1,000 W. In attempt to reject this feature, previously recited in claim 4, the Examiner acknowledges both Ishikawa and Yonezawa fail to disclose the claimed source plasma power. See Final Office Action, pgs. 9 and 13. However, in attempt to cure this deficiency, the Examiner cites Shamma. See Id. More specifically, the Examiner asserts Shamma discusses "a source plasma power applied from a source power source to form plasma effluents of the deposition precursor is between 15 W to 300 W or 30 W to 500 W". See Id. (citing Shamma, paras. [0091] and [0092]). As discussed below, Applicants respectfully disagree with the Examiner's asserted combination of Ishikawa or Yonezawa with Shamma.
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner has cited portions of Ishikawa that relate to deposition of a deposition layer TD, which may be an organic layer deposited from a deposition gas containing a hydrocarbon (CxHy) gas or a silicon-containing layer deposited from a deposition gas containing a silicon-containing gas. See Ishikawa, paras. [0088], [0090], and [0096]. The Examiner has alternatively cited portions of Yonezawa that relate to deposition of a deposition layer TD 1 or TD2, which may be a similar organic layer or a silicon-containing layer, respectively, as Ishikawa. Again, the Examiner acknowledges both Ishikawa and Yonezawa fail to disclose the claimed source plasma power. See Final Office Action, pgs. 9 and 13. The Examiner has cited portions of Shamma, in attempt to cure the deficiencies of Ishikawa and Yonezawa, that relate to oxidizing carbon-containing material on a substrate. See Shamma, paras. [0090]-[0092]. The cited portions of Shamma do not relate to deposition of an organic layer or a silicon-containing layer and, therefore, do not provide a prima facie showing of the claimed source plasma power. As such, Applicants respectfully submit that one skilled in the art would not combine Ishikawa or Yonezawa with Shamma as asserted. Further, Applicants respectfully submit that one skilled in the art would not utilize the cited source plasma power range of Shamma in Ishikawa or Yonezawa. The other cited references do not cure the deficiencies of Ishikawa or Yonezawa. As such, amended independent claim 1 is believed to be allowable over the cited references.
For at least these reasons, independent claim 1 is believed to be allowable over the cited references. Because all other rejected claims depend from independent claim 1, either directly or indirectly, they are believed allowable at least by virtue of their dependence on an allowable base claim. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 are respectfully requested.”
The applicant’s amendment along with the remark were sufficient to overcome the examiner’s previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 103. However, upon further consideration new ground of rejections were set forth as discussed below using new cited prior arts Kim et al. (US 2019/0198338 A1) along with previous cited prior arts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
6. 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.
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.
7. Claims 1-5, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 2023/0134436 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0198338 A1).
Note: S
As to claim 1, Ishikawa discloses a semiconductor processing method comprising:
providing deposition precursors to a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber (paragraph 0088-0093), wherein a substrate is housed in the processing region, wherein the substrate comprises a photoresist material (MF) overlying a silicon-containing material (EF), wherein the photoresist material (MF) defines an aperture a plurality of apertures (OP) (paragraph 0076-0083, Fig 4B; 6A), and wherein the processing region is at least partially above a substrate support (14) on which the substrate (W) is seated (paragraph 0040-0041);
forming plasma effluents of the deposition precursors, wherein a source plasma power is applied from a source power (62) to form plasma effluents of the deposition precursors
depositing a material (TD) on the photoresist material (paragraph 088-0097;
providing an etchant precursor to the processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber, wherein a bias power is applied to the substrate support from a bias power source (64) (paragraph 0053-0056; 0098-0115; Fig 1) and
etching a portion of the photoresist material, wherein the etching decreases a local critical dimension uniformity of the plurality of apertures of the photoresist material (paragraph 0114-0115, Table 1; Note: (local critical dimension uniformity (LCDU) value decrease).
As to claim 1, Ishikawa fails to disclose the source power is less than or about 1,000 Watt. However, Ishikawa clearly discloses to apply source power to create plasma (paragraph 0061, 0066). Kim discloses a source plasma power applied from a source power source to form plasma effluents of the deposition precursor is between 20 Watts to 200 Watts (See paragraph 0043, within applicant’s range of “less than or about 1,000 W”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishikawa in view of Kim by applying source power at 25 Watts to 200 Watts to form plasma effluents of the deposition precursor because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
As to claim 2, Ishikawa discloses the deposition precursors comprises a silicon-containing precursor (paragraph 0091, 0096).
As to claim 3, Ishikawa fails to disclose the material deposited on the photoresist material comprises silicon oxide. However, Ishikawa clearly discloses the depositing material is silicon-containing material using silicon chloride (SiCl4) precursor (See paragraph 0096). Kim discloses the material (318) deposited on the photoresist material is silicon-containing material such as silicon oxide using silicon chloride precursor (See paragraph 0041-0042). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishikawa in view of Kim by having the material deposited on the photoresist material comprises silicon oxide because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 4, Ishikawa discloses a source plasma power applied from the source power while etching the portion of the photoresist material (paragraph 0052, 0066). As to claim 4, Ishikawa fails to discloses a source power of less than or about 500 W. Kim discloses a source plasma power applied from a source power source to form plasma effluents of the deposition precursor is between 20 Watts to 200 Watts (See paragraph 0043, within applicant’s range of “less than or about 500 W”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishikawa in view of Kim by applying source power at 25 Watts to 200 Watts to form plasma effluents of the deposition precursor because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
As to claim 5, Ishikawa discloses the etchant precursor comprises a fluorine-containing precursor (paragraph 0102, 0108).
As to claim 9, Ishikawa discloses a bias plasma power is applied from the bias power source while etching the portion of the photoresist material (See paragraph 0053-0056). Ishikawa fails to disclose the bias power is less than or about 500 W. Kim discloses a bias plasma power is applied from the bias power source at a range of 20 W to 200 W (See paragraph 0043 within applicant’s range of “less than or about 500 W”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishikawa in view of Kim by having a bias of 50 W or 300 W because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
As to claim 10, Ishikawa discloses a source plasma power applied from the source power while etching the portion of the photoresist material (paragraph 0052, 0066). Ishikawa fail to discloses a source power of less than or about 100 W. Kim discloses a source plasma power applied from a source power source to form plasma effluents of the deposition precursor is between 20 Watts to 200 Watts (See paragraph 0043, within applicant’s range of “less than or about 100 W”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishikawa in view of Kim by applying source power at less than or about 100 W to form plasma effluents of the deposition precursor because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
As to claim 11, Ishikawa discloses subsequently to etching the portion of the photoresist material, etching the silicon-containing material to form apertures in the silicon-containing material (See paragraph 0099, 107-0110, Fig 6C-6D).
8. Claims 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US 2023/0134436 A1) in view of Kim (US 2019/0198338 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 9-11 above, and further in view of Wise (US 2016/0379824 A1). Evidence reference JP 2023067443 A with English translation is an equivalent document of US 20230134436
As to claim 6, Ishikawa discloses the local critical dimension uniformity is 0.58 3σ (See paragraph 0114, Table 1; Note: JP2023067443 A is an equivalent document of US 20230134436; The examiner provides English translation document of JP2023067443A to prove that there is a typo in paragraph 0114 of US 2023/0134436 A). Specifically, in paragraph [0114] “local critical dimension uniformity (LCDU) which is 36 of the CD” should be “Local Critical Dimension Uniformity: 3σ of CD” as shown in paragraph [0097] of JP2023067443 A English translation.
As to claim 6, Ishikawa fails to disclose the unit of LCDU is in nanometer or nm. Wise teaches the local critical dimension uniformity (LCDU) of less than 3 nm 3σ (See paragraph 0004-0005, 0010, 0040). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishikawa and Kim in view of Wise by having the local critical dimension uniformity (LCDU) of less than 3 nm 3σ because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
As to claim 7, Ishikawa discloses depositing the material on the photoresist is performed at a first pressure and etching the portion of the photoresist is performed at a second pressure (paragraph 0098-0110). Ishikawa fails to disclose the second pressure is greater than the first pressure. Wise teaches the pressure inside the chamber during the etching is higher than during deposition (See paragraph 0004, 0006). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishikawa and Kim in view of Wise by having the second pressure is greater than the first pressure because it helps to control local critical dimension uniformity (LCDU) (See paragraph 0004).
9. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US 2023/0134436 A1) in view of Kim (US 2019/0198338 A1) further in view of Wise (US 2016/0379824 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Shamma (US 2018/0337046 A1).
As to claim 8, Ishikawa, Kim and Wise fail to disclose the second pressure is less than or about 30 Torr. As to claim 8, Shamma discloses the second pressure is between 5 mTorr to 100 mTorr (See paragraph 0134, within applicant’s range of “less than or about 30 Torr’, Note 30 Torr = 30,000 mTorr). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishikawa, Kim and Wise in view of Shamma by having a second pressure of 5 mTorr to 100 mTorr because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
10. Claims 1-5, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa (US 2022/0406609 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0198338 A1).
As to claim 1, Yonezawa discloses a semiconductor processing method comprising:
providing deposition precursors to a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber (paragraph 0086), wherein a substrate is housed in the processing region, wherein the substrate comprises a photoresist material (PR) overlying a silicon-containing material (EF), wherein the photoresist material (PR) defines an aperture a plurality of apertures (Fig; 5A-5B; paragraph 0095), and wherein the processing region is at least partially above a substrate support (11) on which the substrate (W) is seated (paragraph Fig 1; paragraph 0056);
forming plasma effluents of the deposition precursors, wherein a source plasma power applied from a source power source to form plasma effluents of the deposition
depositing a material (TD1 and/or TD2) on the photoresist material (paragraph 0084-0093;
providing an etchant precursor to the processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber, wherein a bias power is applied to the substrate support from a bias power source (paragraph 0059-0061; Fig 1) and
etching a portion of the photoresist material, wherein the etching decreases a local critical dimension uniformity of the plurality of apertures of the photoresist material (Fig 3 ST2, ST3; Note: (local critical dimension uniformity (LCDU) value decrease; paragraph 0089-0093, 0098, Table 1).
As to claim 1, Yonezawa fails to disclose the source power is less than or about 1,000 Watt. However, Yonezawa clearly discloses to apply source power to create plasma (paragraph 0058-0061). Kim discloses a source plasma power applied from a source power source to form plasma effluents of the deposition precursor is between 20 Watts to 200 Watts (See paragraph 0043, within applicant’s range of “less than or about 1,000 W”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yonezawa in view of Kim by applying source power at 25 Watts to 200 Watts to form plasma effluents of the deposition precursor because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
As to claim 2, Yonezawa discloses the deposition precursors comprises a silicon-containing precursor (paragraph 00086).
As to claim 3, Yonezawa fails to disclose the material deposited on the photoresist material comprises silicon oxide. However, Yonezawa clearly discloses the depositing material is silicon-containing material (See paragraph 0086). Kim discloses the material (318) deposited on the photoresist material is silicon-containing material such as silicon oxide (See paragraph 0041-0042). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yonezawa in view of Kim by having the material deposited on the photoresist material comprises silicon oxide because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 4, Yonezawa fails to disclose the source power is less than or about 500 Watt. However, Yonezawa clearly discloses to apply source power to create plasma (paragraph 0058-0061). Kim discloses a source plasma power applied from a source power source to form plasma effluents of the deposition precursor is between 20 Watts to 200 Watts (See paragraph 0043, within applicant’s range of “less than or about 500 W”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yonezawa in view of Kim by applying source power at 25 Watts to 200 Watts to form plasma effluents of the deposition precursor because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
As to claim 5, Yonezawa discloses the etchant precursor comprises a fluorine-containing precursor (paragraph 0093).
As to claim 9, Yonezawa discloses a bias plasma power is applied from the bias power source while etching the portion of the photoresist material (See paragraph 000060-0061). As to claim 9, Yonezawa fails to disclose the bias power is less than or about 500 W. Kim discloses a bias plasma power is applied from the bias power source at a range of 20 W to 200 W (See paragraph 0043 within applicant’s range of “less than or about 500 W”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yonezawa in view of Kim by having a bias of 20 W to 200 W because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
As to claim 10, Yonezawa fails to disclose the source power is less than or about 100 Watt. However, Yonezawa clearly discloses to apply source power to create plasma (paragraph 0058-0061). Kim discloses a source plasma power applied from a source power source to form plasma effluents of the deposition precursor is between 20 Watts to 200 Watts (See paragraph 0043, within applicant’s range of “less than or about 100 W”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yonezawa in view of Kim by applying source power less than or about 100 W to form plasma effluents of the deposition precursor because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
As to claim 11, Yonezawa discloses subsequently to etching the portion of the photoresist material (PR), etching the silicon-containing material (EF) to form apertures in the silicon-containing material (See Fig 5C-5E; paragraph 0090-0094).
11. Claims 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa (US 2022/0406609 A1) in view of Kim (US 2019/0198338 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 9-11 above, and further in view of Wise (US 2016/0379824 A1).
As to claim 6, Yonezawa discloses the local critical dimension uniformity for photoresist is 3.94 nm 3σ (See paragraph 0099, Table 1)
As to claim 6, Yonezawa and Kim fail to disclose the local critical dimension uniformity is less than or about 3 nm 3σ. Wise teaches the local critical dimension uniformity (LCDU) of less than 3 nm 3σ (See paragraph 0004-0005, 0010, 0040). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yonezawa and Kim in view of Wise by having the local critical dimension uniformity (LCDU) of less than 3 nm 3σ because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
As to claim 7, Yonezawa discloses depositing the material on the photoresist is performed at a first pressure and etching the portion of the photoresist is performed at a second pressure (paragraph 0095-0096). As to claim 7, Yonezawa fails to disclose the second pressure is greater than the first pressure. Wise teaches the pressure inside the chamber during the etching is higher than during deposition (See paragraph 0004, 0006). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yonezawa and Kim in view of Wise by having the second pressure is greater than the first pressure because it helps to control local critical dimension uniformity (LCDU) (See paragraph 0004).
12. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa (US 2022/0406609 A1) in view of Kim (US 2019/0198338 A1) further in view of Wise (US 2016/0379824 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Shamma (US 2018/0337046 A1).
As to claim 8, Yonezawa, Kim and Wise fail to disclose the second pressure is less than or about 30 Torr. As to claim 8, Shamma discloses the second pressure is between5 mTorr to 100 mTorr (See paragraph 0134, within applicant’s range of “less than or about 30 Torr’, Note 30 Torr = 30,000 mTorr). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yonezawa, Kim and Wise in view of Shamma by having a second pressure of 5 mTorr to 100 mTorr because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 12-20 are allowed.
14. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claims 12-17, the cited prior arts fail to disclose or suggest etching a portion of the photoresist material extending outward from the second silicon-containing material in combination with all other limitations in the claim.
As to claims 18-20, the cited prior arts fail to disclose or suggest etching a portion of the photoresist material extending outward from the second silicon-containing material in combination with all other limitations in the claim.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH X TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
BINH X. TRAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/BINH X TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713