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 11/26/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the current office action. Claim 1 has been amended by the applicant.
Status of the Rejection
All 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arteaga Muller (WO-2022015689-A1) in view of Blomberg et al. (US-20210020468-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Arteaga Muller teaches a semiconductor processing method (Paragraph [0002] methods for selective etching in semiconductor manufacturing taught) comprising:
flowing an etchant precursor into a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber, wherein a substrate is housed within the processing region, and wherein the substrate defines an exposed region of a titanium-containing material (Paragraph [0010] a vapor of thionyl chloride, which can be considered an etchant precursor, is introduced into a reaction chamber where a substrate is held to be processes. The substrate has a metal or metal-containing film. Paragraph [0011] the metal or metal-containing film can contain titanium);
contacting the substrate with the etchant precursor (Paragraph [0010] thionyl chloride reacts with metal or metal-containing film); and
removing at least a portion of the titanium-containing material (Paragraph [0010] thionyl chloride etches and therefore removes, some of the metal or metal-containing film).
Arteaga Muller fails to teach wherein a flow rate of the etchant precursor is pulsed.
Blomberg teaches methods of etching and apparatus related to semiconductor processing (Paragraphs [0004-0006]). Blomberg teaches chemical vapor etching processes can employ a pulsed supply of etchants that allow for a controlled and selective removal of minute amounts of material (Paragraph [0003]). Blomberg teaches that a pulsed supply of a reactant gas can improve the distribution of the reactant in the reaction chamber (Paragraph [0036]). Blomberg teaches that pulsed supply of the reactant gas can result in more uniform distribution and coverage of the surfaces to be etched and can reduce the processing time required (Paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Arteaga Muller by supplying the etchant precursor with a pulsed flow rate as taught by Blomberg.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the use of a pulsed flow rate can allow for controlled and selective removal of minute amounts of material (Blomberg Paragraph [0003]), improve the distribution of the reactant in the reaction chamber (Blomberg Paragraph [0036]), result in more uniform distribution, and coverage of the surfaces to be etched and can reduce the processing time required (Blomberg Paragraph [0037]). Additionally, this modification could be considered the application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Arteaga Muller teaches a base method of etching and the pulsed supply of the etchant as taught by Blomberg would have been applicable to this method and would have resulted in the predictable result of supply the precursor in a manner suitable for an etching method with the improved results outlined above. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claims 2-4, modified Arteaga Muller teaches a method that meets all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Arteaga Muller further teaches wherein the etchant precursor comprises a halogen-containing precursor, as required by claim 2, wherein the etchant precursor comprises a chlorine-containing precursor, as required by claim 3, and wherein the etchant precursor comprises thionyl chloride (SOCl2), as required by claim 4 (Paragraph [0010] thionyl chloride is used as the etchant precursor and contains chloride, which is a halogen).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Arteaga Muller teaches a method that meets all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Arteaga Muller further teaches wherein removing the portion of the titanium-containing material is performed plasma-free (Paragraph [0011] thionyl chloride is not activated by plasma in the etching process step).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Arteaga Muller teaches a method that meets all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Arteaga Muller further teaches that the etching step is conducted at a temperature of 150-600°C (Paragraph [0011-12] temperature is 150-600°C during the step of exposing the substrate to thionyl chloride).
Therefore, Arteaga Muller fails to explicitly teach that wherein removing the portion of the titanium-containing material is performed at a temperature less than or about 450 °C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a temperature for the etching step at a level within the disclosed range of 150-600°C, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of less than 450°C. 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).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Arteaga Muller teaches a method that meets all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Arteaga Muller further teaches that the etching step is conducted at a pressure of less than 100 Torr (Paragraphs [0011-12] pressure is less than 100 Torr during the step of exposing the substrate to thionyl chloride).
Therefore, Arteaga Muller fails to explicitly teach wherein removing the portion of the titanium-containing material is performed at a pressure greater than or about 0.1 Torr.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a pressure for the etching step at a level within the disclosed range of less than 100 Torr, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of greater than or about 0.1 Torr. 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).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Arteaga Muller teaches a method that meets all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Arteaga Muller further teaches that the etching step is conducted at a pressure of less than 100 Torr (Paragraphs [0011-12] pressure is less than 100 Torr during the step of exposing the substrate to thionyl chloride).
Therefore, Arteaga Muller fails to explicitly wherein removing the portion of the titanium-containing material is performed at a pressure less than or about 50 Torr.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a pressure for the etching step at a level within the disclosed range of less than 100 Torr, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of less than or about 50 Torr. 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).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arteaga Muller in view of Blomberg, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cui et al. (WO-2022055876-A1).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Arteaga Muller teaches a method that meets all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Arteaga Muller fails to teach that the method further comprises a pre-treatment performed prior to flowing the etchant precursor, wherein the pre-treatment comprises contacting the substrate with a plasma comprising one or more of oxygen, hydrogen, or nitrogen.
Cui teaches a method of etching with a halogen-containing precursor (Paragraph [0006]). Cui teaches that the etching method can be plasma-free (Paragraph [0007]). Cui teaches that prior to the etching step there may be a pre-treatment step that comprises using a plasma of oxygen, hydrogen or nitrogen (Paragraph [0007]). Cui teaches that the pre-treatment step can remove residues, byproducts, or films that may prevent access for the etchants to the material to be etched (Paragraph [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Arteaga Muller by including the pre-treatment step taught by Cui prior to the flowing of the etchant precursor.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the use of this pre-treatment step can remove residues, byproducts, or films that may prevent access for the etchants to the material to be etched (Cui Paragraph [0047]). Additionally, this modification could be considered the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield to predictable results. The modification of including the pre-treatment would have had the predictable result of removing any unwanted material that could prevent access to the material to be etched. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Arteaga Muller teaches a method that meets all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Arteaga Muller fails to teach that the method further comprises a post-treatment performed subsequent removing the portion of the titanium-containing material, wherein the post-treatment comprises contacting the substrate with a plasma comprising one or more of oxygen, hydrogen, or nitrogen.
Cui teaches a method of etching with a halogen-containing precursor (Paragraph [0006]). Cui teaches that the etching method can be plasma-free (Paragraph [0007]). Cui teaches that following to the etching step there may be a post-treatment step that comprises using a plasma of oxygen, hydrogen, or nitrogen (Paragraph [0007]). Cui teaches that the post-treatment step can clear residue left from the etching process (Paragraph [0052])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Arteaga Muller by including the post-treatment step taught by Cui following the flowing of the etchant precursor.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the use of this post-treatment step can remove residue left from the etching process (Cui Paragraph [0052]). Additionally, this modification could be considered the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield to predictable results. The modification of including the post-treatment would have had the predictable result of removing any unwanted residue that remained following the etching step. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 11-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arteaga Muller in view of Cui et al. (WO-2022055876-A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Arteaga Muller teaches a semiconductor processing method (Paragraph [0002] methods for selective etching in semiconductor manufacturing taught) comprising:
flowing an etchant precursor into a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber, wherein a substrate is housed within the processing region, and wherein the substrate defines an exposed region of a titanium-containing material (Paragraph [0010] a vapor of thionyl chloride, which can be considered an etchant precursor, is introduced into a reaction chamber where a substrate is held to be processes. The substrate has a metal or metal-containing film. Paragraph [0011] the metal or metal-containing film can contain titanium);
contacting the substrate with the etchant precursor (Paragraph [0010] thionyl chloride reacts with metal or metal-containing film); and
removing at least a portion of the titanium-containing material (Paragraph [0010] thionyl chloride etches and therefore removes, some of the metal or metal-containing film).
Arteaga Muller fails to teach that the method includes forming a plasma of a treatment precursor comprising one or more of oxygen, hydrogen, or nitrogen to produce treatment plasma effluents; flowing the treatment plasma effluents into a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber; contacting the substrate with the treatment plasma effluents, wherein the treatment plasma effluents are configured to remove a residue from a surface of the titanium- containing material.
Cui teaches a method of etching with a halogen-containing precursor (Paragraph [0006]). Cui teaches that the etching method can be plasma-free (Paragraph [0007]). Cui teaches that prior to the etching step there may be a pre-treatment step that comprises using a plasma of oxygen, hydrogen or nitrogen (Paragraph [0007]). Cui teaches that the plasma pre-treatment can utilize a remote plasma process (Paragraph [0048]). Cui teaches that the pre-treatment step can remove residues, byproducts, or films that may prevent access for the etchants to the material to be etched (Paragraph [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Arteaga Muller by including the pre-treatment step taught by Cui prior to the flowing of the etchant precursor.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the use of this pre-treatment step can remove residues, byproducts, or films that may prevent access for the etchants to the material to be etched (Cui Paragraph [0047]). Additionally, this modification could be considered the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield to predictable results. The modification of including the pre-treatment would have had the predictable result of removing any unwanted material that could prevent access to the material to be etched. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 12, Arteaga Muller teaches further comprising halting formation of the plasma of the treatment precursor prior to flowing the etchant precursor (Paragraph [0011] thionyl chloride is not activated by plasma, therefore the formation of plasma must end prior to the flowing of thionyl chloride). Additionally, Cui that the etching step is conducted plasma-free while the pre-treatment step is conducted with plasma (Paragraph [0007]), therefore the plasma formation of the pre-treatment is taught to end prior to the following etching step.
Regarding Claim 13, Arteaga Muller teaches wherein the etchant precursor comprises thionyl chloride (SOCl2) (Paragraph [0010] thionyl chloride is used as the etchant precursor).
Regarding Claim 14, Arteaga Muller teaches that the etching step is conducted at a temperature of 150-600°C (Paragraph [0011-12] temperature is 150-600°C during the step of exposing the substrate to thionyl chloride).
Therefore, Arteaga Muller fails to explicitly teach that wherein removing the portion of the titanium-containing material is performed at a temperature less than or about 400 °C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a temperature for the etching step at a level within the disclosed range of 150-600°C, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of less than 400°C. 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).
Regarding Claim 15, Arteaga Muller teaches that the etching step is conducted at a pressure of less than 100 Torr (Paragraphs [0011-12] pressure is less than 100 Torr during the step of exposing the substrate to thionyl chloride).
Therefore, Arteaga Muller fails to explicitly wherein removing the portion of the titanium-containing material is performed at a pressure less than or about 30 Torr.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a pressure for the etching step at a level within the disclosed range of less than 100 Torr, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of less than or about 30 Torr. 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).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Arteaga Muller as outlined above in regards to claim 11, fails to teach that the further comprises a post-treatment performed subsequent removing the portion of the titanium-containing material, wherein the post-treatment comprises contacting the substrate with a plasma comprising one or more of oxygen, hydrogen, or nitrogen.
Cui teaches a method of etching with a halogen-containing precursor (Paragraph [0006]). Cui teaches that the etching method can be plasma-free (Paragraph [0007]). Cui teaches that following to the etching step there may be a post-treatment step that comprises using a plasma of oxygen, hydrogen, or nitrogen (Paragraph [0007]). Cui teaches that the post-treatment step can clear residue left from the etching process (Paragraph [0052])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Arteaga Muller by including the post-treatment step taught by Cui following the flowing of the etchant precursor.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the use of this post-treatment step can remove residue left from the etching process (Cui Paragraph [0052]). Additionally, this modification could be considered the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield to predictable results. The modification of including the post-treatment would have had the predictable result of removing any unwanted residue that remained following the etching step. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 17, Arteaga Muller teaches a semiconductor processing method (Paragraph [0002] methods for selective etching in semiconductor manufacturing taught) comprising:
flowing an etchant precursor into a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber, wherein a substrate is housed within the processing region, and wherein the substrate defines an exposed region of a titanium-containing material (Paragraph [0010] a vapor of thionyl chloride, which can be considered an etchant precursor, is introduced into a reaction chamber where a substrate is held to be processes. The substrate has a metal or metal-containing film. Paragraph [0011] the metal or metal-containing film can contain titanium);
contacting the substrate with the etchant precursor (Paragraph [0010] thionyl chloride reacts with metal or metal-containing film); and
removing at least a portion of the titanium-containing material (Paragraph [0010] thionyl chloride etches and therefore removes, some of the metal or metal-containing film).
Arteaga Muller fails to teach that the method further comprises forming a plasma of a treatment precursor comprising one or more of oxygen, hydrogen, or nitrogen to produce treatment plasma effluents; and contacting the substrate with the treatment plasma effluents.
Cui teaches a method of etching with a halogen-containing precursor (Paragraph [0006]). Cui teaches that the etching method can be plasma-free (Paragraph [0007]). Cui teaches that following to the etching step there may be a post-treatment step that comprises using a plasma of oxygen, hydrogen, or nitrogen (Paragraph [0007]). Cui teaches that the post-treatment step can clear residue left from the etching process (Paragraph [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Arteaga Muller by including the post-treatment step taught by Cui following the flowing of the etchant precursor.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the use of this post-treatment step can remove residue left from the etching process (Cui Paragraph [0052]). Additionally, this modification could be considered the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield to predictable results. The modification of including the post-treatment would have had the predictable result of removing any unwanted residue that remained following the etching step. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 18, Arteaga Muller teaches wherein the etchant precursor comprises chlorine (Paragraph [0010] the etchant precursor is thionyl chloride, which comprises chlorine).
Regarding Claim 20, Arteaga Muller teaches that the etching step is conducted at a temperature of 150-600°C (Paragraph [0011-12] temperature is 150-600°C during the step of exposing the substrate to thionyl chloride). Arteaga Muller teaches that the etching step is conducted at a pressure of less than 100 Torr (Paragraphs [0011-12] pressure is less than 100 Torr during the step of exposing the substrate to thionyl chloride).
Therefore, Arteaga Muller fails to explicitly teach that wherein removing the portion of the titanium-containing material is performed at a temperature less than or about 450 °C. Arteaga Muller also fails to explicitly teach wherein removing the portion of the titanium-containing material is performed at a pressure greater than or about 0.1 Torr.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a temperature for the etching step at a level within the disclosed range of 150-600°C, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of less than 450°C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a pressure for the etching step at a level within the disclosed range of less than 100 Torr, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of greater than or about 0.1 Torr. 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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arteaga Muller in view of Cui and Demmin et al. (US-6635185-B2).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Arteaga Muller teaches a method that meets all the limitations of claims 17 and 18 as outlined above. Cui teaches that various semiconductor manufacturing processes can leave residues (Paragraph [0047] byproducts from previous processing can be on the layer to be etched) and that the post-treatment step can clear residue left from the etching process from the substrate or the processing chamber (Paragraph [0052]).
Modified Arteaga Muller fails to teach wherein the treatment plasma effluents are configured to remove residual chlorine.
Demmin teaches methods related to etching (Column 1 lines 5-12). Demmin teaches that process conditions for a plasma etching process can be modified in order to achieve a satisfactory etch (Column 7 lines 15-25).
Following the etching process taught by modified Arteaga Muller, residues could have been formed on the substrate or the processing chamber that came from the material etched (a metal or metal-containing film that contained titanium. Arteaga Muller Paragraphs [0010-11]) and/or from the etchant precursor (thionyl chloride, SOCl2. Arteaga Muller Paragraph [0010]). Therefore, the residues that could form, that would be removed by the post-treatment process taught by Cui, might comprise titanium, sulfur, oxygen, and/or chlorine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Arteaga Muller by optimizing the process conditions of the post-treatment plasma etching process in order to remove any residue formed from the etching step, including a residue of residual chlorine.
This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because Demmin teaches that the process parameters of a plasma etch are result-effective variables that can be optimized in order satisfactorily complete an etching step. See MPEP 2144.05 IIB.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pg. 1-2, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With regard to the independent claims 11 and 17, applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Arteaga Muller and Cui.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The teachings of Cui relied upon in the combination relate to pre-treatment and post-treatment processes and not the specific etching of aluminum-containing materials taught by Cui. On of ordinary skill in the art could have understood the pre- and post-treatment processes as useful in methods beyond the specific full method taught by Cui. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Examiner takes the position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation to combine the teachings of Cui as outlined above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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