DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (2/28/2023), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-19) were examined in a Non-Final on 9/19/2025. This office action is in response to Applicants submission of 1/14/2026. Claims were amended. Claim 17-19 were cancelled and a new claim 20 added.
Response to Amendment and arguments
Applicant’s arguments related to rejection using Han are not persuasive and moot in view of the present rejection in response to amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “control circuitry configured to execute the computer executable program to control the gas supply to supply, to the chamber, a process gas including a halogen containing gas and a phosphorous containing gas such that and a ratio of a flow of the phosphorus containing gas to a total flow of the process gas being is in a range of 10-50%.”
This limitation in this and claim 14 is unclear.
Regarding this limitation, the specification discloses a general-purpose controller which may control individual gases at any flow. There is nothing in the specification to state that the flow is limited to the claimed ratio by the action of the program saved in the memory.
It is noted that a specific program in the memory becomes part of the apparatus and is given weight but the specification does not disclose a program in this case.
Claim 14 recites “control circuitry configured to control the plasma generator to generate a plasma from the process gas in the chamber, for etching the single layer portion and the multilayer portion at a same time while forming a protective film on a side wall of a recess formed in each of the single layer portion and the multilayer portion by the etching, the protective film containing a phosphorus component in the phosphorous containing gas, and the substrate support being set to a temperature lower than or equal to 0 0C at a start of the etching.”
The specification however does not disclose the configuration in terms of executable instructions, algorithm and control parameters associated with such configuration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al (US 20180233356) in view of Peter Stone (US 20170178894).
A plasma processing apparatus, comprising: a chamber (Fig 1);
a substrate support to support a substrate in the chamber (104), the substrate having a multilayer of a silicon oxide film (308), and a silicon nitride film (310);
a gas supply to supply a process gas in the chamber, the process gas comprising a halogen containing gas and a phosphorous containing gas (gases could include SF6, C3F8, CF4, BF3, BI3, PH3, B2H6, H2, Xe, Kr, Ne, He, SiH.4, SiF4, CH4, PF3, PF5 or combinations thereof as noted in para 70).
Regarding the ratio, Han teaches a combination and therefore the disclosed apparatus would be able to independently control their flow and thus provide a predetermined ratio. Han et al however do not disclose claimed ratio.
Peter Stone discloses etching apparatus and discloses selective etch of silicon oxide and silicon nitride (Para 28) and several gases including Halogen gases and Phosphorus containing gases (Para 36) and teaches that gas ratios may be selected to control etch rates and etch selectivity (Para 81).
This points to optimization.
It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In this case to get a predetermined selectivity (0.8-1.2) gas ratio will have to be 10-50%.
Therefore, having a claimed ratio to give a predetermined etch selectivity would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing date of this application.
This applies to claim 20 also, since ratio of etch rate of multilayer portion and single layer portion is dependent upon the substrate and would be a result of claimed gas ratios and not pointing to any structure including the claimed program saved in memory.
Regarding claims 2 and 3 forming a protective film on the side wall of a recess is a functional limitation. The specification does not point to any structural limitation other than the plasma and gas as claimed to be controlled by program. Therefore, the apparatus of Han et al is seen as being capable of this function.
Regarding claims 4-6 phosphorus and carbon or hydrogen containing gas is disclosed as above.
Regarding claim 7 halogen containing gas contains a fluorine component as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 9 the substrate is a content to be worked upon and does not distinguish the apparatus. A multilayer substrate, is however disclosed in Han and a single layer is an instance of multilayer. Disclosed apparatus can process such substrate.
In this connection courts have ruled:
Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Regarding claim 10-11 mask for etching is disclosed (Fig 3A and 322-326). Mask includes carbon (322).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al (US 20180233356) in view of Peter Stone (US 20170178894) and Toshikazu Furui (US 20100025366).
Han et al does not disclose having oxygen as a process gas.
Toshikazu Furui discloses having an oxygen gas to control taper in halogen etch (Fig 9A-9C and description.) and to modulate protective film formation (P 5 claim 3).
Therefore, having oxygen with halogen containing gas for etch profile control would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al (US 20180233356) in view of Peter Stone (US 20170178894) and Tomura et al (US 20190074190).
Han et al teach using mask for etching but do not teach tungsten containing mask.
Tomura et al disclose using tungsten mask for etching of a multilayer film using halogen (Para 53).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used tungsten mask before the effective filing date of this application since suppression of etching a mask is possible in case of etching with fluorine.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al (US 20180233356) in view of Peter Stone (US 20170178894) and Shen et al (US 20180366336).
Han does not disclose the step of setting the temperature of a substrate support that supports the substrate to O°C or less before the etching step
Shen discloses a method of etching aperture comprises a step of setting the temperature of a substrate to -120 °C /less than 0°C (page 7, para 0148) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Han’s method by setting the temperature of a substrate support that supports the substrate to a suitable -120 °C /less than O°C before the etching step for the silicon containing layer to react with the activated etching fluid as taught in Zhen (page 7, para 0148)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Han’s method by setting the temperature of a substrate support that supports the substrate to a suitable -120 °C /less than O°C before the etching step for the silicon containing layer to react with the activated etching fluid as taught in Shen (page 7, para 0148).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al (US 20180233356) in view of Peter Stone (US 20170178894) and Shen et al (US 20180366336), Nozawa et al (20050130436) and Martin Albert Blumenfield (3615942).
Han et al in view of Shen et al disclose a plasma processing apparatus including a substrate support to support a substrate in the chamber (104), the substrate having a multilayer of a silicon oxide film (308), and a silicon nitride film (310); and a gas supply to supply a process gas in the chamber, the process gas comprising a halogen containing gas and a phosphorous containing gas and setting a temperature of a substrate to -120 °C /less than 0°C (page 7, para 0148), but do not disclose forming a protective film on the side in etching a recess.
As discussed above, the claim recites functional limitation as no disclosed structure is associated with claimed configuration.
Nevertheless. Nozawa et al disclose generating a halogen plasma into etching chamber, causing two opposing actions of etching by F radicals and ion irradiation and the formation of a protective film by polymerization which proceeds simultaneously in the wall surfaces and bottom surface of the groove or the like (Para 60).
Regarding the protective film containing phosphorus, protective coating containing phosphorus was known as disclosed in Martin Albert Blumenfield (Col 1line 68-Col 2 line 6 and Col 6 lines 3-5). With phosphorus containing gas disclosed in Han such protective film will have been obvious.
Therefore, having an etch and protective film to etch a desired shaped recess using simultaneous etch and deposition would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No.11615964. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reason.
All the limitations of the instant claims including gases, simultaneous plasma etch and forming of protective film and other functional limitations are disclosed in claims of patent 11615964. Side by side comparison discloses similarity of substrate type, gases and controller.
Instant claim 1
11615964 claim 1
A plasma processing apparatus, comprising:
a chamber;
a substrate support to support a substrate in the chamber, the substrate having a single layer portion and a multilayer portion, the single layer portion including a silicon oxide film, and the multilayer portion including a stack of at least one silicon oxide film and at least one silicon nitride film;
a gas supply;
a plasma generator;
a memory storing a computer executable program: and control circuitry configured to execute the computer executable program to control the gas supply to supply, to the chamber, a process gas in the chamber, the process gas comprising including a halogen containing gas and a phosphorous containing gas such that and a ratio of a flow of the phosphorus containing gas to a total flow of the process gas being is in a range of 10-50%; and
control the plasma generator to generate a plasma from the process gas in the chamber, for etching the single layer portion and the multilayer portion.
A plasma treatment system for etching a silicon-containing film of a substrate haying the silicon-containing film and a mask, the plasma treatment system comprising:
a chamber;
a substrate support to support the substrate in the chamber;
a gas supply to supply a process gas in the chamber, the process gas containing a hydrogen fluoride gas component, a phosphorus gas component, and a carbon gas component; and control circuitry configured to control the gas supply to supply the process gas in the chamber to etch the silicon-containing film using the process gas, the silicon-containing film being supported by the substrate support, and control a plasma generator to generate plasma from the process gas in the chamber, wherein the silicon-containing film includes a silicon oxide film or a stack film having a silicon oxide film and a silicon nitride film, the phosphorus gas component includes at least one component selected from the group consisting of PF.sub.3, PF.sub.5, and PCl.sub.3, and the carbon gas component include; at least one component selected from the group consisting of C.sub.4F.sub.6, C.sub.4F.sub.8, CH.sub.2F.sub.2, CH.sub.3F, C.sub.3H.sub.2F.sub.4 and C.sub.4H.sub.2F.sub.6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akhil Mehrotra et al (US 20190096695) disclose simultaneous etch and deposition of protective film over different portions of a recess. (Para 18).
Sakuma (US 20160329684) disclose simultaneous etch and deposition of protective film over different portions of a recess. (Para 12).
Watanabe et al (20150325415) disclose simultaneous etch and deposition of protective film over same portions. (Para 74).
Nakagawa (US 20070187362) and Murakami (US 20070023394) also disclose simultaneous etch and deposition of protective film.
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 RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 PM.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716