Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/125,206

PLASMA PROCESSING METHOD AND PLASMA PROCESSING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 23, 2023
Examiner
DUCLAIR, STEPHANIE P.
Art Unit
1713
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Tokyo Electron Limited
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
567 granted / 795 resolved
+6.3% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
825
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
75.4%
+35.4% vs TC avg
§102
5.6%
-34.4% vs TC avg
§112
11.6%
-28.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 795 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-8 and 10-22 are pending before the Office for review. In the response filed February 5, 2026: Claims 1, 10, 16 and 20 were amended Claims 21-22 are newly added.Claim 9 was canceled. No new matter is present. 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 5, 2026 has been entered. Election/Restrictions Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 9, 2025. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-19) in the reply filed on May 9, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it would not be a significant burden on the Office to search and examine each of the identified inventions. This is not found persuasive because it is the Examiner position that it would be an undue burden to examine both inventions. The Examiner maintains that Group I is directed towards a method and Group II is directed towards an apparatus. The method of Group I can be conducted by an apparatus that differs from Group II. A completed examination of both groups would require different fields of search between the two groups and non-overlapping art. Therefore the Examiner maintains the restriction of record as it would be an undue burden to examine both groups of inventions. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0057228) in view of BRIGGS et al (U.S. Patent 9,673,058), NAGATOMO et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0074191) and MORI et al (U.S. Patent 6,136,214). With regards to claims 1 and 16, Yamada discloses a plasma processing method executed by a plasma processing apparatus having a chamber, the plasma processing method comprising: (a) providing a substrate having a silicon containing film (EF) and a mask (MK) on the silicon containing film (EF); and (b) etching the silicon containing film, the (b) etching including (b-1) etching the silicon containing film by using a plasma generated from a first processing gas (ST1) and (b-2) etching the silicon containing film by using a plasma generated from a second processing gas (ST2) (Paragraphs [0004], [0026]-[0027], [0058]-[0069] Figures 1-2, 5-6). Yamada does not explicitly discloses a first processing gas containing a hydrogen fluoride gas and a tungsten containing gas or a chemical species containing at least one selected from a group consisting of tungsten, titanium and molybdenum and a second processing gas containing a hydrogen fluoride gas, the second processing gas not containing a tungsten containing gas, or containing a tungsten containing gas at a flow ratio smaller than a flow ratio of the tungsten containing gas in the first processing gas, or the second plasma not containing the chemical species, or containing the chemical species at a partial pressure lower than a partial pressure of the chemical species in the first plasma and wherein at least one member selected from a group consisting of the first processing gas and the second processing gas further contains a phosphorus containing gas, and wherein the phosphorus containing gas may be PF3, phosphorus oxide gas, a phosphorus gas containing a halogen element other than fluorine, a halogenated phosphoryl gas, a phospine- based gas, a PClaFb (a is an integer of 1 or more, b is an integer of 0 or more, and a+ b is an integer of 5 or less) gas, a PCcHaFe (d and e are each an integer of 1 or more and 5 or less, and c is an integer of 0 or more and 9 or less) gas, a PClvFwCxHy gas (v, w, x, and y are each an integer of 1 or more), a gas containing phosphorus, fluorine, and halogen other than fluorine in its molecular structure, a gas containing phosphorus, fluorine, carbon I, and hydrogen in its molecular structure, or a gas containing phosphorus, fluorine, and hydrogen in its molecular structure. Briggs discloses a process for plasma etching substrate comprising bulk silicon oxide as a dielectric though a patterned mask using an etching gas comprising a tungsten gas precursor (WF6) and a fluorine containing precursor (NF3) wherein the concentration of the tungsten containing precursor can be adjusted based on the desired passivation during the high aspect ratio etching; wherein the tungsten gas precursor may be present in one processing gas but not in a second processing gas (Col. 3 line63- Col. 5 line 49, Col. 5 lines 1-28, Claims 1, 9). Nagatomo discloses a process for plasma etching a substrate comprising silicon containing layers wherein the plasma comprises fluorine containing gases including one or more of HF gas, NF3 gas and WF6 gas wherein the combination of gases etches the silicon containing film and replenishes the tungsten film (Paragraphs [0060]-[0067]). As such Yamada as modified by Briggs and Nagatomo renders obvious a first processing gas containing a hydrogen fluoride gas and a tungsten containing gas or a chemical species containing at least one selected from a group consisting of tungsten and a second processing gas containing a hydrogen fluoride gas, the second processing gas not containing a tungsten containing gas, or containing a tungsten containing gas at a flow ratio smaller than a flow ratio of the tungsten containing gas in the first processing gas, or the second plasma not containing the chemical species, or containing the chemical species at a partial pressure lower than a partial pressure of the chemical species in the first plasma. Mori discloses a plasma processing method executed by a plasma processing apparatus having a chamber, the plasma processing method comprises providing a substrate having a silicon containing film (silicon oxide and silicon nitride) and a mask on the silicon containing film, etching the silicon containing film using a plasma generated from a processing gas comprising a phosphorus containing gas including PF3 (Col. 1 lines 5-23, Col. 3 lines 3-26, Col.8 lines 47-63) which renders wherein at least one member selected form a group consisting of the first processing gas and the second processing gas further contains a phosphorus containing gas wherein the phosphorus containing gas may be PF3. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Yamada to include the processing gas including the tungsten precursor as rendered obvious by Briggs because the reference of Briggs discloses that providing the tungsten precursor allows for the etching and passivation of the sidewall to minimize the bowing during the etching step (Col. 5 lines 27-38) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired etching using the processing gas including the tungsten precursor as rendered obvious by Briggs. MPEP 2143D It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Yamada to include the processing gas including the hydrogen fluoride precursor and tungsten precursor as rendered obvious by Nagatomo because the reference of Nagatomo discloses that providing the hydrogen fluoride precursor and tungsten precursor allows for the etching and coating the sidewalls with a tungsten containing film of the sidewall to suppress etching in a transversal direction under the mask during the high aspect ratio etching (Paragraphs [0060], [0066]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired etching using the processing gas including the hydrogen fluoride precursor and tungsten precursor as rendered obvious by Nagatomo. MPEP 2143D It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Yamada to include the processing gas including the phosphorus containing gas as rendered obvious by Moir because the reference of Mori discloses that such gases provide enhance selectivity while preventing etching deformations or notching (Col. 21 lines 3-27) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired etching using the processing gas including phosphorus precursor as rendered obvious by Mori. MPEP 2143D With regards to claim 2, the modified teachings of Yamada renders obvious wherein in the (b) etching, the (b-1) and the (b-2) are alternately repeated. (Yamada Paragraph [0058]) With regards to claim 3, the modified teachings of Yamada renders obvious wherein in the (b) etching, a cycle including the (b-1) and the (b-2) is repeated a plurality of times (Yamada Paragraph [0058]), and in the (b-1) of at least one cycle after a second cycle, a time of the (b-1) of at least one cycle after the second cycle is shorter than a time of the (b-1) of the first cycle. (Yamada Paragraphs [0070]-[0071]). With regards to claims 4-5, the modified teachings of Yamada discloses wherein the tungsten containing gases may include WF6 or WCl6 (Briggs Col. 3 lines 63-Col. 4 lines 16; Col. 8 lines 1-8) which renders obvious wherein at least one member selected from a group consisting of the tungsten containing gas contained in the first processing gas and the tungsten containing gas contained in the second processing gas is a WFaClb (a and b are each an integer of 0 or more and 6 or less, and a sum of a and b is 2 or more and 6 or less) gas and wherein at least one selected from a group consisting of the tungsten containing gas contained in the first processing gas and the tungsten containing gas contained in the second processing gas contains at least one gas selected from a group consisting of a WF6 gas and a WCl6 gas. With regards to claim 6, the modified teachings of Yamada discloses a tungsten containing gas is included in amount from 0.1 to 5sccm (Briggs Col. 4 line 1) and the additional fluorine containing gas can be present in amounts form 0-25 sccm (nitrogen trifluoride) wherein the additional fluorine gas can be added in amounts including hydrogen fluoride (Nagatomo Paragraph [0060]) rendering obvious wherein in the first processing gas, a flow rate of the hydrogen fluoride gas is a largest among all gases excluding any inert gas. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I) With regards to claim 7, the modified teachings of Yamada discloses a tungsten containing gas is included in amount from 0.1 to 5sccm (Briggs Col. 4 line 1) rendering obvious wherein in the first processing gas, a flow rate of the tungsten containing gas is a smallest among all gases excluding any inert gas. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I) With regards to claim 8, the modified teachings of Yamada discloses a tungsten containing gas is included in amount from 0.1 to 5sccm (Briggs Col. 4 line 1) and the additional fluorine containing gas can be present in amounts form 0-25 sccm (nitrogen trifluoride) wherein the additional fluorine gas can be added in amounts including hydrogen fluoride (Nagatomo Paragraph [0060]) rendering obvious herein in the first processing gas, a flow rate of the hydrogen fluoride gas is 10 times or more than a flow rate of the tungsten containing gas. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I) With regards to claim 10, the modified teachings of Yamada renders obvious wherein the phosphorus containing gas is a halogenated phosphorus gas (Mori Col. 8 lines 54-63 discloses PF3). With regards to claims 11-12, the modified teachings of Yamada renders obvious wherein at least one member selected from a group consisting of the first processing gas and the second processing gas further contains a carbon containing gas and wherein the carbon containing gas is either a fluorocarbon gas or a hydrofluorocarbon gas (Briggs Col. 4 lines 35-39). With regards to claim 13, the modified teachings of Yamada renders obvious wherein at least one member selected from a group consisting of the first processing gas and the second processing gas further contains an oxygen containing gas (Briggs Col. 4 lines 39-40). With regards to claim 14, the modified teachings of Yamada renders obvious wherein at least one member selected from a group consisting of the first processing gas and the second processing gas further contains a gas containing halogen other than fluorine (Briggs Col. 4 lines 35-39 discloses fluorocarbon and hydrofluorocarbons). With regards to claim 15, the modified teachings of Yamada renders obvious wherein the mask has a hole pattern (Yamada Paragraphs [0028], [0077]). With regards to claim 17, the modified teachings of Yamada renders obvious wherein the hydrogen fluoride species is generated from at least one gas selected from a group consisting of a hydrogen fluoride gas and a hydrofluorocarbon gas (Briggs Col. 4 lines 35-39 discloses hydrofluorocarbon, Nagatomo Paragraph [0060] discloses hydrofluorocarbon and HF gas). With regards to claim 18, the modified teachings of Yamada renders obvious wherein the hydrogen fluoride species is generated from a hydrofluorocarbon gas having 2 or more carbon atoms (Briggs Col. 4 lines 35-39 discloses hydrofluorocarbon, Nagatomo Paragraph [0060] discloses hydrofluorocarbon and HF gas). With regards to claim 19, the modified teachings of Yamada renders obvious wherein the hydrogen fluoride species is generated from a fluorine containing gas and a hydrogen containing gas (Nagatomo Paragraph [0060] discloses hydrogen containing gas and fluorine containing gas). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10 of Applicant’s response, filed February 5, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 and 10-19 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. In particular, Applicant’s amendments have overcome the rejection of record. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of MORI et al (U.S. Patent 6,136,214). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE P. DUCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5502. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30 M-F. 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. /STEPHANIE P DUCLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 23, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 15, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 26, 2025
Interview Requested
Jan 13, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 13, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 05, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 07, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604742
Layout Design Method and Structure with Enhanced Process Window
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604690
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SELECTIVE METAL-CONTAINING HARDMASK REMOVAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598935
COMPOSITION AND METHOD FOR CONDUCTING A MATERIAL REMOVING OPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598964
HARDMASK INTEGRATION FOR HIGH ASPECT RATIO APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12581881
PLASMA PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+19.9%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 795 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month