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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 12-02/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation "wherein the flow rate of the hydrogen fluoride gas is highest in the process gas excluding the inert gas". This limitation could be interpreted to mean that the flow rate of hydrogen fluoride supplied as a part of the process gas is higher than any of the possible other flow rates of hydrogen fluoride that are supplied, but not considered part of the process gas, during the method. Alternatively, this limitation could be interpreted to mean that of all the flow rates of gases that are supplied as the process gas, the flow rate of hydrogen fluoride is the highest, when the flow rate of the inert gas is excluded from the comparison. Since the limitations of this claim can be interpreted as multiple ways this claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, Claim 11 will be interpreted as requiring that the flow rate of hydrogen fluoride be higher than the flow rate of any other gas considered part of the process gas, where the flow rate of the inert gas is excluded from this comparison.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orui et al. (US-20220148884-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Orui teaches an etching method (Paragraph [0002] an etching method is taught) comprising:
(a) providing a substrate on a substrate support in a chamber, the substrate including a silicon-containing film and a mask on the silicon-containing film, the silicon-containing film including silicon and nitrogen (Paragraph [0004] a substrate that includes a silicon nitride film is put into a chamber. Paragraph [00038] substrate is to be put onto a substrate support);
(b) supplying a process gas to the chamber, the process gas containing a hydrogen fluoride gas and a chlorine-containing gas (Paragraph [0025] processing gas is supplied to chamber and includes a phosphorus-containing gas, a fluorine-containing gas, and a boron-containing gas. Paragraph [0022] the fluorine-containing gas can include hydrogen fluoride. Paragraph [0064] the boron-containing gas can be BCl3, a chlorine-containing gas); and
(c) generating a plasma from the process gas to etch the silicon-containing film (Paragraph [0025] plasma is generated from the process gas to etch the silicon-containing film).
Orui fails to where a flow rate of the chlorine-containing gas is 1.5 volume % or more of a total flow of the process gas excluding an inert gas.
However, Orui further teaches that the boron-containing gas, which can be BCl3, and therefore can be considered equivalent to the claimed chlorine-containing gas is included within the process gas at more than 0% and less than 6% (Paragraph [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a flow rate for the chlorine-containing gas at a level within the disclosed range of more than 0% and less than 6%, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 1.5% by volume or more. 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 Claims 2 and 3, Orui further teaches wherein the chlorine-containing gas contains a phosphorus chloride gas, as required by claim 2, and wherein the chlorine-containing gas contains at least one selected from the group consisting of PCI3 gas, PCI5 gas, and POCl3 gas, as required by claim 3 (Paragraph [0025] processing gas includes a phosphorus-containing gas Paragraph [0062] the phosphorus-containing gas can be PCl3, PCl5, or POCl3 and the chlorine-containing gas can be considered to include the phosphorus-containing gas).
Regarding Claim 4, Orui further teaches wherein the chlorine-containing gas contains at least one selected from the group consisting of Cl2 gas, HCI gas, SiCI2 gas, and BCl3 gas (Paragraph [0064] BCl3 can be selected as the boron-containing gas, and can therefore be considered the claimed chlorine-containing gas).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Orui further teaches wherein the process gas further contains a phosphorus fluoride gas, as required by claim 5, and wherein the phosphorus fluoride gas is at least either one of PF3 gas and PF5 gas, as required by claim 6 (Paragraph [0025] processing gas includes a phosphorus-containing gas Paragraph [0062] the phosphorus-containing gas can be PF3 or PF5).
Regarding Claim 7, Orui fails to explicitly teach that the flow rate of the chlorine-containing gas is 5 volume % or less of the total flow of the process gas excluding the inert gas.
However, Orui further teaches that the boron-containing gas, which can be BCl3, and therefore can be considered equivalent to the claimed chlorine-containing gas is included within the process gas at more than 0% and less than 6% (Paragraph [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a flow rate for the chlorine-containing gas at a level within the disclosed range of more than 0% and less than 6%, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 1.5% by volume or more (as required by claim 1) and 5% by volume or less (as required by the instant claim). 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 Claims 12 and 13, Orui further teaches wherein the process gas further contains a carbon-containing gas, as required by claim 12, and wherein the carbon-containing gas is either a fluorocarbon gas or a hydrofluorocarbon gas, as required by claim 13 (Paragraph [0060] the processing gas can include a carbon-containing gas. Paragraph [0061] the fluorine-containing gas can include a hydrofluorocarbon or a fluorocarbon gas).
Regarding Claim 14, Orui further teaches wherein the process gas further contains at least either one of an oxygen-containing gas and a metal-containing gas (Paragraph [0060] the processing gas can include an oxygen-containing gas).
Regarding Claim 15, Orui further teaches wherein the silicon-containing film further contains at least any one of a silicon nitride film, a silicon oxide film, and a polysilicon film (Paragraph [0033] the silicon-containing film can comprise two or films that may be silicon nitride, silicon oxide, or polycrystalline films).
Regarding Claim 16, Orui further teaches wherein the mask is a carbon-containing film or a metal-containing film (Paragraph [0034] the mask may contain carbon or metal).
Regarding Claim 17, Orui further teaches wherein a temperature of the substrate support is set to 0°C or less in (c) (Paragraph [0019] the temperature of the substrate can be set to less than 0°C).
Regarding Claim 18, Orui teaches an etching method (Paragraph [0002] an etching method is taught) comprising:
(a) providing a substrate on a substrate support in a chamber, the substrate including a silicon-containing film and a mask on the silicon-containing film, the silicon-containing film including silicon and nitrogen (Paragraph [0004] a substrate that includes a silicon nitride film is put into a chamber. Paragraph [00038] substrate is to be put onto a substrate support);
(b) supplying a process gas to the chamber, the process gas containing a single or mixed gas and a chlorine-containing gas, the single or mixed gas containing fluorine and hydrogen (Paragraph [0025] processing gas is supplied to chamber and includes a phosphorus-containing gas, a fluorine-containing gas, and a boron-containing gas. Paragraph [0022] the fluorine-containing gas can include hydrogen fluoride. Paragraph [0064] the boron-containing gas can be BCl3, a chlorine-containing gas); and
(c) generating a plasma from the process gas to etch the silicon-containing film, where the plasma contains active species of hydrogen fluoride (Paragraph [0025] plasma is generated from the process gas to etch the silicon-containing film. When the process gas used to form the plasma includes hydrogen fluoride, as outlined above, the plasma would then contain active species of hydrogen fluoride).
Orui fails to explicitly teach where a flow rate of the chlorine-containing gas is 1.5 volume % or more of a total flow of the process gas excluding an inert gas.
However, Orui further teaches that the boron-containing gas, which can be BCl3, and therefore can be considered equivalent to the claimed chlorine-containing gas is included within the process gas at more than 0% and less than 6% (Paragraph [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a flow rate for the chlorine-containing gas at a level within the disclosed range of more than 0% and less than 6%, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 1.5% by volume or more. 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 19, Orui further teaches wherein the single or mixed gas is at least one selected from the group consisting of a hydrogen fluoride gas, a hydrofluorocarbon gas, and a mixed gas containing a fluorine-containing gas and a hydrogen-containing gas (Paragraph {0022] the fluorine-containing gas can include hydrogen fluoride. Paragraph [0061] the fluorine-containing gas can include a hydrofluorocarbon or a fluorocarbon gas).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orui et al. (US-20220148884-A1), as outlined above in regards to the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Suda et al. (US-20210159089-A1.
Regarding Claim 8, Orui teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Orui further teaches that the processing gas can include a halogen-containing gas that could be Cl2 (Paragraph [0060]).
However, Orui fails to teach an embodiment where a chlorine-containing gas that contains carbon is included in the process gas.
Suda teaches methods of etching a silicon-containing film (Paragraph [0005]). Suda teaches that the process can include a halogen-containing gas that can be CCl4 (Paragraph [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Orui, where that the process gas included a halogen-containing gas such that the halogen-containing gas was selected to be CCl4 as taught by Suda.
This modification would have been the simple substitution of one halogen-containing gas suitable for a use in a process gas in a process of plasma etching a silicon-containing film, with another such gas. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP §2143(B). Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Orui teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as outlined above, and further teaches wherein the chlorine-containing gas contains a CxHyFzClw gas (where x and w are integers of 1 or larger, and y and z are integers of 0 or larger), as required by the instant claim (As outlined above, with regards to the rejection of claim 8, the chlorine-containing gas can include CCl4. CCl4 meets the instant limitations when x=1, w=4, y=0, and z=0).
Regarding Claim 10, Orui further teaches wherein the process gas further contains a phosphorus-containing gas (Paragraph [0025] processing gas includes a phosphorus-containing gas).
Regarding Claim 11, Orui meets all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Orui fails to teach wherein the flow rate of the hydrogen fluoride gas is highest in the process gas excluding the inert gas.
Suda teaches methods of etching a silicon-containing film (Paragraph [0005]). Suda teaches that the flow rate of hydrogen fluoride within the processing gas is at least 80% of the non-inert components (Paragraph [0053]). Suda teaches that a flow rate of at least 80% hydrogen fluoride improves the etching selectivity (Paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Orui by selecting a flow rate for hydrogen fluoride so that it would comprise at least 80% of the processing gas as taught by Suda. With this modification the instant limitation would be met as no other gas could have a higher a flow rate within the processing gas when the flow rate of hydrogen fluoride would be at least 80% of the processing gas.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a selection of this flow rate would improve the etching selectivity (Suda Paragraph [0053]). Additionally, this modification can be considered the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of providing a suitable flow rate for hydrogen fluoride in a process of selectively etching a silicon-containing film. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 and 12-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11361976. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons:
Regarding Claim 1, the reference patent also requires “(a) providing a substrate on a substrate support in a chamber, the substrate including a silicon-containing film and a mask on the silicon-containing film, the silicon-containing film including silicon and nitrogen” (Claims 1 and 3), “(b) supplying a process gas to the chamber, the process gas containing a hydrogen fluoride gas and a chlorine-containing gas” (Claims 1 and 9), and “(c) generating a plasma from the process gas to etch the silicon-containing film.” (Claim 1). The difference is that the instant Claim 1 requires “where a flow rate of the chlorine-containing gas is 1.5 volume % or more of a total flow of the process gas excluding an inert gas”. However, the reference patent requires that the process gas includes the hydrogen fluoride gas at a flow rate between 25% and 80% of the total volume of non-inert components in the process gas (Claims 1 and 2), with this limitation the amount of chlorine-containing gas within the process gas could be at most, between 20% and 75% of the total volume of non-inert components in the process gas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a flow rate for the chlorine-containing gas at a level within the disclosed range of less than 75% of the total volume of non-inert components in the process gas, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 1.5 volume % or more. 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 12 and 13 can be considered equivalent to reference patent claims 10 and 11.
Claim 14 can be considered equivalent to reference patent claim 10.
Claim 15 can be considered equivalent to reference patent claim 3.
Claim 16 can be considered equivalent to reference patent claim 12.
Claim 17 can be considered equivalent to reference patent claim 4.
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 11-19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, and 18 of copending Application No. 18/207,737 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons:
Regarding Claim 1, the reference application also requires “(a) providing a substrate on a substrate support in a chamber, the substrate including a silicon-containing film and a mask on the silicon-containing film, the silicon-containing film including silicon and nitrogen” (Claims 1 and 12), “(b) supplying a process gas to the chamber, the process gas containing a hydrogen fluoride gas and a chlorine-containing gas” (Claims 1, 5, and 7), and “(c) generating a plasma from the process gas to etch the silicon-containing film.” (Claim 1). The difference is that the instant Claim 1 requires “where a flow rate of the chlorine-containing gas is 1.5 volume % or more of a total flow of the process gas excluding an inert gas”. However, the reference application requires that “the process gas includes the hydrogen fluoride gas with a highest flow rate of non-inert components of the process gas.” (Claim 8), with this limitation the amount of chlorine-containing gas within the process gas would have to be less than 50%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a flow rate for the chlorine-containing gas at a level within the disclosed range of less than 50%, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 1.5 volume % or more. 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 2 can be considered equivalent to reference application claim 7.
Claim 7 can be considered equivalent to the reference application claims as outlined above, except that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a flow rate for the chlorine-containing gas at a level within the disclosed range of less than 50%, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 1.5 volume % or more, as required by claim 1, and 5 volume % or less, as required by claim 7. 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 11 can be considered equivalent to reference application claim 8.
Claims 12 and 13 introduce additional limitations that can be considered equivalent to the limitation of reference application claim 18, where a hydrofluorocarbon is included in the process gas.
Claim 14 can be considered equivalent to reference application claims 9 and 10.
Claim 15 can be considered equivalent to reference application claim 12.
The limitation of claim 16 is already met by the limitations of reference application claim 1.
Claim 17 can be considered equivalent to reference application claim 11.
Claims 18 and 19 can be considered equivalent to the reference application claims 17 and 19, when the same logic used within claim 1 above is applied.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
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