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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/25 have been fully considered.
Applicant has argued that Roberts teaches that tantalum fluoride is added in order to prevent bowing which is completely different from preventing bottom surface hole distortion. However, the argument is not persuasive to overcome the rejection because the predetermined ratio of TaF5 included in the etching gas of Roberts is the same as the claimed invention and therefore the effect on hole distortion would reasonably be expected to be the same. Note that the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the same type of bottom surface hole distortion is not contemplated by Roberts, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2017/0365487 to Shen et al. in view of US Patent 10,361,092 to Roberts et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Shen et al. teaches (See Paragraphs 190 and 206 in context) an etching gas composition comprising: at least two C3 or C4 organic fluorine compounds; wherein the at least two C3 or C4 organic fluorine compounds are isomers. Shen et al. does not expressly teach tantalum fluoride. However, Roberts et al. teaches a metal containing component such as TaF5 (Col. 7, Lines 39-41) provides improved sidewall passivation to prevent bowing (Col. 4, Lines 42-46; Col. 5, Lines 22-25) in a vertical etch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include additives such as TaF5 in the method of Shen et al. in order to prevent bowing in a vertical hydrofluorocarbon etching process with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Shen et al. teaches (See at least Paragraphs 64, 65, 190 and Examples) the at least two C3 or C4 organic fluorine compounds each have a formula of C3H2F6.
Regarding Claim 3, Shen et al. teaches (Paragraph 206) the at least two C3 or C4 organic fluorine compounds are selected from among 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane, and 1,1,2,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane.
Regarding Claim 5, Shen et al. teaches (Paragraph 206) the at least two C3 or C4 organic fluorine compounds comprise a first organic fluorine compound and a second organic fluorine compound, the first organic fluorine compound is 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane, and the second organic fluorine compound is selected from among 1,1,1,3,3,3- hexafluoropropane and 1,1,2,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane.
Regarding Claim 6, Shen et al. teaches (Paragraph 206) the at least two C3 or C4 organic fluorine compounds comprise a first organic fluorine compound and a second organic fluorine compound, the first organic fluorine compound is 1,1,1,3,3,3- hexafluoropropane, and the second organic fluorine compound is 1,1,2,2,3,3- hexafluoropropane.
Regarding Claim 7, Roberts et al. teaches the metal containing component is in an amount of about 1 part by volume to about 5 parts by volume based on 100 parts by volume of the etching gas (Col. 4, Line 66 - Col. 5, Line 3) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include additives such as TaF5 in the method of Shen et al. in an amount of about 1 part by volume to about 5 parts by volume based on 100 parts by volume of the etching gas in order to provide sufficient metal containing component to prevent bowing with predictable results.
Claims 1 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2016/0307764 to Gupta et al. in view of US Publication 2017/0365487 to Shen et al. and in further view of US Patent 10,361,092 to Roberts et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Gupta et al. teaches (See at least Paragraphs 86 and 145 in context) an etching gas composition comprising organofluorine compounds of carbon number C3 or carbon number C4, wherein the at least two types of organofluorine compounds are isomeric to each other.
Regarding Claim 1, Gupta et al. does not expressly teach at least two types of organofluorine compounds are used. However, Shen et al. teaches at least two types of organofluorine compounds are used (Paragraph 206) in a multilayer stack etching process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to use at least two types of the organofluorine compounds of Gupta et al. in order to improve process parameters and/or reduce isolation difficulties and/or costs and/or the need for separate gas lines as recited by Shen et al. with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 1, Gupta et al. in view of Shen et al. does not expressly teach tantalum fluoride. However, However, Roberts et al. teaches a metal containing component such as TaF5 (Col. 7, Lines 39-41) provides improved sidewall passivation to prevent bowing (Col. 4, Lines 42-46; Col. 5, Lines 22-25) in a vertical etch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include additives such as TaF5 in the method of the method of Gupta et al. in view of Shen et al. in order to prevent bowing in a vertical hydrofluorocarbon etching process with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 8, Gupta et al. teaches (implicit) the at least two organofluorine compounds have a chemical formula of C4H2F6.
Regarding Claim 9, Gupta et al. teaches (See at least Paragraphs 86 and 145) the organofluorine compounds are respectively selected from among hexafluoroisobutene, (2Z)-1,1,1,4,4,4- hexafluoro-2-butene, 2,3,3,4,4,4-hexafluoro-1-butene, (2Z)-1,1,1,2,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene, (2Z)-1,1,2,3,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene,1,1,2,3,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene, (3R, 4S)-1,1,2,2,3,4- hexafluorocyclobutane, or1,1,2,2,3,3-hexafluorocyclobutane.
Regarding Claim 10, Gupta et al. teaches organofluorine compounds comprise a third organofluorine compound and a fourth organofluorine Compound, and the third organofluorine compound is (2Z)-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and the fourth organofluorine compound is selected from among hexafluoroisobutene or (3R, 4S)-1,1,2,2,3,4- hexafluorocyclobutane, but does not expressly teach to use third and fourth organofluorine compound. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to use third and fourth organofluorine compounds of Gupta et al. in order to improve process parameters and/or reduce isolation difficulties and/or costs and/or the need for separate gas lines as recited by Shen et al. with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 11, Gupta teaches organofluorine compounds hexafluoroisobutene and (3R, 4S)-1,1,2,2,3,4-hexafluorocyclobutane (See at least Paragraphs 86 and 145) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to provide a third organofluorine compound and a fourth organofluorine compound, wherein the third organofluorine compound is
hexafluoroisobutene and the fourth organofluorine compound is (3R, 4S)-1,1,2,2,3,4-hexafluorocyclobutane with predictable results.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Gupta et al. teaches an inert gas (Paragraph 141)
and a reactive gas (Paragraph 144), wherein the inert gas is selected from among argon (Ar), helium (He), neon (Ne), or a mixture thereof and the reactive gas is oxygen (O2).
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 Roberts P Culbert whose telephone number is (571)272-1433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 7:30 AM-6 PM EST.
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 571-272-1435. 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.
/ROBERTS P CULBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights