DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/26 have been fully considered.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant has argued that the non-metals of Korolik are not separate precursors. However, the argument is not persuasive because. the broadly recited claim does not require the precursors to be separate. Further, Korolik teaches the precursors may be used in combination (in conjunction with or as replacements for).
Regarding Claim 13, Applicant has argued that Belau teaches 60MHz but does not teach forming plasma at a frequency between about 13.56 MHz and about 30MHz. However, the argument is not persuasive because Belau teaches a frequency of between about 13.56 and 30 MHz (Paragraph 14) such as 27 MHz.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 18 have been considered but are moot because the new 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. Note that pulsed bias is well known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art of etching of silicon containing stacks using hydrogen and fluorine precursors and co-reactant for balancing etching uniformity of silicon containing stacks, as recited in the following rejections.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication 2019/0131135 to Belau et al.
Regarding Claim 13, Belau et al. teaches a semiconductor processing method
comprising: providing a hydrogen-containing precursor (Paragraph 24) and a fluorine-
containing precursor (Paragraph 24) to a processing region of a semiconductor
processing chamber (349), wherein a substrate (208) is disposed on a substrate
support (308) within the processing region, and wherein one or more layers
(Paragraph 13) of silicon-containing material comprising alternating layers of silicon-and-oxygen-containing material (224) and silicon-and-nitrogen-containing material (228) are disposed on the substrate; forming plasma effluents of the hydrogen-containing precursor and the fluorine-containing precursor at a frequency of between about 13.56 and 30 MHz (Paragraph 14); and contacting one or more layers of silicon-containing material with plasma effluents of the hydrogen-containing precursor and the fluorine-containing precursor ad the co-reactant, wherein the contacting etches a portion of the one or more layers of silicon-containing material.
Regarding Claim 16, Belau et al. teaches (Paragraph 18) the semiconductor
processing chamber is maintained at less than or about 150 m Torr.
Regarding Claim 17, Belau et al. teaches (Paragraph 18) the plasma effluents of
the hydrogen-containing precursor and the fluorine-containing precursor are generated
at a plasma power of less than or about 5,000 W.
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 1-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2019/0131135 to Belau et al. in view of US Publication 2021/0111033 to Korolik et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Belau et al. teaches a semiconductor processing method
comprising: providing a hydrogen-containing precursor (Paragraph 24) and a fluorine-
containing precursor (Paragraph 24) to a processing region of a semiconductor
processing chamber (349), wherein a substrate (208) is disposed on a substrate
support (308) within the processing region, and wherein one or more layers of silicon-
containing material (212) are disposed on the substrate; forming plasma effluents of the
hydrogen-containing precursor and the fluorine-containing precursor; and contacting
one or more layers of silicon-containing material with plasma effluents of the hydrogen-
containing precursor and the fluorine-containing precursor, wherein the contacting
etches a portion of the one or more layers of silicon-containing material.
Regarding Claim 1, as applied above, Belau et al. teaches the
method of the invention substantially as claimed, but does not expressly teach a co-
reactant such as a phosphorous containing precursor. However, Korolik et al. teaches
(Paragraphs 48-51) a phosphorous or sulfur containing precursor for plasma etching
alternating silicon oxide/nitride stack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a sulfur or phosphorus containing precursor in the method of Belau et al. in order to improve selectivity in a stack etching with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Belau et al. teaches (Paragraph 24) the hydrogen-containing
precursor comprises diatomic hydrogen (H2).
Regarding Claim 3, Belau et al. teaches (Paragraph 24) the fluorine-containing
precursor comprises hydrogen fluoride (HF) or nitrogen trifluoride (NF3).
Regarding Claim 4, Belau et al. teaches (Paragraph 13) the one or
more layers of silicon-containing material comprising alternating layers of silicon-and-
oxygen-containing material (224) and silicon-and-nitrogen-containing material (228).
Regarding Claim 5, Belau et al. teaches (Fig. 2A) the one or more layers of
silicon-containing material comprise greater than or about 20 alternating layers of
silicon-and-oxygen-containing material and silicon-and-nitrogen-containing. material.
Regarding Claim 6, Belau et al. teaches (Paragraph 27) applying a bias power to the substrate support during the contacting.
Regarding Claim 7, Belau et al. teaches (Paragraph 27) a voltage of the bias
power is greater than or about 500 V.
Regarding Claim 8, Belau et al. teaches (Paragraph 19) the contacting etches a
feature in the one or more layers of silicon-containing material.
Regarding Claim 9, Belau et al. teaches (Paragraph 19) the feature is
characterized by an aspect ratio of greater than or about 10:1.
Regarding Claim 10, Belau et al. teaches (Paragraph 23) the substrate is
characterized by a temperature of less than or about 100 °C.
Regarding Claim 11, Belau et al. does not expressly teach an etch rate of greater than or about 200 nm/min or greater than or about 500 nm/min. However, the same etch rate is reasonably expected to be achieved using the same etching chemistry and process or else is the result of essential limitations which have not been claimed.
Regarding Claim 14, as applied above to Claim 13, Belau et al. teaches the
method of the invention substantially as claimed, but does not expressly teach a co-
reactant such as a phosphorous containing precursor. However, Korolik et al. teaches
(Paragraphs 48-51) a phosphorous or sulfur containing precursor for plasma etching
alternating silicon oxide/nitride stack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a sulfur or phosphorus containing precursor in the method of Belau et al. in order to improve selectivity in a stack etching with predictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over US Publication 2019/0131135 to Belau et al.
Regarding Claim 15, Belau et al. teaches the method of the invention
substantially as claimed, but does not expressly teach an etch rate of greater than or
about 200 nm/min or greater than or about 500 nm/min. However, the same etch rate is
reasonably expected to be achieved using the same etching chemistry and process or else is the result of essential limitations which have not been claimed.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over US Publication 2019/0131135 to Belau et al. in view of US Publication 2021/0143016 to Yokoyama et al.
Regarding Claim 18, Belau et al. teaches a semiconductor processing method
comprising: providing a hydrogen-containing precursor (Paragraph 24) and a fluorine-
containing precursor (Paragraph 24) to a processing region of a semiconductor
processing chamber (349), wherein a substrate (208) is disposed on a substrate
support (308) within the processing region, and wherein and wherein one or more layers
(Paragraph 13) of silicon-containing material comprising alternating layers of silicon-and-oxygen-containing material (224) and silicon-and-nitrogen-containing material (228) are disposed on the substrate; (Paragraph 18 and 24) providing a co-reactant with the hydrogen-containing precursor and the fluorine-containing precursor; forming plasma effluents of the hydrogen-containing precursor and the fluorine-containing precursor; and contacting one or more layers of silicon-containing material with plasma effluents of the hydrogen-containing precursor and the fluorine-containing precursor, wherein the contacting etches a portion of the one or more layers of silicon-containing material.
Regarding Claim 18, Belau et al. teaches the method of the invention substantially as claimed, but does not expressly teach pulsed bias power. However, pulsed bias power is well-known in the art of etching a silicon containing stack. For example, Yokoyama et al teaches (Paragraph 59-65 and 99-106) pulsed bias provides interleaved etching and deposition phases for etching an oxide/nitride stack (Paragraph 32) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a pulsed bias in the method of Belau et al. in order to balance etching and deposition with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 19, as applied above, Belau et al. in view of teaches the method of the invention substantially as claimed, but does not expressly teach a co-reactant such as a phosphorous containing precursor. However, Yokoyama et al. teaches (Paragraphs 24 and 74) a phosphorous containing precursor for plasma etching an alternating silicon oxide/nitride stack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a phosphorus containing precursor in the method of Belau et al. in order to improve selectivity in a silicon stack etching process with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 20, Belau et al. teaches (Paragraph 20) a temperature of the substrate is less than or about 0°C.
Conclusion
The Prior Art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Publication 2016/0293609 to Jha et al. teaches (Paragraph 87) PF3 PF5 etch gas co-reactant for stack etching.
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