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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-40 are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 21-38 in the reply filed on 05/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 39-40 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
It is noted that the claimed invention is directed solely to a method. The examiner suggests amending the title to reflect same.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 26-28 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 26 line 2, the phrase “the first power intensity … about 50 W to about 300 W” is confusing. Generally speaking, power is measured in W and power intensity is W/area thus creating the confusion. The same issue applies to claims 27-28.
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.
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.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo et al. (KR 10-2012-0063725) (see English Translation) in view of Sandhu et al. (CN 102326230) (see English Translation).
Joo teaches a method of forming protruding patterns using a polymer layer as an etching protection layer (title) by forming a polymer layer 110 on a substrate 105; plasma processing the polymer layer, selective etching the surface for producing the protrusion pattern 130; and removing the polymer layer and forming a hydrophobic coating layer (purpose). In one embodiment, isotropic etching is used (p.3 paragraph 8) and the plasma density is increased (p.4 paragraph 4).
With respect to selective etching using a plasma, it is noted that Joo teaches that reactive ion etching uses a plasma and can be used to etch the substrate simultaneously with the plasma processing (p.3 6th paragraph). To separate into two different steps would have been obvious because the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes.
In addition, the reference fails to teach increasing mobility. Sandhu teaches of forming an integrated circuit (title) in which forming ionic species increases mobility (0023). To increase mobility in Joo would have been obvious because Sandhu teaching of using a plasma increases mobility.
Regarding claim 22, the applicant requires a second gas and a cycle. Joo teaches a second gas (p.4 paragraph 4) and Sandhu teaches repeating the process (0005).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo et al. (KR 10-2012-0063725) (see English Translation) in view of Watanabe et al. (2018/0366338).
Joo teaches a method of forming protruding patterns using a polymer layer as an etching protection layer (title) by forming a polymer layer 110 on a substrate 105; plasma processing the polymer layer, selective etching the surface for producing the protrusion pattern 130; and removing the polymer layer and forming a hydrophobic coating layer (purpose). In one embodiment, isotropic etching is used (p.3 paragraph 8) and the plasma density is increased (p.4 paragraph 4). However, the reference fails to teach two plasmas with two different frequencies.
Watanabe teaches plasma etching for selectively etching (title) in which a first plasma having a first RF power and a second plasma having a second RF power. In one embodiment, the first frequency is 27 to 100 MHz (0034) and the second frequency is 400 kHz to 13.56 MHz (0035). To utilize two different plasmas with two different frequencies in Joo would have been obvious with the expectation of success because Watanabe teaches selective etching with two different frequencies.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo et al. (KR 10-2012-0063725) (see English Translation) in view of Watanabe et al. (2018/0366338) and further in view of Wang et al. (2015/0129541). The combination of Joo/Watanabe fails to teach purging.
Wang teaches a selective etch process (title) in which an etch-purge-etch cycle is used (0037) when selectively etching with two plasmas (claim 11). To utilize a purging step in the combination would have been obvious because Want teaches of purging in a selective etching process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-36 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.
It is well known to increase plasma density as noted in Joo (p.4 paragraph 4) and mobility as noted in Sandhu (0023).
With respect to a second plasma, it would have been obvious to use a second plasma as it is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Furthermore, it is well known to use two plasmas to selective etch as noted in Hoshi et al. (2012/0309203). However, the prior art references fail to teach or suggest the claimed limitation of specifically using one plasma to increase density and a second plasma to increase mobility as required in claim 23, from which claims 24-36 depends.
Comments
The examiner has reviewed the documents of record submitted on June 17, 2025. The examiner will confirm that said documents do not pertain to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 06/11/2026
Prosecution Insights