DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "control providing of fluoride inside the process chamber so the substrate absorbs the hydrogen fluoride" [lines 7-8]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the hydrogen fluoride” in the claim. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting lines 7-8 of claim 1 to mean "control providing of hydrogen fluoride inside the process chamber so the substrate absorbs the hydrogen fluoride".
Regarding claims 2-11 and 14-17:
Claims 2-11 and 14-17 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 1.
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 recites “the substrate is supported by an electrostatic chuck”. However, claim 1, from which claim 12 depends, already sets forth an ESC. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 12 is referring to a different electrostatic chuck or the ESC previously claimed. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting claim 12 to mean “the substrate is supported by [[an]] the electrostatic chuck”.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 recites “the substrate is supported by an ESC”. However, claim 1, from which claim 13 depends, already sets forth an ESC. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 13 is referring to a different ESC or the ESC previously claimed. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting claim 13 to mean “the substrate is supported by [[an]] the ESC”.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 recites the limitation "control providing of fluoride inside the process chamber so the substrate absorbs the hydrogen fluoride" [lines 8-9]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the hydrogen fluoride” in the claim. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting lines 8-9 of claim 18 to mean "control providing of hydrogen fluoride inside the process chamber so the substrate absorbs the hydrogen fluoride".
Regarding claims 19:
Claim 19 is rejected at least based on its dependency from claim 18.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 recites the limitation "control providing of fluoride inside the process chamber so the substrate absorbs the hydrogen fluoride" [lines 8-9]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the hydrogen fluoride” in the claim. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting lines 8-9 of claim 20 to mean "control providing of hydrogen fluoride inside the process chamber so the substrate absorbs the hydrogen fluoride".
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukazawa (US 2016/0211147) in view of Kwon et al (US 2019/0027373) and Kulshreshtha et al (US 2021/0025056).
Regarding claim 1:
Fukazawa teaches a substrate processing apparatus (PEALE apparatus) configured to perform processing on a substrate to modify a condition of the substrate (a method of etching a layer on a substrate) [fig 1 & 0024, 0035], the substrate processing apparatus (PEALE apparatus) comprising: a process chamber (reaction chamber, 3) [fig 1 & 0035]; a substrate support (2) that supports a substrate (substrate, 1) [fig 1 & 0034-0035]; and processing circuitry (controller, not shown) configured to control providing of a halogen-containing etchant (halogen-containing gas) inside the process chamber (3) so the substrate absorbs the halogen-containing etchant (chemisorb the etching gas in an unexcited state on a surface of the substrate in the reaction space) [fig 1 & 0024, 0028, 0038], and control providing of plasma generated from an inert gas inside the process chamber (providing a pulse of RF power discharge between the electrodes to generate a reactive species of the inert gas in the reaction space) to expose the substrate with the absorbed halogen-containing etchant to the generated plasma (to contact the etching gas-chemisorbed surface of the substrate) [0024, 0028, 0030-0031, 0034, 0038].
Fukazawa does not specifically disclose the halogen-containing etchant being hydrogen fluoride.
Kwon teaches a halogen-containing etchant being hydrogen fluoride (hydrogen fluoride) [0079, 0083].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the halogen-containing gas of Fukazawa to be hydrogen fluoride, as in Kwon, to selectively etch a silicon oxide film [Kwon - 0079]
Fukazawa modified by Kwon does not specifically teach a substrate support including an ESC.
Kulshreshtha teaches a substrate support including an ESC (120) [fig 1 & 0024].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the substrate support of modified Fukazawa to include an ESC, as in Kulshreshtha, to electrostatically secure the substrate during processing [Kulshreshtha – 0015].
Although taught by the cited prior art, the limitations “a substrate having a first region containing a silicon oxide film (silicon oxide film) and a second region containing a film (silicon nitride film) other than the silicon oxide film (silicon oxide film) [Kwon - fig 1-2 & 0032, 0079]” does not impart any additional structure. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Furthermore, the limitations “to selectively etch the first region with respect to the second region” have not been afforded patentable wight because they merely express the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003). It is noted that Kwon specifically teaches that HF selectively etches silicon nitride [Kwon – 0079].
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Fukazawa teaches the substrate absorbs the hydrogen fluoride without plasma generation (chemisorb the etching gas in an unexcited state on a surface of the substrate – it is noted that the etching gas in the modified structure is hydrogen fluoride) [Fukazawa – 0024 and Kwon – 0079].
Regarding claims 3-5:
Fukazawa teaches the processing circuitry (controller, not shown) is configured to control pressure in the process chamber during the absorbing of the hydrogen fluoride on the substrate (programmed to cause the etching process to be conducted at the disclosed pressures in table 1) [table 1 & 0024, 0038]; wherein the pressure is controlled to be 350 mTorr or more (133.3 to 800 Pa) [table 1]; and wherein a temperature of the substrate support is controlled to be 0° C. or less (0 to 250° C via temperature regulator provided in 2) [table 1 & 0035].
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 6-9 and 19:
Fukazawa teaches the inert gas is a noble gas (noble gas) [0030-0031]; wherein the inert gas is Argon or a Nitrogen gas (Ar or a nitrogen gas) [0030-0031]; wherein the inert gas is Argon (Ar) [0030-0031]; and wherein the inert gas is a Nitrogen gas (nitrogen gas) [0030-0031].
Regarding claims 10-11:
Fukazawa teaches the absorbing of hydrogen fluoride on the substrate and the exposing the substrate with the absorbed hydrogen fluoride to plasma generated from an inert gas are repeated at least once (the etching cycle is repeated multiple times) [0024, 0027].
Although Fukazawa does not specifically disclose “wherein after the absorbing of hydrogen fluoride on the substrate and the exposing the substrate with the absorbed hydrogen fluoride to plasma generated from an inert gas are repeated 15 times, an etch amount of the second region is less than 15 percent of an etch amount of the first region”, Fukazawa teaches the target thickness is a result-effective variable [0027]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to discover the optimum number of cycles and etching rate per cycle through routine experimentation in order to achieve the target thickness to be etched. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claims 12-13:
Modified Fukazawa teaches the substrate is supported by the electrostatic chuck (ESC) (120 of Kulshreshtha) [Kulshreshtha - fig 1 & 0024], and the processing circuitry (controller, not show) is configured to control a surface temperature of the ESC to be equal to or less than 0° C., or equal to or less than −40° C (0 to 250° C via temperature regulator provided in 2) [Fukazawa - table 1 & 0035, 0038]; and wherein the substrate is supported by the ESC (120 of Kulshreshtha) [Kulshreshtha - fig 1 & 0024], and the processing circuitry (controller, not show) is configured to control a surface temperature of the ESC to be less than or equal to 0° C. and greater than or equal to −170° C (0 to 250° C via temperature regulator provided in 2) [Fukazawa - table 1 & 0035, 0038].
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14:
Modified Fukazawa teaches the processing circuitry (controller, not show) is configured to control: continuous supply of the inert gas throughout a process of the absorbing of the hydrogen fluoride (it is noted that the etching gas in the modified structure is hydrogen fluoride) in addition to a process of the exposing of the substrate to the plasma (inert gas continuously flowing in the reaction space continuously during the ALE process) [Fukazawa - 0025, 0038 and Kwon - 0079].
Regarding claims 15-16:
Fukazawa teaches radio frequency power used to generate the plasma is 50 Watts to 500 Watts (500 W in example 13) [0049].
The claim limitations “radio frequency power used to generate the plasma is 50 Watts to 500 Watts” and “, wherein 50 Volts to 100 Volts DC is used to generate the 50 Watts to 500 Watts of radio frequency power” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 17:
The claim limitations “wherein the second region includes silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, polysilicon, a metal, or an organic compound” does not impart any additional structure. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Regarding claim 18:
Fukazawa teaches a substrate processing apparatus (PEALE apparatus) configured to perform processing on a substrate to modify a condition of the substrate (a method of etching a layer on a substrate) [fig 1 & 0024, 0035], the substrate processing apparatus (PEALE apparatus) comprising: a process chamber (reaction chamber, 3) [fig 1 & 0035]; a substrate support (2) that supports a substrate (substrate, 1) [fig 1 & 0034-0035]; and processing circuitry (controller, not shown) configured to control providing of a halogen-containing etchant (halogen-containing gas) inside the process chamber (3) so the substrate absorbs the halogen-containing etchant (chemisorb the etching gas in an unexcited state on a surface of the substrate in the reaction space) [fig 1 & 0024, 0028, 0038], control providing of plasma generated from an inert gas inside the process chamber (providing a pulse of RF power discharge between the electrodes to generate a reactive species of the inert gas in the reaction space) to expose the substrate with the absorbed halogen-containing etchant to the generated plasma (to contact the etching gas-chemisorbed surface of the substrate) [0024, 0028, 0030-0031, 0034, 0038], and control pressure in the process chamber to be 350 mTorr or more during the absorbing of the hydrogen fluoride on the substrate (programmed to cause the etching process to be conducted at 133.3 to 800 Pa) [table 1 & 0024, 0038], and control a temperature of the substrate support to be 0° C. or less (0 to 250° C via temperature regulator provided in 2) [table 1 & 0035, 0038].
Fukazawa does not specifically disclose the halogen-containing etchant being hydrogen fluoride.
Kwon teaches a halogen-containing etchant being hydrogen fluoride (hydrogen fluoride) [0079, 0083].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the halogen-containing gas of Fukazawa to be hydrogen fluoride, as in Kwon, to selectively etch a silicon oxide film [Kwon - 0079]
Fukazawa modified by Kwon does not specifically teach a substrate support including an ESC.
Kulshreshtha teaches a substrate support including an ESC (120) [fig 1 & 0024].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the substrate support of modified Fukazawa to include an ESC, as in Kulshreshtha, to electrostatically secure the substrate during processing [Kulshreshtha – 0015].
Although taught by the cited prior art, the limitations “a substrate having a first region containing a silicon oxide film (silicon oxide film) and a second region containing a film (silicon nitride film) other than the silicon oxide film (silicon oxide film) [Kwon - fig 1-2 & 0032, 0079]” does not impart any additional structure. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Furthermore, the limitations “to selectively etch the first region with respect to the second region” have not been afforded patentable wight because they merely express the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003). It is noted that Kwon specifically teaches that HF selectively etches silicon nitride [Kwon – 0079].
Regarding claim 20:
Fukazawa teaches a substrate processing apparatus (PEALE apparatus) configured to perform processing on a substrate to modify a condition of the substrate (a method of etching a layer on a substrate) [fig 1 & 0024, 0035], the substrate processing apparatus (PEALE apparatus) comprising: a process chamber (reaction chamber, 3) [fig 1 & 0035]; a substrate support (2) that supports a substrate (substrate, 1) [fig 1 & 0034-0035]; and processing circuitry (controller, not shown) configured to control providing of a halogen-containing etchant (halogen-containing gas) inside the process chamber (3) so the substrate absorbs the halogen-containing etchant (chemisorb the etching gas in an unexcited state on a surface of the substrate in the reaction space) [fig 1 & 0024, 0028, 0038], control providing of plasma generated from an inert gas inside the process chamber (providing a pulse of RF power discharge between the electrodes to generate a reactive species of the inert gas in the reaction space) to expose the substrate with the absorbed halogen-containing etchant to the generated plasma (to contact the etching gas-chemisorbed surface of the substrate) [0024, 0028, 0030-0031, 0034, 0038], and control pressure in the process chamber to be 350 mTorr or more during the absorbing of the hydrogen fluoride on the substrate (programmed to cause the etching process to be conducted at 133.3 to 800 Pa) [table 1 & 0024, 0038], and control a temperature of the substrate support to be 0° C. or less (0 to 250° C via temperature regulator provided in 2) [table 1 & 0035, 0038], wherein the inert gas is Argon or a Nitrogen gas (Ar or a nitrogen gas) [0030-0031].
Fukazawa does not specifically disclose the halogen-containing etchant being hydrogen fluoride.
Kwon teaches a halogen-containing etchant being hydrogen fluoride (hydrogen fluoride) [0079, 0083].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the halogen-containing gas of Fukazawa to be hydrogen fluoride, as in Kwon, to selectively etch a silicon oxide film [Kwon - 0079]
Fukazawa modified by Kwon does not specifically teach a substrate support including an ESC.
Kulshreshtha teaches a substrate support including an ESC (120) [fig 1 & 0024].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the substrate support of modified Fukazawa to include an ESC, as in Kulshreshtha, to electrostatically secure the substrate during processing [Kulshreshtha – 0015].
Although taught by the cited prior art, the limitations “a substrate having a first region containing a silicon oxide film (silicon oxide film) and a second region containing a film (silicon nitride film) other than the silicon oxide film (silicon oxide film) [Kwon - fig 1-2 & 0032, 0079]” does not impart any additional structure. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Furthermore, the limitations “to selectively etch the first region with respect to the second region” have not been afforded patentable wight because they merely express the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003). It is noted that Kwon specifically teaches that HF selectively etches silicon nitride [Kwon – 0079].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu et al (US 8,043,972) and Hsu et al (US 2016/0351418) teach controlling an apparatus so the substrate absorbs hydrogen fluoride [col 14-15, lines 63-6 and fig 1, respectively].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights