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 .
Claims Status
The amendment filed 06/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 are pending. In the amendment filed 06/25/2026, claim 1 and 8 were amended, no claims were canceled, and claims 10-11 were newly added.
Claim Interpretation
The term “tendency” is interpreted inclusive of the definition of “the purposeful trend” such that the use of “tendency to increase” in claim 1, second to last line, and “tendency to decrease” in claim 8, second to last line, are inclusive of the controller is configured to change the voltage (claim 1) or duty ratio (claim 8) to result in a purposeful trend of increasing the absolute value of the negative potential of the substrate (claim 1) or decreasing the duty ratio of the pulse (claim 8).
Claims 1 and 8 were amended to include language regarding “as a depth of an opening formed in the film increases”. There is no recitation of a sensor for monitoring the depth of etching and providing feedback control. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is that the controller performs the recited change as time of processing increases (note that in an etching process the depth of an opening is expected to increase as etching/processing time increases). If applicant believe there is support for a controller with sensor based feedback, applicant is kindly requested to claim the sensor and feedback based control.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 of the claim, the claim recites “the controller is configured to control the bias power source control the bias power source to” (emphasis added). The language appears to have erroneously included the phrase “control the bias power source” twice. Applicant is kindly requested to delete one of the recitations of “control the bias power source” such that the claim recites “the controller is configured to control the bias power source Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorf (prev. presented US 2018/0166249) in view of Tokashiki (prev. presented US 2012/0052689).
Regarding claim 1, Dorf teaches a plasma processing apparatus [0003] (Fig 2) comprising: a chamber [0026]; a substrate support (205 Fig 2) having a lower electrode (213 Fig 2) and provided in the chamber [0026]; a bias power source electrically connected to the lower electrode (230 Fig 2) and configured to periodically generate a pulse of a voltage [0027]; and a controller (220 Fig 2) [0027] configured to control the bias power source [0027], wherein the controller is configured to (b) control the bias power source to periodically apply the pulse to the lower electrode to supply ions from the plasma to a substrate on the substrate support, thereby etching a film of the substrate [0027-0029], [0032], and control the bias power source to change a level of a voltage of the pulse at least once such that an absolute value of a negative potential of the substrate has a tendency to increase as a depth of an opening formed in the film increases according to progress of etching of the film in said (b) (Fig 3) [0028-0032] (note the teaching of performing during etching. As time progresses in an etching process the depth of the opening increases). Dorf fails to explicitly teach a gas supply configured to supply a processing gas into the chamber; a plasma generator configured to generate plasma from a gas in the chamber; the controller configured to control the gas supply, the plasma generator, and the controller is configured to (a) control the gas supply and the plasma generator to generate plasma of the processing gas in the chamber. Dorf does teach using the substrate support in conventional etching apparatuses [0026] which typically include a gas introduction and plasma generator. Further, in the same field of endeavor of plasma etching apparatuses (abstract), Tokashiki teaches a gas supply configured to supply a processing gas into the chamber [0037]; a plasma generator configured to generate plasma from a gas in the chamber [0037]; the controller (128 Fig 1) configured to control the gas supply [0038-0041], the plasma generator[0038-0041], and the controller is configured to (a) control the gas supply and the plasma generator to generate plasma of the processing gas in the chamber [0038-0041]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus and controller of Dorf to include a gas supply configured to supply a processing gas into the chamber; a plasma generator configured to generate plasma from a gas in the chamber; the controller configured to control the gas supply, the plasma generator, and the controller is configured to (a) control the gas supply and the plasma generator to generate plasma of the processing gas in the chamber because Tokashiki teaches these structures as part of the apparatus and the control of such allows for automated control of the apparatus to reduce operational costs.
Regarding claim 2, Dorf teaches the bias power source is configured to generate, as the pulse, a pulse of a negative voltage or a pulse of a negative direct-current voltage (Fig 1(a), 1(b)) [0028-0029]. Regarding to increase an absolute value of the voltage of the pulse at least once such that the absolute value of the voltage of the pulse has a tendency to increase according to the progress of the etching of the film, in said (b), Dorf teaches the controller is configured to adjust the voltage pulses according to set inputs [0028-0029] such that the controller is configured to increase the absolute value of the voltage at least once such that the absolute value of the pulse has a tendency (trend) to increase because the controller is configured to adjust the pulses.
Regarding claim 3, Dorf teaches the power source is configured to set and adjust a duty ratio of the pulse [0028-0029] but fails to teach it is set to 20% or less. Tokashiki teaches the duty ratio may be in a range including 10% [0044]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dorf to include a duty ratio of 10% because Tokashiki teaches this is a viable duty ratio.
Regarding claim 4, Dorf teaches the bias power source is configured to set and change the duty ratio [0028-0029], the ability to change the duty ratio is inclusive of increasing or decreasing the duty ratio such that the bias power source is configured to decrease a duty ratio of the pulse at least once such that the duty ratio of the pulse has a tendency to decrease according to the progress of the etching of the film, in said (b) (Dorf [0028-0029]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination remains as applied to claim 4 above. Dorf teaches the power source is configured to set and adjust a duty ratio of the pulse [0028-0029] but fails to teach it is set to 15% or more and 20% or less. Tokashiki teaches the duty ratio may be in a range including 10-20% [0044]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dorf to include a duty ratio of 15-20% because Tokashiki teaches this is a viable duty ratio.
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 4 above. The adjustment of the duty ratio control is inclusive of stepwise or gradual change [0028-0029] because this is a result of the specific change command and the controller of Dorf is configured to adjust the duty ratio.
Regarding claim 7, Dorf teaches the voltage may be adjusted by the power source [0028-0029] and this change is inclusive of stepwise or gradual change [0028-0029]. Also note Dorf demonstrates gradual changes in voltage (Fig 1(a)).
Regarding claim 8 and 9, the combination remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claims 1-5. Note the applied interpretation regarding as time progresses being a control analog for depth of the etched opening.
Regarding claim 10, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Dorf (Fig 3) demonstrates the increasing absolute value of the negative value of the pulses without a decreasing absolute value of the negative values of the pulses (note the pulses stay the same or get more negative as time increases).
Regarding claim 11, the combination remains as applied to claim as applied to claims 1-5 and 8-9 above. The modification to decrease the duty ratio is inclusive of decreasing without performing an increasing as time (depth of etching) progresses.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments regarding Dorf (reply p5), applicant argues that Dorf does not teach the increase is associated with the increase in dept of the opening in the film. Examiner notes that, as explained above, the instant specification does not disclose any detection or monitoring of the opening side or depth of etching. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is that the controller is changing the pulse over time with the understanding that an increase in etching time is associated with an increase in the hole depth. As cited above, Dorf teaches increasing the absolute value of the negative voltage as time increases. If applicant believes there is a feedback control to the controller based upon detection of the opening size, applicant is kindly requested to amend the claims to reflect such detection structure and feedback control. The new claims have been rejected as explained above. Therefore the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0139781 demonstrates the hole depth increasing as etching continues (Fig 6).
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 MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
