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 .
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 1 requires that “other conditions are substantially the same” (claim 1, line 12), i.e., that the first and second plasma generation conditions (such as bias) are the same. Claim 3 cites that the second plasma generation conditions includes generating a bias potential, but claim 3 is silent as to the bias generated in the first plasma generation condition. It appears that applicant intends to recite a bias in the second plasma generation condition, but not in the first plasma generation condition. Because claim 1 requires the bias to be the same, claim 3 appears to be in conflict with the requirements of claim 1 that the bias is the same in both the first and second generation conditions. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tan et al (US 2017/0125253 A1).
As to claim 1, Tan discloses a substrate processing method (see abstract) in a substrate processing apparatus 100 (Fig. 2), the substrate processing method comprising:
supplying (step 402, Fig. 4A) a process gas (SiCl4, [0055]) containing halogen (chlorine) other than fluoride and a gas containing oxygen (O2, [0055]), to a processing container 103 [0026] in which a stage 102 [0030] is disposed, the stage being configured to place thereon a workpiece 101A [0026] including an etching target film 152 [0021];
performing a first plasma processing (“etching dominant state” [0038]) by first plasma generated from the process gas under first plasma generation conditions (the “one or more etchant species and one or more deposition species that have different dissociation rate responses as function of applied primary plasma power” [0038]; step 403, Fig. 4A, the first conditions comprise a power of 100 W to about 1000 W for a time period of 0.1 to about 1000 ms [0042], [0043]);
performing a second plasma processing (“deposition-dominant process state” [0038]) by second plasma generated from the process gas under second plasma generation conditions (step 405, Fig. 4A, the plasma power is about 750 W to about 6000 W [0044] for a time of 0.1 ms to about 1000 ms [0044], [0045]) in which a condition of radio-frequency power and a processing time are different (as depicted in Fig. 4B), and other conditions are the same (the same “bi-modal process gas” is used in both steps and other conditions are not changed); and
repeating (b) and (c) (step 411, [0045]).
As to claim 2, Tan discloses that in (b), radicals of the halogen, which are generated by the first plasma, are supplied to a surface of the etching target film (“deposition species” of the bi-modal process gas composition [0039]), and
in (c), the etching target film is etched by etchants generated by the second plasma (“etchant species” of the bi-modal process gas composition [0039]).
As to claim 3, in another embodiment, Tan discloses generating a bias potential as cited (step 503, Fig. 5A, [0047]).
As to claim 4, the bi-modal process gas also generates the same relative amounts of oxygen radicals as cited due to different powers (as depicted in Fig. 3A, 3B).
As to claim 12, Tan discloses to vary the plasma generation conditions as cited (“in order to achieve a desired etching result of the target material 152” [0046]).
As to claim 13, Tan discloses that the second power may be higher than the first power, as cited in claim 13 (see the rejection of claim 1).
As to claim 15, Tan discloses either inductively coupled plasma or capacitively coupled plasma [0032].
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.
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 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al (US 2017/0125253 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ogasawara (US 2010/0167549 A1).
As to claims 7-11, Tan discloses broadly a “semiconductor wafer” and processing of “conductor and insulator/dielectric materials” [0019]-[0020], however Tan fails to explicitly disclose the materials of the mask and target layer.
Ogasawara teaches a method for etching a film containing silicon 61 with a mask of silicon oxide 62 [0036] with an O2 and SiCl4 composition (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to etch silicon second region selectively with a silicon oxide mask first region as cited in claims 7-11 in the method of Tan because Ogasawara teaches that they are useful materials to use in a method of etching a semiconductor wafer and such is expected to give the predictable result of a patterned layer ready for semiconductor device manufacturing.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al (US 2017/0125253 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Morikawa (JP 2012/142495 A).
As to claim 14, Tan fails to disclose changing a frequency of the radio-frequency power. Morikawa teaches a method for etching a target film where the frequency can be changed from low (1.0 MHz) to a higher frequency (13.56 MHz [0047]). Morikawa teaches that varying the frequencies controls the selectivity [0047] or the nature of the etching (anisotropic, isotropic [0049]). Morikawa teaches that this can be done repetitively [0068]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the frequency as cited in the method of Tan because Morikawa teaches that this provides for a useful technique of optimizing the etch for desired properties of selectivity or nature of etching, and such is expected to give the predictable result of an etched target film.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al (US 2017/0125253 A1).
The discussion of Tan from above is repeated here.
As to claim 16, Tan discloses an apparatus (Fig. 2) with a processing container and stage as cited (see rejection of claim 1). Tan discloses the method steps cited (see rejection of claim 1), but fails to explicitly disclose a controller configured to conduct the method. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller as cited in the apparatus of Tan because controllers are well known to optimize the process for best results.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-18 of copending Application No. 18/032,786 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are fully encompassed by the claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 are rejected under obvious-type double patenting, however they are allowable over the prior art. Claims 5-6 are 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, and if the double patenting rejection is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or suggest a substrate processing method comprising (e) generating no plasma, wherein in (d), (b), (c), and (e) are repeated in an order of (b), (c) and (e), as in the context of claim 5.
The closest prior art, Tan et al (US 2017/0125253 A1), discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose an interim state in which no plasma is generated, a step (e) as in the context of claim 9. Tan discloses that there is “fast switching” between the first and second plasma generation conditions [0056], which does not allow or suggest a step (e) with no plasma generation. There is no motivation to include a step (e) because that would slow down the transition between steps and decrease processing throughput, which is the opposite effect desired by Tan. Accordingly, there is no motivation to modify the method of Tan to arrive at the invention, as in the context of claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nakahara (US 2016/0049314 A1) is cited to show a process with different power, but also different flow rates of gases [0037]. Johnson et al (US 2005/0112891 A1) is cited to show a method with different frequencies, but also under different conditions [0060]. Pandhumsoporn et al (US 2001/0044213 A1) is cited to show alternating high and low power for plasma etching and passivation (abstract, [0011]-[0018]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA K ALANKO whose telephone number is (571)270-0297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ANITA K ALANKO/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713