CTFR 18/374,224 CTFR 87601 DETAILED ACTION This is the Office action based on the 18374224 application filed September 28, 2023, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on March 26, 2026. Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s cancelation of claim 4 and withdrawal of claims 6-9 acknowledged Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. Specification The disclosure is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification refers to Fig. 6, Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 in various paragraphs, but these figures are not provided in the disclosure. 07-44 AIA The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification refers to components belong in Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in various paragraphs, but these components are not shown in the figures. For example, paragraph [0010] refers to a SiCO film 1, an Si nanosheet 2, an SiGe sacrificial layer 3, and a CMOS gate 4 in Fig. 1; however, Fig. 1 does not show these components. It appears that these figures are related to a different invention . For the purpose of examining, since the drawings are apparently not related to the invention, references to the drawings will not be taken into consideration where discrepancy exists . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20240087910), hereinafter “Zhu”, in view of Musselwhite et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20230268189), hereinafter “Musselwhite”:--Claims 1: Zhu teaches a method of etching a silicon-and-oxygen-containing material disposed on a substrate (abstract) in a process region of a process chamber (Fig. 2A), comprising(i) forming a structure and performing a post-formation processing (Step 405 in Fig. 4), wherein the structure comprises the silicon-and-oxygen-containing material;(ii) supplying a fluorine-containing precursor to the chamber (Step 410 in Fig. 4), wherein the fluorine-containing precursor may comprise “atomic fluorine, diatomic fluorine, hydrogen fluoride, nitrogen trifluoride, carbon tetrafluoride , xenon difluoride, and various other fluorine-containing precursors used or available in semiconductor processing” (emphasis added).(iii) supplying a hydrogen-containing precursor ([0048]) to the chamber (Step 415 in Fig. 4), wherein the hydrogen-containing precursor may comprise “ ammonia , methyl amine, ethylamine, diethylamine, methyl ethyl diamine, and various other hydrogen-containing precursors used or available in semiconductor processing” (emphasis added).;(iv) contacting the substrate with the precursors (Step 420 in Fig. 4),wherein the contacting may comprise generating a plasma from the precursors remotely or in the process region, or without using a plasma ([0055]); (v) annealing the substrate to sublimate the silicon-and-oxygen-containing material (Steps 425 and 430 in Fig. 4, [0007]), wherein the annealing is performed at 80-150°C or higher ([0056]);(vi) repeating step (ii) – (v) for a plurality of cycles, such as six times or more ([0058]). Zhu further teaches that “(t)he fluorine-containing precursor and the hydrogen-containing precursor may be provided to the processing region separately or, in embodiments, may be mixed or combined prior to being provided to the processing region. The fluorine-containing precursor and the hydrogen-containing precursor may also be provided with any number of carrier gases, which may include nitrogen, helium, argon, or other inert gases” ([0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to mix the fluorine-containing precursor and the hydrogen-containing precursor prior to supply the mixture into the chamber. Zhu further teaches that “(i)t is also contemplated that a plasma may be formed from the fluorine-containing precursor and/or the hydrogen-containing precursor. The plasma of either or both precursors may be formed in the processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber or, alternatively, may be formed in a remote plasma system” ([0055]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to supply the fluorine-containing precursor and the hydrogen-containing precursor to a remote plasma system to form a plasma prior to supply the mixture into the chamber. It is noted that the remote plasma system is labeled as item 201 in Fig. 2A ([0028]), wherein the plasma of the gas mixture passes through an ion suppressor 223 and a showerhead 225 prior to entering the process chamber, wherein the ion suppressor suppresses the migration of ionically-charged species out of the first plasma region 215 while allowing uncharged neutral or radical species to pass through the ion suppressor 223 into an activated gas delivery region between the suppressor and the showerhead to avoid damage to the electronic devices on the substrate from a direct contact of the plasma with the substrate ([0029, 0032-0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to supply a mixture of the fluorine-containing precursor and the hydrogen-containing precursor into the remote plasma system 201 to form a plasma, then suppress ionically-charged species by using the ion suppressor 223, while allowing uncharged neutral or radical species to pass through, to avoid damage to the electronic devices on the substrate from a direct contact of the plasma with the substrate in the invention of Zhu. Zhu further teaches that the process chamber may be used to etch a silicon oxycarbide material ([0028]) and the chamber may be maintained at less than about 20 Torr ([0054]), and that the etching may further comprise supplying an oxygen-containing precursor that oxidizes the surface of the substrate ([0045], Claim 4). Zhu is silent about using silicon oxycarbide material as the silicon-and-oxygen-containing material. Musselwhite teaches a method of etching a silicon oxycarbide material (Fig. 1A, [0044, 0250-0251]), comprising flowing an oxidant, such as oxygen or ozone ([0050-0054]), into the chamber, to oxidize the silicon oxycarbide (Fig. 1B, Step 203 and 205 in Fig. 2; [0045-0047, 0055-0060, 0251]), then flowing an etching gas, such as HF or water or ammonia ([0062]), such as a mixture of HF/NH3 ([0067]), into the chamber, while heating the substrate, such as to 100°C, to remove the oxidized silicon oxycarbide (Fig. 1C, Step 207 and 209 in Fig. 2; [0062-0067, 0251, 0069-0071]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use silicon oxycarbide material as the silicon-and-oxygen-containing material, and to oxidize the silicon oxycarbide material prior to supplying the fluorine-containing precursor in the invention of Zhu because Zhu teaches that the process chamber may be used to etch a silicon oxycarbide material and to oxidize the silicon-and-oxygen-containing material prior to supplying the fluorine-containing precursor, and Musselwhite teaches that such oxidizing a silicon oxycarbide material before the etching by a fluorine-containing precursor would be effective. Thus, step (ii) above may further comprise supplying an oxygen-containing precursor that oxidizes the surface of the silicon oxycarbide material prior to the supplying a fluorine-containing precursor to the chamber. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to select carbon tetrafluoride from the list of fluorine-containing precursors in step (ii) and ammonia from the list of hydrogen-containing precursors in step (iii) in the invention of Zhu modified by Musselwhite. This would inherently form a modified layer having a self-limiting property from the oxidized silicon oxycarbide material, as taught by Applicant. According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.-- It has been established that where an examiner has reason to believe that a characteristic or functional limitation in a claim may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic the applicant is relying on for patentability. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971). An examiner’s belief is reasonable where starting materials and processing of the prior art are so similar to those disclosed by the applicant that it appears that the claimed function or property would naturally result when conducting the process as taught in the prior art. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Best, at 1255. “Inherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis’ where the limitation at issue is ‘the natural result of the combination of prior art elements'.'''’ Id. (quoting PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014).--Claim 2: Zhu further teaches that the substrate in loaded on a pedestal that may be kept at less than 10°C to more than 200°C ([0029, 0053). Zhu fails to teach flowing He between the substrate and the pedestal. Musselwhite teaches that the etching may be performed at less than 50°C to more than 200°C ([0238]) by a gas distribution unit that flows a cooling fluid, such as helium, into the chamber ([0202, 0241]). Furthermore, the substrate may be disposed above a window 350 ([0228], Fig. 6A), wherein a cooling fluid, such as an inert gas, flows between the substrate and the window ([0224]), to enable efficient and fast cooling ([0240]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use helium as the cooling fluid that flows between the substrate and the window in the invention of Musselwhite. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the method of cooling taught by Musselwhite in the invention of Zhu because Musselwhite teaches that it would be efficient and fast.--Claim 3: Zhu further teaches that the contacting the substrate with the precursors may form ammonium fluorosilicate ((NH 4 ) 2 SiF 6 ) ([0052]). Since silicon oxycarbide comprises Si, O and C, the silicon oxycarbide material would comprise N, H, Si, F, O and C at the surface.--Claim 10: Since Zhu teaches that the substrate in loaded on a pedestal that may be kept at less than 10°C to more than 200°C ([0029, 0053), and that, subsequent to the contacting the substrate with the precursors, to annealing the substrate to sublimate the silicon-and-oxygen-containing material (Steps 425 and 430 in Fig. 4, [0007]), wherein the annealing is performed at 80-150°C or higher ([0056]), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to keep the substrate at less than 80°C in the invention of Zhu modified by Musselwhite . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Musselwhite as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsai et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10711348), hereinafter “Tsai”, and Chern et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5834068), hereinafter “Chern”:--Claim 5: Zhu modified by Musselwhite teaches the invention as above. Zhu further teaches that the substrate is placed on a pedestal and is heated by resistive heater in the pedestal ([0029]). Zhu fails to teach that the heating may be performed by using radiation from above the substrate. Tsai, also directed to a method of etching a semiconductor substrate (Col. 2, Lines 44-49), teaches that the substrate may be heated by using resistive heating element embedded in a substrate support , or by radiant heat, such as heating lamp disposed above the substrate (Col. 3, Lines 22-28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to heat the substrate by using a heat lamp above the substrate as an equivalent substitution for using the resistive heater embedded in the pedestal in the invention of Zhu because Tsai teaches that this would be effective. Tsai is silent about a wavelength of the light, and fails to teach that the heating lamp is an infrared lamp Chern, also directed to a method of processing a semiconductor substrate in a process chamber (Fig. 3a), teaches that a substrate may be heated by using resistive heater or infrared lamp (Col.3, Lines 41-46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use an infrared heat lamp in the invention of Zhu modified by Tsai because Tsai is silent about a wavelength of the light of the heat lamp and Chern teaches that this would be effective. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed March 26, 2026 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that a correct set of drawings have been submitted in the amendment filed 3/26/2026, this argument is persuasive. The previous objection to the drawings is withdrawn.--Regarding Applicant’s argument that Zhu fails to teach the claimed feature “a second step of supplying the wafer with reactive radical generated by using plasma from a gas containing CF 4 and NH 3 to form a modified layer having a self-limiting property from an oxide layer on the surface of the SiCO film”, this argument is not persuasive. Zhu clearly teaches an option of supply a mixture of the fluorine-containing precursor and the hydrogen-containing precursor into the remote plasma system 201 to form a plasma, then suppress ionically-charged species by using the ion suppressor 223, while allowing uncharged neutral or radical species to pass through, to avoid damage to the electronic devices on the substrate from a direct contact of the plasma with the substrate, as shown above.--Regarding Applicant’s argument that Zhu fails to teach the claimed feature “a modified layer having a self-limiting property from an oxide layer on the surface of the SiCO film”, this argument is not persuasive. According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. It has been established that where an examiner has reason to believe that a characteristic or functional limitation in a claim may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic the applicant is relying on for patentability. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971). An examiner’s belief is reasonable where starting materials and processing of the prior art are so similar to those disclosed by the applicant that it appears that the claimed function or property would naturally result when conducting the process as taught in the prior art. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Best, at 1255. “Inherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis’ where the limitation at issue is ‘the natural result of the combination of prior art elements'.'''’ Id. (quoting PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In this instance, since Zhu teaches the reactive radical generated by using plasma from a gas containing CF 4 and NH 3 to contact the SiCO film formed in the invention of Zhu modified by Musselwhite, the modified layer having a self-limiting property from an oxide layer on the surface of the SiCO film would inherently occur, as taught by Applicant. Conclusion 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 extension fee 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 THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270- 7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/374,224 Page 2 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/374,224 Page 3 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/374,224 Page 4 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/374,224 Page 5 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/374,224 Page 6 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/374,224 Page 7 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/374,224 Page 8 Art Unit: 1713
Prosecution Insights