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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 9/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation "the chamber" in line 8, where as in line 4, claiming a “plasma chamber”.
Appropriate correction is required to keep the consistency of the term.
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sum of the BCl3 and Cl2” in 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-7 depends on the claim 1 and therefore, also includes the limitation.
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.
Claims 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wood et al (US 2023/0170188) in view of Demmin et al (US 6,635,185).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claims 1-6, Wood et al disclose [0007] a method of plasma etching an additive-containing aluminium nitride film, the additive-containing aluminium nitride film containing an additive element selected from scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y) or erbium (Er), the process comprising: [0008] placing a workpiece upon a platen within a plasma chamber, the workpiece comprising a substrate having an additive-containing aluminium nitride film deposited thereon and a mask disposed upon the additive-containing aluminium nitride film which defines at least one trench; [0009] introducing a first etching gas into the chamber with a first flow rate; [0010] introducing a second etching gas into the chamber with a second flow rate; and [0011] establishing a plasma within the chamber to etch the additive-containing aluminium nitride film exposed within the trench; [0012] wherein the first etching gas comprises boron trichloride and the second etching gas comprises chlorine, and [0013] wherein a ratio of the first flow rate to the second flow rate is greater than or equal to 1:1.
Wood et al disclose that the method further comprises introducing a third etching gas, such as argon, into the chamber. The third etching gas is introduced into the chamber with a third flow rate, a ratio of the first flow rate to the third flow rate being greater than 2:1 [0015]; and the first flow rate comprises substantially 60 sccm and the second flow rate comprises substantially 40 sccm; and the third etching gas is introduced into the chamber with a third flow rate within the range 20-25 sccm [0017],[0040]; and aforesaid flow rates appears to be overlapping or encompasses the claimed ranges and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Additionally, Demmin et al disclose that (at col.7, lines 15-25)
PNG
media_image1.png
182
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to optimize the flow rates of the etching components in the method of Wood et al because Demmin teaches that changing the parameters according to the material being etched appears to reflect a result-effective variable which can be optimized. See MPEP 2144.05 IIB.
Regarding claim 7, Wood et al disclose a primary etching and a secondary etching of the substrate [0016]; and therefore, it would have been obvious that during the primary etching, majority of the additive nitride film is etched and the secondary etching would have etched the remaining of the film to be etched.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s admitted prior art (AAPA, herein after) in view of Hardy et al (US 2018/0130883).
Regarding claims 1-6, AAPA disclose a process of etching an additive-containing aluminum nitride film 201, wherein the additive comprises scandium (Sc) using standard chlorine/argon- based chemistry, through a mask in order to produce a trench in the AlScN film (see pages 1-3, under the heading of “Background of the disclosure”).
Examiner pointed out that any impurity exist in aluminum nitride film would read on to the limitation of “an additive-containing aluminum nitride film” as the preamble of “the additive-containing aluminium nitride film containing an additive element selected from scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y) or erbium (Er)” does not read on the body of the claim as the body of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure and does not depend on the preamble for completeness.
AAPA fails to teach etching gas chemistry comprises boron trichloride (BCl3) along with the chlorine and argon as an inert diluent gas and establishing a plasma.
Regarding claims 2-5, AAPA also fails to teach the flow ratios of the etching gases including BCl3, Cl2 and argon inert diluent gas.
However, Hardy et al disclose that a standard ICP-RIE process was been used to etch separate GaN, AlN, and Sc.sub.0.16Al.sub.0.84N epitaxial thin films grown by MBE on SiC substrates. The standard dry etch process consisted of Ar/BCl.sub.3/Cl.sub.2 process gases flowing at 10/10/20 sccm at nominally 38° C. ([0043]); and the etch rates measured using the standard etch process were 21.4 Å/s for GaN, 12.2 Å/s for AlN, and 2.2 Å/s for Sc.sub.0.16Al.sub.0.84N; and Hardy further teaches that the etch conditions such as the flow rate of each of the process gases may be further optimized for improving selectivity ([0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Hardy et al's teaching of optimizing the flow rate of the etching gases into the teaching of AAPA for improving etching selectivity as taught by Hardy et al [0044].
Regarding claim 6, both AAPA and Hardy et al disclose above that the process gas comprises argon reads on the claimed inert diluent gas.
Regarding claim 7, AAPA discloses that AIScN etch processes typically comprise two etch steps. The first step is a main, bulk etch process with a high etch rate, good selectivity to the mask material, a steep sidewall profile, and minimum footing. Normally 80-85% of the material is etched by the main etch. The second step is a soft-landing etch step which should have good selectivity to the underlying electrode. This is generally a low etch rate process. As this process typically etches only 15-20% of the material, the etch rate and the etch profile can be sacrificed for good selectivity (page 2 at the specification).
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 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of copending Application No. 17/983,341 in view of Hardy et al (US 2018/0130883). The difference between the co-pending application ‘341 and the instant invention is that the flow ratio of the inert gas to the total or sum of the BCl3 and Cl2 gas.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hardy et al disclose that a standard ICP-RIE process was been used to etch separate GaN, AlN, and Sc.sub.0.16Al.sub.0.84N epitaxial thin films grown by MBE on SiC substrates. The standard dry etch process consisted of Ar/BCl.sub.3/Cl.sub.2 process gases flowing at 10/10/20 sccm [0043]; and the etch rates measured using the standard etch process were 21.4 Å/s for GaN, 12.2 Å/s for AlN, and 2.2 Å/s for Sc.sub.0.16Al.sub.0.84N; and Hardy further teaches that the etch conditions such as the flow rate of each of the process gases may be further optimized for improving selectivity [0044].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Hardy et al's teaching of optimizing the flow rate of the etching gases into the instant invention for improving etching selectivity as taught by Hardy et al [0044].
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art fails to teach or renders obvious to a plasma etching an additive-containing aluminum nitride film, wherein the additive-containing aluminium nitride film containing an additive element selected from scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y) or erbium (Er), wherein the method comprises including the step of performing a second plasma etching step in which BCl3 gas and an inert diluent gas are introduced into the chamber but Cl2 gas is not introduced into the chamber and a plasma is established within the chamber to plasma etch the remaining additive-containing aluminium nitride film exposed within the trench thereby revealing the metal film as the context of claim 8.
Claims 9-18, directly or indirectly depends on the claim 8 and so are allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xu et al (US 2012/0003827) disclose a plasma etching of the AlN or TaN barrier metal layer, the TiN metal gate and the high-K gate dielectric film is performed by using BCl.sub.3 and Cl.sub.2 as main etching gases with one or both of O.sub.2 and Ar added as supplementary etching gases to improve etching characteristics [0012]-[0013].
Bauer (US 9,484,216) disclose an etching process of semiconductor devices, such aluminum nitride; wherein the methods herein allow for devices having improved etch profiles, such that nearly vertical sidewalls can be obtained. In some examples, the method employs a dry etch step with a primary etchant gas that omits BCl.sub.3, a common additive (abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713