DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18386618 application filed November 3, 2023, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on April 7, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s withdrawal of claim 20 acknowledged.
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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of the invention of Group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on April 7, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP §818.03(a)). Claim 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102:
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention..
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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.
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.
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 1 and 7-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yokoyama et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20220157610), hereinafter “Yokoyama” --Claims 1, 11, 12: Yokoyama teaches a method of etching, comprisingproviding a substrate W comprising a film SF and a mask MK (Fig. 2, [0055-0058]);loading the substrate W onto a support in a chamber, comprising a RF power source 62 and a bias power source 64, wherein the RF power source 62 and the bias power source 64 may be continuous or pulsed, wherein the pulses of the RF power source 62 and the bias power source 64 may be synchronized (Fig. 3, [0071-0081]);etching the film SF to form a recess (Fig. 4A). Yokoyama further teaches that the etching comprises an etching step ST2 and a forming protective step ST3 (Fig. 1). In an embodiment (Fig. 7), Yokoyama further teaches that the pulses of the RF power source 62 and the bias power source 64 are cyclical and synchronized. Each cycle comprises a first period during which the RF power source 62 and the bias power source 64 are both ON, the first gas is ON and the second gas is OFF; and a second period during which the RF power source 62 and the bias power source 64 are both OFF, the first gas is OFF and the second gas is ON ([0124, 0128]). Fig. 7 is copied and shown here for reference:
PNG
media_image1.png
667
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yokoyama further teaches that the film SF is etched during the first period ([0121]) and a protective film is formed during the second period ([0125, 0128]). Yokoyama further teaches that the first gas may be phosphorous-free gas and the second gas may be phosphorous-containing gas ([0263, 0293], wherein the phosphorous-containing gas may be PCl3 or PH3 [0090, 0306], Claim 25), and wherein the phosphorous-free gas may comprise HF, NF3 or hydrofluorocarbon ([0373], Claims 1-5) It is noted that PCl3 and PH3 would adsorb onto a silicon-containing surface, as evidenced by Zhang et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20240112888).
Alternately, 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 the above gases and power sources from the list of possible gases and power sources taught by Yokoyama in the absence of an unexpected result. --Claim 7, 15: Yokoyama further teaches that the film SF may include silicon nitride ([0012, 0047]). It is noted that HF is an acid. --Claim 8, 10: Yokoyama further teaches that the process gas may comprise ammonia ([0093]).--Claim 9: Yokoyama further teaches that the process gas may comprise HBr ([0093]).--Claim 13: Yokoyama further teaches that the process gas may comprise a phosphorous-containing gas ([0092]).--Claim 14: It is noted that hydrofluorocarbon is a halogen-containing and a carbon-containing gas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 2-4 and 16-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yokoyama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dole et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20170178920), hereinafter “Dole” --Claim 2, 3, 4: Yokoyama teaches the invention as above, wherein Yokoyama further teaches that the film SF is etched during the first period ([0121]) and a protective film is formed during the second period ([0125]). Yokoyama fails to teach that the second gas may be a silylation agent. Dole, also directed to etching a silicon-containing layer, such as SiO2, SiN, SiON, SiOC, SiCN,… ([0069]) by etching and deposition in a cyclical manner (abstract), teaches that a protection film formed during the deposition phase may have various compositions, such as a carbon-containing layer ([0080-0082]) or a silicon-containing film, such as one formed by an aminosilane agent, such as t-butylaminosilane ([0085]). 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 an aminosilane agent, such as t-butylaminosilane, as the second gas in the invention of Yokoyama because Yokoyama teaches that the second gas form a protection layer in the second period, and Dole teaches that t-butylaminosilane would be effective. --Claims 16, 18: Yokoyama further teaches that the process gas further includes a rare gas, and [0352] among the flow rates of all the gases excluding the rare gas in the process gas, the flow rate of the hydrogen fluoride gas component is largest. ([0350]). Since hydrogen fluoride gas is supplied in the first period and not supplied in the second period, 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 have a pressure in the first period to be larger than in the second period. --Claim 17: Yokoyama further teaches that “(v)ariations in the duty cycle of pulses ((bias ON time)/(bias ON time+bias OFF time)) provide a mechanism of controlling the balance between the etching phase and the deposition phase. A longer bias OFF time facilitates formation of a thicker protective film and provides further protection from side etching. A longer bias ON time increases the etching rate and controls the time taken to reach a desired etching depth.” ([0128]). Therefore, the time length of the periods is a result-effective variable, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the duration of the first and second period, such as to the claimed range, because it’s been well established that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).--Claim 19: It is noted that a phosphorous-containing gas is supplied during the second period.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 5, none of the cited prior arts teaches the claimed feature “the silylation agent having an alkyl group includes at least one silylation agent selected from the group consisting of N,N-dimethyltrimethylsilylamine, decyldimethylchlorosilane, dimethy 1-n-octylchlorosilane, and decyldimethylmethoxysilane” in the context of claim 5;With respect to claim 6, none of the cited prior arts teaches the claimed feature “the second processing gas includes a silylation agent having an alkyl group, and the first processing gas includes a tungsten containing gas” in the context of claim 6;
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 submission should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights