DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending before the Office for review.
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
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on December 19, 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on December 19, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Applicant believes that the Examiner’s search of Group I is likely to provide a proper search for Group 2 and therefore would not present an undue burden on the Examiner to examine Groups I and II. This is not found persuasive because Groups 1 and 2 are directed towards to distinct invention which are separately classified; would require difference search areas and terms directed towards an apparatus or a method. Art applicable to Group 1 may not necessarily be applicable to Group 2. A complete and proper search of both groups would place an serious search burn on the Examiner in order to provide a complete and through field of search for each group.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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)(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.
Claims 1-5, 8-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by TOMURA et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0165578).
With regards to claim 1, Tomura discloses a method for forming a feature on a substrate comprising: exposing a portion of a silicon containing layer (R1) formed over the substrate (SB) through an opening formed though a masking layer (MK) to a carbon- free fluorine containing gas (HF) to convert the exposed portion of the silicon containing layer to a reactive portion (Figure 5C); and etching the reactive portion by exposing the reactive portion of the silicon containing layer to a plasma formed from an inert gas (Figure 5D) (Paragraphs [0031]-[0035], [0040]-[0044], Figures 5A-5E).
With regards to claim 2, Tomura discloses wherein the inert gas is argon (Paragraph [0034], [0043], claim 6).
With regards to claim 3, Tomura discloses wherein the carbon free fluorine containing gas is hydrogen fluoride (HF) (Paragraphs [0033], [0042]).
With regards to claim 4, Tomura discloses wherein the exposing the portion of the silicon containing layer and the etching the reactive portion are cyclically repeated. (Paragraph [0044]).
With regards to claim 5, Tomura discloses maintaining a substrate support, upon which the substrate is supported, at a temperature below 0°C while the portion of the silicon containing layer is exposed to the carbon-free fluorine containing gas. (Paragraph [0042] discloses maintaining the substrate support at a temperature of -40C or lower).
With regards to claim 8, Tomura discloses wherein the silicon containing layer is fabricated from silicon oxide (SiO) (Paragraph [0040]).
With regards to claim 9, Tomura discloses a method for forming a feature on a substrate comprising: exposing a portion of a silicon containing layer (R1) formed over the substrate (SB) through a masking layer (MK) formed over the silicon containing layer (R1) to hydrogen fluoride (HF) vapor to convert the exposed portion of the silicon containing layer to a reactive portion (Figure 5C); and etching the reactive portion by exposing the reactive portion of the silicon containing layer to a plasma formed from argon (Ar) (Figure 5D) (Paragraphs [0031]-[0035], [0040]-[0044] Figures 5A-5E).
With regards to claim 10, Tomura discloses wherein the exposing the portion of the silicon containing layer and the etching the reactive portion are cyclically repeated. (Paragraph [0044]).
With regards to claim 11, Tomura discloses maintaining a substrate support, upon which the substrate is supported, at a temperature below 0°C while the portion of the silicon containing layer is exposed to HF vapor (Paragraph [0042] discloses maintaining the substrate support at a temperature of -40C or lower).
With regards to claim 13, Tomura discloses wherein the silicon containing layer is fabricated from silicon oxide (SiO) (Paragraph [0040]).
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.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOMURA et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0165578), as applied to claims 1-5, 8-11 and 13.
With regards to claims 6 and 12, Tomura discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as previously discussed.
However Tomura does not explicitly disclose wherein a pressure of the carbon- free containing gas exposed to the silicon containing layer is between 5 mTorr and 300 mTorr.
However Tomura discloses wherein the pressure is about 350 mTorr (Paragraphs [0036], [0077]) which while it does not overlap Applicant’s claimed amount is sufficiently close such that it renders obvious Applicant’s claimed amount of between 5 mTorr and 300 mTorr. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Tomura to include the pressure as rendered obvious by the general teachings of Tomura because one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired substrate processing using the pressure as rendered obvious by Tomura. MPEP 2143D
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOMURA et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0165578), as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-13, in view of DE GORORDO et al (U.S. Patent 11,087,989).
With regards to claim 7, Tomura discloses the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed.
However Tomura does not explicitly disclose wherein a flow rate of the carbon- free containing gas exposed to the silicon containing layer is between 50 sccm and 1000 sccm.
De Gorordo discloses a method for forming a feature on a substrate comprising exposing a position of a silicon containing layer formed on a substrate to a fluorine containing gas wherein the flow rate of fluorine containing gas exposed to the silicon layer is between about 50 sccm to about 500 sccm to form a modified layer which is removed by ion flux formed from an inert gas (Col. 9 lines 6-23, 48-64, Col. 11 lines 26-54) which renders obvious wherein a pressure of the carbon- free containing gas exposed to the silicon containing layer is between 5 mTorr and 300 mTorr. wherein a flow rate of the carbon- free containing gas exposed to the silicon containing layer is between 50 sccm and 1000 sccm.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Tomura to include the flow rate as rendered obvious De Gorordo because one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired fluorine gas modification for etching using the flow rate as rendered obvious by De Gorordo. MPEP 2143D
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE P. DUCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5502. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30 M-F.
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.
/STEPHANIE P DUCLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713