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 § 102
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP H06295889A to Watabe.
Regarding Claim 1, Watabe teaches (Figure 3 and related discussion) a method of processing a substrate, comprising: contacting the substrate (27) comprising silicon (Si substrate) in a processing chamber (Figure 4)with a fluorine etchant at a substrate temperature, pressure, and for a period of time sufficient to form a fluorine-containing reaction layer (24) on a surface of the substrate; and irradiating the fluorine-containing reaction layer on the surface of the substrate with electrons (28) having an energy sufficient for electron-impact dissociation thereby releasing atomic fluorine to etch the surface of the substrate.
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, 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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H06295889A to Watabe.
Regarding Claim 19, Watabe teaches (Figure 3 and related discussion) a method of processing a substrate, comprising: contacting the substrate (27) comprising silicon (Si substrate) in a processing chamber (Figure 4)with a fluorine etchant at a substrate temperature, pressure, and for a period of time sufficient to form a fluorine-containing reaction layer (24) on a surface of the substrate; and irradiating the fluorine-containing reaction layer on the surface of the substrate with electrons (28) having an energy sufficient for electron-impact dissociation thereby releasing atomic fluorine to etch the surface of the substrate using dry etching apparatus (Fig 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide media having computer readable instructions to perform the etching method of Watabe in an automated manner with predictable results.
Claims 2-6, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H06295889A to Watabe in view of US Publication 2020/0006036 to Guo et al.
Regarding Claim 2, Watabe does not expressly teach the electrons have an energy from about 50 eV to 20,000 eV. However, the broadly recited range is well known in the art for initiating chemical reaction. For example, Guo et al. teaches (Paragraphs 37-39) teaches electrons have an energy from about 50 eV to 20,000 eV for an electron beam etching process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the broadly recited energy range in the etching method of Watabe with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 3 and 4 Watabe teaches room temperature example but does not expressly teach contacting with etchant and irradiating electrons at less than or equal to about 0°C. However, the broadly recited temperature range is well known in the art for electron etching. For example, Guo et al. teaches about (Paragraph 23) -20°C may be used for electron beam etching. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the temperature contacting with etchant and irradiating electrons at less than or equal to about 0°C in the etching method of Watabe with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 5, Watabe does not expressly teach etching silicon selectively relative to silicon oxide and or silicon nitride. However, Guo et al. teaches (Paragraph 63) 5:1 silicon:silicon oxide ratios may be achieved using threshold electron beam etching energies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to etch silicon relative to silicon oxide using threshold electron beam etching energies in the etching method of Watabe with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 6, Watabe teaches 10-4 Torr (0.1 mTorr) but does not expressly teach a pressure from about 5 millitorr to 100 millitorr for about 30 seconds to 5 minutes. However, the control variables are well known for electron beam etching. For example, Guo et al. teaches pressure 0.001 Torr to 10Torr (Paragraph 39) and controlling pulse time periods (Paragraph 43). Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a pressure from about 5 millitorr to 100 millitorr for about 30 seconds to 5 minutes min order to form a fluorine-containing reaction layer with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 9, Watabe does not expressly teach a mixture comprising He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe. However, it is well known in the etching art to provide a mixture with inert gas. For example, Guo et al. teaches (Paragraphs, 34, 53, 54) inert gas mixtures for electron beam etching processes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a mixture with inert gas in the method of Watabe with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 12, Watabe does not expressly teach 1 to 50 cm. However, the source to substrate distance is a well-known process variable. For example, Guo et al. (Paragraph 46, 50) 1-50 in source to substrate distance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide 1 to 50 cm source to substrate distance in the method of Watabe with predictable results.
Claims 3, 4, 9-11, 13, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H06295889A to Watabe in view of US Publication 2021/0280433 to Berry, III et al.
Regarding Claim 3, 4 and 15 Watabe teaches room temperature example but does not expressly teach contacting with etchant and irradiating electrons at less than or equal to about 0°C. However, the broadly recited temperature range is well known in the art for electron etching. For example, Berry, III et al. teaches (Paragraph 101) a substrate temperature less than or equal to about 0°C may be used for electron beam etching. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the temperature contacting with etchant and irradiating electrons at less than or equal to about 0°C in the etching method of Watabe with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 9, Watabe does not expressly teach a mixture comprising He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe. However, it is well known in the etching art to provide a mixture with inert gas. For example, Berry, III et al. teaches (Paragraphs 58, 94) inert carrier gas for electron beam etching processes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a mixture with inert gas in the method of Watabe with predictable results.
Regarding Claims 10, 11, 13 and 20, Watabe teaches the method of the invention substantially as claimed, but does not expressly teach purging the process chamber with inert gas after contacting and etching. However, the steps are old and well known for etching a layer of material. For example, Berry, III et al. teaches a process chamber is purged (Paragraph 65) remove modification gas and purged (Paragraph 69) to remove excess activation gas and reaction byproducts, with the advantages of self-limiting reaction (Paragraph 89) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide purging steps in the method of Watabe in order to remove modification gas and reaction products in the well-known manner with predictable results.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H06295889A to Watabe in view of US Publication 2021/0280433 to Berry, III et al. and US Publication 2020/0006036 to Guo et al.
Regarding Claim 14, as applied above to Claim 13, Watabe in view of Berry, III et al. teaches the method of the invention substantially as claimed, but does not expressly teach the electrons have an energy from about 50 eV to 20,000 eV. However, the broadly recited range is well known in the art for initiating chemical reaction. For example, Guo et al. teaches (Paragraphs 37-39) teaches electrons have an energy from about 50 eV to 20,000 eV for an electron beam etching process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the broadly recited energy range in the etching method of Watabe with predictable results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H06295889A to Watabe in view of US Publication 2017/0178917 to Kamp et al.
Regarding Claim 6, as applied above to Claim 1, Watabe teaches the method of the invention substantially as claimed, but does not expressly teach a pressure from about 5 millitorr to 100 millitorr for about 30 seconds to 5 minutes. However, the control variables are well known for electron beam etching. For example, Kamp et al. teaches pressure 1-100 mTorr (Paragraph 40) and (Paragraph 49) exposure times for fluorine containing gas about 5 min, or greater than about 30 seconds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a pressure from about 5 millitorr to 100 millitorr for about 30 seconds to 5 minutes min in the method of Watabe in order to form a fluorine-containing reaction layer with predictable results.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H06295889A to Watabe in view of US Publication 2017/0345665 to Faguet et al.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, as applied above to Claim 1, Watabe teaches the method of the invention substantially as claimed, but does not expressly teach fluorine source gasses. However, the broadly recited list is well known in the art for fluorine etch. For example, Faquet et al. teaches (Paragraph 40) fluorine source gas includes XeF2, F2, HF etc for atomic layer etching process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the broadly recited list of fluorine sources in the etching method of Watabe in order to form a fluorine-containing reaction layer with predictable results.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H06295889A to Watabe in view of US Publication 2021/0280433 to Berry, III et al. and US Publication 2017/0178917 to Kamp et al.
Regarding Claim 16, as applied above to Claim 13, Watabe in view of Berry, III et al. teaches the method of the invention substantially as claimed, but does not expressly teach a pressure from about 5 millitorr to 100 millitorr for about 30 seconds to 5 minutes. However, the control variables are well known for electron beam etching. For example, Kamp et al. teaches pressure 1-100 mTorr (Paragraph 40) and (Paragraph 49) exposure times for fluorine containing gas about 5 min, or greater than about 30 seconds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a pressure from about 5 millitorr to 100 millitorr for about 30 seconds to 5 minutes min in the method of Watabe in view of Berry, III et al. in order to form a fluorine-containing reaction layer with predictable results.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H06295889A to Watabe in view of US Publication 2021/0280433 to Berry, III et al. and US Publication 2017/0345665 to Faguet et al.
Regarding Claim 16, as applied above to Claim 13, Watabe in view of Berry, III et al. teaches the method of the invention substantially as claimed, but does not expressly teach fluorine source gasses. However, the broadly recited list is well known in the art for fluorine etch. For example, Faquet et al. teaches (Paragraph 40) fluorine source gas includes XeF2, F2, HF etc for atomic layer etching process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the broadly recited list of fluorine sources in the etching method of Watabe in view of Berry, III et al. in order to form a fluorine-containing reaction layer with predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Publication 2008/0038894 to Rueger et al. teaches electron beam activated etching.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberts P Culbert whose telephone number is (571)272-1433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 7:30 AM-6 PM EST.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/ROBERTS P CULBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights