DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. This office action is responsive to applicant’s amendment 01/20/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 1, 19 have been amended. Claim 20 is a “currently amended-Withdrawn” claim.
Response to Arguments
3. The applicant’s amendment with respect to claim 19 was sufficient to overcome the examiner’s previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) rejection as being anticipated by Veber (US 2023/0298896 A1). However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection under 35 U .S.C 103 was set forth as discussed below.
Regarding to previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 103, the applicants stated:
“Applicant traverses the rejection for two distinct reasons. First, Veber is cited for the disclosure of maintaining an "etch temperature ... the same or substantially the same as the deposition temperature." This (equal to) possibility has now been removed from claim 1 and withdrawn claim 20. Indeed, it is acknowledged in the Office Action that the possibility of the deposition (second) temperature being less than the etch (first) temperature is not disclosed in Veber.”
The examiner disagrees. Veber discloses that the etch temperature (first temperature) may be the same or substantially the same as deposition temperature (second temperature). The examiner interprets that the etch temperature (first temperature) is substantially the same the deposition temperature (second temperature) means that there is a small different either in positive direction or negative direction between the first temperature and the second temperature. Therefore, Veber teaches it is possible that the second temperature is slightly lower than the first temperature. Tokashiki also discloses it is possible to adjust the temperature between the etching process and deposition process (paragraph 0024, 0028, 0040). Tokashiki further discloses the second temperature (deposition temperature) can be less than -60 °C or less than -80 °C (paragraph 0028) and the first temperature can be less than -30 °C or less than -20 °C (See paragraph 0024). Therefore, Tokashiki discloses the possibility that the second temperature is less than the first temperature. Thus, the examiner still maintained the previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 103.
Regarding to claims 5 and 19, the applicants stated:
“Second, Applicant traverses the rejection of claims 5 and 19. It is acknowledged in the Office Action that the combination of Veber and Tokashiki fails to meet the requirement of that claim of forming the metal-containing film "gradually from a bottom of the recess." That combination of art is therefore modified in the Action to include the disclosure in Chang of "the metal-containing film [being] conformally deposited into the recess."
Applicant disagrees with this combination of prior art. The cited passage in Chang discloses that [for example, the deposition may include one or more deposition process controlled to have respective deposition characteristics, such as one with conformal deposition (such as atomic layer deposition), another one with more directional deposition (such as bottom-up deposition, or plasma deposition with higher bias power), and another one with more lateral deposition. In some embodiments, the deposited layer is trimmed to achieve the desired shape by a suitable process, such as performing tilted plasma treatment to the upper portions of the deposited dielectric layer, and then another etching process to partially remove the lower portions of the deposited dielectric layer.
([0074]; emphasis added). This passage stands, at most, for the proposition that "conformal deposition" is disclosed in the prior art, but it would not motivate one skilled in the art to modify the combination of Veber and Tokashiki to manner to meet the requirement of Applicant's original claim 5 and amended claim 19. Further, the citation to MPEP 2143(I)(B) is not pertinent because there is no showing of the equivalence of "conformal deposition" to the deposition method disclosed in Veber.
Applicant therefore asks that the obviousness and anticipation rejections be
reconsidered and withdrawn. Further, Applicant asks that withdrawn claim 20 be restored to the application and allowed with the other pending claims.”
The examiner disagrees. Veber clearly discloses the metal-containing film is conformally deposited into the recess (paragraph 0078). Chang discloses the deposition can be conformal deposition or bottom up deposition to deposit material into a recess (paragraph 0074, Note: bottom-up deposition read on applicant's limitation "gradually formed from the bottom"). Therefore, Chang discloses that either conformation deposition or bottom-up deposition can be used to deposit a material into a recess. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Veber in view of Chang by having the metal-containing film is gradually formed upward from a bottom of the recess because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)). Thus, the examiner still maintained the previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 with respect to claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4, 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veber et al. (US 2023/0298896 A1) in view of Tokashiki (US 2019/0206723 A1).
Note:
As to claim 1, Veber discloses an etching method comprising:
providing a substrate having an etching target film (300) and a mask (302) on the etching target film (See Fig 3A), on a substrate support within a chamber (Fig 8A-8B);
etching the etching target film to form recess under a condition that a pressure within the chamber is controlled to a first pressure, and a temperature of the substrate support is controlled to a first pressure (paragraph 0006, 0047, 0053);
forming a metal-containing film on a portion of the side wall of the recess by using plasma generated from a processing gas containing a metal-containing gas, under a condition that a pressure within the chamber is controlled to a second pressure substantially the same
Veber teaches the etch temperature may be the same or substantially the same as deposition temperature). As to claim 1, Veber fails to disclose a second pressure is higher than the first pressure and; the second temperature is less than the first temperature. However, Veber clearly teaches the second temperature is substantially the same as the first temperature (paragraph 0005, 0059, Veber’s claim 4). The examiner interprets that the etch temperature (first temperature) is substantially the same the deposition temperature (second temperature) means that there is a small different either in positive direction or negative direction between the first temperature and the second temperature. Therefore, Veber teaches it is possible that the second temperature is slightly lower than the first temperature. Tokashiki discloses it is possible to adjust the temperature between the etching process and deposition process (paragraph 0024, 0028, 0040). Tokashiki further discloses the second temperature (deposition temperature) can be less than -60 °C or less than -80 °C (paragraph 0028) and the first temperature can be less than -30 °C or less than -20 °C (See paragraph 0024). Therefore, Tokashiki discloses the possibility that the second temperature is less than the first temperature Veber further discloses a first pressure is between about 5 mtorr and 400 mtorr, or between 10 mtorr 100 mtorr (paragraph 0053). Veber further discloses the second pressure is between 5 mtorr and 400 mtorr, or between 5 mtorr and 300 mtorr, or between 5 mtorr and 200 mtorr (paragraph 0065). Tokashiki teaches to control pressure conditions during the etching step and film formation forming step in order to create high aspect ratio (HAR) openings. Tokashiki further discloses the pressure may be increase or decrease between the dielectric removal act (i.e. first pressure) and protective forming acts (second pressure; See paragraph 0042). The second pressure is higher than the first pressure when the pressure is increase between the dielectric removal act and protective forming acts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Veber in view of Tokashiki by having a second temperature less than a first temperature and a second pressure higher than the first pressure because it helps to form high aspect ratio openings (paragraph 0040).
As to claim 2, Veber discloses in (c), the metal-containing film is formed on the side wall on a bottom side of the recess (Fig 3C, 3D, Fig 5A, Fig 6A, abstract, paragraph 0004, 0009, 0045-0047).
As to claim 3, Veber discloses the metal-containing film (306 or 610) is formed on the bottom of the recess and near the bottom (See Fig 3C, Fig 6A-6B paragraph 0045, 0089).
As to claim 4, Veber discloses the metal-containing film (306, 510 or 610, or 710) is formed on the side wall at a portion deeper than a position of half of a depth of the recess (See Fig 3C, Fig 5C, Fig 6A-6B, Fig 7, paragraph 0046, 0079; 0089-0090).
As to claim 6, Veber discloses an aspect ratio of the recess at least 20:1, at least 30:1 at least 40:1, or at least 100:1 at the end of (b) (see paragraph 0030, read on applicant’s limitation “an aspect ratio of the recess is 20 or more”).
As to claim 7, Veber discloses further etching the recess after (c) (See Fig 2, repeating etching step 211).
As to claim 8, Veber discloses where (c) and (d) are alternately repeated a plurality of time (See Fig 2, repeating step 211 and 215 through a loop; paragraph 0027, 0041).
As to claim 9, Veber discloses a depth of the recess at an end of (b) (depth of 304 in Fig 3B) the etching of the target film is around 50% of a depth of the recess at an end of the etching process (See Fig 3E; read on applicant’s range of “30% or more”).
As to claim 10, Veber discloses the processing gas further contains a reducing gas (paragraph 0005-0009; 0068).
As to claim 11, Veber discloses the metal-containing gas contains at least one metal selected from the group consisting of tungsten and molybdenum (paragraph 0067; Veber’s claim 8).
As to claim 12, Veber discloses the metal-containing further contains halogen (i.e. WF6, or MoF6, See paragraph 0067; Veber’s claim 8).
As to claim 13, Veber discloses the second temperature is less than 0 ° C (See paragraph 0064, 0079).
As to claim 14, Veber discloses the second pressure is about 400 mtorr or about 300 mtorr or about 200 mtorr (paragraph 0065, read on applicant’s range of “150 mtorr or more”).
As to claim 15, Veber discloses the etching targe film contains carbon (i.e. SiOC, SiCN), the mask contains silicon or metal such as tungsten (paragraph 0031, 0049).
As to claim 16, Veber discloses the etching target film is etched by using plasma generated from a processing gas
As to claim 17, Veber discloses the etching target film contains silicon and the mask contains carbon or metal such as tungsten (paragraph 00031, 0049).
As to claim 18, Veber discloses wherein in (b), the etching target film is etched by using a plasma generated from a processing gas containing fluorine-containing gas (paragraph 0032, 0051-0052).
7. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veber et al. (US 2023/0298896 A1) in view of Tokashiki (US 2019/0206723 A1) as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of and further in view of Chang et al. (US 2023/0118779 A1).
As to claim 5, Veber and Tokashiki fail to disclose the metal-containing film is gradually
formed upwards from the bottom of the recess. However, Veber clearly discloses the metal-
containing film is conformally deposited into the recess (paragraph 0078). Chang discloses the
deposition can be conformal deposition or bottom up deposition (paragraph 0074, Note:
bottom-up deposition read on applicant's limitation "gradually formed upwards from the
bottom"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Veber and Tokashiki in view of Chang by having
the metal-containing film is gradually formed upward from a bottom of the recess because
equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP
2143(I)(B)).
8. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veber et al. (US 2023/0298896 A1) in view of Chang et al. (US 2023/0118779 A1).
As to claim 19, Veber discloses an etching method comprising:
(a) providing a substrate having a recess, on a substrate support within a chamber (Fig
3A-3E, Fig 5A-5D, Fig 8A, Fig 9, paragraph 0046, 0056, 0092-0099); and
(b) forming
As to claim 19, Veber fails to disclose the metal-containing film is gradually
Formed from the bottom of the recess. However, Veber clearly discloses the metal-
containing film is conformally deposited into the recess (paragraph 0078). Chang discloses the
deposition can be conformal deposition or bottom up deposition (paragraph 0074, Note:
bottom-up deposition read on applicant's limitation "gradually formed from the
bottom"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Veber in view of Chang by having the metal-containing film is gradually formed upward from a bottom of the recess because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 BINH X TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
BINH X. TRAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/BINH X TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights