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 .
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 without traverse of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on November 5, 2025 is acknowledged. Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, 13-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Briggs et al. (US9673058).
Regarding claim 1, Briggs discloses an etching method (abstract) comprising: providing a substrate including a first region and a second region below the first region, the first region containing a first material and having an opening, and the second region containing a second material different from the first material (layer 212 reads on a first region; layer 208 reads on a second region; lines 22-27, column 2; and Fig. 2A); and etching the second region through the opening while forming a carbon-containing layer and a metal-containing layer below the carbon-containing layer on a sidewall of the opening, by supplying, onto the substrate, plasma generated from a processing gas containing a carbon-containing gas, a metal halide gas, and a halogen scavenging gas that scavenges halogen (claim 1; lines 1-23, column 5; and Fig. 6; a fluorocarbon gas reads on a carbon-containing gas, lines 35-39, column 4; WF6 reads on a metal halide gas, lines 10-15, column 4; a hydrocarbon gas, a fluorocarbon gas or a fluorohydrocarbon gas reads on a halogen scavenging gas, lines 35-39, column 4).
Regarding claims 2-3, Briggs discloses wherein the carbon-containing gas is a hydrofluorocarbon gas (fluorohydrocarbon, lines 35-39, column 4).
Regarding claims 4-5, Briggs discloses wherein metal halide contained in the metal halide gas is WF6 (claim 2).
Regarding claims 6-7, Briggs discloses wherein the halogen scavenging gas is a hydrogen-containing gas excluding hydrogen fluoride (hydrocarbon, lines 35-39, column 4).
Regarding claim 9, Briggs discloses wherein a ratio of a flow rate of the metal halide gas to a total flow rate of the carbon-containing gas, the metal halide gas, and the halogen scavenging gas is 0.1 vol % or more and 14 vol % or less (lines 1-3 and 40-45, column 4).
Regarding claim 10, Briggs discloses wherein a flow rate of the metal halide gas is less than ½ of a flow rate of the halogen scavenging gas (no more than 5sccm of WF6 with no less than 30sccm of C4F6, lines 1-3, column 4).
Regarding claim 12, Briggs discloses wherein the first region is a mask containing a non-metal element (amorphous carbon, claim 12).
Regarding claim 13, Briggs discloses wherein the carbon-containing layer and the metal-containing layer are in contact with each other and have a ring shape (lines 1-23, column 5; and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Briggs discloses wherein the etching the second region includes supplying the processing gas onto the substrate (claim 1); and generating the plasma from the processing gas (claim 1), and wherein the supplying the processing gas includes a first period in which the metal halide gas is supplied at a first flow rate, and a second period in which the metal halide gas is not supplied (claim 9).
Regarding claim 15, Briggs discloses wherein a cycle including the first period and the second period is repeated in the supplying the processing gas (line 65, column 5 to line 3, column 6).
Regarding claim 17, Briggs discloses wherein a flow rate ratio of the metal halide gas is changed stepwise in the etching the second region (claim 9).
Regarding claim 18, Briggs discloses wherein a flow rate ratio of the metal halide gas is reduced stepwise in the etching the second region (claim 9).
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.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Briggs et al. (US9673058) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Briggs discloses wherein a temperature of a substrate support supporting the substrate is 10° C or more and 80° C or less in the etching the second region (lines 9-10, column 4), which overlaps with the range recited in the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Briggs et al. (US9673058) as applied to claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 16, Briggs is silent about wherein the second period is shorter than the first period. However, Briggs discloses that it is flexible in introducing WF6 gas in the entire etch process (lines 60, column 5 to line 3, column 6). Additionally, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation and there is no evidence of the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05II.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method wherein the halogen scavenging gas includes a silicon-containing gas, in the context of the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIONG-PING LU whose telephone number is (571) 270-1135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am – 5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua L Allen, can be reached at telephone number (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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JIONG-PING LU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713