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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15, 18-19) in the reply filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged.
3. Claims 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/06/2026.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of claim 5, the term “fluocarbon” appears to be a typo for “fluorocarbon”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In line 2 of claim 6, the term “CFx” is indefinite because the applicants fail to define or disclose the value or range for “x”. It is unclear whether the value of “x” can equal to 0 (zero) or not. Specifically, claim 6 depends on claim 5. In claim 5, the applicants disclose that protective polymer coating comprises fluorocarbon polymer. In claim 6, applicants recite “the protective polymer coating comprises CFx”. However, when x = 0, then formula “CFx” becomes CF0 or “C” (i.e. carbon), which is broader than “fluorocarbon” as recited in claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
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.
9. Claims 1-8, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2020/0135539 A1) in view of Bazylenko (US 2002/0104821 A1)
Note:
As to claim 1, Cheng discloses a method of removal of a dielectric film on a substrate, the method comprising:
on a substrate that includes a wafer (210), a hardmask mask layer (220 or 230) on the wafer, and a plurality of trenches (area between the fins) that extend through the hardmask mask layer and into the wafer to form a plurality of fins, and a dielectric film (310 and/or 410a) that coats top surfaces of the fins and sidewalls and bottoms of the trenches (paragraph 0038-0043; Fig 2-4), depositing a protective polymer coating (610) onto the dielectric film (310) such that the protective polymer coating (610) covers the top surfaces of the fins and the sidewalls and bottom of the trenches (Fig 5-6, paragraph 0044-0045);
As to claim 1, Cheng fails to disclose the substrate that the etching process is reactive ion etching. However, Chen clearly teaches to use plasma etching to remove protective polymer coating (paragraph 0047). Bazylenko discloses to use reactive ion etching or plasma etching to remove undesired material (paragraph abstract, 0009, 0011). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cheng in view of Bazylenko by using reactive ion etching because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 2, Cheng discloses the dielectric film (310) is a silicon nitride (SiN; See paragraph 0041).
As to claim 3, Cheng discloses the hardmask (220) is silicon nitride (paragraph 0039).
As to claim 4, Cheng discloses performing reactive ion etch (RIE) to remove a portion of the hardmask layer from the top of the fins (paragraph 0048-0049, Fig 9A-Fig 10A).
As to claim 5, Cheng fails to disclose the protective polymer coating comprises fluorocarbon polymer. However, Cheng clearly teaches to form protective polymer (paragraph 0044-0045). Bazylenko teaches to form protective polymer comprises fluorocarbon (abstract, paragraph 0011, 0015, 0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cheng in view of Bazylenko by using fluorocarbon polymer because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 6, Cheng fails to disclose the protective polymer coating comprises CFx. However, Cheng clearly teaches to form protective polymer (paragraph 0044-0045). Bazylenko teaches to form protective polymer comprises fluorocarbon such as CF4 (abstract, paragraph 0011, 0015, 0018, read on applicant’s limitation “CFx”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cheng in view of Bazylenko by using polymer comprises CFx because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 7, Cheng fails to disclose the depositing the protective polymer coating and reactive ion etching the substrate are performed in-situ in the processing chamber without removing the substrate from the chamber. However, Cheng clearly teaches the depositing the protective polymer coating and etching the substrate. Bazylenko discloses the depositing the protective polymer coating and reactive ion etching the substrate are performed in-situ in the processing chamber without removing the substrate from the chamber (Fig 1, abstract, paragraph 0011, 0015, 0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cheng in view of Bazylenko by depositing the protective polymer coating and reactive ion etching the substrate are performed in-situ in the processing chamber without removing the substrate from the chamber because it would reduce the processing time and equipment cost by using the same chamber.
As to claim 8, Cheng fails to disclose depositing the protective polymer coating comprises a fluorocarbon deposition and reactive ion etching the substrate comprises CF4 etch. However, Cheng clearly teaches depositing the protective polymer coating and plasma etching the substrate (paragraph 0045-0048). Bazylenko discloses depositing the protective polymer coating comprises a fluorocarbon deposition and reactive ion etching the substrate comprises CF4 etch (See abstract, paragraph 0011, 0015, 0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cheng in view of Bazylenko by depositing the protective polymer coating comprises a fluorocarbon deposition and reactive ion etching the substrate comprises CF4 etch because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 13, Cheng fails to disclose depositing the protective polymer coating and etching are performed with the substrate temperature of 400-500 °C. Bazylenko discloses depositing the protective polymer coating and etching are performed with the substrate temperature of 60 °C to 600 °C, (Fig 6a, 6d, Fig 5a, paragraph 0042-0044, 0062, 0064, overlapping applicant’s range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cheng in view of Bazylenko by having depositing the protective polymer coating and etching are performed with the substrate temperature of 400-500 °C because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
10. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2020/0135539 A1) in view of Bazylenko (US 2002/0104821 A1) as applied to claims 1-8, 13 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2022/0336476 A1)
As to claim 9, Bazylenko discloses the depositing the protective polymer coating is performed at an RF power of 240 to 660 Watts, including example of around 240 Watts (See Fig 3A-3D, within applicant’s range of 50 to 300 W) by using passivation gas CHF3 or CH4 (See paragraph 0015-0019). As to claim 9, Cheng and Bazylenko fail to disclose a pressure of 2 to 4 torr. Lin discloses depositing a protective coating using passivation gas such as CHF3 or CF4 at a pressure of 1 mtorr to 5 torr (See 0062-0063, overlapping applicant’s range of 2 to 4 torr). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cheng and Bazylenko in view of Lin by having a pressure of 2 to 4 torr because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
11. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2020/0135539 A1) in view of Bazylenko (US 2002/0104821 A1) and Lin et al. (US 2022/0336476 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kawaguchi (US 2006/0032833 A1).
As to claim 10, Cheng, Bazylenko and Lin fail to disclose the depositing the protective polymer coating is performed with a flow rate of CF4 being within 10% of a flow rate of H2. The examiner interprets that the limitation “a flow rate of CF4 being within 10% of a flow rate of H2” means that the flow rate ratio of CF4 to H2 is between 0.9:1 to 1.1:1 (within 10% means plus or minus 10%). Kawaguchi discloses the flow rate of CF4:H2 is between 0:1 to 5:1 including example of 1.75:1 (paragraph 0034, Note: 0:1 to 5:1 is overlapping applicant’s range of 0.9:1 to 1.1: 1 or flow rate of CF4 is within 10% of a flow rate of H2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cheng, Bazylenko and Lin in view of Kawaguchi by having a flow rate of CF4 being with 10% of a flow rate of H2 because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
12. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2020/0135539 A1) in view of Bazylenko (US 2002/0104821 A1) as applied to claims 1-8, 13 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 6,479,396 B1).
As to claim 11, Bazylenko discloses the reactive ion etching the substrate is performed at a RF power of 200 to 700 °C or 250 °C to 500 °C (Fig 2A-2B), including example of 500 W (See paragraph 00127, 0019, within applicant’s range of 300-1000 W). As to claim 11, Cheng and Bazylenko fail to disclose that the reactive ion etching the substrate is performed at a pressure of 0.3-1.0 Torr. Xu discloses performing a reactive ion etching the substrate at a pressure of 0.05 to 0.5 torr or 0.1 to 0.5 Torr or 0.3 Torr (Table I, Table II, col. 5 lines 29-32; within applicant’s range of 0.3 to 1.0 Torr). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cheng and Bazylenko in view of Xu by having a pressure of 0.3 to 0.5 Torr because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
As to claim 12, Cheng and Bazylenko fail to disclose reactive ion etching the substrate is performed with a flow rate of CF4 being 2 to 4 times higher than a flow rate of H2. However, Bazylenko clearly teaches reactive ion etching using CF4 gas (abstract). Xu discloses reactive on etching using CF4 and N2/H2 gas wherein the flow rate of CF4 = 60 sccm and flow rate of N2/H2 is between 130 sccm to 150 sccm (Table I, III). Xu further discloses X percentage of H2 is present wherein X = 0 to 10% (Table 1). Any person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to calculate the flow rate of H2 at 10% of 150 sccm as shown below:
150 sccm * 10% = 15 sccm
Therefore, the flow rate of CF4 (60 sccm) is 4 times (60/15= 4) higher than the flow rate of H2 (15 sccm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cheng and Bazylenko in view of Xu by reactive ion etching the substrate is performed with a flow rate of CF4 being 2 to 4 times higher than a flow rate of H2 because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
13. Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2020/0135539 A1) in view of Bazylenko (US 2002/0104821 A1) as applied to claims 1-8, 13 above, and further in view of Tsai (US 2019/0067277 A1)
As to claim 14, Cheng discloses the substate comprises a silicon wafer (paragraph 0037) and the hard mask comprises a silicon nitride (220) and silicon oxide (230) on the substrate (See paragraph 0039). As to claim 14, Cheng and Bazylenko fail to disclose the substrate comprises a silicon wafer having a plurality of alternating Si/Ge and Si layers and the hardmask layer is formed on the plurality of alternating layers. Tsai discloses the substrate comprises one silicon layer or a plurality of alternating Si/Ge and Si layers and the hard mask layers is formed on the plurality of alternating layers (See paragraph 0014-0015). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify to modify Cheng and Bazylenko in view of Tsai by having substrate comprises a plurality of alternating Si/Ge and Si layers and the hard mask layers is formed on the plurality of alternating layers because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 15, Cheng disclose to form a plurality of trench having high aspect ratio (paragraph 0009, 0034). However, Cheng fails to disclose an aspect ratio of at least 5:1. Tsai discloses a trench having aspect ratio of 3:1 to 10:1, or 4:1 to 8:1, or from 5:1 to 7:1 (paragraph 0022). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cheng and Bazylenko in view of Tsai by having aspect ratio of at least 5:1 because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Conclusion
14. 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