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 filed on 02/06/2026. Claims 1-6, 8-16, 21-25 are pending. Claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 12, 14 have been amended. Claims 7, 17-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-25 are new claims.
Response to Arguments
3. The applicant’s amendment with respect to claims 1 and 9 was sufficient to overcome the examiner’s previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b). However, upon further consideration the examiner provides a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b) with respect to claims 4, 21-22. The term “substantially linear” in claim 4 implies a possibility of non-linear. It is unclear from the claim what specific non-linear shape that applicant considered as ““substantially linear”. The examiner clearly recognizes that applicants recite “Unless specified otherwise, the expressions “around”, “approximately”, and “substantially” signify within 10%, and preferably within 5% of the given value or, such as in the case of substantially zero, less than 10% and preferably less than 5% of a comparable quantity.” in paragraph [0027] of the Specification. However, the shape of waveform is either linear or non-linear. There is no such thing as within 10% of linear (i.e. substantially linear; Note: the term “substantially” is interpreted according to applicant’s own disclosure in paragraph [0027]). For purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the term “substantially linear” means non-linear.
Regarding to previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2), the applicants stated:
“Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite that "each of the DC bias waveforms rang[e] from a baseline reference voltage to a negative peak voltage" and each comprise "an initial non-vertical initial voltage transition from the baseline reference voltage or a final non- vertical voltage transition to the baseline reference voltage." Shoeb does not anticipate at least these features of independent claim 1.
Shoeb is directed to etching processes that use non-sinusoidal continuous wave voltage (NSCWV) pulses to flatten the induced voltage response on the substrate surface and lower ion angular spread. See, e.g., Shoeb, FIG. 6, [0023]-[0038], [0073]. Shoeb's NSCWV pulses are specifically designed to have vertical initial and final transitions with a negatively sloped ramped voltage in between. See, e.g., id. at FIGS. 3-6, [0052]-[0060].
Shoeb fails to disclose any waveforms with non-vertical initial or final voltage transitions. The waveforms in Shoeb's FIG. 3 have vertical initial and final voltage transitions and are representative of all of Shoeb's disclosed waveforms. Shoeb provides real-world data of the ideal waveform from FIG. 3 in FIGS. 4-6, which show measured waveforms that result from applying the waveforms of FIG. 3. See, e.g., id. at [0059], [0065], [0073]. The measured waveforms have substantially vertical initial and final transitions that Shoeb refers to these transitions as "quasi-instantaneous" to indicate that they are as close as possible to the ideal vertical transition. See, e.g., id. at [0059], [0061], [0065], [0067].
Therefore, Shoeb does not disclose DC bias waveforms that range from a baseline
reference voltage to a negative peak voltage and each have an initial non-vertical initial voltage transition from the baseline reference voltage or a final non-vertical voltage transition to the baseline reference voltage. As a result, Shoeb does not anticipate amended claim 1.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the section 102 rejection of independent claim 1 be withdrawn. Further, Ventzek and the remaining cited art does nothing to cure these deficiencies. Therefore, independent claim 1 is allowable over the cited art.”
The examiner disagrees. Shoeb clearly discloses DC bias waveforms that range from a baseline reference voltage to a negative peak voltage and each have an initial non-vertical initial voltage transition from the baseline reference voltage or a final non-vertical voltage transition to the baseline reference voltage as shown in Fig 4-Fig 6. As point out by applicants, Shoeb teaches “The measured waveforms have substantially vertical initial and final transitions that Shoeb refers to these transitions as "quasi-instantaneous" to indicate that they are as close as possible to the ideal vertical transition. See, e.g., id. at [0059], [0061], [0065], [0067].” The substantially vertical waveform as shown in Shoeb’s Fig 4-Fig 6 means that the waveform is “non-vertical” since “substantially vertical” means very close to vertical but not absolute vertical. Thus, the examiner still maintains the previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2).
Claim Interpretation
4. In lines 2-3 of claim 5, the applicants recite “a trapezoidal waveform comprising a substantially constant portion at the negative peak value” (emphasis added). It is noted that in paragraph [0027] of the specification, the applicants wrote “Unless specified otherwise, the expressions “around”, “approximately”, and “substantially” signify within 10%, and preferably within 5% of the given value or, such as in the case of substantially zero, less than 10% and preferably less than 5% of a comparable quantity.” Therefore, the examiner interprets that the phrase “substantially constant portion at the negative peak value” means within 10% of the negative peak value (i.e. within 10% of the given value).
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. Claims 4, 21-22 are 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.
The term “substantially linear” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially linear” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “substantially linear” implies a possibility of non-linear. It is unclear from the claim what specific non-linear shape that applicant considered as ““substantially linear”. The examiner clearly recognizes that applicants recite “Unless specified otherwise, the expressions “around”, “approximately”, and “substantially” signify within 10%, and preferably within 5% of the given value or, such as in the case of substantially zero, less than 10% and preferably less than 5% of a comparable quantity.” in paragraph [0027] of the Specification. However, the shape of waveform is either linear or non-linear. There is no such thing as within 10% of linear (i.e. substantially linear). For purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the term “substantially linear” means non-linear since “substantially linear” implies the possibility of non-linear.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because they depend on indefinite claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
9. Claims 1-6, 8, 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shoeb et al. (US 2025/0259821 A1).
As to claim 1, Shoeb discloses a method for high aspect ratio etching (Fig 8A-8B, paragraph 0032), the method comprising:
generating a plasma in a plasma etching chamber containing a substrate comprising a patterned surface; and
etching one or more underlying layers through openings in the patterned surface by coupling a periodic sequence comprising direct current (DC) bias waveforms to the substrate, each of the DC bias waveforms ranging from a baseline reference voltage (VR1 and/or V1) to a negative peak voltage (V3), ach of the DC bias waveforms comprising an initial non-vertical initial voltage transition from the baseline reference voltage or final-vertical voltage transition to the baseline reference voltage, the periodic sequence having a duty cycle between 50% to 75 % (Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 8A-8B, paragraph 0032-0034, 038, 0052-0064, 0057, 0070, Note: Duty cycle of 50% to 75% is within applicant’s range of “greater than 20%”).
As to claim 2, Shoeb discloses the periodic sequence is couple to the substrate with a frequency between 50 kHz to 500 kHz and wherein the negative peak voltage is negative voltage with the magnitude of 100 kV or 2 kV to 10 kV (paragraph 0044, 0064, Fig 3; Note: 500 kHz is within applicant’s range of between about 100 kHz and about 3 MHz). Therefore, Shoeb discloses a negative peak voltage of – 100 kV, or -2kV or -10 kV (Note: -100 kV or -10 kV is within applicant’s range of “less than or equal to about -7 kV”).
As to claim 3, Shoeb discloses the duty cycle is between 50% to 75% (paragraph 0057, 0064, 0070, 0121; Shoeb’s claim 5; Note: 50% to 75% is within applicant’s range of “greater than about 50% and less than 80%).
As to claim 4, Shoeb discloses each of the DC bias waveforms comprises a substantially non-vertical voltage transition (Fig 4=Fig 6).
As to claim 5, Shoeb discloses each of the DC bias waveforms comprises a trapezoidal waveform shape comprising a substantially constant portion at the negative peak voltage (Fig 6, paragraph 0073; Note: the examiner interprets the term “trapezoidal” is a quadrilateral at has at least one pair of parallel sides).
As to claim 6, Shoeb discloses the patterned surface is a patterned hardmask (804) surface (Fig 8A-8B, paragraph 0064, 0079).
As to claim 8, Shoeb discloses wherein the DC bias waveforms each have a first waveform shape and, wherein the periodic sequence further comprises additional DC bias waveform, each having a second waveform shape that is different from the first waveform shape (See Fig 4-Fig 6).
As to claim 21, Shoeb discloses the DC bias waveforms comprises a sawtooth waveform comprising one non-vertical transition and one vertical voltage transition (Fig 6, paragraph 0073).
As to claim 22, Shoeb discloses the DC bias waveforms comprise a triangular waveform comprising two non-vertical voltage transitions (See Fig 4-Fig 5).
As to claim 23, Shoeb discloses a method comprising:
generating a plasma in a plasma etching chamber containing a substrate comprising a patterned surface (Fig 1, Fig 8A-8B; paragraph 0042, 0051, 0079-0080); and
etching one or more underlying layers through openings in the patterned surface by coupling a periodic sequence to the substrate, the periodic sequence ranging from a baseline reference voltage to a negative peak voltage and comprising
first DC bias waveforms comprising an initial non-vertical initial voltage transition from the baseline reference voltage or a final non-vertical voltage transition to the baseline reference voltage, and
second DC bias waveforms different from the first DC bias waveforms, the first DC bias waveforms and the second DC bias waveforms having a combined duty cycle greater than 20% (Fig 4-Fgig 6, Fig 8A-8B, paragraph 0032-0034, 038, 0052-0064, 0057, 0070, Note: Duty cycle of 50-75% is within applicant’s range of “greater than 20%”).
As to claim 24, Shoeb discloses the first DC bias waveforms are sawtooth waveforms and the second DC bias waveforms are rectangular waveforms, each cycle of the combined duty cycle beginning with a sawtooth waveform (Fig 6).
As to claim 25, Shoeb discloses each cycle of the combined duty cycle comprises a plurality of rectangular waveforms (602) (Fig 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 9-11, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoeb et al. (US 2025/0259821 A1) in view of Ventzek (US 2022/0059358 A1).
Note:
As to claim 9, Shoeb discloses a method comprising:
generating a plasma in a plasma etching chamber containing a substrate comprising a hardmask (804) overlying a dielectric by applying a radio frequency (RF) signal (106) to a source power coupling element (Fig 1, Fig 8A-8B; paragraph 0042, 0051, 0079-0080)
etching the dielectric through openings in the hardmask to form features having an aspect ratio of greater than 20:1 R1 or VR2 or V1) to a negative peak voltage about -100 kV or -10 kV, each of the DC bias waveforms comprising an initial non-vertical voltage transition from the baseline reference voltage or a final non-vertical voltage transition to the baseline reference voltage; the periodic sequence having a duty cycle is between 50 % to 75% (Fig 4-Fgig 6, Fig 8A-8B, paragraph 0032-0034, 038, 0052-0064, 0057, 0070, Note: Duty cycle of 50-75% is within applicant’s range of “greater than 20%”).
As to claim 9, Shoeb fails to disclose the feature having an aspect ratio of at least about 100:1. However, Shoeb clearly discloses feature having an aspect ratio greater than 20:1 (See paragraph 0032). Ventzek discloses the etched feature having an aspect ratio of at least about 100:1 (paragraph 0030). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shoeb in view of Ventzek by having the feature with an aspect ratio of at least about 100:1 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)).
As to claim 10, Shoeb discloses the duty cycle is between 50% to 75% (paragraph 0057, 0064, 0070, 0121; Shoeb’s claim 5; Note: 50% to 75% is within applicant’s range of “greater than about 50% and less than 80%”).
As to claim 11, Shoeb discloses the DC bias waveforms comprises a sawtooth waveform or a trapezoidal waveform shape, a sawtooth waveform shape; or rectangular waveform shape (Fig 4-Fig 6).
As to claim 14, Shoeb discloses wherein the DC bias waveforms each have a first waveform shape and, wherein periodic sequence further comprises additional DC bias waveform, each having a second waveform shape that is different from the first waveform shape (See Fig 3-6).
As to claim 15, Shoeb discloses the first waveform is a sawtooth waveform shape and the second waveform is a rectangular waveform shape (See Fig 3, Fig 6).
As to claim 16, Shoeb discloses the negative peak voltage of the DC bias waveform is varied during the periodic sequence (See Fig 3-Fig 6).
13. Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoeb et al. (US 2025/0259821 A1) in view of Ventzek et al. (US 2022/0059358 A1) as applied to claims 9-11, 14-16 above, and further in view of Kumar (US 2007/0072435 A1)
As to claim 12, Shoeb and Ventzek fail to disclose the opening comprising a critical dimension less than 100 nm. However, Shoeb clearly discloses the opening comprises a mask having critical dimension (See Fig 8A-8B; Note: critical dimension is the width of the opening). Kumar discloses the opening comprises a mask having critical dimension of 45 nm range (paragraph 0037, within applicant’s range of “less than about 100 nm”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shoeb and Ventzek in view of Kumar by having an opening with critical dimension of 45 nm range 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 13, Shoeb and Ventzek fail to disclose the hardmask comprises an amorphous carbon layer (ALC) or tungsten silicide (WSi) layer. However, Shoeb clearly teaches to use a hardmask (804) comprises dielectric material (See Fig 8A-8B, paragraph 0079). Kumar teaches to use hardmask (308) comprises dielectric amorphous carbon layer (paragraph 0036-0038, Fig 3B-3D). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shoeb and Ventzek in view of Kumar by using the hardmask comprises amorphous carbon layer because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Conclusion
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.
15. 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