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 .
Drawings
Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome the previously presented objections to the drawings and thus the objections are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented objection to the claims and thus the objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and thus the rejections are withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 1, 10, and 17, the limitation “wherein the lean-gas chemistry comprises an inert gas species and a reactive gas species, wherein the inert gas species relative to the reactive gas species is maximized to generate a greater amount of ions than radicals” is not supported by the original specification. The specification describes in paragraph 0025 that a lean-gas chemistry facilitates more ion etch instead of radical etch and in paragraph 0028 lean-gas chemistry is described as non-polymerizing. Additionally, paragraph 0041 of the specification describes that the lean gas chemistry may include at least one of argon and oxygen. However, the specification does not describe an “inert gas species” in general and only recites argon, krypton, and/or xenon as examples (see para 0028). Furthermore, the specification does not describe a “reactive gas species” in general with the only mention of a reactive gas seemingly being oxygen in para 0041. The specification also makes no mention of maximizing an amount of an inert gas relative to a reactive gas, rather the specification only mentions that the sputter yield can be optimized with a specific ion species, energy, and incidence angle (see para 0025). Therefore, the claims lack written description support.
In claims 4, 13, and 20, the limitation “the non-zero angle of the ion beam is greater than 45°” is not fully supported by the original specification. The original claims recite “between 40° and 80°” and the specification only describes a non-zero angle between 50° and 60° (see para 0041); however, there is no disclosure of an ion beam angle above 80° and the claimed “greater than 45°” includes angles greater than 80°. Therefore, the claims lack written description support.
Claims 2-3, 5-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18-19 lack written description support by virtue of depending on unsupported claims.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 claims 1, 10, and 17, the limitation “wherein the inert gas species relative to the reactive gas species is maximized to generate a greater amount of ions than radicals” is indefinite because it is unclear what is required for the amount of inert gas species relative to reactive gas species to be maximized. For example, this limitation could be interpreted to mean that the inert gas species is in a higher concentration resulting in more ions than radicals, the amount of inert gas is optimized to achieve a desired amount of ions relative to radicals, or the amount of inert gas ,may be so large that the concentration of reactive gas is negligible. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted to mean at least any of the aforementioned interpretations.
Claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 depend on claims 1, 10, and 17 and thus are indefinite by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilchrist (US 20210020499 A1) in view of Oomori (US 20220157614 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gilchrist (US 20210020499 A1) teaches an elongated contact hole (205, 405) (elongated opening) formed in a semiconductor device wafer (200, 400) (layer) where the opening includes a set of sidewalls (207, 208, 414) opposite to each other and a first end (wall) and second end (wall) (210, 212, 410, 412) connected to the sidewalls and each defining an apex (218, 418) (tip end) and shoulder areas (214, 414) (set of curved sections) extending between the apex/tip and the set of sidewalls, wherein ion etching is performed on the elongated opening comprising an ion beam at a non-zero angle relative to a plane defined by the semiconductor device (layer) and wherein the ion etch causes the semiconductor device wafer (layer) to be removed faster along the shoulder areas (set of curved sections) than at the apex (tip end) to change the contact hole from an oval shape to a rectangular shape, which indicates that the shoulder areas are etched faster than the sidewalls such that the curved shoulder sections become more parallel with the sidewalls (Abstract, para 0022-0033, 0037-0038, claims 3, 11, 19; Fig. 2A-2B, 4A-4C).
Gilchrist fails to explicitly teach the ion etch comprises a lean-gas chemistry, wherein the lean-gas chemistry comprises an inert gas species and a reactive gas species, wherein the inert gas species relative to the reactive gas species is maximized to generate a greater amount of ions than radicals. However, Oomori (US 20220157614 A1), in the analogous art of etching, teaches that reactive ion etching can be performed using a combination of an inert gas and a dry etching agent (reactive gas) where the inert gas may be from 0 to 98 vol% (para 0041-0042, 0048). Gilchrist teaches using reactive ion etching (para 0003, 0027). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the etching gas composition of Gilchrist with the etching gas composition of Oomori because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The combination of Gilchrist and Oomori fails to explicitly teach the inert gas species relative to the reactive gas species is maximized to generate a greater amount of ions than radicals. However, one skilled in the art would have expected the use of any value within the Oomori range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 0 to 98 vol% inert gas, including values resulting in a greater amount of ions than radicals (inert gas relative to reactive gas is maximized), with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori teaches the ion etch causes the first and second ends of the contact hole to be etched/squared into a rectangular/square shape such that the apex 418 (tip end) is straight (i.e, having a rectangular cross-section), and therefore forms a square cross-section when the length of the apex/tip end is defined as equal to the depth of the layer or when the apex/tip end cross-section is defined as a square subsection of the end wall, and wherein the apex/tip end is perpendicular to the sidewalls (Gilchrist para 0006, 0024-0025, 0029; Fig. 4A-4C). Alternatively, or in addition, the cross-section of the tip ends are at least rectangular and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a square cross-section because the particular shape is a matter of design choice that would have been obvious to one skilled in the art absent persuasive evidence that the shape is critical. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori teaches the inert gas may be argon, krypton, or xenon gas (Oomori para 0042).
Regarding claim 4¸ the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori fails to explicitly teach the non-zero angle of the ion beam is greater than 45° with respect to normal incidence to the plane defined by the layer of the semiconductor device. However, Gilchrist teaches an ion beam 420 having a non-zero angle θ relative to the plane defined by a top surface of the wafer, wherein the angle relative to normal incidence of the plane is equal to 90°-θ, wherein the angle of incidence Φ is equal to arcsin(sinθ*sinω), where ω is the angle that the wafer is twisted at and may be between 5° and 45°, and wherein a maximum yield may be obtained with an angle of incidence Φ of about 30° (see Fig. 3) (para 0026-0028, 0031; Fig. 3, 4C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a non-zero angle θ resulting in an incidence angle of about 30° with a wafer tilt of 45°, which is equal to about 45°, in order to maximize etching yield and thus improve efficiency. As a result, the angle relative to the normal incidence of the plane defined by the layer of the semiconductor device is equal to about 90-45, or about 45°.
Though the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori fails to explicitly teach the angle is greater than 45°, absent any showing of criticality, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges to not overlap with the prior art but are merely close because the Gilchrist range of “about 45°”, which includes values above and below 45°, is so close to the claimed range of “greater than 45°” that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an angle greater than 45° with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori teaches the first and second ends (410, 412) have a curved profile including curved shoulder portions 444 (Gilchrist para 0028-0029; Fig. 4A-4B).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori teaches the initial first and second ends may comprise semi-circular arcs (Gilchrist para 0004; Fig. 2B, 4A-4B).
Alternatively, Gilchrist teaches that contact holes may have a semi-circular arc at their ends and custom hole end arcs and shapes may be achieved by etching (para 0004, 0021). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the initial or the final end arc/shape with a semi-circular arc shape because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the end arc/shape to a semi-circular arc/shape because the particular shape is a matter of design choice that would have been obvious to one skilled in the art absent persuasive evidence that the shape is critical. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori teaches the ion beam is directed primarily directly toward the shoulder region 444 and therefore the effective incident angle between the ion beam and a surface normal vector of the shoulder regions (first end wall and second end wall) would necessarily be lower (i.e., closer to 0°) than an effective incident angle between the ion beam and a surface normal vector of the sidewalls because the sidewall surface vector would be pointing in a different direction than the ion beam and the shoulder/end wall surface vector would be pointing toward the ion beam at least in a horizontal direction and because the sidewalls are not etched as much as the shoulders/end walls such that the shape changes from oval to rectangular (the effective incident angle is greater along the set of sidewalls than along the first end wall and the second end wall) (Gilchrist para 0006, 0029; Fig. 2A-2B, 3, 4A-4B).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori teaches the non-zero angle of the ion beam is constant during the ion etch (Gilchrist para 0028, 0037, claim 7).
Regarding claim 10, Gilchrist (US 20210020499 A1) teaches an elongated contact hole (205, 405) (opening) formed in a semiconductor device wafer (200, 400) (layer) where the opening includes a set of sidewalls (207, 208, 414) opposite to and extending parallel to each other and a first end (wall) and second end (wall) (210, 212, 410, 412) connected to the sidewalls and each defining an apex (218, 418) (tip end) and shoulder areas (214, 414) (set of curved sections) extending between the apex/tip and the set of sidewalls, wherein ion etching (patterning) is performed on the opening comprising an ion beam at a non-zero angle relative to a plane defined by the semiconductor device (layer) and wherein the ion etch causes the semiconductor device wafer (layer) to be removed faster along the shoulder areas (set of curved sections) than at the apex (tip end) to change the contact hole from an oval shape to a rectangular shape, which indicates that the shoulder areas are etched faster than the sidewalls such that the curved shoulder sections become more parallel with the sidewalls (Abstract, para 0006, 0022-0033, 0037-0038, claims 3, 11, 19; Fig. 2B, 4A-4C).
Gilchrist fails to explicitly teach the ion etch comprises a lean-gas chemistry, wherein the lean-gas chemistry comprises an inert gas species and a reactive gas species, wherein the inert gas species relative to the reactive gas species is maximized to generate a greater amount of ions than radicals. However, Oomori (US 20220157614 A1), in the analogous art of etching, teaches that reactive ion etching can be performed using a combination of an inert gas and a dry etching agent (reactive gas) where the inert gas may be from 0 to 98 vol% (para 0041-0042, 0048). Gilchrist teaches using reactive ion etching (para 0003, 0027). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the etching gas composition of Gilchrist with the etching gas composition of Oomori because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The combination of Gilchrist and Oomori fails to explicitly teach the inert gas species relative to the reactive gas species is maximized to generate a greater amount of ions than radicals. However, one skilled in the art would have expected the use of any value within the Oomori range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 0 to 98 vol% inert gas, including values resulting in a greater amount of ions than radicals (inert gas relative to reactive gas is maximized), with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori teaches the ion etch causes the first and second ends of the contact hole to be etched/squared into a rectangular/square shape such that the apex 418 (tip end) is straight (i.e, having a rectangular cross-section), and therefore forms a square cross-section when the length of the apex/tip end is defined as equal to the depth of the layer or when the apex/tip end cross-section is defined as a square subsection of the end wall, and wherein the apex/tip end is perpendicular to the sidewalls (Gilchrist para 0006, 0024-0025, 0029; Fig. 4A-4C). Alternatively, or in addition, the cross-section of the tip ends are at least rectangular and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a square cross-section because the particular shape is a matter of design choice that would have been obvious to one skilled in the art absent persuasive evidence that the shape is critical. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori teaches the inert gas may be argon, krypton, or xenon gas (Oomori para 0042).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori fails to explicitly teach the non-zero angle of the ion beam is greater than 45° with respect to normal incidence to the plane defined by the layer of the semiconductor device. However, Gilchrist teaches an ion beam 420 having a non-zero angle θ relative to the plane defined by a top surface of the wafer, wherein the angle relative to normal incidence of the plane is equal to 90°-θ, wherein the angle of incidence Φ is equal to arcsin(sinθ*sinω), where ω is the angle that the wafer is twisted at and may be between 5° and 45°, and wherein a maximum yield may be obtained with an angle of incidence Φ of about 30° (see Fig. 3) (para 0026-0028, 0031; Fig. 3, 4C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a non-zero angle θ resulting in an incidence angle of about 30° with a wafer tilt of 45°, which is equal to about 45°, in order to maximize etching yield and thus improve efficiency. As a result, the angle relative to the normal incidence of the plane defined by the layer of the semiconductor device is equal to about 90-45, or about 45°.
Though the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori fails to explicitly teach the angle is greater than 45°, absent any showing of criticality, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges to not overlap with the prior art but are merely close because the Gilchrist range of “about 45°”, which includes values above and below 45°, is so close to the claimed range of “greater than 45°” that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an angle greater than 45° with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori teaches the first and second ends (410, 412) have a curved profile including curved shoulder portions 444 (Gilchrist para 0028-0029; Fig. 4A-4B).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori teaches the ion beam is directed primarily directly toward the shoulder region 444 and therefore the effective incident angle between the ion beam and a surface normal vector of the shoulder regions (first end wall and second end wall) would necessarily be lower (i.e., closer to 0°) than an effective incident angle between the ion beam and a surface normal vector of the sidewalls because the sidewall surface vector would be pointing in a different direction than the ion beam and the shoulder/end wall surface vector would be pointing toward the ion beam at least in a horizontal direction and because the sidewalls are not etched as much as the shoulders/end walls such that the shape changes from oval to rectangular (the effective incident angle is greater along the set of sidewalls than along the first end wall and the second end wall) (Gilchrist para 0006, 0029; Fig. 2A-2B, 3, 4A-4B). The combination of Gilchrist and Oomori also teaches the non-zero angle of the ion beam is constant during the ion etch (Gilchrist para 0028, 0037, claim 7)
Regarding claim 17, Gilchrist (US 20210020499 A1) teaches an elongated contact hole (205, 405) (opening) formed in a semiconductor device wafer (200, 400) (layer) where the opening includes a set of sidewalls (207, 208, 414) opposite to and extending parallel to each other and a first end (wall) and second end (wall) (210, 212, 410, 412) connected to the sidewalls and each defining an apex (218, 418) (tip end) and shoulder areas (214, 414) (set of curved sections) extending between the apex/tip and the set of sidewalls, wherein ion etching (patterning) is performed on the opening comprising an ion beam at a non-zero angle relative to a plane defined by the semiconductor device (layer) and wherein the ion etch causes the semiconductor device wafer (layer) to be removed faster along the shoulder areas (set of curved sections) than at the apex (tip end) to change the contact hole from an oval shape to a rectangular shape, which results in an increased radius of curvature (as in Fig. 2B compared to Fig. 2A) and thus a decreased quarter tip curvature (Abstract, para 0006, 0022-0033, 0037-0038, claims 3, 11, 19; Fig. 2A-2B, 4A-4C).
Gilchrist fails to explicitly teach the ion etch comprises a lean-gas chemistry, wherein the lean-gas chemistry comprises an inert gas species and a reactive gas species, wherein the inert gas species relative to the reactive gas species is maximized to generate a greater amount of ions than radicals. However, Oomori (US 20220157614 A1), in the analogous art of etching, teaches that reactive ion etching can be performed using a combination of an inert gas and a dry etching agent (reactive gas) where the inert gas may be from 0 to 98 vol% (para 0041-0042, 0048). Gilchrist teaches using reactive ion etching (para 0003, 0027). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the etching gas composition of Gilchrist with the etching gas composition of Oomori because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The combination of Gilchrist and Oomori fails to explicitly teach the inert gas species relative to the reactive gas species is maximized to generate a greater amount of ions than radicals. However, one skilled in the art would have expected the use of any value within the Oomori range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 0 to 98 vol% inert gas, including values resulting in a greater amount of ions than radicals (inert gas relative to reactive gas is maximized), with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori teaches the ion etch causes the first and second ends of the contact hole to be etched/squared into a rectangular/square shape such that the apex 418 (tip end) is straight (i.e, having a rectangular cross-section), and therefore forms a square cross-section when the length of the apex/tip end is defined as equal to the depth of the layer or when the apex/tip end cross-section is defined as a square subsection of the end wall, and wherein the apex/tip end is perpendicular to the sidewalls (Gilchrist para 0006, 0024-0025, 0029; Fig. 4A-4C). Alternatively, or in addition, the cross-section of the tip ends are at least rectangular and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a square cross-section because the particular shape is a matter of design choice that would have been obvious to one skilled in the art absent persuasive evidence that the shape is critical. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori teaches the inert gas may be argon, krypton, or xenon gas (Oomori para 0042). The combination of Gilchrist and Oomori fails to explicitly teach the non-zero angle of the ion beam is greater than 45° with respect to normal incidence to the plane defined by the layer of the semiconductor device. However, Gilchrist teaches an ion beam 420 having a non-zero angle θ relative to the plane defined by a top surface of the wafer, wherein the angle relative to normal incidence of the plane is equal to 90°-θ, wherein the angle of incidence Φ is equal to arcsin(sinθ*sinω), where ω is the angle that the wafer is twisted at and may be between 5° and 45°, and wherein a maximum yield may be obtained with an angle of incidence Φ of about 30° (see Fig. 3) (para 0026-0028, 0031; Fig. 3, 4C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a non-zero angle θ resulting in an incidence angle of about 30° with a wafer tilt of 45°, which is equal to about 45°, in order to maximize etching yield and thus improve efficiency. As a result, the angle relative to the normal incidence of the plane defined by the layer of the semiconductor device is equal to about 90-45, or about 45°.
Though the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori fails to explicitly teach the angle is greater than 45°, absent any showing of criticality, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges to not overlap with the prior art but are merely close because the Gilchrist range of “about 45°”, which includes values above and below 45°, is so close to the claimed range of “greater than 45°” that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an angle greater than 45° with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results.
Claim(s) 4-5, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilchrist (US 20210020499 A1) in view of Oomori (US 20220157614 A1), as applied to claims 1, 10, and 17 above, and further in view of Anglin (US 20190355581 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori fails to explicitly teach the non-zero angle of the ion beam is greater than 45° with respect to normal incidence to the plane defined by the layer of the semiconductor device. However, Anglin (US 20190355581 A1), in the analogous art of ion etching, teaches that a non-zero incidence angle for etching targeted surfaces of a trench/contact hole may include an angle of 20° to 60° with respect to the normal of the substrate plane (normal incidence to the plane defined by the layer of the semiconductor device) (para 0044). Gilchrist teaches an ion beam 420 having a non-zero angle relative to normal incidence to the plane defined by the layer of the semiconductor device (para 0028, Fig. 4C) but is silent to the exact value of the angle. Because Anglin teaches that such ion beam angles were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an ion beam angle of 20° to 60° with respect to the normal of the substrate plane in the Gilchrist method with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
The combination of Gilchrist, Oomori, and Anglin fails to explicitly teach the non-zero angle is greater than 45°. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Anglin range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 20° to 60°, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori teaches the angle of incidence and ion flux are optimized at the first and second ends (end walls) of the contact hole and the etching is optimized to cause the shoulder areas 444 to be etched faster (Gilchrist para 0029, 0037; Fig. 4A-4B) but fails to explicitly teach that the ion etch comprises directing the ion beam towards the first and second end wall only. However, Anglin (US 20190355581 A1), in the analogous art of ion etching, teaches an etching method for increasing a first hole dimension of a hole while directing ions at a non-zero angle of incidence and aligned such that the ions may etch one sidewall 114A while not etching another sidewall 114B or other surfaces to selectively increase a dimension of a cavity, wherein the etching may include reactive ion etching (para 0029, 0032-0033, 0037-0038; Fig. 2A-2D). Gilchrist teaches etching, such as reactive ion etching, including directing the angled ion beam to a particular portion of the sidewall, such as the shoulder areas 444 (para 0027, 0029-0030; Fig. 4A-4C). Therefore, because Anglin teaches that such etching control methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the etching of Gilchrist such that the ion beam is directed only toward the shoulder areas (first and second end wall) to obtain a desired shape with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori fails to explicitly teach the non-zero angle of the ion beam is greater than 45° with respect to normal incidence to the plane defined by the layer of the semiconductor device. However, Anglin (US 20190355581 A1), in the analogous art of ion etching, teaches that a non-zero incidence angle for etching targeted surfaces of a trench/contact hole may include an angle of 20° to 60° with respect to the normal of the substrate plane (normal incidence to the plane defined by the layer of the semiconductor device) (para 0044). Gilchrist teaches an ion beam 420 having a non-zero angle relative to normal incidence to the plane defined by the layer of the semiconductor device (para 0028, Fig. 4C) but is silent to the exact value of the angle. Because Anglin teaches that such ion beam angles were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an ion beam angle of 20° to 60° with respect to the normal of the substrate plane in the Gilchrist method with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
The combination of Gilchrist, Oomori, and Anglin fails to explicitly teach the non-zero angle is greater than 45°. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Anglin range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 20° to 60°, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori teaches the angle of incidence and ion flux are optimized at the first and second ends (end walls) of the contact hole and the etching is optimized to cause the shoulder areas 444 to be etched faster (Gilchrist para 0029, 0037; Fig. 4A-4B) but fails to explicitly teach that the ion etch comprises directing the ion beam towards the first and second end wall only. However, Anglin (US 20190355581 A1), in the analogous art of ion etching, teaches an etching method for increasing a first hole dimension of a hole while directing ions at a non-zero angle of incidence and aligned such that the ions may etch one sidewall 114A while not etching another sidewall 114B or other surfaces to selectively increase a dimension of a cavity, wherein the etching may include reactive ion etching (para 0029, 0032-0033, 0037-0038; Fig. 2A-2D). Gilchrist teaches etching, such as reactive ion etching, including directing the angled ion beam to a particular portion of the sidewall, such as the shoulder areas 444 (para 0027, 0029-0030; Fig. 4A-4C). Therefore, because Anglin teaches that such etching control methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the etching of Gilchrist such that the ion beam is directed only toward the shoulder areas (first and second end wall) to obtain a desired shape with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori teaches the angle of incidence and ion flux are optimized at the first and second ends (end walls) of the contact hole and the etching is optimized to cause the shoulder areas 444 to be etched faster (Gilchrist para 0029, 0037; Fig. 4A-4B) but fails to explicitly teach that the ion etch comprises directing the ion beam towards the first and second end wall only. However, Anglin (US 20190355581 A1), in the analogous art of ion etching, teaches an etching method for increasing a first hole dimension of a hole while directing ions at a non-zero angle of incidence and aligned such that the ions may etch one sidewall 114A while not etching another sidewall 114B or other surfaces to selectively increase a dimension of a cavity, wherein the etching may include reactive ion etching (para 0029, 0032-0033, 0037-0038; Fig. 2A-2D). Gilchrist teaches etching, such as reactive ion etching, including directing the angled ion beam to a particular portion of the sidewall, such as the shoulder areas 444 (para 0027, 0029-0030; Fig. 4A-4C). Therefore, because Anglin teaches that such etching control methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the etching of Gilchrist such that the ion beam is directed only toward the shoulder areas (first and second end wall) to obtain a desired shape with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Gilchrist and Oomori teaches the inert gas may be argon, krypton, or xenon gas (Oomori para 0042). The combination of Gilchrist and Oomori fails to explicitly teach the non-zero angle of the ion beam is greater than 45° with respect to normal incidence to the plane defined by the layer of the semiconductor device. However, Anglin (US 20190355581 A1), in the analogous art of ion etching, teaches that a non-zero incidence angle for etching targeted surfaces of a trench/contact hole may include an angle of 20° to 60° with respect to the normal of the substrate plane (normal incidence to the plane defined by the layer of the semiconductor device) (para 0044). Gilchrist teaches an ion beam 420 having a non-zero angle relative to normal incidence to the plane defined by the layer of the semiconductor device (para 0028, Fig. 4C) but is silent to the exact value of the angle. Because Anglin teaches that such ion beam angles were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an ion beam angle of 20° to 60° with respect to the normal of the substrate plane in the Gilchrist method with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
The combination of Gilchrist, Oomori, and Anglin fails to explicitly teach the non-zero angle is greater than 45°. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Anglin range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 20° to 60°, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10-11, filed 2/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Oomori (US 20220157614 A1).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights