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 .
Response to Election Requirements
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I and Subspecies II in the reply filed on 19 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be nu unreasonable search and examination burden. This is not found persuasive because the separate species and subspecies would require a different field of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 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, 4-6, 8-10, 14-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitagawa et al. (US Pub. 20090239352), hereinafter referred to as Kitagawa.
Regarding claim 1, Kitagawa teaches a method of treating a substrate (Kitagawa 101, Fig. 3H. Para. 70), comprising: exposing a substrate to a vacuum (Kitagawa, para. 52. Shows the chamber can be set to as low as 0.133 Pa, equivalent to approximately .001 Torr, further para. 78 reveals that while gas processing the pressure it set to 133 Pa, or approximately 1 Torr. The application, in para. 37 defines vacuum conditions as less than atmospheric conditions, i.e., less than 760 Torr, with the lowest value listed being less than 200 Torr.), wherein the substrate has one or more memory holes or trenches (Kitagawa, 110, Fig. 3G, para. 72).; treating the substrate with a pre-treatment gas or plasma (Kitagawa, Fig. 3H, para. 73-78); and oxidizing the substrate while the substrate is still under the vacuum (Kitagawa, para. 78 shows processing pressure).
PNG
media_image1.png
275
315
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Kitagawa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the treating the substrate is at a temperature, and the temperature is greater than or equal to 500C and less than or equal to 8500C (Kitagawa para 67, temperature is preferably between 700 and 800 Celsius).
Regarding claim 5, Kitagawa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the treating the substrate is at a temperature, and the temperature is greater than or equal to 50°C and less than or equal to 3000C (Kitagawa para 67, temperature is preferably between 700 and 800 Celsius).
Regarding claim 6, Kitagawa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises Si, SiOxNy, or SiN (Kitagawa 101, Fig. 3H, para. 70).
Regarding claim 8, Kitagawa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the treating the substrate with the pre- treatment gas or plasma is performed in a chamber and the oxidizing the substrate is performed in the chamber (Kitagawa Fig. 1, paras 64-69).
Regarding claim 9, Kitagawa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the pre-treatment gas or plasma comprises an inert gas (Kitagawa, paras. 51, 74).
Regarding claim 10, the method of claim 9, wherein the inert gas comprises N2, Ar, He, or a combination thereof (Kitagawa paras. 51, 74).
Regarding claim 14, Kitagawa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the treating the substrate is performed at a pressure greater than or equal to 0.1 Torr and less than or equal to atmospheric pressure (Kitagawa para. 85).
Regarding claim 15, Kitagawa teaches method of treating a substrate (Kitagawa, 101, Fig. 3H, para. 70), comprising: exposing a substrate to a vacuum (Kitagawa, para. 52. Shows the chamber can be set to as low as 0.133 Pa, equivalent to approximately .001 Torr, further para. 78 reveals that while gas processing the pressure it set to 133 Pa, or approximately 1 Torr. The application, in para. 37 defines vacuum conditions as less than atmospheric conditions, i.e., less than 760 Torr, with the lowest value listed being less than 200 Torr.), wherein the substrate has one or more memory holes or trenches (Kitagawa, 110, Fig. 3, para. 72);treating the substrate with an inert gas (Kitagawa, paras. 51, 74); and oxidizing the substrate while the substrate is still under the vacuum (Kitagawa, Fig. 3H, paras 73-78).
Regarding claim 17, Kitagawa teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the treating the substrate is at a temperature, and the temperature is greater than or equal to 500C and less than or equal to 3000C (Kitagawa. Para. 67).
Regarding claim 18, Kitagawa teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the inert gas has a flow rate of greater than or equal to 10 sccm to 20 slm (Kitagawa para. 65).
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sharma (US Pub. 20050009359), hereinafter referred to as Sharma.
Regarding claim 2, Kitagawa teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach wherein at least one of the one or more memory holes or trenches has impurity buildup.
However, Sharma teaches a method for etching vias and trenches wherein there is residue in the via/trench (Sharma, abstract, para. 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to use the preparation method of Kitagawa to remove the residue of Sharma improve device yield, lower via resistance, avoid via voids and improve reliability (Sharma, para. 2).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kitagawa teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the impurity buildup comprises hydrocarbons (Sharma, para 2, Sharma discloses the residue may contain the elements C, O, F, Si, Cu, H, and N, and hydrocarbons contain C and H)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Sharma.
Regarding claim 16, Kitagawa teaches the method of claim 15, but does not teach wherein at least one of the one or more memory holes or trenches has impurity buildup.
However, Sharma teaches a method for etching vias and trenches wherein there is residue in the via/trench (Sharma, abstract, para. 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to use the preparation method of Kitagawa to remove the residue of Sharma improve device yield, lower via resistance, avoid via voids and improve reliability (Sharma, para. 2).
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sandhu (US Pub 20190355578), hereinafter referred to as Sandhu.
Regarding claim 7, Kitagawa teaches the method of claim 1, but does teach wherein the treating the substrate with the pre- treatment gas or plasma is performed for a time ranging from 5 seconds to 3 minutes.
However, Sandhu teaches a method wherein after etching the surface of a substrate the surface is cleaned to remove contaminants (Sandhu, paras. 30-36) and this process may take from 10 seconds to 3 minutes (Sandhu para. 36).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the treatment of Kitagawa with the time requirement of Sandhu in order to remove up to 99% of the contaminants (Sandhu, para. 36)
Regarding claim 13, Kitagawa teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the oxidizing the substrate is a multi- step process.
However, Sandhu teaches a method of forming an oxide that require multiple acts, each requiring a different temperature (Sandhu, para. 47).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Kitagawa with the multiple stages of Sandhu in order to minimize consumption of the substrate (Sandhu, para. 47).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhu et al (WO 2019241060) teaches a method of cleaning and etching high aspect ratio structures that involves low pressures and temperatures up to 400 Celsius).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERAN M CUNNINGHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-9654. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at 5712703042. 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.
/KIERAN M. CUNNINGHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893