Attorney Docket Number: 2023-0982/24061.4852US01
Filing Date: 11/30/2023
Claimed Priority Date: 7/13/2023 (PRO 63/513,452)
Inventors: Wang et al.
Examiner: Thomas McCoy
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendments filed 6/17/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the
application as to 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 a 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.
Acknowledgement
The Amendment filed on 6/17/2026, responding to the Office action mailed 3/18/2026, has been entered. Applicant amended claims 1-5, 9, and 16. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the respective claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, as previously formulated in the Non- Final Office action mailed on 3/18/2026. Accordingly, all previous claim rejections are hereby withdrawn. Accordingly, pending in this application
are claims 1-20. New grounds of rejections are presented below, however, as necessitated by applicant’s
amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 12347687 B2) in view of Yang (K. D. Yang et al., "In-situ Cleaning of Post-etch Byproducts by Manipulating Dechucking Environment Gas in Silicon Etch Process," 2022).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang (see, e.g., fig. 3), shows most aspects of the instant invention including a method comprising:
Performing an etching process (see, e.g., paragraphs 10-12) to form a multilayer implant mask (e.g., masking layer 210) over a workpiece (e.g., substrate 202);
Performing a hot ion implantation process (e.g., ion implant 214 + paragraph 25 “…the ion implant 214 is a high-temperature (e.g., between 150° C. and 550° C.)”) in the workpiece (e.g., substrate 202);
Wherein the hot ion implantation process (e.g., ion implant 214 + paragraph 25 “…the ion implant 214 is a high-temperature (e.g., between 150° C. and 550° C.)”) uses the multilayer implant mask (e.g., masking layer 210), and
Removing (see, e.g., paragraph 27 “Next, as shown in FIG. 4, an etch process 228 may be performed to the device 200 to remove the masking layer 210”) the multilayer implant mask (e.g., masking layer 210);
While Zhang (see, e.g., fig. 3) does not explicitly disclose the hot ion implantation process removes condensation defects from the etching, it does disclose a hot ion implantation process of substantially similar setup, configuration, and structure, and it should be noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol).
Zhang (see, e.g., fig. 3), however, fails to show performing a dechucking process, wherein parameters of the dechucking process are tuned to remove the condensation defects.
Yang (see, e.g., pages 1-2), in a similar device to Zhang, teaches performing a dechucking process (e.g., dechuck process of paragraph 4), wherein parameters of the dechucking process are tuned to remove condensation defects (see, e.g., paragraph text “…simply changing final environment gas from Ar to O2 in the dechuck process, post-etch byproducts can be reduced significantly…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the dechuck process of Yang within the manufacturing method of the Zhang, in order to achieve the expected result of removing remaining etch residue after the etching step while fabricating the device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Yang further in view of Chun (US 20110192993 A1) and Tohnoe (US 20110244680 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows the hot ion implantation process (e.g., ion implant 214 + paragraph 25 “…the ion implant 214 is a high-temperature (e.g., between 150° C. and 550° C.)”) includes an ion implantation phase (see, e.g., paragraph 25).
Zhang in view of Yang, however, fails to teach a pre-heating phase wherein a pre-heat temperature of the pre-heating phase is greater than a boiling point of the condensation defects.
Chun (see, e.g., par. 60), in a similar device to Zhang in view of Yang, teaches a pre-heating phase (see, e.g., paragraph 60 “The mask can also be preheated to help handle the heat of the implantation beams”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the preheating phase of Chun within the method of Zhang in view of Yang, in order to improve the stability if the mask profile during ion implantation, as taught by Chun.
Zhang in view of Yang further in view of Chun, however, fails to teach wherein a pre-heat temperature of the pre-heating phase is greater than a boiling point of the condensation defects.
Tohnoe (see, e.g., fig. 1B), in a similar device to Zhang in view of Yang further in view of Chun, teaches a heat treatment being greater than the boiling point of a residue material (see, e.g., paragraph 36 “The heat-treating may be performed at a temperature that is approximately equal to or greater than the boiling point of a material in the CMP residue 109”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the treatment temperature>residue boiling point configuration of Tohnoe within the method configuration of Zhang in view of Yang further in view of Chun, in order to achieve the expected result of removing residue from a substrate/mask surface.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Yang further in view of Chun, Tohnoe, and Wang (US 20210098605 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang in view of Yang further in view of Chun and Tohnoe fails to teach wherein the etching process includes performing a first dry etch on a patterning stack, wherein the first dry etch implements a fluorine-containing etch gas; and performing a second dry etch on the patterning stack, wherein the second dry etch implements an oxygen-containing etch gas.
Wang (see, e.g., fig. 1C), in a similar device to Zhang in view of Yang further in view of Chun and Tohnoe, teaches an etching process (e.g., dry etch of paragraph 44) can utilize a fluorine-containing etch gas (see, e.g., paragraph 44 “…the dry etch process may implement… a fluorine-containing gas…)”) while it also teaches an etching process can utilize an oxygen-containing etch gas (see, e.g., paragraph 44 “…the dry etch process may implement an oxygen-containing gas…)”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the dry etch materials of Wang within the patterning stack etch step of Zhang in view of Yang further in view of Chun and Tohnoe, as both fluorine and oxygen were well-known etching gases to be included within an etching process at the time of filing the invention, as taught by Wang.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Yang further in view of Chun, Tohnoe, Wang, and Bayati (US 20230178424 A1).
Wang (see, e.g., fig. 1C) teaches the fluorine-containing etch gas includes CF4 (see, e.g., paragraph 44).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the CF4 of Wang within the fluorine-containing etch gas of Zhang in view of Yang further in view of Chun, Tohnoe, and Wang, as CF4 was a well-known gas to be included within a fluorine-containing etching gas at the time of filing the invention, as taught by Wang.
Zhang in view of Yang further in view of Chun, Tohnoe, and Wang, however, fails to teach wherein the oxygen-containing etch gas includes O2 and COS, and the condensation defects are caused by residual oxygen-containing etch gas, and the condensation defects include SO3(s).
Bayati (see, e.g., paragraph 48), in a similar device to Zhang in view of Yang further in view of Chun, Tohnoe, and Wang, teaches an etch comprising O2 and COS (see, e.g., paragraph 48 “…etch may be conducted…any one or more of the following gases…oxygen (O.sub.2)…carbonyl sulfide (COS)…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the O2 and COS of Bayati within the oxygen etch of Zhang in Yang further in view of Chun, Tohnoe, and Wang, as O2 and COS were well-known gases at to be included within an etching gas at the time of filing the invention, as taught by Bayati.
While Zhang (see, e.g., fig. 3) in view of Yang further in view of Chun, Tohnoe, Wang, and Bayati fails to explicitly disclose the condensation defects are caused by residual oxygen-containing etch gas, and the condensation defects include SO3(s), it does disclose etching of substantially similar materials in a substantially similar environment, and it should be noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol).
Regarding claim 14, while Zhang (see, e.g., fig. 3) in view of Yang further in view of Chun, Tohnoe, Wang, and Bayati fails to explicitly disclose wherein performing the hot ion implantation process includes tuning parameters of the hot ion implantation process to cause SO3(s) to become SO3(g), it does disclose a hot ion implantation process of a substantially similar configuration in a substantially similar environment, and it should be noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 18-20 are allowed.
Claims 11 and 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, Zhang (US 12347687 B2) in view of Tsai (US 20160218199 A1) further in view of Chun (US 20110192993 A1) and Tohnoe (US 20110244680 A1) teaches most aspects of the method.
However, Zhang in view of Tsai further in view of Chun and Tohnoe fails to disclose or suggest tuning ion implantation process parameters to remove the condensation defects, wherein the ion implantation process parameters include an implantation temperature that is greater than the boiling point of the condensation defects.
Therefore, the above limitations in the entirety of the claim are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 18, Zhang (US 12347687 B2) in view of Tsai (US 20160218199 A1) teaches most aspects of the method.
However, Zhang in view of Tsai fails to teach forming an etch mask by patterning the top layer of the tri-layer patterning stack, forming an implant mask by performing a first dry etch on the middle layer of the tri-layer patterning stack and a second dry etch on the bottom layer of the tri-layer patterning stack, wherein each of the first dry etch and a second dry etch use the etch mask, and wherein the hot ion implantation process uses the implant mask and a temperature of the hot ion implantation process is greater than a boiling point of condensation defects on the implant mask to cause the condensation defects to transition from a solid state to a gas state.
Therefore, the above limitations in the entirety of the claim are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee, and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such admissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
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 Thomas McCoy at (571) 272-0282 and between the hours of 9:30 AM to 6:30 PM
(Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Thomas.McCoy@uspto.gov. If attempts
to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be
reached on (571) 272-1705. 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.
/THOMAS WILSON MCCOY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights