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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Within Figure 1, the reference characters 120, 160, 167, 132, 138, N, Ii, 103A, 103B, and 129A
Within Figure 4, the reference characters V1 and W1
Withing Figure 6B, the reference character 614
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 10, 11, and 17 use the term “duty cycle” in reference to a percentage ratio. This term will be interpretated as referring to the period of delivery in each case. For example, the limitation that the “PV waveform duty cycle is about 20%” will be understood as requiring that the “seventh period of time” comprises “about 20%” while the “eighth period of time” comprises the remains about 80%.
Claims 14 and 19 recite the term “cryogenic temperature”. This term does not have an ordinary and customary meaning, as there are differing definitions on what range of temperatures can be considered "cryogenic". The instant specification in Paragraph [0042] presents a definition that a cryogenic temperature can be considered a temperature "less than 0°C". Therefore, these claims will be examined under the interpretation that any temperature “less than 0°C” is a cryogenic temperature.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 6, recites “one or more layers define at one or more high-aspect ratio (HAR)” the word “at” here appears to be a typo as it adds no additional meaning to the claim limitation.
Claim 15 starting at line 7, recites “one or more layers disposed on the device substrate define at one or more high-aspect ratio (HAR) features” the word “at” here appears to be a typo as it adds no additional meaning to the claim limitation.
Claim 9 and Claim 15 use the acronyms “RF” and “PV” without providing a full definition. While it is clear, in view of the instant specification, that “RF” refers to radio frequency and “PV” refers to pulsed voltage, examiner requests that these terms be first introduced as “radio frequency (RF)” and “pulsed voltage (PV)” within the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 15 recites the limitation "the HAR feature" in line 7 of claim 1 and line 8-9 of claim 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previously within these claims the term “one or more high-aspect ratio (HAR) features” was introduced. However, it is unclear if the limitations regarding “the HAR feature” are intended to refer to a single individual of the “one or more high-aspect ratio (HAR) features”, a completely separate feature within the substrate, or were intended to recite “the one or more (HAR) features”. Therefore, these claims are indefinite.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, these claims will be interpreted such that if any feature on the substrate, that can be considered a HAR feature, includes sidewall surfaces and a bottom surface the instant limitation would be met.
Claims 10, 11, and 17 are indefinite because they recite the limitation “the RF delivery period duty cycle about 95%”. This limitation lacks any words that indicate the relationship between “the RF delivery period duty cycle” and “about 95%”. It is unclear if this was intended to recite “is about 95%”, “less than about 95%”, “more than about 95%”, or any other possible relationship. Therefore, these claims are indefinite.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, will be interpreted such that any value for a RF delivery period duty cycle will be considered meeting the claimed limitation.
Claims 2-14 and 16-20 are indefinite due to being dependent upon claims 1 or 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varaprasad et al. (US20190088470-A1) in view of Garcia de Gorordo et al. (US-202103988-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Varaprasad teaches a method of forming a device (Paragraph [0002] methods of manufacture of electronic components taught), comprising:
a device substrate, wherein the device substrate comprises: one or more layers disposed on the device substrate, wherein the one or more layers define at one or more high-aspect ratio (HAR) features, wherein the HAR feature includes sidewall surfaces and a bottom surface (Paragraph [0030] Figure 2 high aspect ratio features are formed, that have spaces (element 14) which comprise sidewalls surfaces and bottom surfaces); and
an organic fill material disposed within the one or more HAR features (Paragraph [0054] Figure 4 a fill material is deposed within the high aspect ratio features. Paragraphs [0031-0033] the fill material can be a polymer that is organic, such a phenol-formaldehyde or novolac polymer); and
removing the organic fill material by generating a plasma over the device substrate (Paragraph [0055] fill material is removed by a plasma etching or ashing process)
Varaprasad fails to teach exposing a device substrate to a carbon-free fluorine-containing gas for a first period of time, wherein the device substrate is disposed within a processing volume of a processing chamber, delivering an inert gas to the processing volume for a second period of time, and wherein the plasma comprises the inert gas.
Garcia de Gorordo teaches methods of etching that can be used to remove material from high aspect ratio features (Paragraph [0024]). Garcia de Gorordo teaches that the etching method comprises a step of exposing the device to a gas that contains fluorine, that can be carbon-free, where the gas can be SF6, NF3, or F2 (Paragraph [0046]). Garcia de Gorordo teaches that the method further comprises a step of supplying an inert gas which is turned into a plasma, and is used to etch a material within a feature (Paragraphs [0056-58] Figure 3 an inert gas is turned into a plasma and used to etch material at a bottom surface (element 324) of a feature).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Varaprasad by replacing the plasma etching method taught by Varaprasad with the specific etching method, as outlined above, taught by Garcia de Gorordo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the etching method taught by Garcia de Gorordo allows for the creation of high aspect ratio feature in a controlled manner with accurate dimensions (Paragraph [0062]). Additionally, this modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it could be considered a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The etching method taught by Garcia de Gorordo is taught to be suitable for forming high-aspect ratio features as is required by the broader method of forming high-aspect ratio features taught by Varaprasad. The combination would have had a predictable result of providing an etching method that would be able to remove material to form a high aspect ratio feature. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Varaprasad teaches the method of claim 1 as outlined above.
Varaprasad fails to teach wherein the device substrate further comprises a hardmask material that comprises a material selected from a group consisting of silicon nitride, silicon oxide, amorphous carbon, metals films, metal oxides, polymers, organosilicates, or combination thereof.
Garcia de Gorordo teaches that a substrate to be etching can comprise a mask layer that can be silicon oxide (Paragraph [0037] Figure 3 substrate can have a mask layer (element 312) that can be silicon oxide).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Varaprasad by utilizing a substrate that comprised a mask layer of silicon oxide as taught by Garcia de Gorordo.
This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it could be considered a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The etching method taught by Garcia de Gorordo as outlined in the modified method of Varaprasad outlined in regards to claim 1, is taught to be suitable for forming high-aspect ratio features and as taught by Garcia de Gorordo can be conducted on a substrate that includes a mask. The combination would have had a predictable result of providing a substrate on which a method for forming high aspect ratio features could be conducted. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Varaprasad teaches the method of claim 1 as outlined above. Varaprasad further teaches wherein the organic fill material comprises a photoresist or a backside antireflective coating (BARC) (Paragraph [0049] a wash solution is used to remove photolithographic etch residue, which would comprise photoresist material. Paragraph [0053] residual wash solution can be present in the spaces during the formation of the fill material. Therefore, the fill material can comprise photoresist material).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Varaprasad teaches the method of claim 1 as outlined above. Garcia de Gorordo further teaches wherein the carbon-free fluorine-containing gas comprises fluorine (F2), hydrogen fluoride (HF), or deuterium fluoride (DF), or a combination of hydrogen (H2) and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), or a combination of fluorine (F2) and ammonia (NH3) (Paragraph [0046] the etching method which comprises exposing the substrate to a gas that contains fluorine, as outlined above, can utilize as the fluorine containing gas NF3 or F2).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Varaprasad teaches the method of claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Varaprasad fails to explicitly teach wherein exposing the device substrate to the carbon-free fluorine-containing gas includes introducing the carbon-free fluorine-containing gas into the processing chamber at a rate between about 100 standard cubic-centimeters per minute (SCCM) to about 1000 SCCM.
However, Garcia de Gorordo further teaches supplying the fluorine-containing gas at a flow rate from about 50 to about 500 sccm (Paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a flow rate for the fluorine-containing gas at a level within the disclosed range of about 50 to about 500 sccm, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of about 100 to about 1000 sccm. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Varaprasad teaches the method of claim 1 as outlined above. Garcia de Gorordo further teaches wherein the plasma essentially comprises the inert gas that includes argon, helium, xenon, or krypton (Paragraph [0058] provides an example where the inert gas is helium).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varaprasad in view of Garcia de Gorordo, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fischer et al. (WO-2023107867-A1).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Varaprasad teaches the method of claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Varaprasad fails to teach wherein the first period of time is between about 1 second to about 3 minutes. Garcia de Gorordo teaches that a fluorine containing gas is supplied such that it is exposed to the substrate to form a layer upon the substrate but silent on the duration of that process step.
Fischer teaches methods of forming semiconductor devices that include etching (Paragraph [0003]). Fischer teaches that a step of the etching process comprises suppling a fluorinating agent gas to contact a substrate where it can modify a surface (Paragraph [0083] a fluorinating agent is supplied to form a modified surface layer). Fischer teaches in examples that the surface can be exposed to the fluorinating agent for durations of 2 seconds or 60 seconds (Paragraphs [00103-000105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Varaprasad by using as a duration for the first period of time, a duration of 2 or 60 seconds as taught by Fischer.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of setting a suitable time period for the process step of exposing a substrate to a fluorine containing gas. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varaprasad in view of Garcia de Gorordo, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Demmin et al. (US-6635185-B2).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Varaprasad teaches the method of claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Varaprasad fails to teach wherein the second period of time is between about 1 second to about 1 minute. Garcia de Gorordo teaches delivering an inert gas for the purpose to forming a plasma to remove material but silent on the duration of that process step.
Demmin teaches methods of plasma etching (Column 1 lines 5-12 and lines 30-38). Demmin teaches that the operations conditions, such as time, of a plasma etching process can be optimized to fit specific hardware or material being etched (Column 7 lines 15-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a duration within the claimed duration range in order to achieve the intended result of the method because Demmin teaches that time (in this specific case the duration of supplying an inert gas, which would be supplied for the duration of the plasma etching process in the method taught by the prior art) is a result-effective variable that can be optimized. See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Claims 9-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varaprasad in view of Garcia de Gorordo, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yokoi et al. (US-20230035021-A1).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Varaprasad teaches the method of claim 1 as outlined above. Garcia de Gorordo further teaches that the process may include biasing the substrate with an RF voltage (Paragraph [0009]). Garcia de Gorordo further teaches that the bias is supplied to an electrode an that the electrode is disposed within the processing chamber (Paragraph [0059] bias is supplied to checking electrode (element 126). Paragraph [0028] Figure 1 chucking electrode is within the processing chamber (element 100)).
Modified Varaprasad fails to teach delivering an RF waveform according to an RF delivery period duty cycle, wherein the RF delivery period duty cycle comprises a ratio of delivering the RF waveform for a third period of time to halting the delivery of the RF waveform for a fourth period of time; and wherein biasing the device substrate comprises delivering a PV burst according to a PV burst delivery period duty cycle to an electrode disposed within the processing chamber, wherein the PV burst delivery period duty cycle comprises a ratio of delivering a PV burst for a fifth period of time to halting the delivery of the PV burst for a sixth period of time, wherein the PV burst comprises: a PV waveform, the PV waveform having a PV waveform duty cycle comprising a ratio of delivering a first voltage for a seventh period of time to halting delivery of the first voltage for a eighth period of time.
Yokoi teaches a method of plasma processing (Paragraph [0002]). Yokoi teaches that the bias may comprise suppling a pulsed voltage (Paragraph [0061]). Yokoi teaches that the cycle of supplying a pulsed voltage can comprise a period of supplying and a period of not supplying the electrical bias (Paragraph [0065]). Yokoi teaches that the duty ratio of the pulsed voltage electrical bias can be between 1% or more and 99% or less (Paragraph [0065]). Yokoi teaches that a radio frequency power can be supplied in a pulse wave of radio frequency power, where there is a period where the power is supplied and a period where the power may not be supplied (Paragraph [0067] radio frequency power supply may supply pulse waves. Period H supplies a higher power level, period L may supply no power). Yokoi teaches that the pulse of the radio frequency and the pulse of the bias may be synchronized (Paragraph [0068]). Yokoi teaches that the pulse of the radio frequency and the pulse of the bias may be not synchronized (Paragraph [0068]). Yokoi teaches that the power supplied to the electrical bias may be a radio frequency power (Paragraph [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Varaprasad by supplying the RF waveform with a duty cycle that includes periods of delivery and periods of halting delivery, and supplying the bias as a waveform and a pulse voltage bias with a duty cycle that includes periods of delivery and periods of halting delivery as taught by Yokoi.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of setting suitable means for providing a bias and RF power for a plasma etching process. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Varaprasad teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as outlined above. (Note: this claim is being examined under the interpretation outlined in the 112(b) rejection above) Yokoi further teaches that the RF delivery period has a duty cycle (Paragraph [0067] radio frequency power supply may supply pulse waves. Period H supplies a higher power level, period L may supply no power). Yokoi further teaches that the PV burst duty cycle is equal to the RF delivery period duty cycle (Paragraph [0068] the pulse of the radio frequency and the pulse of the bias may be synchronized).
Modified Varaprasad fails to explicitly teach that the PV waveform duty cycle is about 20%.
However, Yokoi further teaches that the duty ratio of the pulsed voltage electrical bias can be between 1% or more and 99% or less (Paragraph [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a PV waveform duty cycle at a level within the disclosed range of 1% or more and 99% or less, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of about 20%. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Varaprasad teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as outlined above. (Note: this claim is being examined under the interpretation outlined in the 112(b) rejection above) Yokoi further teaches that the RF delivery period has a duty cycle (Paragraph [0067] radio frequency power supply may supply pulse waves. Period H supplies a higher power level, period L may supply no power). Yokoi further teaches that the PV burst duty cycle differs from the RF delivery period duty cycle (Paragraph [0068] the pulse of the radio frequency and the pulse of the bias may be not synchronized).
Modified Varaprasad fails to explicitly teach that the PV waveform duty cycle is about 20%.
However, Yokoi further teaches that the duty ratio of the pulsed voltage electrical bias can be between 1% or more and 99% or less (Paragraph [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a PV waveform duty cycle at a level within the disclosed range of 1% or more and 99% or less, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of about 20%. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Varaprasad teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as outlined above. Yokoi further teaches that the power supplied to the electrical bias may be a radio frequency power (Paragraph [0060]). Yokoi further teaches that the PV burst duty cycle is equal to the RF delivery period duty cycle (Paragraph [0068] the pulse of the radio frequency and the pulse of the bias may be synchronized). When these teachings are applied together, the instant limitation that biasing the device substrate comprises delivering the RF waveform to the electrode disposed within the processing chamber is met.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Varaprasad teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as outlined above. (Note: this claim is being examined under the interpretation outlined above in the Claim Interpretation section) Garcia de Gorordo further teaches further comprising maintaining the device substrate at a cryogenic temperature (Paragraph [0038] etching method can be conducted at cryogenic temperatures, which are considered to be temperatures below -100°C).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varaprasad in view of Garcia de Gorordo and Yokoi, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Demmin.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Varaprasad teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as outlined above. Yokoi further teaches that bias can be negative (Paragraphs [0061-0062] the bias may result in negative potential and have negative voltage) but does not provide specific values to be used.
Modified Varaprasad fails to teach wherein the first voltage is between about -50 V and -2000 V.
Demmin teaches methods of plasma etching (Column 1 lines 5-12 and lines 30-38). Demmin teaches that the operations conditions, such as bias and power, of a plasma etching process can be optimized to fit specific hardware or material being etched (Column 7 lines 15-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a voltage for the bias within the claimed range in order to achieve the intended result of the method because Demmin teaches that bias and power is a result-effective variable that can be optimized. See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varaprasad in view of Garcia de Gorordo and Yokoi.
Regarding Claim 15, Varaprasad teaches a method of forming a device (Paragraph [0002] methods of manufacture of electronic components taught), comprising:
a device substrate, wherein the device substrate comprises: one or more layers disposed on the device substrate, wherein the one or more layers define at one or more high-aspect ratio (HAR) features, wherein the HAR feature includes sidewall surfaces and a bottom surface (Paragraph [0030] Figure 2 high aspect ratio features are formed, that have spaces (element 14) which comprise sidewalls surfaces and bottom surfaces); and
an organic fill material disposed within the one or more HAR features (Paragraph [0054] Figure 4 a fill material is deposed within the high aspect ratio features. Paragraphs [0031-0033] the fill material can be a polymer that is organic, such a phenol-formaldehyde or novolac polymer); and
removing the organic fill material by generating a plasma over the device substrate (Paragraph [0055] fill material is removed by a plasma etching or ashing process)
Varaprasad fails to teach exposing a device substrate to a carbon-free fluorine-containing gas for a first period of time, wherein the device substrate is disposed within a processing volume of a processing chamber, delivering an inert gas to the processing volume for a second period of time, and wherein the plasma comprises the inert gas.
Garcia de Gorordo teaches methods of etching that can be used to remove material from high aspect ratio features (Paragraph [0024]). Garcia de Gorordo teaches that the etching method comprises a step of exposing the device to a gas that contains fluorine, that can be carbon-free, where the gas can be SF6, NF3, or F2 (Paragraph [0046]). Garcia de Gorordo teaches that the method further comprises a step of supplying an inert gas which is turned into a plasma, and is used to etch a material within a feature (Paragraphs [0056-58] Figure 3 an inert gas is turned into a plasma and used to etch material at a bottom surface (element 324) of a feature).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Varaprasad by replacing the plasma etching method taught by Varaprasad with the specific etching method, as outlined above, taught by Garcia de Gorordo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the etching method taught by Garcia de Gorordo allows for the creation of high aspect ratio feature in a controlled manner with accurate dimensions (Paragraph [0062]). Additionally, this modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it could be considered a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The etching method taught by Garcia de Gorordo is taught to be suitable for forming high-aspect ratio features as is required by the broader method of forming high-aspect ratio features taught by Varaprasad. The combination would have had a predictable result of providing an etching method that would be able to remove material to form a high aspect ratio feature. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Garcia de Gorordo further teaches that the process may include biasing the substrate with an RF voltage (Paragraph [0009]). Garcia de Gorordo further teaches that the bias is supplied to an electrode an that the electrode is disposed within the processing chamber (Paragraph [0059] bias is supplied to checking electrode (element 126). Paragraph [0028] Figure 1 chucking electrode is within the processing chamber (element 100)). However, Modified Varaprasad, as outlined above, fails to teach delivering an RF waveform according to an RF delivery period duty cycle, wherein the RF delivery period duty cycle comprises a ratio of delivering the RF waveform for a third period of time to halting the delivery of the RF waveform for a fourth period of time; and wherein biasing the device substrate comprises delivering a PV burst according to a PV burst delivery period duty cycle to an electrode disposed within the processing chamber, wherein the PV burst delivery period duty cycle comprises a ratio of delivering a PV burst for a fifth period of time to halting the delivery of the PV burst for a sixth period of time, wherein the PV burst comprises: a PV waveform, the PV waveform having a PV waveform duty cycle comprising a ratio of delivering a first voltage for a seventh period of time to halting delivery of the first voltage for a eighth period of time.
Yokoi teaches a method of plasma processing (Paragraph [0002]). Yokoi teaches that the bias may comprise suppling a pulsed voltage (Paragraph [0061]). Yokoi teaches that the cycle of supplying a pulsed voltage can comprise a period of supplying and a period of not supplying the electrical bias (Paragraph [0065]). Yokoi teaches that the duty ratio of the pulsed voltage electrical bias can be between 1% or more and 99% or less (Paragraph [0065]). Yokoi teaches that a radio frequency power can be supplied in a pulse wave of radio frequency power, where there is a period where the power is supplied and a period where the power may not be supplied (Paragraph [0067] radio frequency power supply may supply pulse waves. Period H supplies a higher power level, period L may supply no power). Yokoi teaches that the pulse of the radio frequency and the pulse of the bias may be synchronized (Paragraph [0068]). Yokoi teaches that the pulse of the radio frequency and the pulse of the bias may be not synchronized (Paragraph [0068]). Yokoi teaches that the power supplied to the electrical bias may be a radio frequency power (Paragraph [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Varaprasad by supplying the RF waveform with a duty cycle that includes periods of delivery and periods of halting delivery, and supplying the bias as a waveform and a pulse voltage bias with a duty cycle that includes periods of delivery and periods of halting delivery as taught by Yokoi.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of setting suitable means for providing a bias and RF power for a plasma etching process. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Varaprasad teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as outlined above. Varaprasad further teaches wherein the device substrate comprises: a sidewall surface of at least one HAR feature of the one or more HAR features deviates from a desired feature geometry, wherein the desired feature geometry is an approximately straight sidewall surface about normal to the bottom surface (Paragraphs [0030] and [0054] Figure 4 the high aspect ratio features as seen on the left-hand side, represented by the gaps (element 14) have sidewalls and a bottom. The sidewalls, in the area where the fill material (element 18) exists, deviate from the desired geometry. See Reference Image 1 below).
Reference Image 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
555
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, modified Varaprasad teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as outlined above. (Note: this claim is being examined under the interpretation outlined in the 112(b) rejection above) Yokoi further teaches that the RF delivery period has a duty cycle (Paragraph [0067] radio frequency power supply may supply pulse waves. Period H supplies a higher power level, period L may supply no power). Yokoi further teaches that the PV burst duty cycle is equal to the RF delivery period duty cycle (Paragraph [0068] the pulse of the radio frequency and the pulse of the bias may be synchronized).
Modified Varaprasad fails to explicitly teach that the PV waveform duty cycle is about 20%.
However, Yokoi further teaches that the duty ratio of the pulsed voltage electrical bias can be between 1% or more and 99% or less (Paragraph [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a PV waveform duty cycle at a level within the disclosed range of 1% or more and 99% or less, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of about 20%. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Varaprasad teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as outlined above. Yokoi further teaches that the power supplied to the electrical bias may be a radio frequency power (Paragraph [0060]). Yokoi further teaches that the PV burst duty cycle is equal to the RF delivery period duty cycle (Paragraph [0068] the pulse of the radio frequency and the pulse of the bias may be synchronized). When these teachings are applied together, the instant limitation that biasing the device substrate comprises delivering the RF waveform to the electrode disposed within the processing chamber is met.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Varaprasad teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as outlined above. (Note: this claim is being examined under the interpretation outlined above in the Claim Interpretation section) Garcia de Gorordo further teaches further comprising maintaining the device substrate at a cryogenic temperature (Paragraph [0038] etching method can be conducted at cryogenic temperatures, which are considered to be temperatures below -100°C).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Varaprasad teaches the method of claim 15 as outlined above. Garcia de Gorordo further teaches wherein the carbon-free fluorine-containing gas comprises fluorine (F2), hydrogen fluoride (HF), or deuterium fluoride (DF), or a combination of hydrogen (H2) and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), or a combination of fluorine (F2) and ammonia (NH3) (Paragraph [0046] the etching method which comprises exposing the substrate to a gas that contains fluorine, as outlined above, can utilize as the fluorine containing gas NF3 or F2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KEELAN LAOBAK whose telephone number is (703)756-5447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:30pm.
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.
/A.K.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713