Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/607,202

HARC ETCH CHEMISTRY FOR SEMINCONDUCTORS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 15, 2024
Examiner
LAOBAK, ANDREW KEELAN
Art Unit
1713
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Tokyo Electron Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
24 granted / 31 resolved
+12.4% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
72
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
61.5%
+21.5% vs TC avg
§102
16.4%
-23.6% vs TC avg
§112
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 31 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 and 12-20, in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-5, 12-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tomura et al. (US-20230268191-A1). Regarding Claim 1, Tomura teaches a method (Paragraph [0002] etching method taught) comprising: providing a wafer, wherein the wafer comprises an oxide containing material layer (Paragraph [0026] substrate is provided that includes a silicon-containing film. Paragraph [0036] silicon-containing film can include silicon oxide film); forming a mask comprising at least a pattern on a surface of the wafer, wherein the mask comprises an at least partially metallic material (Paragraph [0044] a mask is formed and can comprise tungsten, which is a metal. Paragraph [0045] Figure 2 the mask comprises a pattern on the surface of the wafer); and selectively etching the mask and the wafer under the mask by using an etchant gas (Paragraphs [0083-0084] the mask (element MK) and film (element SF) are etched by a process gas), wherein the etchant gas is selected from a group consisting of CF4, CHF3, and NF3 (Paragraphs [0078-0080] the process gas may include NF3, CF4, or CHF3). Regarding Claim 2, Tomura teaches wherein the oxide containing material layer comprises an oxide layer on a nitride layer (Paragraph [0043] the silicon-containing film can include a stack of alternating silicon oxide and silicon nitride films). Regarding Claim 3, Tomura teaches wherein the oxide containing material layer comprises a stack of alternate oxide and nitride layers on top of each other (Paragraph [0043] the silicon-containing film can include a stack of alternating silicon oxide and silicon nitride films). Regarding Claim 4, Tomura teaches wherein the at least partially metallic material comprises a tungsten containing material (Paragraph [0044] the mask may contain tungsten silicide). Regarding Claim 5, Tomura teaches wherein the tungsten containing material comprises tungsten silicide (WSiX) (Paragraph [0044] the mask may contain tungsten silicide). Regarding Claim 12, Tomura teaches a method (Paragraph [0002] etching method taught) comprising: forming a mask comprising at least a pattern on a wafer, wherein the mask comprises an at least partially metallic material (Paragraph [0044] a mask is formed and can comprise tungsten, which is a metal. Paragraph [0045] Figure 2 the mask comprises a pattern on the surface of the wafer); and selectively etching the mask and the wafer under the mask by using an etchant gas (Paragraphs [0083-0084] the mask (element MK) and film (element SF) are etched by a process gas), wherein the etchant gas is selected from a group consisting of CF4, CHF3, and NF3 (Paragraphs [0078-0080] the process gas may include NF3, CF4, or CHF3). Regarding Claim 13, Tomura teaches wherein the wafer comprises an oxide containing material layer (Paragraph [0043] the silicon-containing film can include a stack of alternating silicon oxide and silicon nitride films). Regarding Claim 14, Tomura teaches wherein the oxide containing material layer comprises an oxide layer on a top of a nitride layer (Paragraph [0043] the silicon-containing film can include a stack of alternating silicon oxide and silicon nitride films). Regarding Claim 15, Tomura teaches wherein the oxide containing material layer comprises a stack of alternate oxide and nitride layers on top of each other (Paragraph [0043] the silicon-containing film can include a stack of alternating silicon oxide and silicon nitride films). Regarding Claim 16, Tomura teaches wherein the at least partially metallic material comprises a tungsten containing material (Paragraph [0044] the mask may contain tungsten silicide). Regarding Claim 17, Tomura teaches wherein the tungsten containing material comprises tungsten silicide (WSiX) (Paragraph [0044] the mask may contain tungsten silicide). Regarding Claim 19, Tomura teaches wherein the etchant gas consists of CHF3 (Paragraph [0078] all of the HF gas may be a gas for generating an HF species. Paragraph [0079] the gas for generating a HF species may be a hydrofluorocarbon gas. Paragraph [0080] CHF3 is a hydrofluorocarbon gas). 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. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomura in view of Cai et al. (US20150287648-A1). Regarding Claim 18, Tomura teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as outlined above. Tomura teaches that the film to be etched can be a silicon-containing film, such as polycrystalline silicon (Paragraph [0043]). Tomura fails to teach that the etchant gas consists of CF4. Cai teaches methods related to forming semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0002]). Cai teaches an etching method that utilizes a pattern in a mask layer to etch a cavity into an underlying layer that can be silicon or other (Paragraph [0044] mask layer (element 108) has openings that expose substrate layer (element 106) and cavities are etching into the substrate layer by the second etching process. Paragraph [0036] the bulk substrate layer (element 106) can be silicon). The etching of the silicon layer can be conducted with a process gas that consists of CF4 (Paragraph [0044] the second etching process consists of CF4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Tomura by utilizing an etching gas that consists of CF4 as taught by Cai. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the etching gas taught by Tomura with an etching gas consisting of CF4 as taught by Cai since CF4 is an etching gas suitable for etching silicon and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07. Additionally, this modification could be considered the simple substitution of one etching gas for another. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP §2143(B). Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomura in view of Thedjoisworo et al. (US20150287648-A1). Regarding Claim 20, Tomura teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as outlined above. Tomura teaches that the film to be etched can be a silicon-containing film, such as silicon oxide (Paragraph [0043]). Tomura fails to teach that the etchant gas consists of CF4. Thedjoisworo teaches methods that include etching silicon oxide and silicon layers (Paragraph [0002]). Teaches that the etching process can include the use of an etchant gas that consists of NF3, where a plasma is used to cause etching (Paragraph [0073]). Thedjoisworo teaches that the use of NF3 as the etching gas for a plasma etching can result in a high etch rate and avoid attacking of sidewalls (Paragraph [0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Tomura by utilizing an etching gas that consists of NF3 as taught by Thedjoisworo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Thedjoisworo teaches that the use of NF3 as the etching gas can result in a high etch rate and avoid attacking sidewalls during the etch (Paragraph [0073]). Additionally, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the etching gas taught by Tomura with an etching gas consisting of NFs as taught by Thedjoisworo since NF3 is an etching gas suitable for etching silicon oxide and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07. 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 /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 15, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12581882
SUBSTRATE PROCESSING METHOD, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE, SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND RECORDING MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573601
PLASMA PROCESSING APPARATUS AND PLASMA PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557575
METHODS FOR REDUCING LEAKAGE CURRENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12542257
MINIMIZING REFLECTED POWER IN A TUNABLE EDGE SHEATH SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12543542
Patterning Method Using Secondary Resist Surface Functionalization for Mask Formation
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+28.2%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 31 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month