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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 03/31/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden because a search for group I would likely provide a proper search for group II. This is not found persuasive because the inventions have a different classification and status in the art and require search terms which are not coextensive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/31/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 refers to an apparatus comprising a substrate and defines a surface of the substrate in lines 2-4 of the claim. The reference to a specific substrate and the inclusion of a substrate is interpreted as being directed to the intended use of the article worked upon. Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Applicant is encouraged to consider amending the claim to remove this limitation to avoid the potential for raising clarity issues about whether the claim will cover the apparatus when the substrate is removed or to amend the claim to recite a system. However, for purpose of examination on the merits, as indicated above the substrate will be treated as being directed to the article worked upon and does not further limit the apparatus. Where the prior art teaches a substrate that meets the claimed substrate, this will be cited in the event applicant decides to amend the claims to recite a system.
Claim 11 also recites a substrate and is directed to a chamber (i.e. a specific component of the apparatus). The recitation of a substrate in claim 11 is interpreted in the same manner as claim 1 and as explained above.
Claim 1 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing executable instructions that when executed by a processer cause specific operations of the apparatus (i.e. a controller). The specification does not disclose or suggest sensors to provide feedback to the controller to confirm or otherwise verify that specific chemical reactions have occurred or otherwise that the specific substate is present and has been modified in the manner claimed. There is no indication that the controller is configured in a manner to recognize that a dummy wafer or no wafer is present and stop or otherwise adjust the operations such that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the executable instructions is a sequence of processing steps that will be performed when the program is initiated regardless of the contents of the apparatus. Additionally the claims do not recite the specific sources of the gases being applied and the specification does not recite any chemical verification or confirmation such that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the executable instructions is control of gas flow control mechanisms (e.g. valves and/or flow controllers) such that the gas flow control mechanisms will be operated in the same manner regardless of which gas is supplied to the line or if an inert gas is used in place of a reactive gas (or the alternative). Applicant may wish to claim specific gas sources connected to the apparatus to limit the gases being controlled. For full clarification, the limitation “forming a reactive layer in the layer of byproduct by injecting hydrogen fluoride into the substrate processing chamber and maintaining a temperature of the substrate support at less than 0 degrees Celsius” is interpreted inclusive of the executable instructions include a command to start a flow of a gas while controlling a temperature of the substrate to support at less than 0 degrees Celsius; “purging the hydrogen fluoride from the substrate processing chamber by flowing argon into the substrate processing chamber” is interpreted inclusive of the executable instructions include a command to start a flow of gas in a different gas line or gas supply; “generating a plasma within the substrate processing chamber by ionizing the argon” is interpreted inclusive of the executable instructions include a command to a plasma generator (e.g. voltage source or RF generator) to turn on in conditions (i.e. voltage or RF supply) that will strike a plasma; and “removing a portion of the layer of byproduct from the surface of the substrate by using the plasma for desorption of the reactive layer” is interpreted inclusive of the executable instructions include a command to a plasma generator to remain on for a set duration. If applicant believes there is support for feed back sensors that enable the executable instructions executed by a processor to confirm a specific step has occurred on a set substrate with a set gas, applicant is kindly requested to claim the feedback sensors and control to limit the broadest reasonable interpretation and to demonstrate support for such a structure or configuration in the specification as originally filed. No new matter should be added. The analysis of the executable instructions executed by a processor as explained for claim 1 remains for the claims dependent therefrom.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“hydrogen fluoride delivery system” in claim 11-15 for which no corresponding structure has been identified
“processing gas delivery system” in claim 11-15 for which no corresponding structure has been identified
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 11-15 are 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.
Regarding claim 11, as indicated above, both “hydrogen fluoride delivery system” and “processing gas delivery system” have been indicated as invoking an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). No corresponding structure has been identified because the specification does not recite a corresponding structure for either system. Further, the specification identifies “hydrogen fluoride delivery system” as structure 114 and “processing gas delivery system” as structure 116. In Fig 1A both structures are merely shown as a box such that the intended structure and equivalent structures thereof may not be determined. Therefore claim 11 and claims dependent therefrom fail to comply with the written description requirement. See MPEP 2181 II. The remaining claims are included because they depend from claim 11 and do not recite additional structure to avoid invoking the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the two terms.
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 9 and 11-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the claim requires a thickness with a range of “less than one nanometer to 100 nanometers” in line 2 of the claim. The lower portion of the range is unclear because it is unclear what the lower bound of “less than one nanometer” is (i.e. it is unclear if the lower boundary is 0.00001 nm or lower or if it is 0.999999 nm or higher or some value therebetween). For purpose of examination on the merits, the claim will be interpreted as inclusive of in a range of greater than 0 nm to 100 nm. Applicant is kindly requested to amend the claim for clarity and ensure that any change in the range is supported by the instant specification as originally filed.
Claim 11 limitations “hydrogen fluoride delivery system” and “processing gas delivery system” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No corresponding structure has been identified because the specification does not recite a corresponding structure for either system. Further, the specification identifies “hydrogen fluoride delivery system” as structure 114 and “processing gas delivery system” as structure 116. In Fig 1A both structures are merely shown as a box such that the intended structure and equivalent structures thereof may not be determined. For purpose of examination on the merits, any structure performing the function of supplying hydrogen fluoride gas and processing gas (e.g. a gas line and/or control valve) will be interpreted as meeting the recited hydrogen fluoride or processing gas delivery system. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2020/0381264 of Yatsuda et al., hereinafter Yatsuda.
Regarding claim 1, Yatsuda teaches an apparatus comprising: a substrate (W Fig 1) disposed on a substrate support (15 and 16 Fig 1 [0026]) within a substrate processing chamber (12 Fig 1 [0026]), a surface of the substrate having a layer of byproduct from a silicon etching process (substrate has oxide Fig 2, note oxide is one of the specification and claim 7 listed byproducts); a non-transitory computer readable medium (control unit 70 with CPU [0039]) storing executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a byproduct removal from the surface of the substrate by operations [0039] comprising: forming a reactive layer in the layer of byproduct by injecting hydrogen fluoride into the substrate processing chamber and maintaining a temperature of the substrate support at less than 0 degrees Celsius [0049-0051], [0059], and [0063](note C4F8 is used as the gas, note applied claim interpretation above); purging the hydrogen fluoride from the substrate processing chamber by flowing argon into the substrate processing chamber [0060]; generating a plasma within the substrate processing chamber by ionizing the argon [0061]; and removing a portion of the layer of byproduct from the surface of the substrate by using the plasma for desorption of the reactive layer [0061] (see also Fig 5 for control flow diagram).
Regarding claim 2, Yatsuda teaches the plasma is generated using at least one of a voltage source (22 or 64 Fig 1) or a source radio frequency (RF) generator (62 Fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, Yatsuda teaches the plasma is controlled using both the voltage source and the source RF generator ([0037-0038], note that directing the ions requires voltage).
Regarding claim 4, Yatsuda teaches a thickness of the portion of the layer of byproduct is less than one nanometer [0064].
Regarding claim 7, Yatsuda teaches the layer of byproduct includes at least one of silicon oxide [0063].
Regarding claim 9, Yatsuda teaches a thickness of the portion of the layer of byproduct is adjustable in a range of less than one nanometer to 100 nanometers ([0064] teaches 0.2 nm and [0056] teaches repeating the physisorption and etching steps [0056]).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yatsuda in view of US Patent Application Publication 2022/0102155 of Chang et al., hereinafter Chang.
Regarding claim 5, Yatsuda fails to teach the operations further comprise performing an additional silicon etching process. In the same field of endeavor of silicon etching (abstract), Chang teaches a process (Fig 1) in which silicon oxide is removed and then subsequent silicon etching is performed (Fig 1 and Fig 7-10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Yatsuda to include instructions to perform silicon etching because Chang teaches this is a known process performed in conjunction with removing silicon oxide (Fig 1 and Fig 7-10) to form a device. Providing additional processing step capabilities in the same apparatus and controller allows for higher throughput by reducing the need for transfer to other chambers. Further this increases the market value of the apparatus by increasing the number and type of processes that may be performed on the same apparatus.
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 5 above. Chang as applied in the combination teaches the operations further comprise removing an additional portion of the layer of byproduct from the surface of the substrate, the additional portion from the additional silicon etching process (see Fig 10-12). Chang teaches repeating until the desired trench depth is formed (Fig 15)
Regarding claim 8, Yatsuda fails to teach a flow rate of the hydrogen fluoride into the substrate processing chamber is in a range of 100 to 1000 standard cubic centimeters per minute (sccm) because Yatsuda is silent as to the flow rate of the gas. Chang teaches gas flow rate of 10-1000 sccm [0019]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yatsuda to include the control of the flow rate to be 10-1000 sccm because Chang demonstrates this is a functional gas flow rate in the processing and Yatsuda has not limited the gas flow rate.
Regarding claim 10, Yatsuda fails to teach removing the portion of the layer of byproduct from the surface of the substrate is configured to form a mask on the surface of the substrate for an additional silicon etching process. Chang remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 5 and 6 above. Chang teaches as part of the etching that a portion of the silicon oxide (byproduct layer) is used as a mask during the additional silicon etching step (Fig 7 [0023]).
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2022/0165578 of Tomura et al., hereinafter Tomura, in view of Yatsuda.
Regarding claim 1, Tomura teaches an apparatus (Fig 7) comprising :a substrate (W Fig 7) disposed on a substrate support (4 Fig 7) within a substrate processing chamber (1 Fig 7), a surface of the substrate having a layer of byproduct from a silicon etching process (has silicon oxide Fig 2A, note silicon oxide is one of the byproducts); a non-transitory computer readable medium storing executable instructions [0051] that, when executed by at least one processor [0051], cause a byproduct removal from the surface of the substrate by operations [0051] comprising: forming a reactive layer in the layer of byproduct by injecting hydrogen fluoride into the substrate processing chamber (Fig 2A-2B [0031-0033]) and maintaining a temperature of the substrate support at less than 0 degrees Celsius [0033]; generating a plasma within the substrate processing chamber by ionizing the argon [0034]; and removing a portion of the layer of byproduct from the surface of the substrate by using the plasma for desorption of the reactive layer [0034] (Fig 2A-2B). Tomura fails to teach purging the hydrogen fluoride from the substrate processing chamber by flowing argon into the substrate processing chamber. In the same field of endeavor of absorbing a gas and then etching it with Argon plasma [0059-0061], Yatsuda teaches purging with argon prior to striking a plasma [0060]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tomura to include the purging step because Yatsuda teaches this allows for control of the physisorbed thickness [0060] which increases control of the removal amount.
Regarding claim 2, Tomura teaches the plasma is generated using at least one of a voltage source (7 Fig 7 [0049]) or a source radio frequency (RF) generator (6 Fig 7 [0048]).
Regarding claim 3, Tomura teaches the plasma is controlled using both the voltage source and the source RF generator [0048-0049].
Regarding claim 4, Tomura fails to teach removal of less than 1 nm. Yatsuda teaches a thickness of the portion of the layer of byproduct is less than one nanometer [0064]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the combination with the use of purging to remove less than 1 nm of material because Yatsuda teaches this reduced amount may be removed.
Regarding claim 7, Tomura teaches the layer of byproduct includes at least one of silicon oxide [0034].
Regarding claim 9, Tomura teaches a thickness of the portion of the layer of byproduct is adjustable in a range of less than one nanometer to 100 nanometers [0037].
Regarding claim 10, Tomura teaches a substrate processing chamber (Fig 7) comprising: a substrate (W Fig 7); a layer of byproduct from a silicon etching process disposed on a surface of the substrate (silicon oxide Fig 2A); a hydrogen fluoride delivery system configured to inject hydrogen fluoride into the substrate processing chamber and form a reactive layer in the layer of byproduct (8 is taught as gas supply and [0036] teaches injecting HF); a processing gas delivery system (8 is taught as gas supply and [0036] teaches injecting Argon which is a purge gas); and an electrode (4 Fig 7) configured to receive a pulsed voltage waveform and generate a plasma using the processing gas [0048-0049], the plasma configured to remove a portion of the layer of byproduct from the surface of the substrate by desorption of the reactive layer [0039], [0043]. Regarding configured to purge the hydrogen fluoride from the substrate processing chamber by flowing a processing gas into the substrate processing chamber, in the same field of endeavor of absorbing a gas and then etching it with Argon plasma [0059-0061], Yatsuda teaches purging with argon prior to striking a plasma [0060]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tomura to include the supply system configured to perform a purging step because Yatsuda teaches this allows for control of the physisorbed thickness [0060] which increases control of the removal amount.
Regarding claim 12, Tomura teaches the process gas includes argon [0075].
Regarding claim 13, Tomura teaches the plasma is controlled using a source RF generator (6 Fig 7 [0048]).
Regarding claim 14, Tomura teaches the electrode includes a chucking electrode (electrode 4 includes chucking electrode 5 Fig 7, [0048]).
Regarding claim 15, Tomura teaches a thickness of the portion of the layer of byproduct is adjustable in a range of less than one nanometer to 100 nanometers [0037].
Claim(s) 5-6, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomura in view of Yatsuda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang.
Regarding claim 5, Tomura in view of Yatsuda fails to teach the operations further comprise performing an additional silicon etching process. In the same field of endeavor of silicon etching (abstract), Chang teaches a process (Fig 1) in which silicon oxide is removed and then subsequent silicon etching is performed (Fig 1 and Fig 7-10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Tomura to include instructions to perform silicon etching because Chang teaches this is a known process performed in conjunction with removing silicon oxide (Fig 1 and Fig 7-10) to form a device. Providing additional processing step capabilities in the same apparatus and controller allows for higher throughput by reducing the need for transfer to other chambers. Further this increases the market value of the apparatus by increasing the number and type of processes that may be performed on the same apparatus.
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 5 above. Chang as applied in the combination teaches the operations further comprise removing an additional portion of the layer of byproduct from the surface of the substrate, the additional portion from the additional silicon etching process (see Fig 10-12). Chang teaches repeating until the desired trench depth is formed (Fig 15)
Regarding claim 8, Tomura in view of Yatsuda fails to teach a flow rate of the hydrogen fluoride into the substrate processing chamber is in a range of 100 to 1000 standard cubic centimeters per minute (sccm) because Tomura and Yatsuda are silent as to the flow rate of the gas. Chang teaches gas flow rate of 10-1000 sccm [0019]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tomura to include the control of the flow rate to be 10-1000 sccm because Chang demonstrates this is a functional gas flow rate in the processing and Tomura has not limited the gas flow rate.
Regarding claim 10, Tomura in view of Yatsuda fails to teach removing the portion of the layer of byproduct from the surface of the substrate is configured to form a mask on the surface of the substrate for an additional silicon etching process. Chang remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 5 and 6 above. Chang teaches as part of the etching that a portion of the silicon oxide (byproduct layer) is used as a mask during the additional silicon etching step (Fig 7 [0023]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2023/0223273 teaches HF and C4F8 are alternative sources of fluorine for substrate surface modification [0040]. US 2021/0287908 teaches silicon oxide as a sidewall protection layer (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights