DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18622318 application filed March 29, 2024. Claims 1-28 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 1-2, 4-6 and 24-28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang et al. (CN119626903A, also published as WO/2025/055588, which is referred to in this Office action), hereinafter “Zhang”, in view of Calafiore et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20200158943), hereinafter “Calafiore”, and Chen et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20240055352), hereinafter “Chen”.--Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6: Zhang teaches a method of etching a film on a sidewall of a hole having small diameter ([0067]), such as a through-silicon via, in a semiconductor device (abstract, [0052-0053]), comprisingforming an opening in a substrate, the opening has a preset film to be removed on its sidewall ([0007-0009, 0067], Fig. 1), wherein the preset film may be TiN ([0083]);directing an ion beam into the opening, wherein the ion beam has an incidence angle α of -90° to +90°, not including the endpoints, to the surface of the substrate ([0061]) while rotating the substrate at a speed 0-80 rpm, to etch the preset film ([0071]). Zhang further teaches that the etching is a ion beam etching, i.e. ion milling (IBE), reactive ion beam etching (RIBE) or chemically-assisted ion beam etching (CAIBE) ([0075]). Zhang fails to teach that the etching may use a gas cluster ion beam. Calafiore teaches that removing material from sidewall of a recess may be accomplished by using ion milling, reactive ion beam or gas cluster ion beam ([0034, 0040, 0050). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use a gas cluster ion beam as an equivalent substitution for the ion beam or reactive ion beam, as taught by Calafiore, in the invention of Zhang. Zhang further teaches that the method is advantageously effective for holes with smaller diameter ([0003, 0052]), but fails to teach a hole having a diameter less than 50 nm. Chen, also directed to manufacturing a semiconductor device, teaches that the semiconductor device may comprise a contact hole or via hole having a diameter about 1-250 nm ([0021, 0034], Fig. 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use the ion beam to etch a film in a hole or via having a size 1-250 nm, as taught by Chen, in the invention of Zhang. It is noted that TiN is a metal-containing material, and the ranges -90° to +90° and 1-250 nm overlaps the claimed ranges in claims 1, 2 and 7.--Claims 24, 25, 26: it is noted that the TiN preset film may be considered an undesired metal-containing material overhanging on the sidewall of the hole.--Claims 27, 28: Zhang further teaches that the etching may comprise at least one ion beam etching and a chemical assisted ion beam etching, and that the gas used in the ion beam is an inert gas ([0022]) and the gas used in the chemical assisted ion beam is a reactive gas
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang in view of Calafiore and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20210193511), hereinafter “Wang”:--Claim 3: Zhang modified by Calafiore and Chen teaches the invention as above. Zhang is silent about a depth of the hole.Wang, also directed to manufacturing a semiconductor device, teaches that a via hole may have a depth of less than 5 nm ([0092]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use the ion beam to etch a film in a hole or via having a depth less than 5 nm, as taught by Wang, in the invention of Zhang.
Claims 7-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang in view of Calafiore and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwak et al. (KR20230182550A, also published and referred here as U.S. PGPub. No. 20210193511), hereinafter “Kwak”:--Claims 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13: Zhang further teaches that the incidence angle may be determined by tan α = d/h, where d=width of the hole and h=distance of the region to be etched from the top of the hole ([0027-0028]), and that different ion beam angle may be selected based on different etch height ([0107]), and that, since there is a beam divergence of about ±5° ([0105]), the final incidence angle is decided by actual experiments ([0109]). Zhang further teaches that the slope of one side of the hole may be different than the opposite side, resulting in a poor matching y2 from the first side to the second side ([0089]). Zhang further teaches that when the first side is normal to the substrate and the second side has an angle of β° to the normal, the poor matching y2 is determined by y2 = (h/d)x + h –((cos β /sin (α +β)) (d+x), where x is the distance between the asymmetric sidewall of the opening and the ideal position and β is the included angle of the asymmetric sidewall of the opening relative to the ideal position ([0089]). It is obvious to one of skill in the art to determine the correct incidence angle for the ion beam etching on the second side by using the above equation while setting y2 to zero. Zhang further teaches that the hole may be a rectangular groove ([0091]), and the etching may comprise using the ion beam to etch a first side of the hole, stopping the etching, rotating the substrate then using the ion beam to etch the second side of the hole ([0103], Fig. 14 and 15). Zhang fails to teach changing the ion beam angle during etching. Kwak, also directed to using an ion beam to etch the sidewall of a hole (Fig. 1), teaches that the incidence angle of the ion beam may change during the etching ([0065-0067], Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to determine a first ion beam incident angle for a first side of the hole and a second ion beam incident angle, that has been adjusted for the deviation of angle of β° to the normal, for a second side of the hole by actual experiments, then perform the ion beam etching by using the ion beam apparatus taught by Kwak on the first side of the hole using the first incident angle, stop the etching, rotate the substrate, then perform the ion beam etching using the second ion beam angle. It is noted that the ranges -90° to +90° overlap all claimed ranges of angles in claims 7-9. Alternately, although Zhang fails to teach the specific angle values recited in claims 7-9, since Zhang teaches the incident angle is a result-effective variable, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the incident ion beam angle to such values because it’s been well established that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).--Claims 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23: Kwak further teaches that, in addition to the rotation, the substrate may also moves about an axis perpendicular to a propagation direction of the ion beam to adjust an incidence angle ([0029], Fig. 1).--Claims 10, 16, 20: Zhang further teaches that the hole may be a circular hole, and the ion beam etching is continuous while rotating the substrate ([0069-0071]). However, due to the difference in the sidewall slope from one side of the hole to another side, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the ion beam incident angle from one side of the hole to the other side of the hole, as explained above.--Claims 24, 25, 26: Kwak further teaches that the ion beam may be used to remove conducting byproduct hanging on the sidewall of the hole (Fig. 3C, [0035-0037]), wherein the conductive material may be a metal ([0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713