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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/19/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5, 6, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 5 and 6 repeat the same limitation c) in claim 1 and claims 8 and 9 repeat the limitation d) in claim 1. It appears that these limitations from claims 5, 6, 8, and 9 have been incorporated into claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eun et al. (US 2008/0254593A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 113517296A).
With respect to claims 1, 5-9 Eun teaches a method comprising providing a substrate 100 in which a recess is formed and having exposed HDP oxide 114, formed from silane and oxygen gas, which provide silicon oxide layer 114 (fig. 3; para 6, 7, 24, 25)
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; generating a plasma from a gas mixture comprising fluorine-containing gas and hydrogen (H2) gas (para 27); repeating the deposition and etching step four or more time to fill the gap with the HDP oxide, which would provide claimed forming a silicon oxide in the recess after etching and repeating the etching and forming the silicon oxide in the recess.
Unlike claimed invention, Eun doesn’t teach etching the HDP oxide with plasma mixture using gas mixture including trifluoromethane and oxygen-containing gas. Zhang teaches that fluorine containing gas including trifluoromethane and oxygen are known for selectively etching silicon oxide (page 9). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add trifluoromethane and oxygen into the etching gas mixture, in light of Zhang, because he teaches gas mixture including trifluoromethane, oxygen, and hydrogen has been successfully facilitating the selective etching of the silicon oxide, especially in the present of silicon substrate (page 9, 10).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, figures 3 and 4 show the recess has a certain depth and the etching removing the HDP oxide 114 to create a target shape wherein the hydrogen flow rate is set from 50 to 150 sccm (para 27), in which the flow rate must be set according to a depth and targeted shape by removing a portion of the HDP oxide as shown in fig. 4 for the next deposition step
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eun/Zhang, and further in view of Sung et al. (US 2021/0066047A1).
With respect to claim 10, Eun and Zhang describe an etching method including the steps of claim 10, see rejection of claim 1 above. Unlike claimed invention, Eun doesn’t teach using an apparatus having a vacuum chamber, a gas supply that supplies a gas to the vacuum chamber and a controller is configured to the etching steps. Sung teaches an etching apparatus having chamber interior 125 with a gas exhaust port 516 to evacuating as gas from the chamber or claimed a vacuum chamber (para 39, 51); a gas supply 150 (para 33, 58); “a controller configured to control the gas delivery system, the inductive element, and the bias source to implement a spacer open process. The spacer open process may include operations” (para 6, 54; fig. 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
636
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
One skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would find it obvious to use an apparatus such as one taught by Sung because using known element without changes in its functions, in this case using the apparatus for the same purpose of providing a plasma for Eun’s etching process, would enable one skilled in the art to provide a plasma for the etching process with expected results.
With respect to claim 11, Eun shows in figure 4, the HDP oxide 114 is exposed in the recess and etched
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to claim 12. Figure 4 from Sung shows each gas is supplied from a separate source. Therefore, it would have been obvious and within the knowledge of one skilled in the art to provide the gases from their respective sources in order to provide the gases for the silicon oxide etching with expected results.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY VU NGUYEN DEO whose telephone number is (571)272-1462. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F.
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 571-272-3176. 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.
/DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
9/21/2026
Prosecution Insights