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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ submission, filed on 09/03/2026, in response to claims 1-9 rejection from the non-final office action (06/03/2026), by amending claims 1, 3, and 9 and cancelling claim 2 is entered and will be addressed below.
Claim Interpretations
The “a plasma chamber having an interior operable to receive a process gas;
a processing chamber …” of claim 1, Applicants’ Specification and drawing does not show where is a plasma chamber, and Fig. 3 shows the inductive element and the introduced gas that generated plasma is in the same continuous space as the processing chamber. Therefore, this portion of the claim will be examined inclusive either no separation wall or with a separation wall (e.g. baffle plate with holes that separate the plasma chamber from the processing chamber). A chamber divided by a baffle plate is also considered read into claim 8 “same chamber”.
The following list (in bold face) are considered an intended use of the apparatus:
The “the workpiece comprises a spacer layer” of claim 1,
The “a gas delivery system operable to flow a composition modulation gas, wherein the composition modulation gas modulates a volume ratio of carbon and fluorine to process the workpiece, wherein the composition modulation gas comprises one or more molecules having a chemical formula CxHyFz, where x and z are natural numbers greater than zero, and y is a natural number greater than or equal to zero, wherein the volume ratio of carbon and fluorine is indicative of a distribution of carbon-based polymer deposited on the spacer layer” of claim 1,
The “wherein the admitted composition modulation gas produces a first volume ratio of carbon and fluorine that is greater than or equal to a preset ratio, such that the first thickness is greater than the second thickness; or
the admitted composition modulation gas produces a second volume ratio of carbon and fluorine that is less than the first preset ratio, such that the first thickness is less than the second thickness” of claim 3,
The “the spacer layer is an oxide spacer layer” of claim 4,
The “the etching gas comprises Octafluorocyclobutane” of claim 5,
The “wherein the composition modulation gas comprises one or more of Difluoromethane (CH2F2), Fluoroform (CHF3), and Carbon tetrafluoride (CF4)” of claim 6,
The “the process gas further comprises an inert gas; or, the process gas further comprises an inert gas and oxygen” of claim 7,
The “a pressure: about 5 mTorr-about 70 mTorr;
a source power to the inductive element: about 100 watts-about 500 watts;
a center power to the inductive element: about 50 watts-about 200 watts; and
a bias power to the bias electrode: about 100 watts-about 500 watts”,
Whan an apparatus that is capable of delivering various type of gas claimed, or operated at the pressure and/or power level, it is considered read into the claimed limitation.
In regarding to the controller configured to portion of the claim 1:
“a controller configured to control the gas delivery system, the inductive element, and the bias source to implement an etching process, the etching process comprising operations, the operations comprising:
admitting the composition modulation gas in the plasma chamber;
admitting an etching gas in the plasma chamber;
providing RF power to the inductive element to generate a first plasma from the process gas to generate a first mixture, the first mixture comprising one or more first species, wherein the process gas comprises the composition modulation gas and the etching gas; and
providing RF power to the bias electrode to generate a second plasma in the first mixture in the processing chamber to generate a second mixture, the second mixture comprising one or more second species, and
controlling the volume ratio of carbon and fluorine of the composition modulation gas to cause a first portion of a polymer layer to be formed on a first region of the spacer layer and a second portion of the polymer layer to be formed on a second region of the spacer layer, wherein the first region is higher than the second region, and a first thickness of the first portion is different from a second thickness of the second portion”, It is noted that there is no disclosure of sensor that detecting the process perform is etching, or sensor that detecting the type of the gases, or the various type of gas/plasma mixture, or a sensor that detect the plasma is of first type and the second type, or the thickness in various regions. The controller send signals to the gas delivery system and power supply, and set pressure range (note there is no pressure sensor also).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
The newly added limitation “a source power to the inductive element: about 100 watts - about 500 watts;
a center power to the inductive element: about 50 watts - about 200 watts“ of claim 9 does not have support in Applicants’ Specification.
Applicants assert the this amendment is supported by [0025], [0113]-[0117], [0147], [0159]. However, the examiner cannot find any these paragraphs or throughout the specification linking the power level to the inductive element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cook (US 20070190792, hereafter ‘792).
‘792 teaches all limitations of:
Claim 1: the dry plasma etching system 1d can, for example, be similar to the embodiments of FIGS. 2 and 3, and can further comprise an inductive coil 80 to which RF power is coupled via RF generator 82 through impedance match network 84. RF power is inductively coupled from inductive coil 80 through dielectric window (not shown) to plasma processing region th sentence, includes the claimed “A plasma processing apparatus, comprising: a plasma chamber having an interior operable to receive a process gas”);
Plasma processing chamber 10 can be, for example, configured to facilitate the generation of plasma in processing region 15 adjacent a surface of substrate 25 ([0029] 3rd sentence), Substrate 25 can be, for example, affixed to the substrate holder 20 via an electrostatic clamping system ([0030], includes the claimed “a processing chamber having a workpiece support operable to support a workpiece”, note Applicants’ processing chamber can be the same as plasma chamber, also see claim 8),
the insulating layer is subjected to an etching process, whereby the insulating layer is removed in all locations except along the sidewalls of the gate stack; see FIG. 1B. The remaining insulating material acts as a spacer in the fabrication of the semiconductor device ([0024], 4th sentence, includes the claimed “wherein the workpiece comprises a spacer layer”, ‘792 teaches this yet this is an intended use of the apparatus),
substrate holder 20 can be electrically biased at a RF voltage via the transmission of RF power from a RF generator 40 through an impedance match network 50 to substrate holder 20 ([0031], 2nd sentence, includes the claimed “and a bias electrode is disposed in the workpiece support”);
The etch chemistry comprises the use of fluorohydrocarbons, such as CH2F2 and CHF3 ([0025], 2nd sentence, includes the claimed “a gas delivery system operable to flow a composition modulation gas, wherein the composition modulation gas modulates a volume ratio of carbon and fluorine to process the workpiece, wherein the composition modulation gas comprises one or more molecules having a chemical formula CxHyFz, where x and z are natural numbers greater than zero, and y is a natural number greater than or equal to zero, wherein the volume ratio of carbon and fluorine is indicative of a distribution of carbon-based polymer deposited on the spacer layer”, while ‘792 fully teaches this limitation, yet the gas type is an intended use of the apparatus);
further comprise an inductive coil 80 to which RF power is coupled via RF generator 82 through impedance match network 84. RF power is inductively coupled from inductive coil 80 through dielectric window (not shown) to plasma processing region
substrate holder 20 can be electrically biased at a RF voltage via the transmission of RF power from a RF generator 40 through an impedance match network 50 to substrate holder 20 ([0031], 2nd sentence, includes the claimed “a bias source configured to provide DC power and RF power to the bias electrode”);
controller 14 is coupled to RF generator 82 and impedance match network 84 in order to control the application of power to inductive coil 80 ([0046], 6th sentence), a controller 14 coupled to the diagnostic system 12 and the plasma processing chamber 10. The controller 14 is configured to execute a process recipe comprising trifluoromethane (CHF3), difluoromethane (CH2F2), and an inert gas to selectively and uniformly etch silicon oxide or silicon nitride relative to silicon ([0028]), controller 14 can be coupled to and can exchange information with RF generator 40 ([0034], 2nd sentence, includes the claimed “and a controller configured to control the gas delivery system, the inductive element, and the bias source to implement an etching process, the etching process comprising operations, the operations comprising: admitting the composition modulation gas in the plasma chamber; admitting an etching gas in the plasma chamber; providing RF power to the inductive element to generate a first plasma from the process gas to generate a first mixture, the first mixture comprising one or more first species, wherein the process gas comprises the composition modulation gas and the etching gas; and providing RF power to the bias electrode to generate a second plasma in the first mixture in the processing chamber to generate a second mixture, the second mixture comprising one or more second species”, note due to bias voltage and etching consumption, the plasma species in the upper chamber and the space right above the substrate 25 intrinsically differ),
polymer forming radicals are formed within the etching plasma (abstract, and Fig. 1A-1B shows the same structure as Applicants’ Figs. 1-3, includes the claimed “controlling the volume ratio of carbon and fluorine of the composition modulation gas to cause a first portion of a polymer layer to be formed on a first region of the spacer layer and a second portion of the polymer layer to be formed on a second region of the spacer layer, wherein the first region is higher than the second region, and a first thickness of the first portion is different from a second thickness of the second portion”).
Note the controller send signal to the gas delivery system, it does not have a sensor to check whether the thickness in different region is the same or different.
Furthermore, as the polymer distribution is controlled by controller by a combination of gas ratio, power level and pressure level, and claim 1 only requires a structure related to the gas ratio. A same gas ratio between ‘792 and instant application clearly exist, at least at different power level and the pressure level.
In case Applicants argue that the combination of all these parameters of gas ratio, power level, and pressure level are implied by claim 1, it is noted that ‘792 is not set up to exclusively process a uniform polymer coating, it is very unlikely to produce uniform coating at the named regions of the claim 1, if by randomly selecting these parameters. ‘749’s operation parameter is overlapping with the parameters of instant application, and the controller most likely is having the same gas ratio as the claimed gas ratio, albeit at different power level and pressure level. Because this is overlapping of range over a vast parameter space, it is also rejected under 103.
Claim 3: The etch chemistry comprises the use of fluorohydrocarbons, such as CH2F2 and CHF3 ([0025], 2nd sentence, the apparatus is capable of adjusting the ratio of these two gases, includes the claimed “wherein the admitted composition modulation gas produces a first volume ratio of carbon and fluorine that is greater than or equal to a preset ratio, such that the first thickness is greater than the second thickness; or the admitted composition modulation gas produces a second volume ratio of carbon and fluorine that is less than the first preset ratio, such that the first thickness is less than the second thickness”, note this is an intended use of the apparatus. Even if the claim is amended to the controller step, it is noted that the controller does not have sensor to check the resulting thickness comparison).
Claim 4: The spacer dielectric layer can comprise silicon oxide (SiOx) ([0068], last sentence, includes the claimed “wherein the spacer layer is an oxide spacer layer”, while ‘792 fully teaches this limitation, yet this is an intended use of the apparatus).
Claim 5: the apparatus is capable of using various type of gas, including the claimed “wherein the etching gas comprises Octafluorocyclobutane (C4F8)”.
Claim 6: The etch chemistry comprises the use of fluorohydrocarbons, such as CH2F2 and CHF3 ([0025], 2nd sentence, includes the claimed “wherein the composition modulation gas comprises one or more of Difluoromethane (CH2F2), Fluoroform (CHF3), and Carbon tetrafluoride (CF4)”, while ‘792 fully teaches this limitation, yet this is an intended use of the apparatus).
Claim 7: the etch chemistry comprises trifluoromethane (CHF3), difluoromethane (CH2F2), and an inert gas, such as a noble gas (e.g., argon, krypton, xenon, etc.). ([0027], includes the claimed “wherein the process gas further comprises an inert gas; or, the process gas further comprises an inert gas and oxygen”, while ‘792 fully teaches this limitation, yet this is an intended use of the apparatus).
Claim 8: Plasma processing chamber 10 can be, for example, configured to facilitate the generation of plasma in processing region 15 adjacent a surface of substrate 25 ([0029] 3rd sentence, includes the claimed “wherein the plasma chamber and the processing chamber are the same chamber”).
Claim 9: In Table 1, p represents the gas pressure in the process chamber (millitorr, mtorr), gap represents the spacing between an upper electrode (e.g., element 70 in FIG. 5) and a lower electrode (e.g., element 20 in FIG. 5) (millimeters, m), UEL P represents the radio frequency (RF) power coupled to the upper electrode (e.g., element 70 in FIG. 5) (W, watts), LEL P represents the RF power coupled to the lower electrode (e.g., element 20 in FIG. 5) (W, watts), CHF3 represents the gas flow rate of CHF3 (standard cubic centimeters per minute, sccm), Ar represents the gas flow rate of Ar (sccm), CH2F2 represents the gas flow rate of CH2F2 (sccm), and O2 represents the gas flow rate of O2 (sccm) ([0054], includes the claimed “wherein a processing parameter of the chamber comprises one or more of: a pressure: about 5 mTorr-about 70 mTorr; a source power to the inductive element: about 100 watts-about 500 watts; a center power to the inductive element: about 50 watts-about 200 watts; and a bias power to the bias electrode: about 100 watts-about 500 watts”, while ‘792 teaches this multiple choices in various ways, yet this is an intended use of the apparatus).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regarding to 112(b) rejection of claim 9, see the top of page 4, Applicants’ amendment overcomes 112(b) rejection but introduces 112(a) issues.
In regarding to 102 rejection by Cook ‘792, Applicants argue that ‘792 describe “selecting a ratio of a flow rate of the CH2F2 to a RF power coupled to the electrode that is substantially equal to or less than a value of 0.0071 sccm per Watt “ to “achieve uniform etching and to form a protective polymer layer, therefore, fail to disclose “controlling the volume ratio of carbon and fluorine of the composition modulation gas to cause a first portion of a polymer layer to be formed on a first region of the spacer layer and a second portion of the polymer layer to be formed on a second region of the spacer layer, wherein the first region is higher than the second region, and a first thickness of the first portion is different from a second thickness of the second portion”, see the top of page 6.
This argument is found not persuasive for many reasons.
First and foremost, the controller does not control the results of the coating thickness deposition. The controller, as a structure of an apparatus, merely send signal to the gas delivery system and power supply, and set pressure range. ‘792’s controller clearly send these signals to gas delivery system, power supply, and pressure control devices. Even without any discussion of specific CHF3 CH2F2 ratio,
Secondly, contrary to Applicants assertion that ‘792’s coating is uniform (all the time), ‘792 also describes referring to FIGS. 8A through 8D, the silicon oxide etch uniformity varies significantly for these four process conditions. FIGS. 8A and 8B illustrate poor uniformity while excessive (and potentially excessive, in the case of process condition no. 25) polymer deposition occurs on the silicon surfaces ([0063]), The inventor believes that the uniformity becomes poor as a result of over-production of polymer forming molecules, i.e., excessive amount of polymer forming parent molecules (CH2F2), or low power (e.g., low dissociation), or both ([0064]). Furthermore, notice the uniformity is a relatively term.
Thirdly, Table 1 of ‘792 describe two different gas ratio. Even if one of these result uniform polymer pressure, the other one is not.
Some rationale for 102/103 rejection are described in the rejection above and not further repeated here.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20020064945 is cited for non-uniform deposition of the polymer ([0056]).
Applicants’ submitted IDS, US 8614151 is cited for etch gas composed of C4F8 (abstract), applicable to claim 5 if the claim be amended to requiring a C4F8 source.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEATH T CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1870. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00 pm.
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.
/KEATH T CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights