DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 03/13/2024 (Note: The IDS comprises at least 22 US Patents, 33 US Patent Application Publications, 50 Foreign Patents, and 25 Non-Patent Literatures) have been considered. The examiner notes, however, that the cloaking of a clearly relevant reference by inclusion in a long list of citations may not comply with the Applicant's duty of disclosure. see MPEP § 2004. Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948 (S.D. Fla. 1972) (accord with dicta from Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1995), stating that forcing the Examiner to find a needle in a haystack is probative of bad faith.). Applicant is requested to point out any particular reference in the IDS which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda et al. (JP 2014229751 A1).
As to claim 1, Ikeda discloses a plasma processing method characterized comprising:
A first step of performing reactive ion etching using a gas (e.g. HBr, O2, Ar and CH4) resulting in a taper shape (paragraph 0028, 0030, 0035, 0048, Fig 4, Fig 6; high frequency bias is applied);
A second step of performing radical etching (paragraph 0048, high frequency bias is stopped; only the ON-period for microwave is applied (0030, 0035, 0048, Fig 4, Fig 6 ;
the first step and the second step are alternately repeated, wherein the ON period of the microwave (second step) is longer than the ON period of the high frequency (first step, See paragraph 0066; Fig 6; Note: the time for second step is longer than the time for first step; in another word the time for first step is shorter than the time for second step).
As to claim 3, Ikeda discloses the second step includes generating the plasma using gas that is same as the gas (paragraph 0035).
As to claim 4, Ikeda discloses the ON-period of the microwave (equivalent with applicant’s second step) is longer than the ON-period of the high frequency bias power (equivalent with applicant’s first step; See paragraph [0066]). Ikeda further discloses the ON-period of the high frequency is less than 50% of the ON-period of the microwave power (See Fig 6). Therefore, Ikeda discloses a ratio of time of the first step to a time of the second step is lower than 50%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (JP 2014229751 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Doh (US 10,347,500).
As to claim 2, Ikeda discloses the gas is a mixed gas comprises HBr, O2, Ar and CH4 (paragraph 0035). Ikeda fails to disclose a mixed gas of NF3 and HBr. However, Ikeda clearly teaches to etch silicon containing material (paragraph 0035). Doh teaches to etch silicon containing material using mixed gas comprises HBr and NF3 (col. 6 lines 45-60; col. 11 lines 20-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ikeda in view of Doh by using a mixed gas comprises HBr and NF3 because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
9. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (JP 2014229751 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kofuji (US 2018/0047595 A1).
Note:
As to claim 5, Ikeda discloses the first step and the second step are alternately repeated through control on a power supply field, with which a position of a region of electron cyclotron resonance generated as a result of interaction between microwaves and the magnetic field is periodically changed to be above and below a shielding plate configured to shield ions otherwise being incident on a sample placed on a sample stage. However, Ikeda discloses teaches to use microwave Electron Cyclotron Resonance (ECR) etching apparatus (paragraph 0023). Kofuji discloses to use microwave Electron Cyclotron Resonance (ECR) etching apparatus (paragraph 0046). Kofuji further discloses through control on the power supply generating a magnetic field, with which a position of a region of electron cyclotron resonance generated as a result of interaction between microwaves and the magnetic field is periodically changed to be above and below a shielding plate (116) configured to shield ions otherwise being incident on a sample placed on a sample stage (paragraph 0046-0052, Fig 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ikeda in view of Kofuji by controlling the power supply to generate a magnetic field, with which a position of a region of electron cyclotron resonance generated as a result of interaction between microwaves and the magnetic field is periodically changed to be above and below a shielding plate (116) configured to shield ions otherwise being incident on a sample placed on a sample stage because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
10. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (JP 2014229751 A1) in view of Kofuji (US 2018/0047595 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Doh (US 2019/347,500 B1).
As to claim 6, Ikeda discloses the gas is a mixed gas comprises HBr, O2, Ar and CH4 (paragraph 0035). Ikeda and Kofuji fail to disclose a mixed gas of NF3 and HBr. However, Ikeda clearly teaches to etch silicon containing material (paragraph 0035). Doh teaches to etch silicon containing material using mixed gas comprises HBr and NF3 (col. 6 lines 45-60; col. 11 lines 20-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ikeda and Kofuji in view of Doh by using a mixed gas comprises HBr and NF3 because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 7, Ikeda discloses the ON-period of the microwave (equivalent with applicant’s second step) is longer than the ON-period of the high frequency bias power (equivalent with applicant’s first step; See paragraph [0066]). Ikeda further discloses the ON-period of the high frequency is less than 50% of the ON-period of the microwave power (See Fig 6). Therefore, Ikeda discloses a ratio of time of the first step to a time of the second step is lower than 50%.
As to claim 8, Ikeda teaches the gas is mixed gas (paragraph 0035). As to claim 8, Ikeda and Kofuji fail to disclose a ratio between flow rates of gases forming the mixed gas in the first step is different from the ratio between the flow rates of the gases forming the mixed gas in the second step. Doh teaches a ratio between flow rates of gases forming the mixed gas in the first step is different from the ratio between the flow rates of the gases forming the mixed gas in the second step in order to preserve critical dimension including the sidewall profiles of the features (col. 4 lines 40-46, col. 11 lines 50 to col. 12 lines 10; col. 13 lines 60 to col. 14 line 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ikeda and Kofuji in view of Doh by having a ratio between flow rates of gases forming the mixed gas in the first step is different from the ratio between the flow rates of the gases forming the mixed gas in the second step because it helps to preserve critical dimension including the sidewall profiles of the features.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH X TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
BINH X. TRAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/BINH X TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713