DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18702402 application filed April 18, 2024, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on May 12, 2026. Claims 1-31 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s cancellation of claim 32, and withdrawal of claims 20-31 acknowledged.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of the invention of Group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on May 12, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 20-31 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12660540. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12660540 recites all limitations that are recited in these claims. It is noted that C4H9F3Si and C5H9F5Si recited in claim 20 read on the Si-containing hydrofluorocarbon recited in claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16 and 17; the fluorocarbon compounds recited in claim 20 read on the fluorocarbon recited in claim 2; and the silicon-containing films recited in claim 20 reads on the silicon-containing film recited in claim 14.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12660540. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12660540 recites all limitations that are recited in these claims. It is noted that C4H9F3Si and C5H9F5Si recited in claim 8 read on the Si-containing hydrofluorocarbon recited in claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16 and 17; the fluorocarbon compounds recited in claim 8 read on the fluorocarbon compounds recited in claim 2, and the silicon-containing films recited in claim 8 reads on the silicon-containing film recited in claim 14.
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 1-9, 11, 14-15 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Izawa et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6475918), hereinafter “Izawa”:--Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 19: Izawa teaches a method of etching, comprisingproviding a substrate, then forming a silicon oxide layer on the substrate, then forming a mask having an opening over the silicon oxide layer (Col. 5, Lines 1-14; Col. 9, Lines 24-28; Col. 1, Lines 13-15);loading the substrate into a stage within a process chamber (Fig. 7), then supplying an etching gas to the substrate, then supplying RF power to the etching gas to generate a plasma to etch the silicon oxide layer (Col. 8, Line 65 through Col. 9, Line 28) to form an aperture (Fig. 4 and 6). Izawa further teaches that the etching gas comprises C3F6, Ar and Si (OCH3)2F2. Izawa further teaches that a deposition gas may be added to the etching gas in order to prevent bowing (Col. 2, Lines 18-20), and that adding Si would remove excessive F in the plasma, thus greatly reduces bowing (Col. 9, Lines 44-45). Izawa further teaches that in addition to Si(OCH3)2F2 , Si(OCH3)2F2, Si(CH3)2F2, Si(CH3)2Cl2, Si(OCH3)2Cl2, Si(CH3)3H, Si(CH3)2H2, SiH4, Si2H6 or SiCl2H2 (Col. 9, Line 29 through Col. 10, Line 10). 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 an etching gas comprising Si(CH3)2F2 among the list of possible gas compounds in the invention Izawa. It is noted that Si(CH3)2F2 is a Si-containing hydrofluorocarbon containing methyl groups attaching to a silicon atom.--Claim 2: Izawa further teaches that in addition to, and instead of, C3F6, CHF3 may be used (Col. 9, Lines 49-55). --Claim 3: Izawa further teaches that in addition O2 may be added to ensure hole penetration (Col. 9, Lines 49-55).--Claim 5: Izawa further teaches that NH3 may be added for etching an organic insulation film (Col. 8, Lines 9-11).--Claim 15: Fig. 4 shows that the aperture has an aspect ratio about 15:1.
Claims 10 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Izawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Korzenski et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20090192065), hereinafter “Korzenski”:--Claim 10: Izawa teaches the invention as in claim 1, wherein Izawa teaches that adding Si would remove excessive F in the plasma, thus greatly reduces bowing (Col. 9, Lines 44-45). Izawa further teaches to add Si(CH3)2F2 to the etching gas, but fails to teach adding the claimed CH3F3Si to the etching gas. Korzenski, also directed to a method of plasma processing a silicon oxide layer (Fig. 1), teaches that a silicon-containing layer passivating agent may be added to reduce the chemical attack of the silicon-containing layer, wherein the silicon-containing layer passivating agent may be an alkylhalosilane having a formula R3SiX, R2SiX2, RSiX3, where R=methyl, ethyl, propyl,…, and X may be F ([0082]). 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 RSiX3, where R=methyl and X=F, as the Si-containing gas as an equivalent substitution for the Si(CH3)2F2 in the invention of Izawa because Izawa teaches that adding Si would remove excessive F in the plasma thus greatly reduces bowing and further teaches to add Si(CH3)2F2 to the etching gas, and Korzenski teaches that alkylhalosilanes such as (CH3)2SiF2 or (CH3)SiF3 would reduce chemical attack on the silicon oxide layer.
-- Claim 12: Izawa teaches the invention as in claim 1, wherein Izawa teaches that adding Si would remove excessive F in the plasma, thus greatly reduces bowing (Col. 9, Lines 44-45). Izawa further teaches to add Si(CH3)2F2 to the etching gas, but fails to teach adding C4H9F3Si to the etching gas. Korzenski, also directed to a method of plasma processing a silicon oxide layer (Fig. 1), teaches that a silicon-containing layer passivating agent may be added to reduce the chemical attack of the silicon-containing layer, wherein the silicon-containing layer passivating agent may be an alkylhalosilane having a formula R3SiX, R2SiX2, RSiX3, where R=methyl, ethyl, propyl,…, and X may be F ([0082]). 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 RSiX3, where R=butyl and X=F, as the Si-containing gas as an equivalent substitution for the Si(CH3)2F2 in the invention of Izawa because Izawa teaches that adding Si would remove excessive F in the plasma thus greatly reduces bowing and further teaches to add Si(CH3)2F2 to the etching gas, and Korzenski teaches that alkylhalosilanes such as (CH3)2SiF2 and (C4H9)SiF3 would reduce chemical attack on the silicon oxide layer.
Claims 17 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Izawa in view of Korzenski:--Claim 17: Izawa teaches the invention as in claim 1, wherein Izawa teaches that adding Si would remove excessive F in the plasma, thus greatly reduces bowing (Col. 9, Lines 44-45). Izawa further teaches to add Si(CH3)2F2 to the etching gas, but fails to teach adding C4H9F3Si to the etching gas. Korzenski, also directed to a method of plasma processing a silicon oxide layer (Fig. 1), teaches that a silicon-containing layer passivating agent may be added to reduce the chemical attack of the silicon-containing layer, wherein the silicon-containing layer passivating agent may be an alkylhalosilane having a formula R3SiX, R2SiX2, RSiX3, where R=methyl, ethyl, propyl,…, and X may be F ([0082]). 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 RSiX3, where R=butyl and X=F, as the Si-containing gas as an equivalent substitution for the Si(CH3)2F2 in the invention of Izawa because Izawa teaches that adding Si would remove excessive F in the plasma thus greatly reduces bowing and further teaches to add Si(CH3)2F2 to the etching gas, and Korzenski teaches that alkylhalosilanes such as (CH3)2SiF2 and (C4H9)SiF3 would reduce chemical attack on the silicon oxide layer.--Claim 18: Izawa teaches the invention as in claim 1, wherein Izawa teaches that adding Si would remove excessive F in the plasma, thus greatly reduces bowing (Col. 9, Lines 44-45). Izawa further teaches to add Si(CH3)2F2 to the etching gas, but fails to teach adding CH3F3Si to the etching gas. Korzenski, also directed to a method of plasma processing a silicon oxide layer (Fig. 1), teaches that a silicon-containing layer passivating agent may be added to reduce the chemical attack of the silicon-containing layer, wherein the silicon-containing layer passivating agent may be an alkylhalosilane having a formula R3SiX, R2SiX2, RSiX3, where R=methyl, ethyl, propyl,…, and X may be F ([0082]). 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 RSiX3, where R=methyl and X=F, as the Si-containing gas as an equivalent substitution for the Si(CH3)2F2 in the invention of Izawa because Izawa teaches that adding Si would remove excessive F in the plasma thus greatly reduces bowing and further teaches to add Si(CH3)2F2 to the etching gas, and Korzenski teaches that alkylhalosilanes such as (CH3)2SiF2 and (CH3)SiF3 would reduce chemical attack on the silicon oxide layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 and 16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and a terminal disclaimer is provided in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b) to overcome the double patenting rejection shown above. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 13, none of the cited prior arts teaches the feature “the Si-containing hydrofluorocarbon is C₅H₉F₅Si or its isomers” in the context of claim 13; With respect to claim 16, none of the cited prior arts teaches the feature “introducing an etching gas containing C₅H₉F₅Si into the reactor” in the context of claim 16.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submission should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
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
Prosecution Insights