CTNF 18/710,946 CTNF 86958 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-6, 8-11, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanarik et al. (WO 2019178030 A1) . As to claim 1 , Kanarik discloses a method for selectively etching at least one feature in a silicon oxide region with respect to a lower oxygen containing region [claim 1, stack below a patterned mask; para. 0003, silicon oxide etch with respect to amorphous carbon mask; para. 0027; para. 0039], comprising: providing an etch gas comprising a fluorocarbon gas [claim 4, CF4; claim 5, CF4] and at least one of a metalloid halide gas or metal halide gas [claim 4, WF6]; forming the etch gas into a plasma [claim 1]; and simultaneously selectively etching at least one feature in the silicon oxide region with respect to the lower oxygen containing region and forming a metalloid or metal containing hardmask over the lower oxygen containing region [para. 0027]. Kanarik fails to disclose a singular embodiment comprising both a fluorocarbon and a metalloid halide or metal halide gas [claim 4], but teaches that: 1) carbon tetrafluoride and tungsten hexafluoride may be used together each as etch gases [claim 4, “at least one of”]; and 2) that carbon tetrafluoride may be employed as a passivation component of an etch gas [claim 5], in conjunction with the etch gas, e.g., tungsten hexafluoride [claim 4]. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the etch gas of Kanarik to include both carbon tetrafluoride and tungsten hexafluoride, because they are suitably employed together as etch gases in the method of etching silicon oxide using an amorphous carbon mask, as taught by Kanarik [claims 4-5; para. 0027]. As to claim 2 , modified Kanarik discloses the method, as recited in claim 1, wherein the etch gas is hydrogen free [claim 4, CF4; claim 5, CF4]. As to claim 3 , modified Kanarik discloses the method, as recited in claim 1, wherein the fluorocarbon gas comprises CxF y [claim 4, CF4; claim 5, CF4]. As to claim 4 , modified Kanarik discloses the method, as recited in claim 1, wherein the fluorocarbon gas comprises at least one of C 4 F 6 , c-C4F8, c-C5F8, C 2 F 4 , CF 4 , C 4 Fs, C 3 Fs, and C 2 F 6 [claim 4, CF4; claim 5, CF4]. As to claim 5 , modified Kanarik discloses the method, as recited in claim 1, wherein the etch gas further comprises an oxygen containing component comprising at least one of O 2 , O 3 , CO 2 , CO, NO, NO 2 , N 2 O, SO 2 , SO 3 , and COS [claim 5]. Here, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the etch gas of Kanarik to include carbon tetrafluoride and tungsten hexafluoride as an etchant component [claim 4], and COS or CO as passivation component [claim 5], because they are suitably employed together in the method of etching silicon oxide using an amorphous carbon mask, as taught by Kanarik [claims 4-5; para. 0027]. As to claim 6 , modified Kanarik discloses the method, as recited in claim 1, wherein the etch gas further comprises an inert gas from the group consisting of nitrogen, helium, argon, krypton, xenon, and neon [para. 0023, N.sub.2]. Here, Kanarik teaches in examples that nitrogen gas can be used as a component in the etching gas composition to improve etching [para. 0023]. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the etch gas of Kanarik to include carbon tetrafluoride and tungsten hexafluoride as an etchant component [claim 4], and further include nitrogen gas [para. 0023], in order to improve etch rate of silicon nitride, as taught by Kanarik [para. 0023]. As to claim 8 , modified Kanarik discloses the method, as recited in claim 1, wherein the metalloid halide gas or metal halide gas comprises at least one of WF 6 and MoF 6 gas [claim 4, Wf.sub.6]. As to claim 9 , modified Kanarik discloses the method, as recited in claim 1, wherein metalloid halide gas or metal halide gas comprises at least one of silicon (Si), germanium (Ge), tin (Sn), titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), hafnium (Hf), vanadium (V), niobium (Nb), tantalum (Ta), boron (B), aluminum (Al), gallium (Ga), indium (In), iron (Fe), ruthenium (Ru), rhenium (Re), antimony (Sb), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), or bismuth (Bi) [claim 4]. As to claim 10 , modified Kanarik discloses the method, as recited in claim 1, where the plasma is formed at a pressure of 1 - 500 millitorr with a power of 20 - 1000 Watts [para. 0040, overlapping ranges which provide a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed ranges]. As to claim 11 , modified Kanarik discloses the method, as recited in claim 1, further comprising providing an atomic layer etch of the at least one feature in the silicon oxide region after the selectively etching the at least one feature in the silicon oxide region with respect to the lower oxygen containing, wherein the atomic layer etch uses the metalloid or metal containing hardmask to reduce etching of the lower oxygen containing region [claims 9-11, para. 0027]. As to claim 13 , modified Kanarik discloses the method, as recited in claim 1, further comprising providing an additional etch of the at least one feature in the silicon oxide region after the selectively etching the at least one feature in the silicon oxide region with respect to the lower oxygen containing region, wherein the additional etch uses metalloid or metal containing hardmask as a mask and without further depositing the metalloid or metal containing hardmask [claims 9-11, para. 0027]. As to claim 14 , modified Kanarik discloses the method, as recited in claim 13, further comprising removing the metalloid or metal containing hardmask after the additional etch of the at least one feature [Fig. 4A-4B, show the etch is complete, and masks are implied to be removed after completion of etching processes]. As to claim 16 , modified Kanarik discloses the method, as recited in claim 1, further comprising providing a temperature of no more than 300° C [claim 1, overlapping range supports a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range] . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanarik et al. (WO 2019178030 A1) , as applied to claim s 1-6, 8-11, 13-14, and 16 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20200090944 A1) . As to claim 7 , modified Kanarik discloses the method, as recited in claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose: further comprising providing a selective pre-etch before providing the etch gas, wherein the selective pre-etch selectively and partially etches the at least one feature of the silicon oxide region with respect to the lower oxygen containing region without forming a metalloid or metal containing hardmask. However, Lee teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device [Abstract., para. 0019}, comprising etching a silicon oxide 140 with respect to an amorphous carbon mask 145, wherein the etching is conducted with C4F6 as the etching gas (i.e., no metalloid or metal containing materials in the etching gas). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the semiconductor patterning method, of Kanarik, to include an etching step of selectively etching silicon oxide with respect to an amorphous carbon mask, of Lee, in order to provide a breakthrough etch in preparation of the process of Kanarik. Additionally, this modification would have been obvious because it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known method to yield predictable results. Both the method the method taught by Kanarik and the method taught by Lee would have the same function in combination as they do separately, and the combination would have the predictable result of selectively pre-etching the silicon oxide prior to the etching process outlined by Kanarik . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanarik et al. (WO 2019178030 A1) , as applied to claim s 1-6, 8-11, 13-14, and 16 above, and further in view of Eppler et al. (US 20030232504 A1) . As to claim 12 , modified Kanarik discloses the method, as recited in claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the at least one feature has a width of less than 15 nm and a depth to width aspect ratio of at least 6:1 [para. 0041]. However, Eppler teaches a method of selective etching a silicon oxide region [para. 0009, 0013]. Eppler teaches that the etched feature should have a width of 250 nm or smaller [para. 0012]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method taught by Kanarik by selecting a width for a feature of 250 nm or less as taught by Eppler. This modification would have been obvious because it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The only difference between the claimed invention and the teachings of Kanarik is that Kanarik is silent on the width of the etched feature. Both Kanarik and Eppler teach the etching of a feature, and the selection of the width taught by Eppler would have the predictable result of determining the feature width. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanarik et al. (WO 2019178030 A1) , as applied to claim s 1-6, 8-11, 13-14, and 16 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20190385902 A1) . As to claim 15 , modified Kanarik discloses the method, as recited in claim 14, but fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the removing the metalloid or metal containing hardmask comprises a wet clean. However, Wang teaches that following an etching step, any remaining hardmask is to be removed, and that the hardmask is removed with a wet cleaning process [Abstract; para. 0058]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method outlined above in regards to claim 14, to further comprise removing the metalloid or metal containing hardmask after the additional etch of the at least one feature, wherein the removing of the metalloid or metal containing hardmask comprises a wet clean as taught by Wang [Abstract; para. 0058]. Additionally, the addition of the method step of removing the hardmask as taught by Wang to the method outlined above in regards to Claim 14, is the combination of known prior art elements to yield predictable results . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-2, 4-8, and 11-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12341021 B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : Instant claim 1 is anticipated by claim 4 (as it depends from claims 2 and 1) of ‘021. Instant claim 2 is obvious over claim 4 (as it depends from claims 2 and 1) of ‘201 as it recites multiple fluorocarbon species. Instant claims 3-4 are anticipated by claim 4 (as it depends from claims 2 and 1) of ‘021. Instant claim 5 is obvious over claim 4 in view of claim 5 of ‘021. Instant claim 6 is obvious over claim 4 in view of claim 6 of ‘021. Instant claim 7 is obvious over claim 4 in view of claim 7 of ‘021. Instant claim 8 is obvious over claim 4 in view of claim 8 of ‘021. Instant claim 9 is obvious over claim 4 in view of claim 11 of ‘021. Instant claim 10 is obvious over claim 4 in view of claim 12 of ‘021. Instant claim 11 is obvious over claim 4 in view of claim 13 of ‘021. Instant claim 12 is obvious over claim 4 in view of claim 14 of ‘021. Instant claim 13 is obvious over claim 4 in view of claim 15 of ‘021. Instant claim 14 is obvious over claim 4 in view of claim 16 (as it depends from claim 15) of ‘021. Instant claim 15 is obvious over claim 4 in view of claim 17 (as it depends from claim 16) of ‘021. Instant claim 16 is obvious over claim 4 in view of claim 18 of ‘021 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : The additionally cited references are cited to show semiconductor etching processes comprising etching gases having a fluorocarbon and tungsten hexafluoride and/or molybdenum hexafluoride [Abstracts] . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M REMAVEGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 AM - 3:30 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, 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. /CHRISTOPHER REMAVEGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/710,946 Page 2 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/710,946 Page 3 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/710,946 Page 4 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/710,946 Page 5 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/710,946 Page 6 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/710,946 Page 7 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/710,946 Page 8 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/710,946 Page 9 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/710,946 Page 10 Art Unit: 1713
Prosecution Insights