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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-9 and 18, in the reply filed on 08/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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, 3-4, 6-9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toda et al. (US-20160005621-A1) in view of Suemasa (US-20150079801-A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Toda teaches a gas treatment method of performing a gas treatment on a substrate having a recess (Paragraph [0002] etching process using processing gas taught. Paragraph [0031] Figure 3 substrate is provided that comprises grooves (element 63)), the gas treatment method comprising:
disposing the substrate having the recess in a chamber (Paragraphs [0033-0034] substrate is provided to processing chamber 1);
subsequently, performing the gas treatment on a side wall of the recess of the substrate by causing a treatment reaction by a process gas in the chamber (Paragraph [0041] NH3 and HF react with the SiO2 material. Figure 9 SiO2 exists on the sidewall of the recess (element 63) that is defined by the Si material (element 62) and reacts with NH3 and HF).
Toda fails to teach adjusting a pressure inside the chamber to a predetermined pressure by supplying a pressure adjustment gas into the chamber in an evacuated state to increase the pressure inside the chamber and that the process gas causing the treatment reaction is used as at least a part of the pressure adjustment gas in the adjusting the pressure. However, Toda teaches that the pressure is controlled and that gases are supplied to the chamber (Paragraph [0038] pressure is controlled, example pressure provided is below atmospheric pressure. NH3 and HF are supplied to the chamber).
Suemasa teaches a gas treatment process (Paragraph [0046]) that includes supplying HF and NH3 to a chamber to react with a silicon oxide film on a substrate (Paragraphs [0051-0052]). Suemasa teaches evacuating the chamber prior to the treatment steps (Paragraphs [0049-0051] load-lock chamber (element 3) is evacuated, substrate is placed in chamber (element 40), Paragraphs [0042] and [0045] chamber (element 40) can be evacuated). Suemasa teaches that gases, in particular the gases used in the reaction, are supplied to the chamber as part of the process where the pressure in the chamber is controlled during processing and increased at the start of the process (Paragraphs [0049-0052] and [0062] HF and NH3 are supplied to control the pressure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Toda such that the controlling of the pressure during the process that is taught by Toda, includes increasing the pressure in the chamber and that part of the increasing the pressure includes supplying the process gases, as taught by Suemasa.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Suemasa teaches that controlling and increasing the pressure during the process allows for more control over the etch shape and etch property achieved by the process (Paragraph [0058]). Additionally, this modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This modification would have provided a suitable set of guidelines on how the pressure within the chamber should be controlled during the etch process. See MPEP2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Toda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Toda further teaches wherein the gas treatment is an etching (Paragraph [0002] etching process using processing gas taught).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Toda teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 3 as outlined above. Toda further teaches wherein the process gas includes a basic gas and a fluorine-containing gas, and etches a silicon oxide-based material present on the side wall of the recess of the substrate (Paragraph [0041] NH3, which can be considered a basic gas, and HF, which is fluorine-containing, react with the SiO2 material. Figure 9 SiO2 exists on the sidewall of the recess (element 63) that is defined by the Si material (element 62) and reacts with NH3 and HF).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Toda teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 4 as outlined above. Toda further teaches wherein the pressure adjustment gas in the adjusting the pressure further includes an inert gas, in addition to the basic gas and the fluorine- containing gas as the process gas (Paragraph [0038] Ar and N2 are also supplied and can be considered inert gases).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Toda teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 as outlined above. Toda further teaches wherein the basic gas and the fluorine-containing gas, as the process gas, and the inert gas are supplied in the adjusting the pressure and are continuously supplied in the performing the gas treatment (Paragraphs [0036-0037] and [0041] Figure 4 the period of time between t2 and t3 can be considered the period of performing the gas treatment, as this is when the reaction with SiO2 occurs).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Toda teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 as outlined above. Toda further teaches wherein the basic gas is an NH3 gas and the fluorine-containing gas is a HF gas (Paragraph [0041] NH3 and HF are supplied to react with the SiO2 material).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Toda teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 as outlined above. Toda further teaches further comprising evacuating an interior of the chamber after the performing the gas treatment, wherein the adjusting the pressure, the performing the gas treatment, and the evacuating the interior of the chamber are repeated multiple times (Paragraph [0041] after the supply of NH3 and HF are stopped the reaction by-product is volatilized by vacuum evacuation and removed. Paragraphs [0036-0037] Figure 4 the step of supplying the HF and NH3 gases (time between t2 and t3), which can be considered performing the gas treatment, is repeated with the step of evacuating the reaction by product (time between t3 and t4)).
Regarding Claim 18, Toda teaches a gas treatment method of performing a gas treatment on a substrate having a recess (Paragraph [0002] etching process using processing gas taught. Paragraph [0031] Figure 3 substrate is provided that comprises grooves (element 63)), the gas treatment method comprising:
disposing the substrate having the recess in a chamber (Paragraphs [0033-0034] substrate is provided to processing chamber 1);
subsequently, performing the gas treatment on a side wall of the recess of the substrate by causing a treatment reaction by a process gas in the chamber (Paragraph [0041] NH3 and HF react with the SiO2 material. Figure 9 SiO2 exists on the sidewall of the recess (element 63) that is defined by the Si material (element 62) and reacts with NH3 and HF)
evacuating an interior of the chamber after the performing the gas treatment (Paragraph [0041] after the supply of NH3 and HF are stopped the reaction by-product is volatilized by vacuum evacuation and removed),
wherein the adjusting the pressure, the performing the gas treatment, and the evacuating the interior of the chamber are repeated multiple times ([0036-0037] Figure 4 the step of supplying the HF and NH3 gases (time between t2 and t3), which can be considered performing the gas treatment, is repeated with the step of evacuating the reaction by product (time between t3 and t4). The step of adjusting the pressure is included within the modified method as outlined below and would necessarily occur during the beginning of the supply of the non-inert gases as this would affect the pressure in the chamber. As seen in Figure 4 the steps are repeated), and
wherein in the performing the gas treatment, a temperature of the substrate is in a range of 75 degrees C to 150 degrees C (Paragraph [0033] wafer is heated to about 115°C).
Toda fails to teach adjusting a pressure inside the chamber to a predetermined pressure by supplying a pressure adjustment gas into the chamber in an evacuated state to increase the pressure inside the chamber and that the process gas causing the treatment reaction is used as at least a part of the pressure adjustment gas in the adjusting the pressure. However, Toda teaches that the pressure is controlled and that gases are supplied to the chamber (Paragraph [0038] pressure is controlled, example pressure provided is below atmospheric pressure. NH3 and HF are supplied to the chamber).
Suemasa teaches a gas treatment process (Paragraph [0046]) that includes supplying HF and NH3 to a chamber to react with a silicon oxide film on a substrate (Paragraphs [0051-0052]). Suemasa teaches evacuating the chamber prior to the treatment steps (Paragraphs [0049-0051] load-lock chamber (element 3) is evacuated, substrate is placed in chamber (element 40), Paragraphs [0042] and [0045] chamber (element 40) can be evacuated). Suemasa teaches that gases, in particular the gases used in the reaction, are supplied to the chamber as part of the process where the pressure in the chamber is controlled during processing and increased at the start of the process (Paragraphs [0049-0052] and [0062] HF and NH3 are supplied to control the pressure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Toda such that the controlling of the pressure during the process that is taught by Toda, includes increasing the pressure in the chamber and that part of the increasing the pressure includes supplying the process gases, as taught by Suemasa.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Suemasa teaches that controlling and increasing the pressure during the process allows for more control over the etch shape and etch property achieved by the process (Paragraph [0058]). Additionally, this modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This modification would have provided a suitable set of guidelines on how the pressure within the chamber should be controlled during the etch process. See MPEP2143(I)(A).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toda in view of Suemasa, as outlined above in regards to Claim 1 and further in view of Sugiura et al. (US-20210320003-A1)
Regarding Claim 2, modified Toda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Toda teaches that the recesses can have varying aspect ratios (Paragraph [0005] recesses are the result of varying pattern density, Figure 3 shows recesses with similar depth and varied widths).
Toda fails to teach wherein an aspect ratio of the recess of the substrate is 25 or more.
Sugiura teaches methods related to manufacturing electronic devices (Paragraph [0002]). Sugiura teaches that a substrate comprise silicon and features with an aspect ratio of about 3.0 to 100.0 (Paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Toda by selecting as an aspect ratio of the recesses an aspect ratio within the range taught by Sugiura.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This modification would have had the predictable result of providing a suitable aspect ratio for a feature within a silicon substrate. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated and aspect ratio at a level within the disclosed range of about 3.0 to 100.0, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 25 or more. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toda in view of Suemasa, as outlined above in regards to Claims 1, 3, and 4, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US-20210375634-A1)
Regarding Claim 5, modified Toda teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 4 as outlined above.
Toda fails to teach wherein the substrate includes a stacked structure portion formed by alternately stacking an SiO2 film, which is the silicon oxide- based material, and an SiN film multiple times, and includes a hole as the recess formed in a stacked direction of the stacked structure portion, and wherein in the performing the gas treatment, the SiO2 film present on the side wall of the hole is etched.
Suzuki teaches a method of dry etching silicon oxide (Paragraph [0001]). Suzuki teaches supplying HF and a basic compound so that it reacts with a silicon oxide material (Paragraph [0015]). Suzuki teaches that it can be desirable to etch silicon oxide layers from a stack of alternating silicon oxide and silicon nitride layers in order to form a device comprising a number of parallel SiN layer with spaces between them (Paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Toda by applying the method taught by Toda to comprising alternating layer of silicon oxide and silicon nitride, with the intent of forming device with a number of parallel SiN layers with spaces between them.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Toda teaches a method of selectively etching silicon oxide and one of ordinary skill in the art could have desired to use this method in alternative situations than the specific embodiment taught by Toda. This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This modification would have had the predictable result of supplying a substrate with silicon oxide material on sidewalls of a recess that could be etched by the silicon oxide etching processes taught by Toda. See MPEP 21453(I)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KEELAN LAOBAK whose telephone number is (703)756-5447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:30pm.
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.
/A.K.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights