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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the objection to claims 15 and 19. Applicant argues the objection is improper because claim 15 does not actually require the member to be a single member.
In response to this it appears Applicant is attempting to claim two separate embodiments one in claim 17 that requires the member is formed of a single member and one in claim 19 where the member includes one or more layers. Examiner appreciates this clarification and the objection is withdrawn. For claim interpretation the member and or layer/layers are not distinguished in any particular way in claims 15, 17, 19 thus any portion of the member may be considered a layer.
Applicant argues that amended claim 9 requires that the sidewalls have a streak from the first opening to the bottom surface or second opening. The second opening is alternative in the claims thus this argument is moot to the present rejection. Applicant argues that Okada contains no disclosure that a streak exists and Examiner relies on inherency. Examiner maintains a skilled artisan knows the dry etching yields a streak in the drywall as evidenced by:
JP 2007005528
when dry etching is performed as described above, as shown in FIGS. 8 and 9, in the trench groove 111 formed in the silicon substrate 101, streak-like disturbances in the depth direction may occur on the side wall surface 111a. Protruding residue 111b is generated
EP 4033526
DRIE (“Deep Reactive Ionic Etching”) etching of a silicon layer or substrate makes it possible to structure the sides of the etched zone and to have a “scalloping” effect (or “scalloping” or “scalloping”). streaks" or "roughness")
TW 202114075
By adjusting the amount of oxygen incorporated in the silicon nitride in this part of the stack, these problems can be limited or solved. For example, due to the lateral etching of silicon nitride by free radical effluent in the RIE process, some bends and streaks may occur, which may expose additional silicon oxide and increase the amount of etching of those materials, thereby increasing the impact. By limiting the influence on the nitride material, the influence on the oxide material can also be reduced, thereby improving these problems and the uniformity of the formation of memory holes. By increasing the amount of oxygen incorporated in the nitride layer in areas where streaks and/or bends may occur, the resistance to lateral etching can be increase
US 20200395274
[0027] When the taper angle θ.sub.1 is small, even a side surface portion of the protective film formed in step (2) in the Bosch process described above, other than the bottom portion, is partially removed in step (3), and etching progresses from a portion where silicon as the substrate 111 is exposed. When etching progresses from the portion where silicon is exposed in this manner, a hole 145 having a vertical streak shape is formed as shown in FIG. 5C.
JP2019215317
When the silicon material 22 is formed by processing a silicon wafer 40 (see FIG. 3) by RIE (reactive ion etching) or the like, a defect 23 such as a notch or a vertical streak occurs on the side surface 22A of the silicon material 22. (See FIGS. 2A and 2B).
JP 2015119170
In the chemical etching process, each of the plurality of chip main bodies has a streak-like concave portion extending from a surface of the chip main body on which the protective film is formed toward a surface on the opposite side. The method according to any one of [1] to [7], which is performed so as to have a convex portion.
All included herein.
Applicant further argues that Okada does not depict the recessed structure has a taper angle between 0-2 degrees. The office cites Okada Fig 1 which depicts parallel sidewalls thus an angle between 0-2 degrees and further indicates Okada does not disclose the dimensions of the recess however it would be obvious to one
skilled in the art to for the recess as motivated to achieve the desired shape semiconductor.
In Gardner V. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S.
830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that absent persuasive
evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.
Applicant argues the taper angle defines the geometry of the recessed structure is substantially perpendicular. In response Fig 1 of Okada depicts perpendicular recessed structure. Applicant has made no substantial argument why this shape could not also be optimized. Applicant provides no unexpected results to the claimed angle that teach it would not be obvious to one skilled in the art to for the recess as motivated to achieve the desired shape semiconductor. The arguments that one of ordinary skill in the art could not and would not optimize the shape of the recess as motivated to achieve the desired shape of the semiconductor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9-10, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (US 20170358458) and as evidenced by Ikeda JP 2007005528
Regarding claims 9 and 13, Okada discloses a member such as semiconductor [0024] comprising;
A recessed structure (110) formed by an opening in a first surface and surrounding side walls considered a bottomed surface and a through structure (see at least Fig 1)
The first surface comprises Si as depicted in Fig. 1 [0024]-[0026].
Okada discloses the recess formed by etching [0026]-[0027] thus at least one streak will exist as indicated in the specification of the present application [0128]-[0130] as further evidenced by Ikeda (at least the abstract, Page 2 ¶3, Page 8 ¶7, drawing descriptions)
When the silicon material 22 is formed by processing a silicon wafer 40 (see FIG. 3) by RIE (reactive ion etching) or the like, a defect 23 such as a notch or a vertical streak occurs on the side surface 22A of the silicon material 22. (See FIGS. 2A and 2B).
Okada does not specifically disclose the dimensions of the recess as claimed however depicts an angle between 0-2 in Fig. 1
Furthermore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to for the recess as motivated to achieve the desired shape semiconductor.
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.
Regarding claim 10, the surface of the recess is silica thus comprising O (fig 1)
Regarding claim 12, the recessed structure (110) is considered a bottomed groove, or bottomed hole, or bottomed groove given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 14, Okada discloses the member may have a film of silica or silicon nitride [0028].
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (US 20170358458).
Regarding claim 15, Okada discloses a member such as semiconductor [0024] comprising;
A recessed structure (110) formed by an opening in a first surface and surrounding side walls considered a bottomed surface and a through structure (see at least Fig 1)
The first surface comprises Si as depicted in Fig. 1 [0024]-[0026].
Okada discloses the recess formed by etching [0026]-[0027] thus at least one streak will exist as indicated in the specification of the present application [0128]-[0130].
Okada does not disclose the dimensions of the recess however it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to for the recess as motivated to achieve the desired shape semiconductor.
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.
the specification of the present application [0128]-[0130].
Regarding claim 16, the surface of the recess is silica thus comprising O (fig 1)
Regarding claims 17-19, the member (Fig. 1) disclosed by Okada may be a crystalline [0024], or silica glass [0024] considered to be formed of multiple members or a single member and multiple layers (Fig 1) given the broadest reasonable interpretation as none of the members have been defined
the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."; but see Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
Regarding claim 20, Okada discloses the member may have a film of silica or silicon nitride [0028].
Conclusion
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 JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 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, Alison Hindelang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights