DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18752505 application filed June 24, 2024, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on June 12, 2026. Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s withdrawal of claim 19 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 1-18 in the reply filed on June 12, 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.Claim 18 recites “the steps of performing the second etch step and performing the second treatment step are alternated”; however, claim 17 recites only one step of performing the second etch step, and one step of performing a second treatment step. In order to perform these 2 steps in an alternate format, it would require at least 2 steps of each of performing the second etch step or performing a second treatment step, e.g. repeating the 2 steps. Thus, it appears that claim 18 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102:
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention..
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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.
Claim 1-4 and 9-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Farr et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20100055400), hereinafter “Farr”:--Claims 1, 4, 13: Farr teaches a method of smoothing the sidewalls of an etched feature by using reactive plasma milling (abstract), comprising:loading a substrate into a plasma chamber ([0035], Fig. 1), the substrate comprises a via hole that has a scalloped sidewall ([0073], Fig. 2A, 4A, 4B and 5A), wherein the via is generated by cyclic steps in a deep etch process ([0016]);supplying an etching gas into the plasma chamber ([0035]), then supplying RF power to generating a plasma ([0036]), wherein the etching gas may comprise C4F8, O2 and Ar ([0062], Table Two), wherein the plasma smoothen out the scalloped sidewall ([0063-0064, 0069, 0071], Fig. 2B, 3B, 3C and 5B). It is noted that C4F8 is a per-fluorocarbon, and the step of plasma smoothening reads on the treatment step recited in claim 1. Although Farr does not disclose the claimed feature of the plasma causes a protective layer formed at least partially from the C4F8 to be deposited on the sidewall and etches the sidewall so as to smooth the scalloped profile of the sidewall, or that the protective layer is a polymer; since the plasma comprising C4F8, O2 and Ar taught by Farr is the same as Applicant’s, it would produce the same effects, as taught by Applicant. According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. It has been established that where an examiner has reason to believe that a characteristic or functional limitation in a claim may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic the applicant is relying on for patentability. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971). An examiner’s belief is reasonable where starting materials and processing of the prior art are so similar to those disclosed by the applicant that it appears that the claimed function or property would naturally result when conducting the process as taught in the prior art. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Best, at 1255. “Inherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis’ where the limitation at issue is ‘the natural result of the combination of prior art elements'.'''’ Id. (quoting PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Alternately, although Farr does not disclose the exact combination of gases recited in claim 1, 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 a plasma comprising the above gases from the list of possible gases tin Table Two in the absence of an unexpected result. It is noted that Table Two further comprises SF6, HBr, He, N2 and CF4; however, these gases are optional, i.e. may have zero flow rate.--Claims 2, 3: Farr further teaches that the RF power may be 1500-2500 W, and the chamber pressure may be 10-350 mTorr during the smoothening. These overlap the ranges recited in claims 2 and 3.--Claim 9: Farr further teaches that the smoothening may be performed at an ESC substrate support temperature 60 to -15C ([0040, 0042]. This overlaps the claimed temperature range in claim 9.--Claim 10: Farr further teaches that the substrate is a silicon substrate ([0040, 0042].--Claim 11: Farr further teaches that the depth of the via may be about 50 µm ([0063]).--Claim 12: Farr further teaches that the substrate may comprise a photoresist mask ([0052, 0057, 0073]).--Claim 14: Farr further teaches that the smoothen out reduces the heights of the scallops ([0041, 0063-0064, 0069, 0071], Fig. 2B, 3B, 3C and 5B).
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 5-8 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farr:--Claim 5: Farr further teaches that the etching gas may further comprise SF6, HBr, He, N2 and CF4; however, these gases are optional, i.e. may have zero flow rate. 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 consisting essentially of Ar, O2 and C4F8 in the invention of Farr.--Claim 6: Farr further teaches that the Ar gas may be supplied at 0-200 sccm (Table Two). 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 supply Ar at 100-200 sccm in the invention of Farr.--Claim 7: Farr further teaches that the O2 gas may be supplied at 0-200 sccm (Table Two). 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 supply O2 at 30-100 sccm in the invention of Farr.--Claim 8: Farr further teaches that the C4F8 gas may be supplied at 0-400 sccm (Table Two). 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 supply C4F8 at 10-70 sccm in the invention of Farr.--Claim 15: Farr further teaches that the smoothening may reduce the height of a scallop from about 700 nm to about 330 nm ([0063-0064], Fig. 2A and 2B), or to less than 10 nm ([0065], Fig. 2C). 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 reduce the height of a scallop by at least 50% in the invention of Farr.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farr in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20070281474), hereinafter “Suzuki”:--Claim 16: Farr teaches the invention as in claim 1, wherein Farr teaches that the substrate comprises a via hole that has a scalloped sidewall ([0073], Fig. 2A, 4A, 4B and 5A). Farr further teaches that the smoothening process is performed in a plasma chamber comprising an inductive RF power generator and reactive gases ([0043-0045]), and that the process may be performed in any other appropriate chamber ([0038]). Farr further teaches that the via hole is generated by cyclic steps in a deep etch process ([0016]), and that the deep etch process may be performed through a photoresist mask ([0073, 0052, 0057]). Farr is silent about the deep etch process. Suzuki teaches a method to etch a deep via hole through a semiconductor substrate through a photoresist mask ([0052]) by using an inductive plasma comprising O2, C4F8 and SF6 ([0036]), wherein the via hole is formed by alternate plasma etching and plasma deposition, i.e. a Bosch process ([0036]) to produce a via hole having scalloped sidewalls (Fig. 1). Therefore, it is obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the deep etch process that produces the deep via hole having scalloped sidewall in the same plasma chamber as the smoothening process because Farr teaches that the via hole is generated by cyclic steps in a deep etch process but is silent about the apparatus that is used, and Suzuki teaches that the same chamber is capable of performing the deep etch process. It is noted that this would not only reduce equipment cost, but also reduce process time and contamination that may be resulted from additional transfer to a different chamber.
Claims 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farr in view of Suzuki as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Winniczek et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20130237062), hereinafter “Winniczek”:
--Claim 17: Farr modified by Suzuki teaches the invention as above. Farr and Suzuki fails to teach the claimed feature of performing a second etch step and a second smoothening step. Winniczek, also directed to plasma etching a via hole in a silicon substrate (abstract), teaches that traditional Bosch process that etches a via hole in a single step would disadvantageously create very large scallops ([0025]), while using a less aggressive Bosch process to reduce the size of the scallops would be time consuming ([0026). In improving upon a Bosch process to produce via holes with no scallop, Winniczek teaches that the via hole may be formed in 4 steps:(i) etching to form a first hole to a first depth;(ii) forming a protective layer on the sidewall of the first hole;(iii) further etching to extend the first hole to a second depth, wherein the sidewall of the extended section of the hole have scalloped features;(iv) smoothening the scalloped features ([0033]). Winniczek further teaches that the smoothening may be performed by using a plasma comprising O2 and CF4 ([0061]), and may further comprises C2F6 ([0063]) and Ar ([0055]). Winniczek further teaches that this method improves upon a traditional Bosch process. 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 the multiple-step process taught by Winniczek instead of the single-step process taught by Farr because Winniczek teaches that this would produce via holes with no scallop at a reduced etch time. This would comprise, after forming a via hole that extends to a first depth as shown in Claim 1 above, execute steps (ii), (iii) and (iv) to extend the via hole to a second depth. It is noted that the smoothening process taught by Winniczek is similar to the smoothening process in the invention of Farr modified by Suzuki. It is noted that step (iii) reads on the second etch step, and step (iv) reads on the second treatment step recited in claim 17.--Claim 18: It is noted that step (ii) protect the existing via hole while steps (iii) and (iv) extend the via hole to a new depth. 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 repeat step (ii)-(iv) a plurality of times to extend the via hole to a final depth. This would comprise repeating step (iii) and step (iv) in an alternate manner.
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
