DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending before the Office for review.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RENNER et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0093500) in view of KULKARNI (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0098292) and YANG et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0053810).
With regards to claims 1 and 10, Renner discloses a plasm etching method and method of manufacturing a display apparatus (Paragraph [0014]-[0015] various integrated circuit and/or circuit structures used in a plurality of devices) comprising: performing a substrate arrangement operation comprising arranging a substrate including a conductive layer including copper on a mounting portion of a plasma etching apparatus (Paragraphs [0015]-[0020], [0041] discloses providing a substrate comprising an electrically conductive material including copper wherein the substate is introduced into a plasma processing chamber by a carrier); performing a first preliminary etching operation comprising supplying a first etching gas including a chlorine element into the chamber and performing a first etching operation comprising supplying a second etching gas including a hydrogen element into the chamber (Paragraphs [0033]-[0034]).
Renner does not explicitly disclose a first preliminary etching operation comprising applying a first bias voltage to a lower electrode arranged below the substrate and performing a first etching process comprising applying a second bias voltage to the lower electrode wherein the first bias voltage is less than the second bias voltage.
Kulkarni discloses a method of etching copper comprising performing a first preliminary etching operation comprising supplying a first etching gas including a chlorine element into a processing chamber (Paragraphs [0078]-[0080]) and performing a first etching operation comprising suppling a second etching gas including a hydrogen (Paragraph [0087]-[0093]). Yang discloses a method of plasma etching a metal layer comprising treating a metal surface with a modification gas wherein the modification gas may comprise chlorine containing gas for form a modified surface; forming a second plasma to remove the modified layer wherein a bias may be applied during the modification operation to allow control of the depth in the modification and the subsequent removal; and wherein a bias may be applied during the removal to facilitate directional ion bombardment (Paragraphs [0022]-[0044]). In addition, Yang discloses wherein plasma employed during the modification may not use a bias or may use a small bias useful for providing directionality of the modification species (Paragraph [0030]) and wherein during removal the bias may be provided to facilitate direction ion bombardment to prevent sputtering but allow the removal gas to etch the material (Paragraph [0044]) rendering obvious wherein the first bias voltage is less than the second bias voltage.
In the alternative, Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the bias voltages to amounts including wherein the first bias voltage is less than the second bias voltage in order to provide directionality of the modification species and facilitate direction ion bombardment to prevent sputtering but allow the removal gas to etch the material as taught by the modified teachings of Renner (Yang Paragraphs [0030], [0044], MPEP 2144.05(II)). As such Renner as modified by Kulkarni and Yang renders obvious performing a substrate arrangement operation comprising arranging a substrate including a conductive layer including copper on a mounting portion in a chamber of a plasma etching apparatus; performing a first preliminary etching operation comprising supplying a first etching gas including a chlorine element into the chamber and applying a first bias voltage to a lower electrode arranged below the substrate; and performing a first etching operation comprising supplying a second etching gas including a hydrogen element into the chamber and applying a second bias voltage to the lower electrode, wherein the first bias voltage is less than the second bias voltage.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Renner to include the plasma etching gas and copper as rendered obvious by Kulkarni because the reference of Kulkarni teaches that such gas etching allows for the multistep dry etching of copper at a rapid cost effective environment (Paragraph [0013]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired etching using the chlorine and hydrogen plasma as rendered obvious by Kulkarni. MPEP 2143D
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Renner to include the bias voltage as rendered obvious by Yang because the reference of Yang teaches that bias voltage provided directionality of the modification species (Paragraph [0030]) and facilitates direction ion bombardment to prevent sputtering but allow the removal gas to etch the material (Paragraph [0044]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired etching using the bias voltage as rendered obvious by Yang. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claims 2 and 11, the modified teachings of Renner renders obvious wherein: the conductive layer includes a first portion on which a mask is arranged and a second portion on which the mask is not arranged (Renner [0015]-[0020], [0041]) , the first preliminary etching operation comprises forming a converted portion by converting copper included in the second portion into copper chloride, and the first etching operation includes removing the converted portion (Kulkarni Paragraphs [0012],-[0013], [0080], [0087]-[0091]).
With regards to claims 3 and 12, the modified teachings of Renner renders obvious wherein the first preliminary etching operation further comprises converting the copper included the second portion into the copper chloride through a reaction corresponding to at least one of following reaction formulas: Reaction Formula 1: Cu(s) + 1/2Cl2(g) → CuCl(s); Reaction Formula 2: CuCl(s) + 1/2Cl2(g) → CuCl2(s); Reaction Formula 3: Cu(s) + Cl2(g) → CuCl2(g); and Reaction Formula 4: 3Cu(s) + 3/2Cl2(g) → Cu3Cl3(g). (Kulkarni Paragraphs [0024], [0047]-[0048, [0080], [0084]-[0085]).
With regards to claims 4 and 13, the modified teachings of Renner renders obvious wherein the first etching operation further comprises removing the converted portion through a reaction corresponding to at least one of following reaction formulas: Reaction Formula 5: 3CuCl2(s) + 3H(g) → Cu3Cl3(g) + 3HCl(g); Reaction Formula 6: CuCl2(s) + 3H(g) → CuH(g) + 2HCl(g); Reaction Formula 7: CuCl(s) + 2H(g) → CuH(g) + HCl(g); and Reaction Formula 8: 3CuCl2(s) + 3/2H2(g) → Cu3Cl3(g) + 3HCl(g). (Kulkarni Paragraphs [0070]-[0072], [0091]).
With regards to claims 7 and 18, the modified teachings of Renner renders obvious : performing a second preliminary etching operation comprising supplying the first etching gas including the chlorine element into the chamber and applying the first bias voltage to the lower electrode arranged below the substrate; and performing a second etching operation comprising supplying the second etching gas including the hydrogen element into the chamber and applying the second bias voltage to the lower electrode. (Kulkarni Paragraphs [0079-[0098] discloses repeating the chlorine modification and hydrogen plasma removal until the desired material is etched Yang Paragraphs [0022]-[0044], [0049] discloses repeating the modification and removal steps with the processing gases while applying the bias voltage).
With regards to claims 8 and 19, the modified teachings of Renner renders obvious wherein: the conductive layer includes a first portion on which a mask is arranged and a second portion on which the mask is not arranged, the second portion includes a first sub-portion adjacent to a surface of the second portion and a second sub-portion excluding the first sub-portion, the first preliminary etching operation further includes forming a first converted sub-portion by converting copper included in the first sub-portion into copper chloride, the first etching operation further comprises removing the first converted sub-portion, the second preliminary etching operation further includes forming a second converted sub-portion by converting copper included in the second sub-portion into copper chloride, and the second etching operation further includes removing the second converted sub-portion. (Renner Paragraphs [0067] discloses providing a semiconductor wafer including pattern resist layer with the pattern resist layer exposing portions of a material to be removed Kulkarni Paragraphs [0079]-[0098] discloses providing a copper surface with a patterned photoresist wherein the exposed copper is modified by a chlorine plasma to form a modified copper chloride layer; etching the copper chloride layer with hydrogen and forming a subsequent modified copper layer and removing the subsequent modified copper chloride layer with hydrogen)
With regards to claims 9 and 20, the modified teachings of Renner discloses where in the modified layer is perfumed to a thickness of reactive surface layer to be removed wherein the amount to be remove maybe include 0.5 nm or 1 nm (Yang Paragraphs [0030], [0034, [0050]( rendering obvious wherein a thickness of the first sub-portion is from about 500 Å or greater to less than about 2,000 Å. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Renner in view of Kulkarni and Yang as the closet prior art of record. However with regards to claims 5 and 16 the cited prior art fails to teach or render obvious “… wherein the first etching operation includes stopping the applying of the second bias voltage to the lower electrode in response to a temperature of the mounting portion being greater than 10 °C.” With regards to claim 6 and 17, the cited prior art fails to teach or render obvious “…wherein the first etching operation further includes stopping the supplying of the second etching gas including the hydrogen element into the chamber in response to a temperature of the mounting portion being greater than 10°C.” With regards to claims 14 and 15, the cited prior art fails to teach or render obvious “wherein the first portion corresponds to a gate electrode” and “wherein the first portion corresponds to at least one of a source electrode and a drain electrode.” A further search of the prior art has failed to produce analogous art which teaches or renders obvious Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE P. DUCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5502. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30 M-F.
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.
/STEPHANIE P DUCLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights