DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-6, 8-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,087,593 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of current application are broader than claims 1-11 in US Patent No. 12/087,593 B2.
The following table will match the claims of current application vs. Claims of US 12,087,593
18/791,464 Claims US 12,087,593 B2 Claims
1 1 and 4
2 4
3 3
4 4
5 1
6 5
8 1
9 12
10 8
11 9
4. Claims 12-15, 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,087,593 B2 in view of Moslehi (US 5,252,178)
Claim 12 of the current application differs from claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,087,593 B2 by further disclose providing a gas that does not form a plasma on an edge portion of the silicon nitride layer. However, claim 1 of US 12,087,593 clearly discloses spraying an unsaturated fluorocarbon to the edge portion of the silicon nitride layer. Moslehi discloses flowing a non-plasma process gases into the process chamber to mix with the plasma gas, wherein the non-plasma process gas does not form a plasma on an edge portion of the nitride layer (See Moslehi’s claims 8, claim 21; col. 1 lines 33-38; col. 9 lines 1-5; ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify claims of US 12,087,593 B2 in view of Moslehi by flowing a gas that does not form a plasma on an edge portion of the nitride layer because it increases real time control of the plasma process parameters including process uniformity (col. 3 lines26-30).
As to claim 13, US Patent No. 12,087,593 B2 claim 4 discloses the gas comprises an unsaturated bond, and the method further comprises performing a plasma polymerization reaction with the etching plasma to form a polymer from the gas (See claim 4 of US Patent No. 12,087,593 B2).
As to claim 14, US Patent No. 12,087,593 B2 claim 3 discloses the gas comprises hexafluorobutadiene.
As to claim 15, US Patent No. 12,087,593 B2 claims 1 and 10 discloses providing the gas on the edge portion of the nitride layer is performed by providing the gas through an annular conduit having a plurality of holes.
As to claim 17, US Patent No. 12,087,593 B2 claim 1 discloses etching the nitride layer with the etching plasma and providing the gas on the edge portion of the nitride layer are performed simultaneously.
As to claim 18, , US Patent No. 12,087,593 B2 claim 12 discloses providing the gas with a first flow rate; and after providing the gas with the first flow rate, providing the gas with a second flow rate larger than the first flow rate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
7. Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bera et al. (US 2007/0251642 A1).
As to claim 1, Bera discloses a method of plasma etching, comprising:
spraying an etching plasma (oxygen or nitrogen) onto a nitride layer through a plasma inlet (180) (paragraph 0034, 0036, 0045, 0047) and
spraying a protecting gas onto an edge portion of the nitride layer through a gas inlet (115 and/or 120), wherein the gas inlet surrounds the plasma inlet (180), and the protecting gas reacts with the etching plasma to form a polymer (paragraph 0024-0025, 0032-0034, 0039, 0041, 0042, 0045, 0047, 0048, 0050).
As to claim 2, Bera discloses the protecting gas comprises an unsaturated bond (i.e. C4F6 or C2F4) to form the polymer by performing a plasma polymerization reaction with the etching plasma (See paragraph 0024-0025, 0032-0034, 0039, 0041, 0042, 0045, 0047, 0048, 0050,
Note C4F6 or C2F4 is exposed to etching plasma of oxygen and/or nitrogen to form polymer. C4F6 and C2F4 comprises unsaturated bond (i.e. double bond or triple bond); See evidence references as cited below:
Wikipedia, “Tetrafluoroethylene” via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrafluoroethylene
Wikipedia, “Hexafluorobutadiene” via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorobutadiene
Wikipedia, “Hexafluorocyclobutane” via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorocyclobutene
Wikipedia, “Hexafluoro-2-butyne” via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluoro-2-butyne
As to claim 4, Bera discloses the polymer is deposited on the edge of the portion of the nitride layer (paragraph 0045, 0047).
As to claim 5, Bera discloses the gas inlet is an annular conduit (115) having a plurality of holes (121) facing the edge portion of the nitride layer (See Fig 1A, paragraph 0027, 0032, 0033, 0035, 0037-0038, 0042).
As to claim 8, Bera discloses spraying the etching plasma (oxygen or nitrogen gas) and spraying the protecting gas (polymerizing gas) are performed simultaneously (See Fig 1A, paragraph 0042, 0044-0045).
As to claim 9, Bara discloses spraying the protecting gas with a first flow rate (Fig 12 step 500) and after spraying the protecting gas with a first flow rate, spraying the protecting gas with a second flow rate larger than the first flow rate (Fig 12 step 501, paragraph 0024, 0050-0054).
As to claim 10, Bera discloses the etching plasma comprises oxygen (See Fig 1A, paragraph 0036-0045).
As to claim 11, Bera discloses the nitride layer comprises silicon nitride (paragraph 0045, 0047).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bera et al. (US 2007/0251642 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Luo (CN 109065432 A).
As to claim 3, Bera fails to disclose the protecting gas comprises hexafluorobutadiene. However, Bera clearly teaches to use the protecting gas comprises C4F6 (See paragraph 0045). The molecular formula C4F6 gas comprises either one of the following gases: hexafluorobutadiene, hexafluorocyclobutane and hexafluoro-2-butyne (See evidence reference: Wikipedia, “C4F6” via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4F6 ). Luo discloses to use hexafluoro butadiene as a processing gas (paragraph 0017, 0057). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bera in view of Luo by using hexafluorobutadiene because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
10. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bera et al. (US 2007/0251642 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hidaka et al. (US 2004/0140536 A1).
As to claim 6, Bera fails to disclose wherein the edge portion of the nitride layer is a portion having a width of 3 mm to 5 mm from an edge of the nitride layer. Hidaka discloses the edge portion of the nitride layer is a portion having a width of 3 mm to 5 mm from an edge of the nitride layer (paragraph 0065). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bera in view of Hidaka by having the edge portion of the nitride layer is a portion having a width of 3 mm to 5 mm from an edge of the nitride layer because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
11. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bera et al. (US 2007/0251642 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kholodenko et al. (US 6,676,760 B2).
As to claim 7, Bera fails to disclose wherein an angle between a direction of spraying the protecting gas and a surface of the nitride layer is from 85° to 95°. However, Bera clearly disclose spraying the protecting gas to the nitride layer. Kholodenko discloses wherein an angle between a direction of spraying the protecting gas and a surface of the substrate is 90 degree (See col. 10 line 63 to col. 11 line 10, col. 11 lines 56-67; within applicant’s range of 85 ° to 95 °). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bera in view of Kholodenko by having an angle between a direction of spraying the protecting gas and a surface of the nitride layer is around 90 ° because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
12. Claims 12-13, 15, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bera et al. (US 2007/0251642 A1) in view of Moslehi (US 5,252,178)
Note:
As to claim 12, Bera discloses a method of plasma etching, comprising:
etching a nitride layer with an etching plasma (paragraph 0034, 0036, 0045, 0047); and
providing a gas that
As to claim 12, Bera fails to disclose the gas does not form a plasma on an edge portion of the nitride. However, Bera clearly discloses providing a gas on an edge portion of the nitride layer. Moslehi discloses flowing a non-plasma process gases into the process chamber to mix with the plasma gas, wherein the non-plasma process gas does not form a plasma on an edge portion of the nitride layer (See Moslehi’s claims 8, claim 21; col. 1 lines 33-38; col. 9 lines 1-5; ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bera in view of Moslehi by flowing a gas that does not form a plasma on an edge portion of the nitride layer because it increases real time control of the plasma process parameters including process uniformity (col. 3 lines26-30).
As to claim 13, Bera discloses the protecting gas comprises an unsaturated bond (i.e. C4F6 or C2F4) to form the polymer by performing a plasma polymerization reaction with the etching plasma (See paragraph 0024-0025, 0032-0034, 0039, 0041, 0042, 0045, 0047, 0048, 0050, Note C4F6 or C2F4 is exposed to etching plasma of oxygen and/or nitrogen to form polymer; C4F6 and C2F4 comprises unsaturated bond (i.e. double bond or triple bond; See evidence references as discussed above in claim 2).
As to claim 15, Bera discloses providing the gas on the edge portion of the nitride layer is performed by providing the gas through an annular conduit having a plurality of holes (See Fig 1A, paragraph 0027, 0032, 0033, 0035, 0037-0038, 0042).
As to claim 17, Bera discloses spraying the etching the nitride layer with the etching plasma (oxygen or nitrogen gas) and providing the gas on the edge portion of the nitride layer are performed simultaneously (See Fig 1A, paragraph 0042, 0044-0045).
As to claim 18, Bara discloses providing the gas comprises providing the gas with a first flow rate (Fig 12 step 500) and after providing the gas with a first flow rate, providing the gas with a second flow rate larger than the first flow rate (Fig 12 step 501, paragraph 0024, 0050-0054).
13. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bera et al. (US 2007/0251642 A1) in view of Moslehi (US 5,252,178) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Luo (CN 109065432 A).
As to claim 14, Bera and Moslehi fail to disclose the protecting gas comprises hexafluorobutadiene. However, Bera clearly teaches to use the protecting gas comprises C4F6 (See paragraph 0045). The molecular formula C4F6 gas comprises either one of the following gases: hexafluorobutadiene, hexafluorocyclobutane and hexafluoro-2-butyne (See evidence reference: Wikipedia, “C4F6” via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4F6 ). Luo discloses to use hexafluoro butadiene as a processing gas (paragraph 0017, 0057). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bera and Moslehi in view of Luo by using hexafluorobutadiene because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
14. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bera et al. (US 2007/0251642 A1) in view of Moslehi (US 5,252,178) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kholodenko et al. (US 6,676,760 B2).
As to claim 16, Bera and Moslehi fail to disclose wherein an angle between spraying direction of the gas and a surface of the nitride layer is from 85° to 95°. However, Bera clearly disclose spraying the gas to the nitride layer. Kholodenko discloses an angle between spraying direction of the gas and a surface of the substrate is 90 degree (See col. 10 line 63 to col. 11 line 10, col. 11 lines 56-67; within applicant’s range of 85 ° to 95 °). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bera and Moslehi in view of Kholodenko by having an angle between spraying direction of the gas and a surface of the nitride layer is around 90 ° because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH X TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
BINH X. TRAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/BINH X TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights