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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “a search of Group I that reveals references-if any exist-would apply to Group II.” This is not found persuasive because search and examining both process and apparatus certainly create serious burden on the examiner. Further, In this case the method process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus, such as Group I can be done in various dry etch systems, or specialized hardware without having a controller. Alternatively, the dry etch system can be used for entirely different processes. Such as Group II can be used for Plasma Cleaning and DE smearing, Surface Activation and Modification, Materials Deposition, Ashing or Stripping and Micro-machining (MEMS).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
3. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/21/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inokuchi et al. (US 2009/0253265 A1) in view of Miyakura et al. (US 2018/0277364 A1) and further in view of Samoilov et al (US 2008/0044932 A1).
Note:
As to claim 1, Inokuchi discloses a method of substrate processing, comprising:
etching a layer of a substrate using a first pressure and a first composition including hydrogen chloride, the etching comprising flowing the first composition for a first time period and at a first flow rate (paragraph 0055-0056; 0060; 0071; Inokuchi’s claim 8) and
etching the layer using a second pressure and a second composition including chlorine (Cl2) gas, the etching comprising flowing the second composition for a second time period
As to claim 1, Inokuchi fails to disclose a second time period less than the first time period and at a second flow rate less than the first flow rate, the second time period is a time ratio of the first time period, and the time ratio is 1:15 or less. However, Inokuchi clearly discloses a first flow rate of HCl is between 1 sccm to 1000 sccm and a second flow rate of Cl2 is between 1 sccm to 1000 sccm (paragraph 0060-0061, 0071-0072). Miyakura discloses to adjust a flow rate of HCl is between 100 sccm to 10,000 sccm (paragraph 0087) and the flow rate of Cl2 is between 10 to 1,000 sccm (paragraph 0052). Therefore, Miyakura discloses the second flow rate (Cl2) is less than the first flow rate. In the absence of unexpected result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Inokuchi in view of Miyakura by having the second flow rate less than the first flow rate because it has been held that determination of workable range is not considered inventive.
Miyakura fails to disclose the second time period is a time ratio of the first time period, and the time ratio is 1:15 or less. However, Miyakura clearly discloses the first time period (HCl supply time) is between 10 to 60 minutes (paragraph 0088). Samoilov discloses the time period for supply Cl2 (second period) is between 10 seconds to 90 seconds (paragraph 0059). Any person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to calculate the time ratio of the second period to the first period as shown below.
When second period =10 seconds; and first period = 10 minutes = 600 seconds
Ratio of second period to first period = 10/600 = 1:60 (within applicant’s range of “1:15 or less”)
When second period =10 seconds; and first period = 60 minutes = 3600 seconds
Ratio of second period to first period = 10/3600 = 1:360 (within applicant’s range of “1:15 or less”).
When second period =90 seconds; and first period = 60 minutes = 3600 seconds
Ratio of second period to first period = 90/3600 = 1:40 (within applicant’s range of “1:15 or less”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Inokuchi in view of Miyamura and Samilov by having the second time period is a time ratio of the first time period, and the time ratio is 1:15 or less 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)).
As to claim 2, Inokuchi discloses the second pressure (pressure during Cl2 flow) equal to 2000 Pa or lower (See paragraph 0082; Note: 2000 Pa = 15.001 Torr, within applicant’s range of 5 Torr to 80 Torr. As to claim 2, Inokuchi fails to disclose the first pressure is within a range of 100 Torr to 600 Torr. Miyakura discloses the first pressure (Pressure during HCl flow) is between 10,000 to 40,000 Pa, preferable 20,000 Pa to 30,000 Pa (See paragraph 0087-0090; Note: 20,000 Pa = 150.01 Torr; 30,000 Pa = 225.0185 Torr; and 40,000 Pa = 300.02 Torr; within applicant’s range of 100 Torr to 600 Torr). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Inokuchi in view of Miyamura and Samoilov by having a second pressure between 150 Torr to 300 Torr 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)).
As to claim 3, Inokuchi fail to disclose the second time period is 20.0 seconds or less, and the first time period is 120 seconds or higher. Miyakura discloses the first time period (HCl process time) is 10 to 60 minutes (paragraph 0088; within applicant’s range of 120 seconds or higher; Note: 120 seconds = 2 minutes). Miyakura fails to disclose the second time period is 20 second or less. Samoilov discloses the second time period is 10 seconds to 90 second, preferably 20 seconds (paragraph 0059, within applicant’s range of 20 seconds or less). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Inokuchi in view of Miyamura and Samoilov by having the second time period of 20 seconds or less 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)).
As to claim 4, Inokuchi discloses the etching using the first composition includes a first temperature (i.e. high temperature from 700 °C to 850 °C), and the etching using the second composition includes a second temperature (low temperature from 500 ° to 750 °C) that is less than the first temperature (paragraph 0060, 0071).
As to claim 5, Inokuchi fails to disclose the first temperature is less than 550 degrees Celsius. However, Inokuchi clearly disclose the second temperature is higher than 250 °C (paragraph 0060). Miyakura discloses the first temperature (HCl flow temperature) is between 450 to 550 °C, including example of 450 to 530 °C (paragraph 0089, within applicant’s range of “less than 550 °C) and the second temperature is 450 °C to 550 °C, , including example of 450 to 530 °C (paragraph 0055, within applicant’s range of 250 °C or higher). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Inokuchi in view of Miyamura and Samoilov by having the first temperature is less than 550 degrees Celsius 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)).
As to claim 6, Inokuchi discloses the flowing of the second composition (Cl2) begins after the flowing of the first composition (HCl) ends (paragraph 0060, 0071).
As to claim 8, Inokuchi discloses the first composition has a first flow ratio of HCl: carrier gas (i.e. H2 as a dilution gas; See paragraph 0055) and the second composition has a second flow ratio : carrier gas (H2), wherein the flow rate of H2 is between 10 to 50,000 sccm for first and second composition (See paragraph 0060). Inokuchi fails to disclose the first flow ratio is greater than the second flow ratio by a factor of at least 10. Miyakura discloses the first composition comprises HCl gas at a flow rate of 100 to 10,000 sccm (paragraph 0087) and the second composition comprises Cl2 at a flow rate of 10 to 1,000 sccm (paragraph 0052). Therefore, Miyakura teaches the flow rate of HCl in the first composition is 10 times the flow rate of Cl2 in the second composition. Therefore, the combination of Inokuchi and Miyakura teaches the first flow ratio is greater than the second flow ratio by a factor of 10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Inokuchi in view of Miyamura and Samoilov by having the first flow ratio is greater than the second flow ratio by a factor of at least 10 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)).
8. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inokuchi et al. (US 2009/0253265 A1) in view of Miyakura et al. (US 2018/0277364 A1
As to claim 9, Inokuchi discloses a method of substrate processing, comprising:
depositing a layer on a substrate using a first temperature and a first pressure using silane-based (paragraph 0055; Inokuchi’s claim 13, 23);
etching the layer using a second pressure, a second temperature, and a first composition including hydrogen chloride, the etching comprising flowing the first composition for a first time period and at a first flow rate (paragraph 0055; Inokuchi’s claim 13, 23); and
etching the layer using a third pressure, a third temperature, and a second composition including chlorine (Cl2) gas, the etching comprising flowing the second composition for a second time period and at a second flow rate
As to claim 9, Inokuchi fails to disclose a second flow rate less than the first flow rate, the second time period is less than the first time period, and the third pressure is lower than the first pressure and the second pressure. However, Inokuchi clearly discloses a first flow rate of HCl is between 1 sccm to 1000 sccm and a second flow rate of Cl2 is between 1 sccm to 1000 sccm (paragraph 0060-0061, 0071-0072). Miyakura discloses to adjust a flow rate of HCl is between 100 sccm to 10,000 sccm (paragraph 0087) and the flow rate of Cl2 is between 10 to 1,000 sccm (paragraph 0052). Therefore, Miyakura discloses the second flow rate (Cl2) is less than the first flow rate. Miyakura further discloses the second time period (Cl2 supply time period: 5 to 30 minutes) is less than the first time period (HCl supply period 10 minutes to 60 minutes; See paragraph 0054, 0088). In the absence of unexpected result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Inokuchi in view of Miyakura by having the second flow rate less than the first flow rate and the second time period is less than the first time period because it has been held that determination of workable range is not considered inventive.
As to claim 9, Inokuchi discloses the third pressure (pressure during Cl2 flow) equal to 2000 Pa or lower (See paragraph 0060, 0071; Note: 2000 Pa = 15.001 Torr, within applicant’s range of 5 Torr to 80 Torr. Inokuchi further discloses the step of depositing a layer using a first pressure and etching the layer using a second pressure are performed simultaneously (paragraph 0055). Therefore, Inokuchi discloses the first pressure equals the second pressure. As to claim 9, Inokuchi fails to disclose the third pressure is lower than the first pressure and the second pressure. Miyakura discloses the third pressure (pressure during Cl2 flow) is lower than first pressure, and the second pressure (Pressure during HCl flow; See paragraph 0056, 0090). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Inokuchi in view of Miyamura by having a third pressure is lower than the first pressure and the second pressure 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)).
As to claim 10, Inokuchi discloses the third pressure (pressure during HCl flow) equal to 2000 Pa or lower (See paragraph 0082; Note: 2000 Pa = 15.001 Torr, within applicant’s range of 5 Torr to 80 Torr. As to claim 10, Inokuchi fails to disclose the first pressure is within a range of 100 Torr to 600 Torr and the second pressure is within a range of 100 Torr to 600 Torr. Miyakura discloses the first pressure, and a second pressure (Pressure during HCl flow) is between 10,000 to 40,000 Pa, preferable 20,000 Pa to 30,000 Pa (See paragraph 0087-0090; Note: 20,000 Pa = 150.01 Torr; 30,000 Pa = 225.0185 Torr; and 40,000 Pa = 300.02 Torr; within applicant’s range of 100 Torr to 600 Torr). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Inokuchi in view of Miyamura and Samoilov by having a first pressure and second pressure between 150 Torr to 300 Torr 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)).
9. Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inokuchi et al. (US 2009/0253265 A1) in view of Miyakura et al. (US 2018/0277364 A1) as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Samoilov et al (US 2008/0044932 A1).
As to claim 15, Inokuchi a first temperature and a second temperature are the same because the depositing a layer and etching the layer using HCl are performed simultaneously. Inokuchi further discloses the third temperature (low temperature at 500 °C to 750 °C) is less than the first temperature and second temperature (high temperature at 700 °C to 850 °C; See paragraph 0060paragraph 0060, 0071). As to claim 15, Inokuchi fails to disclose the second time period is 20.0 seconds or less, and the first time period is 120 seconds or higher. Miyakura discloses the first time period (HCl process time) is 10 to 60 minutes (paragraph 0088; within applicant’s range of 120 seconds or higher; Note: 120 seconds = 2 minutes). Miyakura fails to disclose the second time period is 20 second or less. Samoilov discloses the second time period is 10 seconds to 90 second, preferably 20 seconds (paragraph 0059, within applicant’s range of 20 seconds or less). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Inokuchi in view of Miyamura and Samoilov by having the second time period of 20 seconds or less 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)).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 7, 11-14 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.
11. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 7, the cited prior arts fail to disclose or suggest wherein the second composition flows simultaneously with the first composition, and a flow ratio of the hydrogen chloride relative to the chlorine (Cl2) gas is at least 1,000:1.
As to claims 11-14, the cited prior arts fail to disclose or suggest wherein the depositing and the etching using the first composition are conducted sequentially and are repeated for a plurality of cycles that alternates the depositing and the etching.
Conclusion
12. 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
