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 .
Claim Interpretation
2. The term “approximately” appears in many claims including claims 4, 9, 14, 17, 18. It is noted that in page 14 paragraph [0016] of the Specification, the applicants wrote “As used herein, "about" or "around" or "approximately" in the text or in a claim means +10% of the value stated.” Therefore, the examiner interprets the term “approximately” in the claim means +10% of the value stated.
Double Patenting
3. 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.
4. Claims 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 9, 12-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,106,971 in view of Surla et al (US 2017/0178923 A1) .
Regarding to claim 17, US Patent 12,106,971 discloses a method for forming a high aspect ratio (HAR) structure during a HAR etch process in a substrate in a reaction chamber, the method comprising:
sequentially or simultaneously exposing the substrate to a vapor of an etchant including a hydrofluorocarbon or fluorocarbon compound and an additive compound, the substrate having a film disposed thereon and a patterned mask layer disposed on the film;
maintaining the substrate at a temperature ranging
activating a plasma to produce an activated hydrofluorocarbon or fluorocarbon compound and an activated additive compound; and
allowing an etching reaction to proceed between the film uncovered by the patterned mask layer and the activated hydrofluorocarbon or fluorocarbon compound and the activated additive compound to selectively etch the film from the patterned mask layer, thereby forming the HAR patterned structure,
wherein a high conductive sidewall passivation layer is formed on sidewalls of the HAR patterned structure (See US 12,106,971 claims 1, 7, 9, 12
Claim 17 differs from claims 7, 12 by further disclosing maintaining the substrate temperature ranging from approximately -100 °C to approximately 500 °C. Surla discloses a method of forming high aspect ratio by maintaining the substrate temperature ranging from approximately 0 °C to approximately 150 °C, preferably 25 °C to 100 °C (paragraph 0303; within applicant’s claimed range of approximately -100 °C to approximately 500 °C ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify US Patent No. 12,106,971 in view of Surla by maintaining the substrate temperature ranging from approximately 0 °C to approximately 150 °C 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 18, US Patent 12,106,971 claim 13 discloses wherein a conductivity of the high conductive sidewall passivation layer formed with the activated hydrofluorocarbon or fluorocarbon compound (i.e. C4H2F6) and the activated additive compound (i.e. CH3F) is at least approximately 10% higher than the conductivity of the high conductive sidewall passivation layer formed with the activated hydrofluorocarbon or fluorocarbon compound without the addition of the activated additive compound (See claim 13 of US 12,106,971).
As to claim 19, US 12,106,971 claim discloses the additive compound contains silicon, carbon and/or iodine elements having the following formula: CF3I, C2F5I, (See claims 1, 14 of US 12,106,971; read on applicant’s formula CnR1R2R3I, CnF(2n+1)I, wherein n = 1 to 10; R1, R2 and R3 each are independently selected from H, C1-C10 linear, branched or cyclic, saturated or unsaturated, aromatic, heterocyclic, partially or fully fluorinated.
As to claim 20, US 12,106,971 claim discloses the additive compound is selected from H3C-I (See claim 9, 13).
5. Claim 1-7, 9-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of copending Application No. 18/872,051 (reference application, now US 2025/0379062). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the current application is a combination of multiple claims in US 18/872,051.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The following table will match the claim of current application vs. 18/872,051
Current application (18/818,114 Claims) 18/872,051 claims
1 1, 4, 14, or 17, 20
2 2, or 18
3 3, or 19
4 5
5 6
6 6
7 16
9 9
10 6 11 1, 4, 6, 14
12 2, 18
13, 3 or 19
14 5 or 21
15 9
16 6
17 1, 4, 11
18 5 or 21
19 13
20 15
6. Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of copending Application No. 18/872,051 in view of Surla (US 2017/0178923).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
As to claim 8, copending application 18/872,051 claim fails to disclose the patterned mask is an a-C layer, a doped a-C layer, a photoresist layer, an anti-reflective layer, an organic planarization layer, a poly-Si layer, a metal oxide layer such as Ti, Al, Zr, Hf, etc. oxide, and combinations thereof. However, copending application 18/872,051 clearly teaches to use patterned mask (See claim 1). Surla teaches that patterned mask is a-C layer, photoresist layer, antireflective layer, or a poly-Si layer (paragraph 0292). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify copending application 18/872,051 in view of Surla by having the pattern mask comprises is a-C layer, photoresist layer, antireflective layer, or a poly-Si layer because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “high conductive sidewall passivation layer” in claim 1 (line 12) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high conductive” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what specific conductivity value or range that applicants considered as “high conductive sidewall passivation layer”.
The phrase “high conductive sidewall passivation layer” (occurs two times) in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high conductive” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what specific conductivity value or range that applicants considered as “high conductive sidewall passivation layer”.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 8 line 3, the term “etc. oxide” is indefinite. It is unclear what specific material that applicants considered as “etc. oxide”.
The phrase “high conductive sidewall passivation layer” in claim 11 (line 9) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high conductive” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what specific conductivity value or range that applicants considered as “high conductive sidewall passivation layer”.
The phrase “high conductive sidewall passivation layer” (occurs two times) in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high conductive” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what specific conductivity value or range that applicants considered as “high conductive sidewall passivation layer”.
The term “high conductive sidewall passivation layer” in claim 17 (line 15) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high conductive” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what specific conductivity value or range that applicants considered as “high conductive sidewall passivation layer”.
The phrase “high conductive sidewall passivation layer” (occurs two times) in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high conductive” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what specific conductivity value or range that applicants considered as “high conductive sidewall passivation layer”.
In claim 19, the phrase “R1 and R2, R2 and R3 or R1 and R3 may also be linked to form a cyclic group” (emphasis added) is indefinite. The term “may” mean possibility or likelihood. It is unclear whether any limitation right after the term “may” is required or not.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because they depend on indefinite claim 1.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because they depend on indefinite claim 11.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because they depend on indefinite claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
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.
11. Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surla et al. (US 2017/0178923 A1) in view of Sandhu et al. (US 2007/0049018 A1).
Note:
As to claim 17, Surla discloses A method for forming a high aspect ratio (HAR) structure during a HAR etch process in a substrate in a reaction chamber, the method comprising:
sequentially or simultaneously exposing the substrate (100) to a vapor of an etchant including a hydrofluorocarbon or fluorocarbon compound and an additive compound, the substrate having a film (104) disposed thereon and a patterned mask layer (106 or 110) disposed on the film (paragraph 0009, 0292-0294, 0313, Fig 1a-1b);
maintaining the substrate at a temperature ranging from approximately 0 °C to approximately 150 °C; preferably 25 °C to 100 °C (paragraph 0303, read on applicant’s range of “from approximately -100 °C to approximately 500 °C);
activating a plasma to produce an activated hydrofluorocarbon or fluorocarbon compound and an activated additive compound; (paragraph 0303-0306) and
allowing an etching reaction to proceed between the film uncovered by the patterned mask layer and the activated hydrofluorocarbon or fluorocarbon compound and the activated additive compound to selectively etch the film from the patterned mask layer, thereby forming the HAR patterned structure (Fig 1b-1d, paragraph 0292-0298
wherein a
As to claim 17, Surla fails to disclose the sidewall passivation layer is a high conductive material. However, Surla clearly teaches to form a sidewall passivation layer (212) on a sidewalls of the high aspect ratio pattern structure (paragraph 0293, Fig 1b). Sandhu teaches during an etching process a high conductive sidewall passivation layer is formed (Fig 4, paragraph 0025). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Surla in view of Sandhu by forming a high conductive sidewall passivation layer because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 18, Surla fails to disclose a conductivity of the high conductive sidewall passivation layer formed with the activated hydrofluorocarbon or fluorocarbon compound and the activated additive compound is at least approximately 10% higher than the conductivity of the high conductive sidewall passivation layer formed with the activated hydrofluorocarbon or fluorocarbon compound without the addition of the activated additive compound. However, Surla clearly discloses the sidewall passivation layer formed with the activated hydrofluorocarbon or fluorocarbon compound and the activated additive compound. Sandhu discloses the sidewall passivation layer is conductive and it is formed with the activated hydrofluorocarbon or fluorocarbon compound (paragraph 0025-0026). 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 Surla in view of Sandhu by perform routine experiments to obtain optimal conductivity value of the sidewall passivation because it has been held that determination of workable range is not considered inventive (See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
As to claim 19, Surla discloses the additive compound contains silicon, carbon and/or iodine elements having the following formula: CF3I, C2F5I, C2HF2I, C2H2FI, C2HF4I, C2H2F3I, C2H3F2I, C2H4FI (Table 2, read on applicant’s formula CnR1R2R3I or CnF(2n+1)I, where n = 1 to 10; R1, R2 and R3 each are independently selected from H, C1-C10 linear, branched or cyclic, saturated or unsaturated, aromatic, heterocyclic, partially or fully fluorinated, substituted or unsubstituted alkyl groups.
As to claim 20, Surla discloses the addictive compound is selected from
PNG
media_image1.png
78
93
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(See Table 2).
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
Prosecution Insights