DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 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 .
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0342596) in view of TAN et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0229314).
With regards to claim 1, Lee discloses an etching method for etching a processing object, a silicon germanium film of a film structure containing the silicon germanium film and a germanium film formed over a surface of a wafer (Paragraphs [0018] discloses alternating layers of semiconductor layers with different etch rates wherein the layer may be alternating layer of silicon germanium layers having alternating percentages wherein the first percentage is different than the second percentage), the etching method comprising the steps of selectively etching a semiconductor layer using dry etch of a fluorine containing gas such as sulfur hexafluoride and etching the silicon germanium film (Paragraphs [0024]-[0026]).
Lee does not explicitly disclose supplying a hydrogen radical to the film structure while heating the wafer and forming a modified layer over a surface of the film structure and after the step of forming the modified layer, cooling the wafer to 0°C to room temperature, supplying a gas containing sulfur hexafluoride or sulfur hexafluoride and argon to the modified layer and etching the silicon germanium film.
Tan discloses a method of selectively etching a silicon germanium film comprising exposing the substrate to a gas mix comprising hydrogen wherein the hydrogen provides a surface modification by chemisorption or deposition; wherein after exposing the substrate to the deposition gas a removal species can be used to remove the modified surface (Paragraphs [0036], [0053]-[0054], [0057], [0071]-[0077] Wherein the plasma generation for both passivation and modification can be done at temperature between -10C and about 300C (Paragraphs [0099]-[0102]) wherein the removal step is performed after the modification step and comprises gas including argon (Paragraph [0102]). As such Tan as modified by Lee renders obvious supplying a hydrogen radical to the film structure while heating the wafer and forming a modified layer over a surface of the film structure and after the step of forming the modified layer, cooling the wafer to 0°C to room temperature, supplying a gas containing sulfur hexafluoride and argon to the modified layer and etching the silicon germanium film. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I)
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 Lee to include the modification and etching as rendered obvious by Tan because one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictable achieving the desired etching using the modification and etching as rendered obvious by Tan. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 4, the modified teachings of Lee renders obvious wherein the processing steps may be performed at a temperature between about -10°C and about 300°C (Tan Paragraph [0099]) which renders obvious in the step of forming a modified layer, the wafer is heated to 150°C to 350°C. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 5-8 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: Lee as modified by Tan renders obvious the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed. However, with regards to claims 2 and 9 the modified teachings of Lee fails to teach or render obvious “… after the etching step, a step of heating the wafer to remove hydrogen from the surface from the surface of the film structure.” 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