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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hudson et al. (USPGPub 2016/0163558).
Regarding claims 1, 4-5 Hudson teaches that it is known to generate a first plasma using an etching reactant and partially etching a feature of a stack and thereafter depositing a film on the sidewalls of the feature by forming a protective coating on the sidewalls of the feature [0009] by allowing a first reactant to adsorb onto the surface of the substrate followed by exposure to a second reactant to form a protective film [0048] wherein the film is formed of a first reactant that may be an organic metal precursor and the second may be a diamine [0052] wherein the first reactant may further comprise formaldehyde wherein the protective coating comprises oxygen [0083] wherein the deposition may be repeated multiple times [0006] and the etching and film deposition are repeated in a cyclical manner until a desired etch depth is reached (see Fig. 2A) and wherein the feature has an aspect ratio in the range claimed [0066].
Regarding claim 7, the protective film may be deposited without the use of plasma in the reaction chamber [0049].
Regarding claim 9, the etching and coating operations of Hudson may be performed in the same chamber [0065].
Regarding claim 10, Hudson further teaches the use of fluorocarbon etchants [0073].
Regarding claim 11, Hudson further teaches wherein an optional purge step may take place during the formation of the protective film [0097].
Regarding claim 12, Hudson further teaches a stack formation reading upon that claimed [0008].
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson et al. (USPGPub 2016/0163558) as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 7 and 9-12 above and further in view of Hudson et al. (USPGPub 2016/0163561)(referred to herein as Hudson2).
Regarding claim 6, the teachings of Hudson are as shown above. Hudson teaches the use of diamine reactants but fails to cite those specifically claimed. However, Hudson2, incorporated by reference into Hudson [0052], teaches that the use of some of the specific diamines claimed [0007]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific diamines of Hudson2 in the invention of Hudson because Hudson generally teaches the obviousness of doing so implicitly by incorporating those elements into his invention from Hudson2.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson et al. (USPGPub 2016/0163558) as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 7 and 9-12 above and further in view of Hudson et al. (USPGPub 0268141)(referred to herein as Hudson3).
Regarding claim 8, the teachings of Hudson are as shown above. Hudson fails to teach the use of polyazomethines in his composition. However, Hudson3 teaches that it is known to employ polyazomethine as a protective polymer in the sidewall passivation of high aspect ratio features as in Hudson [0065](abstract), in processes wherein a first and second reactant are employed to form the composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the polyazomethine (and the components necessary to form it) in the invention of Hudson as guided by Hudson3 as a simple substitution of one known protective layer employed in the sidewall passivation of high aspect ratio structures for another wherein the results of the substitution would have been predictable based upon the teachings of Hudson3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-22 were allowed.
Claims 2-3 were 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: it is not known in the prior art to method of form an etched feature in a stack comprising a dielectric material on a semiconductor substrate, the method comprising:(a) generating a first plasma comprising an etching reactant, exposing the substrate to the first plasma, and partially etching the feature in the stack;(b) after (a), depositing a protective film on sidewalls of the feature by (i) exposing the substrate to a first reactant and allowing the first reactant to adsorb onto the substrate, wherein the first reactant comprises an aldehyde functional group;(ii) exposing the substrate to a second reactant, and wherein the first and second reactants react with one another to form the protective film, and(iii) repeating (i) and (ii) in a cyclic manner until the protective film reaches a target thickness, wherein the protective film is an organic polymeric film; and(c) repeating (a) and (b) until the feature is etched to a final depth, wherein the protective film deposited in (b) substantially prevents lateral etch of the feature during (a'), and wherein the feature has an aspect ratio of about 5 or greater at its final depth wherein the first reactant is a dialdehyde or a trialdehyde as in claim 2 or to
form an etched feature in a stack comprising a dielectric material on a semiconductor substrate, the method comprising: (a)generating a first plasma comprising an etching reactant, exposing the substrate to the first plasma, and partially etching the feature in the stack; (b) after (a),depositingaprotectivefilmonsidewallsofthefeatureby(i)exposing the substrate to a first reactant and allowing the first reactant to adsorb onto the substrate wherein the first reactant comprises an isocyanate functional group;(ii)exposing the substrate toa second reactant, and wherein the first and second reactants react with one another to form the protective film, and(iii)repeating(i)and(ii) in a cyclic manner until the protective film reaches a target thickness, wherein the protective film is an organic polymeric film; and (c) repeating(a) and (b) until the feature is etched to a final depth, wherein the protective film deposited in(b)substantially prevents lateral etch of the feature during (a), and wherein the feature has an aspect ratio of about 5 or greater at its final depth as in claim 13.
The most pertinent prior art (cited above as Hudson and having at least one inventor in common with the current application) generally teaches a sidewall passivation technique involving an etching step and a protective film forming step as in the current claims wherein formaldehyde may be present as an additive. However, the prior art does not teach the use of dialdehydes and trialdehydes wherein there is no evidence of record to show these components as obvious various of formaldehyde, which is the simplest aldehyde form comprising a single aldehyde group. Further Hudson is entirely silent as to the use of isocyanates as first reactants in his protective film.
Another prior art (cited above as Hudson2 and having at least one inventor in common with the current application) was incorporated by reference into Hudson as cited above but fails to teach the use of aldehyde chemistry at all. Further Hudson is entirely silent as to the use of isocyanates as first reactants in his protective film.
Another prior art (cited above as Hudson3 and having at least one inventor in common with the current application) teaches that it is known to employ polyazomethines as polymers used for sidewall protection in the formation of high aspect ratio stack structures but the reference is silent as to the use of isocyanate components, dialdehydes or trialdehydes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights