DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 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 § 112
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.
Claims 1-16 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.
With regards to claim 1, Applicant claims “CxHyClz” without defining “y” in the chemical formula provided. It is unclear which values would satisfy “y”.
With regards to claim 6, Applicant claims “CxHyFz” without defining “y” in the chemical formula provided; claims CxHy without defining x or y in the chemical formula provided. It is unclear which values would satisfy “x” or “y” in the respective formulas.
With regards to claim 8, Applicant claims “CxHyFz” without defining “x” or “y” in the chemical formula provided. It is unclear which values would satisfy “x” or “y” in the respective formulas.
With regards to claim 9, Applicant claims “CxHyFz” without defining “y” in the chemical formula provided. It is unclear which values would satisfy “y” in the respective formulas.
Claims 2-5, 7, 10-16 are rejected based on their dependency.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 18/709,925 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the cited claims of current pending application are not patentably different from the cited claims of copending application 18/709925 in that they overlap in scope.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-2, 4-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANARIK et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0005472).
With regards to claims 1 and 5, Kanarik discloses A method of etching recessed features in stack with a silicon containing layer over a wafer on a substrate support (Paragraphs [0012], [0033], [0043], [0049]), the method comprising: a. flowing an etch gas; b. forming the etch gas into a plasma; and c. exposing the stack to the plasma to etch recessed features into the stack (Claim 1, Paragraphs [0012], [0043]-[0049]).
Kanarik does not explicitly disclose flowing an etch gas, comprising i. an organochloride source selected from the group consisting of carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), CXHyClZ (where x>0 and z > 0), and combinations thereof, ii. a carbon source and iii. a fluorine source and wherein the etch gas further comprises a hydrogen source.
However Kanarik discloses wherein the etching gas comprises a gas including methylene chloride (CH2Cl2) and chloroform (CHCl3) which renders obvious i. an organochloride and gases such a CF4, CCHF3 and H2 which renders obvious , ii. a carbon source and iii. a fluorine source, and wherein the etch gas further comprises a hydrogen source. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) MPEP 2144.05(I) Therefore the modified teaching of Kanarik render obvious the combination of a number of processing gases for forming a plasma for etching which renders obvious b. flowing an etch gas, comprising i. an organochloride source selected from the group consisting of carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), CXHyClZ (where x>0 and z > 0), and combinations thereof, ii. a carbon source, iii. a fluorine source, and iv. a hydrogen source.
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 Kanarik to include the etching gas a rendered obvious by Kanarik because the reference of Kanarik teaches that such etching composition teaches such composition allows for etching at cryogenic temperature while protecting the sidewalls (Paragraph [0025]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired etching using etch gas as rendered obvious by Kanarik. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 2, the modified teachings of Kanarik renders obvious wherein the stack comprises alternating layers of silicon oxide and polysilicon. (Paragraphs [0003], [0049]).
With regards to claim 4, the modified teachings of Kanarik discloses wherein the maintaining the substrate support a temperature below about 30°C maintains the substrate support at a temperature at below -20° wherein the cryogenic temperature is between -20°C and -150°C (Paragraph [0014], [0047]) rendering obvious maintaining the substrate support at a temperature in a range of -80°C to 150°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). MPEP 2144.05(I)
With regards to claim 6, the modified teachings of Kanarik renders obvious wherein the hydrogen source comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of H2, CHXFy (where 1 < x <4, and x + y = 4), CXHyFZ (where x>0 and z > 0), CXHy, and combinations thereof. (Claim 5 Paragraphs [0022], [0025]).
With regards to claim 7, the modified teachings of Kanarik renders obvious wherein the hydrogen source comprises H2. (Claim 5 Paragraph [0022]).
With regards to claim 8, the modified teachings of Kanarik renders obvious wherein the fluorine source comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of NF3, CHXFy (where 0 < x < 3, and x + y = 4), CXFy (where y>x), CXHyFZ (where z>0), and combinations thereof. (Claims 1, 5 Paragraph [0025])
With regards to claim 9, the modified teachings of Kanarik renders obvious wherein the carbon source comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of CHXFy (where 0 < x < 4, and x + y = 4), CXFy(where y > x), CXHyFZ (where x>0 and z > 0), and combinations thereof. (Claims 1, 5 Paragraphs [0022], [0025]).
With regards to claim 10, the modified teachings of Kanarik renders obvious wherein the organochloride source is CH2Cl2 or CH3Cl. (Paragraph [0025])
With regards to claim 11, the modified teachings of Kanarik renders obvious wherein the silicon containing layer comprises at least one of silicon nitride, silicon oxide, or polysilicon. (Paragraphs [0033], [0043], [0049]).
With regards to claim 12, the modified teachings of Kanarik renders obvious wherein the forming the etch gas into a plasma comprises providing RF power at one or more RF frequencies to provide energy for forming the etch gas into a plasma. (Paragraphs [0044] discloses forming plasma from etch gas).
With regards to claim 14, the modified teachings of Kanarik renders obvious wherein the exposing the stack to the plasma etches the features with a height to width aspect ratio greater than 30:1 (Paragraph [0049]) which overlaps Applicant’s claimed amount of 100:1. 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). MPEP 2144.05(I)
With regards to claim 15, the modified teachings of Kanarik discloses the inclusion of a organochloride source component and a fluorine source component in order to form a plasma which etches the dielectric and passivate during the etching process wherein the passivation is adjusted based on the etchant composition with the carbon to fluorine ratio (Paragraphs [0022]-[0027]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) Therefore 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 optimize molar flow ratio to amounts including Applicant’s amount of a molar flow ratio of an organochloride source component to fluorine source component in a range of 5:1 to 1:5 in order provide an etching chemistry which etches the dielectric while sufficiently passivating the etched structure as taught by the modified teachings of Kanarik. (Paragraphs [0022]-[0027], MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
With regards to claim 16, the modified teachings of Kanarik renders obvious wherein the plasma selective deposits a passivation layer on the sidewall of the recessed feature wherein the passivation layer may comprise a chlorinated organic species (Paragraphs [0022]-[0027]) which renders obvious wherein the exposing the stack to the plasma causes a selective deposition of chlorinated organic species on sidewalls of the recessed features with respect to etch fronts of the recessed features.
Claims 1-4 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KONG et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0056050).
With regards to claim 1, Kong discloses a method of etching recessed features (414) in stack (404) with a silicon containing layer over a wafer on a substrate support (Paragraphs [0041]-[0046]), the method comprising: a. flowing an etch gas; b. forming the etch gas into a plasma; and c. exposing the stack to the plasma to etch recessed features into the stack (Claim 1, Paragraphs [0041]-[0048], [0054]-[0055]).
Kong does not explicitly disclose flowing an etch gas, comprising i. an organochloride source selected from the group consisting of carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), CXHyClZ (where x>0 and z > 0), and combinations thereof, ii. a carbon source and iii. a fluorine source.
However Kong discloses wherein the etching gas comprises a gas including a fluorine carbon containing gas, oxygen containing gas, nitrogen containing gas and a chlorine containing gas including CHCl3, CH3Cl and CH2CL2 (Paragraphs [0027]) which renders obvious i an organochloride and gases such a CF4, CCHF3 which renders obvious , ii. a carbon source and iii. a fluorine source. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) MPEP 2144.05(I) Therefore the modified teaching of Kong render obvious the combination of a number of processing gases for forming a plasma for etching which renders obvious b. flowing an etch gas, comprising i. an organochloride source selected from the group consisting of carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), CXHyClZ (where x>0 and z > 0), and combinations thereof, ii. a carbon source, iii. a fluorine source, and iv. a hydrogen source.
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 Kong to include the etching gas a rendered obvious by the general disclosure Kong because one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired etching using etch gas as rendered obvious by Kong. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 2, the modified teachings of Kong renders obvious wherein the stack comprises alternating layers of silicon oxide and polysilicon. (Paragraphs [00042]-[0046]).
With regards to claims 3 and 13, the modified teachings of Kong renders obvious wherein maintaining the substate support at a temperature between -10 degrees Celsius to about 60 degrees Celsius (Paragraph [0059]) which renders obvious a temperature above about 30° 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). MPEP 2144.05(I)
With regards to claim 4, the modified teachings of Kong renders obvious wherein maintaining the substate support at a temperature between -10 degrees Celsius to about 60 degrees Celsius (Paragraph [0059]) rendering obvious maintaining the substrate support at a temperature in a range of -80°C to 150°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). MPEP 2144.05(I)
With regards to claim 8, the modified teachings of Kong renders obvious wherein the fluorine source comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of CXFy (Paragraph [0027], [0049]-[0050])
With regards to claim 9, the modified teachings of Kong renders obvious wherein the carbon source comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of CXFy (Paragraph [0027], [0049]-[0050])
With regards to claim 10, the modified teachings of Kong renders obvious wherein the organochloride source is CH2Cl2, CH3Cl or CH2Cl2. (Paragraph [0027])
With regards to claim 11, the modified teachings of Kong renders obvious wherein the silicon containing layer comprises at least one of silicon nitride, silicon oxide, or polysilicon. (Paragraphs [0041]-[0046]).
With regards to claim 12, the modified teachings of Kong renders obvious wherein the forming the etch gas into a plasma comprises providing RF power at one or more RF frequencies to provide energy for forming the etch gas into a plasma. (Paragraphs [0055]-[0056]).
With regards to claim 14, the modified teachings of King renders obvious wherein the exposing the stack to the plasma etches the features with a height to width aspect ratio greater than 30:1 (Paragraph [0056]) which overlaps Applicant’s claimed amount of 100:1. 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). MPEP 2144.05(I)
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