DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-12 are pending in the Preliminary Amendment filed 11/22/2024, and are examined herein in full.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 recites “plasm”, but should read “plasma”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 9773679 B2), and, alternatively, Gupta et al. in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20180066187 A1).
As to claim 1, Gupta discloses an etching method [col. 17, “Example 7”; Fig. 12] comprising:
an etching step of bringing an etching gas containing an etching compound into contact with a member to be etched having an etching object subject to etching by the etching gas, plasm[a] etching the etching object [col. 17, “Example 7”; Fig. 12; col. 7, lines 27-34 and Fig. 1-1a], and
forming a hole in the etching object [col. 17, “Example 7”; Fig. 12; col. 7, lines 27-34 and Fig. 1-1a],
wherein the etching object has a carbon material [col. 17, “Example 7”; Fig. 12; col. 7, lines 27-34 and Fig. 1-1a], the etching compound is fluoro-dithiethane represented by Chemical Formula CxFyS2, wherein, in Chemical Formula above, x is 2 or more and 6 or less and y is 4 or more and 12 or less [col. 17, “Example 7”; Fig. 12; col. 7, lines 27-34 and Fig. 1-1a].
Gupta fails to explicitly disclose, but nonetheless renders obvious the limitation:
the etching gas contains or does not contain at least one type of metal among sodium, magnesium, aluminum, potassium, calcium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, and molybdenum, and, when the at least one type of metal is contained, a total concentration of all types of the contained metals is 100 ppb by mass or less [col. 8, lines 37-54, “between 99.999% v/v and approximately 100.000% v/v purity”].
Here, Gupta teaches “between 99.999% v/v and approximately 100.000% v/v purity” [col. 8, lines 37-54], which converts to a range of 10,000 ppb by mass to 0 ppb. Gupta’s disclosed range encompasses the claimed range, and further shares an endpoint of 0 ppb with the claimed range, and therefore supports a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Alternatively, Nakamura teaches etching selectivity of silicon-based materials with respect to mask materials can be improved by reducing the concentration of metals such as Fe, Ni, Cr, Al, and Mo contained as impurities in the dry etching gas to be withing a range of 500 mass ppb or less [Abstract, para. 0011], preferably 300 mass ppb or less [para. 0030, and further teaches an explicitly example having a metal concentration of 57 mass ppb [para. 0072].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the etching gas having a purity of between 99.999% v/v and approximately 100.000% v/v, of Gupta, to further reduce the amount of impurities (including metal impurities) to an amount below 100 mass ppb (e.g., 57 mass ppb) within an etching gas, of Nakamura, in order to improve the selectivity of silicon-based materials by the etching process, as taught by Nakamura [Abstract, para. 0011, para. 0072].
As to claim 2, Gupta discloses the etching method according to claim 1, wherein the fluoro-dithiethane has at least one type among 2,2,4,4-tetrafluoro-1,3-dithietane [col. 17, “Example 7”; Fig. 12; col. 7, lines 27-34 and Fig. 1-1a], 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-octafluoro-1,3- dithietane, 2,2,4-trifluoro-4-trifluoromethyl-1,3-dithietane, 2,4-difluoro-2,4-bis(trifluoromethyl)- 1,3-dithietane, and 2,2,4,4-tetrakis(trifluoromethyl)-1,3-dithietane.
As to claim 3, Gupta discloses the etching method according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the carbon material has at least one of amorphous carbon [col. 17, “Example 7”; Fig. 12; col. 7, lines 27-34 and Fig. 1-1a] and carbon-doped silicon oxide.
As to claim 4, Gupta discloses the etching method according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the etching gas contains the fluoro-dithiethane and at least one of a second etching compound and an inert gas [col. 17, “Example 7”; Fig. 12].
As to claim 5, Gupta discloses the etching method according to claim 4, wherein the second etching compound is at least one type among oxygen gas [col. 17, “Example 7”; Fig. 12], nitrogen gas, and fluorocarbon.
As to claim 6, Gupta discloses the etching method according to claim 1, wherein a temperature condition of the etching step is 0°C or more and 40°C or less [col. 12, lines 36-42, “preferably between about -10°C to approximately 40°C”].
Here, Gupta discloses the disclosed etching process may employ a temperature “preferably between about -10°C to approximately 40°C” [col. 12, lines 36-42], which encompasses the claimed range, and further shares an endpoint of 40°C with the claimed range, and therefore supports a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05, I.
As to claim 7, Gupta discloses the etching method according to claim 1, wherein a pressure condition of the etching step is 1 Pa or more and 5 Pa or less [col. 17, “Example 7”, “30 mTorr”—which converts to about 3.99 Pa and therefore represents an explicit teaching within the claimed range].
As to claim 8 Gupta discloses the etching method according to claim 2, wherein the carbon material has at least one of amorphous carbon [col. 17, “Example 7”; Fig. 12; col. 7, lines 27-34 and Fig. 1-1a] and carbon-doped silicon oxide.
As to claim 9, Gupta discloses the etching method according to claim 2, wherein the etching gas contains the fluoro-dithiethane and at least one of a second etching compound and an inert gas [col. 17, “Example 7”; Fig. 12].
As to claim 10, Gupta discloses the etching method according to claim 9, wherein the second etching compound is at least one type among oxygen gas [col. 17, “Example 7”; Fig. 12]., nitrogen gas, and fluorocarbon.
As to claim 11 Gupta discloses the etching method according to claim 2, wherein a temperature condition of the etching step is 0°C or more and 40°C or less [col. 12, lines 36-42, “preferably between about -10°C to approximately 40°C”].
Here, Gupta discloses the disclosed etching process may employ a temperature “preferably between about -10°C to approximately 40°C” [col. 12, lines 36-42], which encompasses the claimed range, and further shares an endpoint of 40°C with the claimed range, and therefore supports a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05, I.
As to claim 12, Gupta discloses the etching method according to claim 2, wherein a pressure condition of the etching step is 1 Pa or more and 5 Pa or less [col. 17, “Example 7”, “30 mTorr”—which converts to about 3.99 Pa and therefore represents an explicit teaching within the claimed range].
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 1-5 and 8-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 4-6 of copending Application No. 18/867,945 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of ‘945.
Instant claim 1 requires that the etching object “has a carbon material”, but does not require that the carbon material actually be etched. Conversely, claim 1 of ‘945 does not preclude that at least some of the “non-etching object” is etched by process because it only requires “selectively etching the etching object over the non-etching object”.
Instant claim 2 is anticipated by claim 2 of ‘945.
Instant claim 3 is anticipated by claim 4 of ‘945.
Instant claim 4 is anticipated by claim 5 of ‘945.
Instant claim 5 is anticipated by claim 6 of ‘945.
Instant claim 8 is anticipated by claim 4 of ‘945.
Instant claim 9 is anticipated by claim 5 of ‘945.
Instant claim 10 is anticipated by claim 6 of ‘945.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: The additionally cited references are cited to show etching processes employing etching gases having a CxFyS2 structure and/or having an explicit range of purity [Abstracts].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M REMAVEGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER REMAVEGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights