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 .
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 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of updating the first paragraph of the Specification with US Patent No. 12,125,709 issued from the parent application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiehbauch et al. (US20090275205).
Regarding claim 1, Kiehbauch discloses a method of dry-etching silicon oxide (abstract), comprising reacting silicon oxide in a non-plasma state (paragraph 0015), wherein the reaction comprises: contacting a treatment gas including an organic amine compound with silicon oxide (paragraph 0015); and contacting a treatment gas including a hydrogen fluoride with the silicon oxide (paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 3, Kiehbauch discloses wherein the organic amine compound is represented by formula (1) as recited in the instant claim (methylamine, dimethylamine or trimethylamine, paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 4, Kiehbauch discloses wherein the organic amine compound is a secondary amine or a tertiary amine (dimethylamine or trimethylamine, paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 5, Kiehbauch discloses wherein the secondary amine is dimethylamine (paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 6, Kiehbauch discloses wherein the tertiary amine is trimethylamine (paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 10, Kiehbauch discloses selectively etching a silicon oxide film on a substrate to be treated where both the silicon oxide film and a polycrystalline silicon film are exposed (paragraphs 0037-0038 and Fig. 3C, wherein layer 14” is silicon oxide, layer 106 is polycrystalline silicon, as evidenced by paragraph 0016 and Fig. 1C of US20080171438 (application Ser. No. 11/652,218) incorporated by reference in paragraph 0037 of Kiehbauch).
Regarding claim 12, Kiehbauch discloses method of producing a semiconductor device, comprising etching a silicon oxide film on a semiconductor substrate including the silicon oxide film using the method of dry-etching silicon oxide according to claim 1 (paragraph 0043).
Claims 1-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR100870914, a machine-translated English version is used).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a method of dry-etching silicon oxide (abstract), comprising reacting silicon oxide in a non-plasma state (lines 115-123), wherein the reaction comprises: contacting a treatment gas including an organic amine compound with silicon oxide (lines 84-89 and 115-123); and contacting a treatment gas including a hydrogen fluoride with the silicon oxide (lines 84-89 and 115-123).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses wherein a temperature of the silicon oxide upon the reaction is lower than 200°C (line 121).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses wherein the organic amine compound is represented by formula (1), wherein N represents a nitrogen atom, R1 represents a C1 hydrocarbon group, and R2 and R3 each represents a hydrogen atom (CH3NH2, lines 118-119).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses sublimating a reaction product which is obtained by the reacting of claim 1, wherein the sublimating is performed without supplying either the treatment gas including an organic amine compound or the treatment gas including a hydrogen fluoride (lines 153-157).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses method of producing a semiconductor device, comprising etching a silicon oxide film on a semiconductor substrate including the silicon oxide film using the method of dry-etching silicon oxide according to claim 1 (lines 16-19).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Lee (KR100870914, a machine-translated English version is used) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ma (US20190244828).
Regarding claim 7, Lee is silent about selectively etching a silicon oxide film on a substrate to be treated where both the silicon oxide film and a silicon nitride film are exposed. However, Lee discloses that the method uses a mixture of hydrogen fluoride and IPA for removing silicon oxide film (lines 138-152). In addition, Ma teaches that an etching process using a mixture of hydrogen fluoride and IPA can be used to selectively etching a silicon oxide film on a substrate to be treated where both the silicon oxide film and a silicon nitride film are exposed (claims 12 and 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the method of Lee in the application of Ma, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do modification because Lee discloses that the method provides improved wafer throughput (lines 31-37).
Regarding claim 8, the limitation in the wherein clause in the method claim simply expresses the intended result of the recited process; therefore, it is not accorded patentability weight. See MPEP 2111.04.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee (KR100870914, a machine-translated English version is used) as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses wherein a temperature of the silicon oxide upon the reaction is 20°C or higher and 50°C or lower (line 121), which overlaps with the range recited in the instant claim. 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).
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1 and 9, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,715,641. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims are generally directed to processes that are fully encompassed by the more broadly recited process claims of the instant application.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,125,709. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims are generally directed to processes that are fully encompassed by the more broadly recited process claims of the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIONG-PING LU whose telephone number is (571) 270-1135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am – 5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua L Allen, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JIONG-PING LU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights