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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 and 21-30, in the reply filed on 6/16/2026 is acknowledged. However, applicants canceled the non-elected invention (claims 31-36) and newly added claims 37-42 should be restricted out as they are claiming distinct species.
Newly submitted claims 37-42 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species A: an apparatus comprises a controller configured to control gas supply, plasma generator and the bias power source (claim 1);
Species B: An apparatus comprises a controller configured to control gas flow to form recess in the silicon-containing film (claims 37,39,41 and 42).
The species are independent or distinct because the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claim is generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the invention require a different search (for example, searching different class/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
The invention have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 37-42 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stone et al (US 2017/0178894).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Stone et al disclose a plasma treatment system for etching a silicon-containing film of a substrate having the silicon-containing film and a mask (see abstract, fig. 4), the plasma treatment system comprising:
a chamber 400; a substrate support 416 to support the substrate in the chamber (page 12, para 0111, fig. 4);
a gas inlet 426/supply to supply a process gas in the chamber (page 12, para 0112), the process gas containing HF/a hydrogen fluoride gas component, PF 3 gas/ phosphorus gas component, and C4F8/carbon gas component and argon/neon/a rare gas (page 4, para 0036, page 5, para 0043, 0045, page 6, para 0054); and aforesaid hydrogen fluoride gas reads on the claimed “halogen-containing gas.
control circuitry 402 configured to control the gas supply to supply the process gas in the chamber to etch the silicon-containing film of the substrate supported by the substrate support (page 5, para 0043, page 12, para 0112);
and control a plasma generator to generate plasma from the process gas in the chamber (page 5, para 0048, fig. 4), wherein the silicon-containing film includes a silicon oxide film (page 3, para 0032).
Stone et al also disclose that a RF bias power may applied to the substrate [0053], [0063].
Regarding claim 22, Stone et al disclose that the plasma-based oxide etch process includes introducing a flow of nitrogen trifluoride (NF.sub.3) into a plasma forming region and/or substrate-processing region. Other sources of fluorine may augment or replace the nitrogen trifluoride; and the other sources of fluorine comprises HF (hydrogen fluoride) [0043].
Regarding claims 23-25, Stone et al disclose the bias power has a bias of greater than zero [0063]; the power used to generate the RF bias may be pulsed [0064].
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.
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 26-27 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone et al (US 2017/0178894) as applied to claim(s) 1,25 above.
Stone et al disclose the features of claim 1 above but fail to disclose setting the temperature of the substrate support to a temperature of 00 C or less.
However, Stone et al disclose that the temperature of the substrate may be between about 0 degrees Celsius and about 200 degrees Celsius [0097]; and aforesaid overlaps the claimed range of 00 C or less; and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 27, Stone et al disclose above that the plasma is generated by known techniques (e.g., radio frequency excitations, capacitively coupled power, inductively coupled power, and the like); aforesaid radio frequency obviously reads on the ”first RF power source” [0048]; and disclose that a RF bias power (corresponding the “second RF power source”) may applied to the substrate [0053], [0063]; and control circuitry 402 configured to control the gas supply to supply the process gas in the chamber to etch the silicon-containing film of the substrate supported by the substrate support (page 5, para 0043, page 12, para 0112).
Regarding claims 29-30, Stone et al disclose above the first and the second power source [0048],[0063]; and the RF bias may be pulsed [0064]; and therefore, it would have bee obvious that the first RF power is a “primary RF signal” and the second RF power is a “second RF signal”.
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 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,3 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,142,484 in view of Stone et al (US 2017/0178894).
The difference between the patent ‘484 is that supplying a bias power coupled to the substrate support for supplying a bias electric power.
However, Stone et al disclose a plasma etch process comprises flowing a fluorine-containing precursor and a heavy inert precursor into the substrate processing region while applying a plasma power to bombard the exposed silicon-containing surface with fluorine-containing ions while applying a bias to the substrate [0016]; and an RF bias is applied to the substrate via the substrate support with an RF power supply. Power applied to the substrate support creates a substrate bias in the form of a negative voltage on the upper surface of the substrate. This negative voltage is used to attract ions from the plasma formed in the substrate-processing region to the upper surface of the substrate [0063].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Stone et al's teaching of applying a bias power into the teaching of the patent’484 for increasing the etching efficiency by attracting ions form the plasma formed in the substrate-processing region to the upper surface of the substrate as taught by Stone et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 is 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: the prior art fails to teach or suggest a plasma processing (etching) apparatus, wherein the first-first power level is greater than the second-first power level, the second-first power level is greater than the third-first power level, the first-second power level is greater than the second-second power level, and the second-second power level is greater than the third-second power level as the context of claim 28.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights