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 1-4 and 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 contacting silicon oxide with a treatment gas comprising a hydrogen fluoride and an organic amine compound, in a non-plasma state (an alkylamine reads on an organic amine, lines 38-54), and sublimating a reaction product which is obtained by the contacting, wherein the sublimating is performed without supplying a hydrogen fluoride and an organic amine compound (post heat treatment, lines 54-59; the post heat treatment reads on a sublimation process as evidenced by Muraki et al. US20100216296).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses wherein a temperature of the silicon oxide upon the reaction is lower than 200°C (line 43).
Regarding claim 4, 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 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 15-19).
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.
Claim 3 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 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Lee is silent about wherein a ratio of the organic amine compound to the hydrogen fluoride included in the treatment gas, as determined by dividing the number of moles of the organic amine compound by the number of moles of the hydrogen fluoride is 0.001 or higher but 100 or lower. However, Lee discloses that the reaction gas comprises HF and alkylamine or HF and NH3, and a ratio of the organic amine compound to the hydrogen fluoride included in the treatment gas, as determined by dividing the number of moles of the organic amine compound by the number of moles of the hydrogen fluoride is 0.5 or higher but 2 or lower (lines 38-59). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to supply alkylamine at a similar ratio to HF as the ratio for NH3 to HF with a reasonable expectation of success, because alkylamine and NH3 serve a similar chemical function in forming an ammonium fluoride salt. Additionally, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation and there is no evidence of the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claims 5-7 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 Bajaj et al. (US20170316946).
Regarding claim 5, Lee is silent about wherein the organic amine compound is a secondary amine or a tertiary amine. However, Lee discloses that the organic amine compound is an alkylamine (lines 38-40). In addition, Bajaj teaches that an alkylamine vapor used in etching a silicon-containing material comprises primary amine (such as methylamine), secondary amine (such as dimethylamine), or tertiary amine (such as trimethylamine) (paragraph 0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use known an alkylamine compound as taught by Bajaj, in the method of Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success. It has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143 I.(A).
Regarding claim 6, Bajaj discloses wherein the secondary amine is dimethylamine (paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 7, Bajaj discloses wherein the tertiary amine is trimethylamine (paragraph 0024).
Claims 8-9 and 11 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 8, 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 9, 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.
Regarding claim 11, Lee is silent about 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. 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 polysilicon film are exposed (claims 12 and 17). 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).
Claim 10 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 10, 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 and 4-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being obvious over claims of co-pending Application No. 18,889,781 (hereinafter ‘781).
Regarding claim 1, ‘781 claims a method of dry-etching silicon oxide (claim 1), comprising contacting silicon oxide with a treatment gas comprising a hydrogen fluoride and an organic amine compound in a non-plasma state (claim 1), and sublimating a reaction product which is obtained by the contacting, wherein the sublimating is performed without supplying the treatment gas (claim 11).
Regarding claim 2, ‘781 claims wherein a temperature of the silicon oxide upon the contacting is 200° C. or lower (claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, ‘781 claims wherein the organic amine compound is represented by formula (1) as recited in the instant claim (claim 3).
Regarding claim 5, ‘781 claims wherein the organic amine compound is a secondary amine or a tertiary amine (claim 4).
Regarding claim 6, ‘781 claims wherein the secondary amine is at least one compound selected from the group consisting of dimethylamine, diethylamine, di-normal propylamine, diisopropylamine, dibutylamine, and di-tertiary butylamine (claim 5).
Regarding claim 7, ‘781 claims wherein the tertiary amine is at least one compound selected from the group consisting of trimethylamine, dimethylethylamine, diethylmethylamine, and triethylamine (claim 6).
Regarding claim 8, ‘781 claims 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 (claim 7).
Regarding claim 9, ‘781 claims wherein a selection ratio of the silicon oxide film to the silicon nitride film is 2.5 or higher (claim 8).
Regarding claim 10, ‘781 claims wherein a temperature of the silicon oxide upon the contacting is 200° C. or lower (claim 9).
Regarding claim 11, ‘781 claims 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 (claim 10).
Regarding claim 12, ‘781 claims 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 (claim 12).
This is a provisional double patenting rejection since the conflicting claims have not yet been patented.
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