`“x
`‘\\f
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`15/427,198
`
`02/08/2017
`
`NORIYUKI MATSUBARA
`
`PIPMM—57207
`
`2420
`
`08’1”)” —PEARNE&GORDON LLP m
`7590
`52054
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`STEVENSON, ANDRE C
`SUITE 1200
`CLEVELAND, OH 441 14-3 108
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`2816
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/ 1 1/2017
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patdocket @ pearne.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 15/427,198 MATSUBARA ET AL.
`
`
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Office Action Summary
`
`
`ANDREI C. STEVENSON $2215 2816
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 02/08/17.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|ZI This action is non-final.
`2a)|:l This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI CIaim(s)1;8is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`7)|Z| CIaim(s)_1-8is/are rejected.
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`hit
`:/'I’vaIW.usnI‘.0. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`iindex.‘s or send an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|Xl The drawing(s) filed on 02/08/17 is/are: a)IXI accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)IXI Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)IZl All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.IXI Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) E InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date 02/08/17.
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20170804
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/427,198
`
`Art Unit: 2816
`
`Page 2
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
`
`inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
`
`Priority
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/08/17 was filed before the final action
`
`on the merits of the case. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
`
`Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
`
`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.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966),
`
`that are applied 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/427,198
`
`Art Unit: 2816
`
`Page 3
`
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
`
`nonobviousness.
`
`Claim #1 -4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arita et al.,
`
`(US. Pub. No. 2012/0021608 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Arita” and in view of Lei et a|., (U.S. Pub.
`
`No. 2015/0214109 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Lei”.
`
`Arita shows, with respect to claim #1, a plasma processing method comprising: an attaching process of
`
`attaching a resin film (fig. #23, item 3) to a first main surface (fig. #23, item 13) of a substrate (fig. #23, item 1)
`
`which is provided with the first main surface and a second main (fig. #2, item 1b) surface on an opposite side of the
`
`first main surface mask (paragraph 0046, 0054, 0055); a patterning process of forming a, which includes an
`
`opening exposing a region to be processed of the substrate, by patterning the resin film (paragraph 0046, 0056); a
`
`second plasma process (after first plasma process, paragraph 0047) of generating second plasma from second
`
`gas in atmosphere including the second gas, exposing, to the second plasma, the region to be processed exposed
`
`from the opening, and etching the region to be processed (paragraph 0053).
`
`Arita substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection above.
`
`Arita fails to show, with respect to claim #1 a plasma process of generating first plasma of first gas in a
`
`depressurized atmosphere including the first gas, exposing the mask to the first plasma, and reducing a void between
`
`the mask and the first main surface.
`
`Lei teaches, in similar method of wafer dicing, with respect to claim #1 a plasma process of generating first
`
`plasma of first gas in a depressurized atmosphere including the first gas, exposing the mask (fig. #63, item 602) to
`
`the first plasma, and reducing a void between the mask and the first main surface (surfaces between item 602 and
`
`606, fig. 63) (paragraph 0051).
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with
`
`respect to claim #1 a plasma process of generating first plasma of first gas in a depressurized atmosphere including
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/427,198
`
`Art Unit: 2816
`
`Page 4
`
`the first gas, exposing the mask to the first plasma, and reducing a void between the mask and the first main surface,
`
`into the method of Arita, with the motivation that this is used to effect strong physical bombardment to "hammer"
`
`the exposed mask surface, and thus realize improvement of mask etch resistance. The improvement of mask etch
`
`resistance under physical bombardment may be due to different mechanisms depending on specific mask materials,
`
`as taught by Lei.
`
`Arita fails to show with respect to claim #2, a plasma process wherein in the first plasma process, the mask
`
`is heated with the first plasma, and at least a part of the mask is softened.
`
`Lei teaches, in similar method of wafer dicing, with respect to claim #2 a plasma process wherein a mask
`
`plasma treatment operation (fig. #5, item504) is carried out on the mask (fig. #6a, item 602) at high energy
`
`(paragraph 0051). The Examiner notes that Lei does not state specifically that the process causes a softening of the
`
`mask. However, the Examiner notes that Lei states, in the sited section above, that high energy levels of the plasma
`
`range are just short of etching and that low energy ranges causes a hardening of the mask. Furthermore, the
`
`Examiner notes that the claim language fails to show any temperature range or specific processes of the plasma
`
`operation that teach away from Lei's treatment step.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with
`
`respect to claim #2, a plasma process wherein in the first plasma process, the mask is heated with the first plasma,
`
`and at least a part of the mask is softened, into the method of Arita, with the motivation that this is used to effect
`
`strong physical bombardment to "hammer" the exposed mask surface, and thus realize improvement of mask etch
`
`resistance. The improvement of mask etch resistance under physical bombardment may be due to different
`
`mechanisms depending on specific mask materials, as taught by Lei.
`
`Arita fails to show, with respect to claim #3, a plasma process wherein the first gas includes a least one
`
`selected form a group of argon, oxygen, nitrogen and helium.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/427,198
`
`Art Unit: 2816
`
`Page 5
`
`Lei teaches, in similar method of wafer dicing, with respect to claim #3 a plasma process wherein the first
`
`gas consist of argon, nitrogen or a combination (paragraph 0051).
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with
`
`respect to claim #3, a plasma process wherein the first gas includes a least one selected form a group of argon,
`
`oxygen, nitrogen and helium, into the method of Arita, with the motivation that this is used to effect strong physical
`
`bombardment to "hammer" the exposed mask surface, and thus realize improvement of mask etch resistance. The
`
`improvement of mask etch resistance under physical bombardment may be due to different mechanisms depending
`
`on specific mask materials, as taught by Lei.
`
`Arita fails to show, with respect to claim #4, a plasma process wherein pressure of the depressurized
`
`atmosphere including the first gas is 0.1 Pa to 100 Pa.
`
`Lei teaches, in similar method of wafer dicing, with respect to claim #4, a plasma process wherein pressure
`
`of the depressurized atmosphere including the first gas is 100 mTorr to 250 mTorr (13.33 to 33.3 Pa) (paragraph
`
`0051).
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with
`
`respect to claim #4, a plasma process wherein pressure of the depressurized atmosphere including the first gas is 0.1
`
`Pa to 100 Pa, into the method of Arita, with the motivation that this is used to effect strong physical bombardment to
`
`"hammer" the exposed mask surface, and thus realize improvement of mask etch resistance. The improvement of
`
`mask etch resistance under physical bombardment may be due to different mechanisms depending on specific mask
`
`materials, as taught by Lei.
`
`Arita shows, with respect to claim #6, a plasma processing method wherein, in the mask which is made of
`
`resin, (fig. #2a, item 4) is removed by wet mask removal method (paragraph 0080).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/427,198
`
`Art Unit: 2816
`
`Page 6
`
`Arita fails to show, with respect to claim #7 a plasma processing method wherein, in the patterning
`
`process, by scribing using laser, a part, corresponding to the opening, of the resin film is removed.
`
`Lei teaches, with respect to claim #7, a plasma processing method wherein, in the patterning process, by
`
`scribing using laser, a part, corresponding to the opening (fig. #4b, item 410), of the resin film (fig. #4b, item 408)
`
`is removed (paragraph 0037).
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with
`
`respect to claim #7, a plasma processing method wherein, in the patterning process, by scribing using laser, a part,
`
`corresponding to the opening, of the resin film is removed, into the method of Arita, with the motivation that
`
`provides benefits and advantages such as providing sufficiently high laser intensity to achieve ionization of
`
`inorganic dielectrics (e.g., silicon dioxide) and to minimize delamination and chipping caused by underlayer damage
`
`prior to direct ablation of inorganic dielectrics, as taught by Lei.
`
`Arita shows, with respect to claim #8, a plasma processing method wherein, in the second plasma process,
`
`the region to be processed (fig. #2b, item 4) is etched from the first main surface (fig. #2a, item 4, top) to the
`
`second main surface (fig. #2e, item 1b) (paragraph 0053), and the substrate is divided into individual pieces
`
`(paragraph 0079).
`
`//
`
`Claim #5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arita et al., (U.S. Pub.
`
`No. 2012/0021608 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Arita” as modified by Lei et al., (U.S. Pub. No.
`
`2015/0214109 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Lei” as applied to claim #1 above, and further in view of
`
`KUO et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0038419 A1), hereinafter referred to as " KUO
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/427,198
`
`Art Unit: 2816
`
`Page 7
`
`Arita as modified by Lei substantially shows the claim invention as shown in the rejection below.
`
`Arita as modified by Lei fails to show, with respect to claim #5, a method wherein the first plasma process
`
`and the second plasma process are continuously performed in the same space.
`
`KUO teaches, with respect to claim #5, a method wherein both plasma process are carried out in the same
`
`chamber (paragraph 0043).
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with
`
`respect to claim #5, a method wherein the first plasma process and the second plasma process are continuously
`
`performed in the same space, into the method of Arita as modified by Lei, with the motivation that performing both
`
`plasma process in the same chamber decreases the possibility of contamination and also reduces cost and time of to
`
`complete design, as taught by KUO.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be
`
`directed to Andre’ Stevenson whose telephone number is (571) 272 1683. The examiner can normally be reached
`
`on Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are
`
`unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith can be reached on 571-272 2429. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status
`
`information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status
`
`information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the
`
`