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
A restriction requirement was previously deemed proper and made FINAL. Claims 1-4, 6-16, 18-24 and 37-41 have been considered elected and examined. Claims 5 and 17 have been withdrawn.
NOTE: Claims 5 and 17 remain withdrawn. Therefore, the claim modifiers for these claims are incorrect and technically render Applicant’s response non-compliant. However, as a courtesy, and in an effort to expedite examination, Examiner is responding to the response as submitted. This courtesy may not always be extended.
Claim Interpretation
In Applicant’s response, it was clarified that the recited claim feature “heated pedestal” may also be considered as the recited claim feature “chamber component” even though there is no clear structural connection thereto. It follows that other claimed features may also have overlap, where no explanation of their relationship exists in the context of Applicant’s relatively broadly recited claims (for example: reference substrate vs. substrate; reference substrate vs. chamber component). Note: in typical claim construction the same claim language is used to recite a single structure and/or the relationship is clearly set forth in the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 refers to “multiple weighted inputs”, but does not associate the same with the measured parameter associated with the transfer function. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to read “multiple weighted inputs of the measured parameter” and has examined accordingly.
Clarification and/or correction is requested based on Applicant’s intention and understanding of the rejected claim language after considering Examiner’s rejection thereof.
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.
Claim 1, 4, 6, 13, 16, 18 and 39-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0220148 to Consiglio et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0056211 to Popiolkowski et al.
Regarding claim 1: Consiglio et al. disclose a method, comprising: measuring (i.e. diagnosing via inspection) a parameter of a reference substrate (“substrate”) or a heated pedestal (120, wherein the heated pedestal is considered a “chamber component”) using one or more sensors (e.g., means for performing vapor phase decomposition-atomic absorption spectrophotometry (VPD-AAS), VPD-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (VPD-ICP-MS), or total-reflection X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (TXRF); and modifying a surface of a chamber component (e.g., heated pedestal) based on the measured parameter (see, e.g., paras. 56-76) so that the modified surface is texturized (to, for example, improve film uniformity on a substate during processing, wherein modifying the surface of the chamber component by texturizing the surface based on the measured parameter further comprises: determining deposition film-thickness non-uniformities (i.e. metal contamination, wherein the metal contamination is considered to be “a deposition film thickness non-uniformity” because it is a deposition film/residue formed during a deposition process in a deposition system with a thickness that is non-uniform relative to the “clean”/or desired surface at issue) across the reference substrate based on the measured parameter.
However, Consiglio et al. fails to explicitly disclose modifying the surface of the chamber component by texturizing the surface based on the measured parameter further comprises texturizing the surface in a non-uniform manner based on the determined deposition film-thickness non-uniformities; and wherein texturizing the chamber component comprises changing a surface area in different regions of the surface.
Notably, however, Consiglio et al. do disclose performing a wet clean process if the level of contamination exceeds a first threshold.
Popiolkowski et al. disclose modifying a surface of a chamber component by a texturizing process and a wet clean process to control contamination, wherein texturizing comprises texturizing surfaces of a chamber component in a non-uniform manner (i.e. a pattern, see, e.g., Fig. 5A) so that the modified surface improves film uniformity on a substrate during processing (i.e. modification of the surface may prevent contamination of a film being deposited by undesirable stray particles) resulting in a more uniform film thereby preventing a decrease in manufacturing yield (see, e.g., paras. 4-10 and 36, 66-67). Additionally, it is noted that Consiglio et al. teaches that residue may cause particle generation and subsequent device contamination due to migration of these particles to the backside surface of substrates used in the production of electronic devices (see, e.g., paras. 18).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have performed a method including modifying the surface of the chamber component of Consiglio et al. so that the modified surface improves film uniformity on a substrate during processing in order to prevent a decrease in manufacturing yield as taught by Popiolkowski et al.
With respect to claim 4, modified Consiglio et al., Popiolkowski et al. teach the chamber component is texturized by laser, bead blasting and chemical texturing (see, e.g., paras. 34 and 66-67).
With respect to claims 6, in modified Consiglio et al., Popiolkowski et al. disclose a chamber (100) for performing texturizing that is separate from the chamber of Consiglio et al. conducting the measuring.
With respect to claim 13, in modified Consiglio et al., Consiglio et al. teach the aforementioned method may be stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium for storing instructions executable by at least one processor (see, e.g., paras. 52-55).
With respect to claim 16, modified Consiglio et al., Popiolkowski et al. teach the chamber component is texturized by laser, bead blasting and chemical texturing (see, e.g., paras. 34 and 66-67).
With respect to claims 18, in modified Consiglio et al., Popiolkowski et al. disclose a chamber (100) for performing texturizing that is separate from the chamber of Consiglio et al. conducting the measuring.
With respect to claim 39, the chamber component is aligned/provided with respect to a texturing tool (100) prior to being modified based on a target pattern (i.e. texturized pattern than reduces contamination).
With respect to claim 40, in modified Consiglio et al., Consiglio et al. is considered a first chamber where a film formation step may be performed on a reference step before the claimed measuring and movement of the chamber component to Popiolkowski et al. for texturizing, after texturizing, the chamber component may be reinstalled in the first chamber.
With respect to claim 41, in modified Consiglio et al., as detailed above, Popiolkowski et al. disclose that a wet clean process (reducing surface roughness) of the chamber component may be performed on one region of the chamber component in combination with the aforementioned texturizing for increasing surface roughness in another region of the chamber component.
Claims 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Consiglio et al. as applied to claims 1, 4, 6, 13, 16, 18 and 39-41 and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0168173 to Tamura et al.
Modified Consiglio et al. discloses the method and non-transitory computer readable medium substantially as claimed and as described above, including providing one or more sensors.
However, Consiglio et al. fail to disclose the one or more sensors are disposed in a process chamber and measuring the parameter comprises scanning the reference substrate as the reference substrate is transferred through the process chamber. In particular, in Consiglio et al., details regarding placement are not addressed.
Tamura et al. teach providing sensors in a process chamber (see, e.g., Fig. 1, 11a-d) for measuring a parameter as the substrate is transferred into a process chamber (3a-b, 4a-b) for the purpose of providing the sensing just prior to the final (or next) stage of processing in a process chamber and thereby provide high accuracy with respect to a sensed parameter (see, e.g., paras. 10 and 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided one or more sensors disposed in a process chamber and measuring the parameter comprises scanning the reference substrate as the reference substrate is transferred through the process chamber in modified Consiglio et al. in order to provide sensing just prior to the final (or next) stage of processing in a process chamber and thereby provide high accuracy with respect to a sensed parameter as taught by Tamura et al.
Claim(s) 7-8, 19-21 and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Consiglio et al. as applied to claims 1, 4, 6, 13, 16, 18 and 39-41 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0266222 to Sata.
Modified Consiglio et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Consiglio et al. fails to disclose the method further comprises applying a transfer function to the measured parameter of the reference substrate or the heated pedestal to generate a target pattern and modifying the surface of the chamber component based on the target pattern to create a corresponding pattern of modification on the surface; generating a thermal map (i.e. individual monitoring and control over different zones) based on the measured parameter and modifying the surface of the chamber component based on the thermal map; and/or the parameter may be substrate temperature, substrate film thickness, dielectric constant, substrate film stress or heated pedestal temperature.
Sata teaches applying a transfer function to the measured parameter of a reference substrate or a heated pedestal to generate a target pattern and modifying the surface of the chamber component based on the target pattern to create a corresponding pattern of modification on the surface (see, e.g., paras. 44-80). Sato further teaches generating a thermal map (i.e. individual monitoring and control over different zones) based on the measured parameter and modifying the surface of the chamber component based on the thermal map. Additionally, the parameter may be substrate temperature or heated pedestal temperature. These method steps are provided for the purpose of providing a method allowing for rapid control during a modifying process and uniformity in a plurality of modifying areas (also see, e.g., paras. 15-16).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the apparatus of modified Consiglio et al. further comprises applying a transfer function to the measured parameter of the reference substrate or the heated pedestal to generate a target pattern and modifying the surface of the chamber component based on the target pattern to create a corresponding pattern of modification on the surface; generating a thermal map (i.e. individual monitoring and control over different zones) based on the measured parameter and modifying the surface of the chamber component based on the thermal map; and/or the parameter may be substrate temperature, substrate film thickness, dielectric constant, substrate film stress or heated pedestal temperature in order to provide for rapid control during a modifying process and uniformity in a plurality of modifying areas as taught by Sata.
With respect to claims 37 and 38, Sata also teaches modifying the surface may comprise a local modification (i.e. individual control of at least any one of the heaters) to compensate for a local high or local low deposition region on the reference substrate; or modifying the surface comprises a global modification (i.e. individual control of all heaters) to create a profile that compensates for a deposition profile of the reference substrate.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Consiglio et al. as applied to claims 1, 4, 6, 13, 16, 18 and 39-41 and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0093756 to Rajagopalan et al.
Modified Consiglio et al. disclose the method as claimed and as described above, including performing modifying step(s) either in the chamber in which the chamber component functions or outside of the chamber in which the chamber component functions.
However, modified Consiglio et al. fail to teach also further performing a modifying step wherein a protective coating is provided after the aforementioned modifying of the surface of the chamber component.
Rajagopolan et al. teach forming a protective coating via seasoning after modifying the surface of a chamber component for the purpose of accomplishing subsequent modifying steps (i.e. cleanings) more efficiently and in order to provide a glue layer for potential contaminating particles (see, e.g., paras. 45-46).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have formed a protective coating via seasoning as an additional modifying step after modifying the surface of the chamber component of Consiglio et al. in order to accomplish subsequent modifying steps (i.e. cleanings) more efficiently and in order to provide a glue layer for potential contaminating particles as taught by Rajafopolan et al.
Claims 11 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Consiglio et al. as applied to claims 10, 12, 22 and 24 and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0171389 to Dando et al.
Modified Consiglio et al. discloses the method and non-transitory computer readable medium substantially as claimed and as described above, including providing one or more sensors.
However, Consiglio et al fail to disclose texturizing the surface of the chamber component and coating the chamber component are performed in a single process chamber.
Dando et al. teach performing texturizing using a laser and coating a substrate in a single process chamber for the purpose of improving efficiency (see, e.g., paras. 11, 36-41).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided for texturizing and coating of the chamber component in a single chamber in order to improve efficiency as taught by Dando et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-16, 18-24 and 37-41 have been considered but are moot unpersuasive because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. However, comments are provided below with respect to the modified claim language and modified rejections that remain relevant to the claim language and Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant has argued that a definition of “deposition film thickness non-uniformities” is given in Applicant’s specification and it is based on a result of “center-high, middle high, or edge-high deposition amongst other non-uniform deposition patterns”. Examiner does not find this to be a clear definition, nor does Examiner even find it to be limited to the parts of the sentence that Applicant has pointed out in their remarks. As detailed above, the metal contamination is considered to be “a deposition film thickness non-uniformity” because it is a deposition film with a thickness that is non-uniform. If Applicant would like the claim to limit the claims to a specific type of “deposition film thickness non-uniformity”, or a specific result formed by the “deposition film thickness non-uniformity” or the “deposition film thickness non-uniformity” formed by a specific process, Applicant is encouraged to add this to the claim language so that it is clarified. Additionally, Examiner notes even if the definition that Applicant attempts set forth were clear or limiting, the courts have ruled that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Examiner notes that Applicant has traversed the previous rejection under 35 USC 112, b, but has not provided any reasoning for the traversal. The basis for the traversal is unclear to the Examiner. Applicant has also amended the claims based on what Examiner has set forth as their assumed understanding of the claim language and the underlying disclosed subject matter. Applicant further also pre-supposed that the claims must now be allowable based on this amendment. Examiner points out that is Applicant’s responsibility to point out their reasons for traversal if they do, in fact, affect the claim interpretation, claim clarity, or any other facet of Applicant’s claimed or disclosed inventions that is most appropriately addressed during the examination process. Examiner’s previous assumption to expedite examination does not relieve Applicant of this responsibility, rather it is an invitation to provide an appropriate response including a full traversal indicating any flaws in Examiners rejection or assumed interpretation.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the combined disclosures of Popiolkowski and Consiglio et al. fail to disclose texturing in a non-uniform manner. As set forth in the rejection, but not addressed in Applicants remarks, Popiolkowski teaches texturing using a pattern (i.e. a non-uniform manner).
Examiner also disagrees that the non-uniform texturing addressed above fails to relate to improving film uniformity. Again, Popiolkowski et al. disclose modifying a surface of a chamber component by a texturizing process and a wet clean process to control contamination, wherein texturizing comprises texturizing surfaces of a chamber component in a non-uniform manner (i.e. a pattern, see, e.g., Fig. 5A) so that the modified surface improves film uniformity on a substrate during processing (i.e. modification of the surface may prevent contamination of a film being deposited by undesirable stray particles) resulting in a more uniform film thereby preventing a decrease in manufacturing yield (see, e.g., paras. 4-10 and 36, 66-67). Additionally, it is noted that Consiglio et al. teaches that residue may cause particle generation and subsequent device contamination due to migration of these particles to the backside surface of substrates used in the production of electronic devices (see, e.g., paras. 18).
Examiner also disagrees with Applicant’s arguments regarding the relied upon teachings of Tamura et al. The chamber of Tamura et al. is considered a process chamber for performing, at least sensing the parameter.
Finally, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s argument with respect to claims 7-8, 19-21 and 37-38, and notes in response to this argument against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 9 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 3 and 15: The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the method comprising, in the context of all other claim limitations, wherein a temperature of the reference substrate is determined based on the measured parameter being at least one of a substrate film thickness, a dielectric constant or a substrate film stress. Further, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combination, to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
With respect to claim 9: The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the method comprising, in the context of all other claim limitations, wherein transfer function is based on multiple weighted inputs of the measured parameter. Further, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combination, to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP Pub. 2017/0309525 discloses an indirect method of substrate temperature measurement/control.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached on (571) 272-1435. 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 PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights