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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/05/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19-24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification, as originally filed, fails to describe the limitation “a peripheral control device electrically connected to the reactor housing and configured to modulate energy of ions in the plasma”, as recited in independent claim 1, lines 10-11. It should be noted that the specification does not describe the claimed “peripheral control device”. Correction is required.
The specification, as originally filed, fails to describe the limitation “a peripheral control device electrically connected to the reactor housing and configured to modulate energy of ions in the plasma”, as recited in independent claim 10, lines 9-10. It should be noted that the specification does not describe the claimed “peripheral control device”. Correction is required.
The specification, as originally filed, fails to describe the limitation “a peripheral control device electrically connected to the reactor housing and configured to modulate energy of ions in the plasma”, as recited in independent claim 17, lines 5-6. It should be noted that the specification does not describe the claimed “peripheral control device”. Correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19-24, and 26-28 are 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.
The limitation “a peripheral control device electrically connected to the reactor housing and configured to modulate energy of ions in the plasma”, in independent claim 1, lines 10-11, is confusing since it is not clear to what structure the limitation “a peripheral control device” is referring to. It should be noted that the specification of the instant claimed invention does not provide a description of the claimed “peripheral control device”. However, the specification of the instant claimed invention discloses that a substrate tuning bias supplied by a stacking direct current power supply unit and combined with an inductively coupled plasma power source can be used to modulate the direction and energy of the argon ions (see, for example, paragraphs 0021 and 0047 of the specification of the instant claimed invention). Therefore, for purposes of examination, the combination of a stacking direct current power supply unit and an inductively coupled plasma power source would be interpreted as the means that can modulate the energy of the ions in the plasma. However, it should be noted that independent claim 1 already recites a DC power supply and an inductively coupled plasma power source, and therefore, the claim appears to recite duplicate structures. Clarification and/or correction is required.
The limitation “a peripheral control device electrically connected to the reactor housing and configured to modulate energy of ions in the plasma”, in independent claim 10, lines 9-10, is confusing since it is not clear to what structure the limitation “a peripheral control device” is referring to. It should be noted that the specification of the instant claimed invention does not provide a description of the claimed “peripheral control device”. However, the specification of the instant claimed invention discloses that a substrate tuning bias supplied by a stacking direct current power supply unit and combined with an inductively coupled plasma power source can be used to modulate the direction and energy of the argon ions (see, for example, paragraphs 0021 and 0047 of the specification of the instant claimed invention). Therefore, for purposes of examination, the combination of a stacking direct current power supply unit and an inductively coupled plasma power source would be interpreted as the means that can modulate the energy of the ions in the plasma. However, it should be noted that independent claim 10 already recites a DC power supply and an inductively coupled plasma power source, and therefore, the claim appears to recite duplicate structures. Clarification and/or correction is required.
The limitation “a peripheral control device electrically connected to the reactor housing and configured to modulate energy of ions in the plasma”, in independent claim 17, lines 5-6, is confusing since it is not clear to what structure the limitation “a peripheral control device” is referring to. It should be noted that the specification of the instant claimed invention does not provide a description of the claimed “peripheral control device”. However, the specification of the instant claimed invention discloses that a substrate tuning bias supplied by a stacking direct current power supply unit and combined with an inductively coupled plasma power source can be used to modulate the direction and energy of the argon ions (see, for example, paragraphs 0021 and 0047 of the specification of the instant claimed invention). Therefore, for purposes of examination, the combination of a stacking direct current power supply unit and an inductively coupled plasma power source would be interpreted as the means that can modulate the energy of the ions in the plasma. However, it should be noted that independent claim 17 already recites a DC power supply and an inductively coupled plasma power source, and therefore, the claim appears to recite duplicate structures. Clarification and/or correction is required.
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 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(s) 1-2, 9, 17, 19-20, 22 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 2004/0182319 in view of Li et al., US 2016/0365360 or Bardos et al., US 6,899,054 or Chan, US 6,632,324 and Morimoto, US 2002/0179249 or Yang et al., US 2010/0029082 and Ghanbari, US 5,556,521 or Wickramanayaka, US 6,333,601 or Quiles et al., US 6,562,189 and Zhong et al., US 8,671,878.
Kim et al. shows the invention substantially as claimed including a system, comprising a pedestal 13 configured to support a substrate 16; a reactor housing the pedestal; a direct current power supply 55 electrically coupled to the substrate through the pedestal and configured to apply a bias voltage to the substrate; a first radio frequency (RF) power supply 40 coupled to an inductively coupled power source configured to generate a plasma within the reactor housing; (see, for example, Fig. 1 of Kim et al. and its description).
PNG
media_image1.png
461
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim et al. does not expressly disclose the claimed first and second magnets. Li et al. discloses a system comprising a first magnet 31 and a second magnet 32 positioned on a first sidewall surface and a second sidewall surface of the reactor, respectively, wherein the first and second sidewall surfaces are opposite to one another; the first magnet has a first polarity S oriented perpendicularly towards the pedestal and a second polarity N oriented perpendicularly away from the pedestal; and the second magnet has the second polarity N oriented perpendicularly towards the pedestal and the first polarity S oriented perpendicularly away from the pedestal (see, for example, Fig. 1 of Li et al. and its description).
PNG
media_image2.png
449
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Also, Bardos et al. discloses a system comprising a first magnet (left magnet 10) and a second magnet (right magnet 10) positioned on a first sidewall surface and a second sidewall surface of the reactor, respectively, wherein the first and second sidewall surfaces are opposite to one another; the first magnet has a first polarity S oriented perpendicularly towards the pedestal and a second polarity N oriented perpendicularly away from the pedestal; and the second magnet has the second polarity N oriented perpendicularly towards the pedestal and the first polarity S oriented perpendicularly away from the pedestal (see, for example, Fig. 2 of Bardos et al. and its description).
PNG
media_image3.png
566
428
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Chan discloses a system comprising a first magnet 140 and a second magnet 150 positioned on a first sidewall surface and a second sidewall surface of the reactor, respectively, wherein the first and second sidewall surfaces are opposite to one another; the first magnet has a first polarity S oriented perpendicularly towards the pedestal and a second polarity N oriented perpendicularly away from the pedestal; and the second magnet has the second polarity N oriented perpendicularly towards the pedestal and the first polarity S oriented perpendicularly away from the pedestal (see, for example, Fig. 7, and its description, Fig. 7 shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
377
337
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kim et al. as to comprise the claimed first and second magnets having the claimed configuration because such means are known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently providing/generating of a perpendicular magnetic field and/or longitudinal magnetic field, and thereby optimize the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus. It should be noted that the magnets of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan, would generate a magnetic field that would collimate ions in the plasma in a direction perpendicular to the pedestal. The specification of the instant claimed invention, in paragraph 0038, discloses that by having the magnets having opposite polarities, the generated magnetic fields would be perpendicular to the pedestal/substrate and collimate the ions from the plasma. Therefore, since the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan would comprise magnets 140 and 145 having opposite polarities, then it will be expected that the magnets would collimate ions from the plasma as claimed. Additionally, it should be noted that such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The magnets of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan, are capable of generating the claimed magnetic field, if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
With respect to the pedestal being configured to extend, Morimoto discloses a plasma processing system comprising a movable pedestal that extends from a first height to a second height (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, especially paragraph 0061, Fig. 1 shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
285
303
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Also, Yang et al. discloses a plasma processing system comprising a movable pedestal 114/214 that extends from a first height to a second height (see, for example, Figs. 1-4 and their descriptions, Fig. 3 shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
258
227
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan as to comprise a movable pedestal because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently adjusting the height of the substrate within the plasma processing chamber to a desired height, thereby optimizing the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus.
Concerning the claimed diameter of the pedestal, Ghanbari discloses a system for treating 300mm substrates (col. 5, lines 61-64), and a pedestal having a diameter larger than the wafer (see, for example, 2 and its disclosure), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the pedestal diameter would be larger than 300mm. Also, Wickramanayaka a plasma apparatus comprising a substrate support pedestal 15 having a diameter of 300 mm. Additionally, Quiles et al. discloses a plasma apparatus comprising a substrate support pedestal 130 having a diameter that is about 300 mm or greater (see for example, claims 22 and 59). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al., as to comprise a pedestal having the claimed diameter because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently positioning/treating a wafer (large wafer) in the reactor. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the diameter of the pedestal during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the wafer diameter, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
With respect to the claimed control device electrically connected to the reactor housing and configured to modulate energy of ions in the plasma, it should be noted that the specification of the instant claimed invention discloses that a substrate tuning bias supplied by a stacking direct current power supply unit and combined with an inductively coupled plasma power source can be used to modulate the direction and energy of the argon ions (see, for example, paragraphs 0021 and 0047 of the specification of the instant claimed invention). As stated above, Kim et al. discloses the direct current power supply 55 electrically coupled to the substrate and the RF power supply 40 coupled to the inductively coupled power source. Kim et al. further discloses that the apparatus comprises a RF bias power source 50 that can be coupled to the substrate with the direct current power supply unit 55 (see, for example, Fig. 1 of Kim et al., and its description. Therefore, the apparatus of Kim et al. comprises the stacking direct current power supply unit that can be used in combination with the inductively coupled plasma power source to modulate the energy of the ions in the plasma. This notwithstanding, Zhong et al. discloses a control device 270 that controls a bias power supply 256 and the inductive RF power source 251. Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Kim et al. as to further comprise a control device coupled to the bias power supply and to the inductive coupled RF source because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively, efficiently and precisely control the power supplied to the inductive coupled RF source and the power supplied to the bias power supply.
With respect to the modulation of the energy of the ions in the plasma, and the modulation being used to etch a dielectric layer on the substrate to form a contact opening to expose a contact region, and pre-clean the exposed contact region to remove a residual material formed by the etch, it should be noted that such limitations are directed to method limitations instead of apparatus limitations, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Zhong et al., is capable of modulating the energy of the ions in the plasma, and performing the claimed etching and pre-clean processes if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
With respect to claim 2, it should be noted that the diameter of the pedestal of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Zhong et al., would be less than or equal to about 300 mm.
Concerning claim 9, it should be noted that the magnets of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Zhong et al., are cylindrical electromagnetic coils.
Regarding claim 17, it should be noted that the inductively coupled radio frequency (RF) power supply of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Zhong et al., is configured to apply a power to a plasma generating gas within the reactor housing to generate a plasma within the reactor and above the wafer, the first magnet, and the second magnet. Additionally, and also with respect to claim 27, Morimoto further discloses the use of 16 magnets, four sets of coils in a first sidewall surface (left) and four sets of coils in a second opposite sidewall surface (right) of the chamber as shown in modified Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image7.png
462
420
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second electromagnet of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Zhong et al., as to comprise four sets of coils each because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently generate uniform magnetic field around the processing chamber and thereby improve the processing uniformity of the substrate being process within the apparatus. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the number of magnets during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired magnetic field and/or plasma characteristics, and therefore, such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Concerning claims 19-20 it should be noted that in the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Zhong et al., the DC power supply is coupled to the pedestal through a RF generator 50 electrically coupled to the pedestal and the direct current power supply, and the electromagnetic coils are positioned above the pedestal.
With respect to claim 22, it should be noted that the limitations are directed to method limitations instead of apparatus limitations, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The DC current power supply of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Zhong et al., is capable of applying the claimed bias voltage, if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 2004/0182319 in view of Li et al., US 2016/0365360 or Bardos et al., US 6,899,054 or Chan, US 6,632,324 and Morimoto, US 2002/0179249 or Yang et al., US 2010/0029082, and Ghanbari, US 5,556,521 or Wickramanayaka, US 6,333,601 or Quiles et al., US 6,562,189 and Zhong et al., US 8,671,878, as applied to claims 1-2, 9, 17, 19-20, 22 and 26-27 above, and further in view of Ritchie et al., US 2013/0256126 or Keller et al., US 6,028,394.
Kim et al., Li et al., Bardos et al., Chan, Morimoto, Yang et al., Ghanbari, Wickramanayaka, Quiles et al. and Zhong et al. are applied as above and Li et al. further discloses that the electromagnetic coils are electrically connected to power supply 33 and 34, respectively, and Bardos et al. further discloses that the electromagnets may be powered by an AC generator. However, the references do not expressly disclose that electromagnetic coils are electrically connected to an RF power supply different from the RF power supply used to generate the plasma. Ritchie et al. discloses a plasma reactor using a magnet 152, and it further discloses that the magnet may be an electromagnet that is coupled to a power source, not shown, therefore, different from the RF power supply used to generate the plasma (see, for example, fig. 1 and its description, and paragraph 0038). Also, Keller et al. discloses a plasma reactor comprising electromagnets 10a/10b/12a/12b connected to a RF power supply 48 different from the RF power supply used to generate the plasma (see, for example, figs. 2-3, and their descriptions). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Zhong et al., as to electrically connect the electromagnetic coils to a RF power supply different from the RF power supply used to generate the plasma because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for efficiently and effectively supply power to the electromagnets and independently control the power supplied to the electromagnets. It should further be noted that the magnets of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Zhong et al., are cylindrical in shape.
With respect to claim 8, Keller et al. further discloses a magnetic field configuration comprising two sets of electromagnetic coils. Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Zhong et al., as to comprise two sets of electromagnetic coils because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently generate uniform magnetic field in the plasma reactor.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 14, 16, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 2004/0182319 in view of
Li et al., US 2016/0365360 or Bardos et al., US 6,899,054 or Chan, US 6,632,324 and Morimoto, US 2002/0179249 or Yang et al., US 2010/0029082 and Ghanbari, US 5,556,521 or Wickramanayaka, US 6,333,601 or Quiles et al., US 6,562,189 and Zhong et al., US 8,671,878, as applied to claims 1-2, 9, 17, 19-20, 22 and 26-27 above, and further in view of Chen et al., US 2010/0271745 or Hamano et al., US 2015/0147894.
Kim et al., Li et al., Bardos et al., Chan, Morimoto, Yang et al., Ghanbari, Wickramanayaka, Quiles et al. and Zhong et al. are applied as above. It should be noted that the inductively coupled radio frequency (RF) power supply of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Zhong et al., is configured to apply a power to a plasma generating gas within the reactor housing to generate a plasma above the wafer, the first magnet, and the second magnet. Concerning the reactor being configured to pre-clean contact openings formed on the wafer, it should be noted that the limitation is directed to method limitations instead of apparatus limitations, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Zhong et al., is capable of being used to pre-clean openings on the wafer, if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
Additionally, it should be noted that Morimoto further discloses the use of 16 magnets, four sets of coils in a first sidewall surface (left) and four sets of coils in a second opposite sidewall surface (right) of the chamber as shown in modified Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image7.png
462
420
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second electromagnet of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Zhong et al., as to comprise four sets of coils each because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently generate uniform magnetic field around the processing chamber and thereby improve the processing uniformity of the substrate being process within the apparatus. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the number of magnets during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired magnetic field and/or plasma characteristics, and therefore, such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
With respect to the pedestal extending from a first height of about 12 mm and a second height of 12.5 mm. Chen et al. discloses a plasma reactor comprising a pedestal 240 having a height between about 12 mm and about 12.5 mm (see, for example, figs. 2-3A and its description, and paragraphs 0015, 0022, 0027, and 0048). Also, Hamano et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a pedestal 25 capable of extending upward/downward a distance within 1 mm to 20 mm (see, for example, paragraph 0082). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Zhong et al., as to comprise a pedestal capable of extending as claimed because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for efficiently and effectively support a substrate within a plasma reactor and to improve processing uniformity of the wafer. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the height of the pedestal during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired location of the wafer in the plasma/reactor, and such would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Concerning claim 16 it should be noted that in the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Zhong et al. and Chen et al. or Hamano et al., the DC power supply is coupled to the pedestal through a RF generator 50 electrically coupled to the pedestal and the direct current power supply, and the electromagnetic coils are positioned above the pedestal.
With respect to claim 21, it should be noted that the limitations are directed to method limitations instead of apparatus limitations, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The DC current power supply of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Zhong et al. and Chen et al. or Hamano et al., is capable of applying the claimed bias voltage, if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 2004/0182319 in view of Li et al., US 2016/0365360 or Bardos et al., US 6,899,054 or Chan, US 6,632,324 and Morimoto, US 2002/0179249 or Yang et al., US 2010/0029082 and Ghanbari, US 5,556,521 or Wickramanayaka, US 6,333,601 or Quiles et al., US 6,562,189 and Zhong et al., US 8,671,878, and Chen et al., US 2010/0271745 or Hamano et al., US 2015/0147894, as applied to claims 10, 12, 14, 16, 21 and 23 above, and further in view of Ritchie et al., US 2013/0256126 or Keller et al., US 6,028,394.
Kim et al., Li et al., Bardos et al., Chan, Morimoto, Yang et al., Ghanbari, Wickramanayaka, Quiles et al., Zhong et al., Chen et al., and Hamano et al. are applied as above and Li et al. further discloses that the electromagnetic coils are electrically connected to power supply 33 and 34, respectively, and Bardos et al. further discloses that the electromagnets may be powered by an AC generator. However, the references do not expressly disclose that electromagnetic coils are electrically connected to an RF power supply different from the RF power supply used to generate the plasma. Ritchie et al. discloses a plasma reactor using a magnet 152, and it further discloses that the magnet may be an electromagnet that is coupled to a power source, not shown, therefore, different from the RF power supply used to generate the plasma (see, for example, fig. 1 and its description, and paragraph 0038). Also, Keller et al. discloses a plasma reactor comprising electromagnets 10a/10b/12a/12b connected to a RF power supply 48 different from the RF power supply used to generate the plasma (see, for example, figs. 2-3, and their descriptions). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Zhong et al. and Chen et al. or Hamano et al., as to electrically connect the electromagnetic coils to a RF power supply different from the RF power supply used to generate the plasma because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for efficiently and effectively supply power to the electromagnets and independently control the power supplied to the electromagnets. It should further be noted that the magnets of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Zhong et al. and Chen et al. or Hamano et al., are cylindrical in shape.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 2004/0182319 in view of Li et al., US 2016/0365360 or Bardos et al., US 6,899,054 or Chan, US 6,632,324 and Morimoto, US 2002/0179249 or Yang et al., US 2010/0029082, and Ghanbari, US 5,556,521 or Wickramanayaka, US 6,333,601 or Quiles et al., US 6,562,189 and Zhong et al., US 8,671,878, as applied to claims 1-2, 9, 17, 19-20, 22 and 26-27 above, and further in view of Kim, US 2006/0096704 or Brown et al., US 2008/0014747.
Kim et al., Li et al., Bardos et al., Chan, Morimoto, Yang et al., Ghanbari, Wickramanayaka, Quiles et al. and Zhong et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the pedestal comprises the claimed materials. Kim discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a pedestal, wherein the pedestal comprises a conductive top portion 14 comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion 16/13 comprising quartz (see, Figs. 1-2 and their descriptions, especially paragraph 0012). Also, Brown et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a pedestal, wherein the pedestal comprises a conductive top portion 48 comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion 50 comprising quartz (see, Fig. 3 and its description, especially paragraph 0015). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pedestal of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanabari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Zhong et al., as to comprise a conductive top portion comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion comprising quartz, because such materials are known and used in the art as suitable materials for a pedestal in order to effectively and efficiently support the substrate in the chamber, withstand plasma chemistry and avoid contamination of the substrate and/or within the process chamber.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 2004/0182319 in view of Li et al., US 2016/0365360 or Bardos et al., US 6,899,054 or Chan, US 6,632,324 and Morimoto, US 2002/0179249 or Yang et al., US 2010/0029082, and Ghanbari, US 5,556,521 or Wickramanayaka, US 6,333,601 or Quiles et al., US 6,562,189 and Zhong et al., US 8,671,878, and Chen et al., US 2010/0271745 or Hamano et al., US 2015/0147894, as applied to claims 10, 12, 14, 16, 21 and 23 and 26 above, and further in view of Kim, US 2006/0096704 or Brown et al., US 2008/0014747.
Kim et al., Li et al., Bardos et al., Chan, Morimoto, Yang et al., Ghanbari, Wickramanayaka, Quiles et al., Zhong et al., Chen et al. and Hamano et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the pedestal comprises the claimed materials. Kim discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a pedestal, wherein the pedestal comprises a conductive top portion 14 comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion 16/13 comprising quartz (see, Figs. 1-2 and their descriptions, especially paragraph 0012). Also, Brown et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a pedestal, wherein the pedestal comprises a conductive top portion 48 comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion 50 comprising quartz (see, Fig. 3 and its description, especially paragraph 0015). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pedestal of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al., and Ghanabari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al., Zhong et al., and Chen et al. or Hamano et al., as to comprise a conductive top portion comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion comprising quartz, because such materials are known and used in the art as suitable materials for a pedestal in order to effectively and efficiently support the substrate in the chamber, withstand plasma chemistry and avoid contamination of the substrate and/or within the process chamber.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan, US 6,632,324 in view of Kim et al., US 2004/0182319 and Zhong et al. and Morimoto, US 2002/0179249 or Yang et al., US 2010/0029082 and Ghanbari, US 5,556,521 or Wickramanayaka, US 6,333,601 or Quiles et al., US 6,562,189.
Chan shows the invention as claimed including a system, comprising: a pedestal 82 configured to support a substrate; a reactor housing the pedestal; a first radio frequency (RF) power supply 66 coupled to an inductively coupled RF source 46 configured to generate a plasma within the reactor housing above the wafer; and a first magnet 140 and a second magnet 145 positioned on a first sidewall surface and a second sidewall surface of the reactor, respectively, and configured to generate a magnetic field to collimate ions in the plasma in a direction perpendicular to the pedestal, wherein: the first and second sidewall surfaces are opposite to one another; the first magnet has a first polarity oriented perpendicularly towards the pedestal and a second polarity oriented perpendicularly away from the pedestal; and the second magnet has the second polarity oriented perpendicularly towards the pedestal and the first polarity oriented perpendicularly away from the pedestal (see, for example, Figs. 1 and 7, and their descriptions, Figs. 1 and 7 shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
470
343
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
377
337
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It should be noted that the magnets of the apparatus of Chan would generate a magnetic field that would collimate ions in the plasma in a direction perpendicular to the pedestal. The specification of the instant claimed invention, in paragraph 0038, discloses that by having the magnets having opposite polarities, the generated magnetic fields would be perpendicular to the pedestal/substrate and collimate the ions from the plasma. Therefore, since the apparatus of Chan would comprise magnets 140 and 145 having opposite polarities, then it will be expected that the magnets would collimate ions from the plasma as claimed.
Chan does not expressly disclose the claimed direct current power supply and peripheral control device. Kim et al. discloses a plasma processing system comprising a bias power supply comprising a direct current power supply 55 electrically coupled to the substrate through the pedestal, and a RF generator 50, configured to apply a bias voltage to the substrate (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, Fig. 1 shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
461
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. as to comprise the claimed bias power supply because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently control the flux of ions from the plasma to the substrate, and to control the ion energy in the plasma independently from the plasma generation RF power source. With respect to the claimed control device electrically connected to the reactor housing and configured to modulate energy of ions in the plasma, it should be noted that the specification of the instant claimed invention discloses that a substrate tuning bias supplied by a stacking direct current power supply unit and combined with an inductively coupled plasma power source can be used to modulate the direction and energy of the argon ions (see, for example, paragraphs 0021 and 0047 of the specification of the instant claimed invention). It should be noted that the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. would comprise a RF power supply coupled to the inductively coupled power source, and a bias power supply comprising a RF power supply and a direct current power supply electrically coupled to the substrate. Therefore, the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. would comprise the stacking direct current power supply unit that can be used in combination with the inductively coupled plasma power source to modulate the energy of the ions in the plasma. This notwithstanding, Zhong et al. discloses a control device 270 that controls a bias power supply 256 and the inductive RF power source 251. Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. to further comprise a control device coupled to the bias power supply and to the inductive coupled RF source because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively, efficiently and precisely control the power supplied to the inductive coupled RF source and the power supplied to the bias power supply.
With respect to the modulation of the energy of the ions in the plasma, and the modulation being used to etch a dielectric layer on the substrate to form a contact opening to expose a contact region, and pre-clean the exposed contact region to remove a residual material formed by the etch, it should be noted that such limitations are directed to method limitations instead of apparatus limitations, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Zhong et al., is capable of modulating the energy of the ions in the plasma, and performing the claimed etching and pre-clean processes if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
Chan and Kim et al. do not expressly disclose that the pedestal is configured to extend. Morimoto discloses a plasma processing system comprising a movable pedestal that extends from a first height to a second height (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, especially paragraph 0061, Fig. 1 shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
285
303
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Yang et al. discloses a plasma processing system comprising a movable pedestal 114/214 that extends from a first height to a second height (see, for example, Figs. 1-4 and their descriptions, Fig. 3 shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
258
227
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Chan as to comprise a movable pedestal because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently adjusting the height of the substrate within the plasma processing chamber to a desired height, thereby optimizing the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus.
Concerning the claimed diameter of the pedestal, Ghanbari discloses a system for treating 300mm substrates (col. 5, lines 61-64), and a pedestal having a diameter larger than the wafer (see, for example, 2 and its disclosure), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the pedestal diameter would be larger than 300mm. Also, Wickramanayaka a plasma apparatus comprising a substrate support pedestal 15 having a diameter of 300 mm. Additionally, Quiles et al. discloses a plasma apparatus comprising a substrate support pedestal 130 having a diameter that is about 300 mm or greater (see for example, claims 22 and 59). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Zhong et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al., as to comprise a pedestal having the claimed diameter because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently positioning/treating a wafer (large wafer) in the reactor. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the diameter of the pedestal during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the wafer diameter, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
With respect to claim 2, it should be noted that the diameter of the pedestal of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Zhong et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. would be less than or equal to about 300 mm.
Regarding claim 27, Morimoto further discloses the use of 16 magnets, four sets of coils in a first sidewall surface (left) and four sets of coils in a second opposite sidewall surface (right) of the chamber as shown in modified Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image7.png
462
420
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second electromagnet of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Zhong et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al., as to comprise four sets of coils each because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently generate uniform magnetic field around the processing chamber and thereby improve the processing uniformity of the substrate being process within the apparatus. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the number of magnets during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired magnetic field and/or plasma characteristics, and therefore, such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Claim(s) 5, 8-9, 17, 19-20, 22 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan, US 6,632,324 in view of Kim et al., US 2004/0182319 and Zhong et al., US 8,671,878, and Morimoto, US 2002/0179249 or Yang et al., US 2010/0029082 and Ghanbari, US 5,556,521 or Wickramanayaka, US 6,333,601 or Quiles et al., US 6,562,189, as applied to claims 1-2 and 27 above, and further in view of Li et al., US 2016/0365360 and Ritchie et al., US 2013/0256126 or Keller et al., US 6,028,394.
Chan, Kim et al., Zhong et al., Morimoto, Yang, Ghanbari, Wickramanayaka, and Quiles are applied as above but do not disclose that the first and second magnets are electromagnets. Li et al. discloses a system comprising a first electromagnetic coil 31 and a second electromagnetic coil 32 positioned on a first sidewall surface and a second sidewall surface of the reactor, respectively, wherein the first and second sidewall surfaces are opposite to one another; the first magnet has a first polarity S oriented perpendicularly towards the pedestal and a second polarity N oriented perpendicularly away from the pedestal; and the second magnet has the second polarity N oriented perpendicularly towards the pedestal and the first polarity S oriented perpendicularly away from the pedestal, wherein the electromagnetic coils are electrically connected to power supply 33 and 34, respectively, (see, for example, Fig. 1 of Li et al. and its description, Fig. 1 shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
449
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to use electromagnetic coils as the magnetic field means because such means are known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently generating magnetic field.
With respect to the electromagnetic coils being electrically connected to an RF power supply different from the RF power supply used to generate the plasma. Ritchie et al. discloses a plasma reactor using a magnet 152, and it further discloses that the magnet may be an electromagnet that is coupled to a power source, not shown, therefore, different from the RF power supply used to generate the plasma (see, for example, fig. 1 and its description, and paragraph 0038). Also, Keller et al. discloses a plasma reactor comprising electromagnets 10a/10b/12a/12b connected to a RF power supply 48 different from the RF power supply used to generate the plasma (see, for example, figs. 2-3, and their descriptions). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Zhong et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al., as to electrically connect the electromagnetic coils to a RF power supply different from the RF power supply used to generate the plasma because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for efficiently and effectively supply power to the electromagnets and independently control the power supplied to the electromagnets. It should further be noted that the magnets of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Zhong et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. are cylindrical in shape.
With respect to claim 8, Chan further discloses that multiple magnets 140 and 145 are positioned around the circumference of the chamber in alternating polarity to form a magnetic bucket. Additionally, and this notwithstanding, Keller et al. discloses a magnetic field configuration comprising two sets of electromagnetic coils. Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Zhong et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al., as to comprise two sets of electromagnetic coils because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently generate uniform magnetic field in the plasma reactor.
Regarding claim 17, it should be noted that the inductively coupled radio frequency (RF) power supply of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Zhong et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al., is configured to apply a power to a plasma generating gas within the reactor housing to generate a plasma within the reactor and above the wafer, the first magnet, and the second magnet. Additionally, Morimoto further discloses the use of 16 magnets, four sets of coils in a first sidewall surface (left) and four sets of coils in a second opposite sidewall surface (right) of the chamber as shown in modified Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image7.png
462
420
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second electromagnet of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Zhong et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al., as to comprise four sets of coils each because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently generate uniform magnetic field around the processing chamber and thereby improve the processing uniformity of the substrate being process within the apparatus. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the number of magnets during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired magnetic field and/or plasma characteristics, and therefore, such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Concerning claims 19-20 it should be noted that in the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Zhong et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al., the DC power supply is coupled to the pedestal through a RF generator 50 electrically coupled to the pedestal and the direct current power supply, and the electromagnetic coils are positioned above the pedestal.
With respect to claim 22, it should be noted that the limitations are directed to method limitations instead of apparatus limitations, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The DC current power supply of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Zhong et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al., is capable of applying the claimed bias voltage, if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
Claim(s) 10, 12-14, 16, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan, US 6,632,324 in view of Kim et al., US 2004/0182319 and Zhong et al., US 8,671,878, and Morimoto, US 2002/0179249 or Yang et al., US 2010/0029082 and Ghanbari, US 5,556,521 or Wickramanayaka, US 6,333,601 or Quiles et al., US 6,562,189, and Li et al., US 2016/0365360 and Ritchie et al., US 2013/0256126 or Keller et al., US 6,028,394, as applied to claims 5, 8-9, 17, 19-20, 22 and 26 above, and further in view of Chen et al., US 2010/0271745 or Hamano et al., US 2015/0147894.
Chan, Kim et al., Zhong et al., Morimoto, Yang et al., Ghanbari, Wickramanayaka, Quiles et al., Li et al., Ritchie et al. and Keller et al. are applied as above. It should be noted that the inductively coupled radio frequency (RF) power supply of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Zhong et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al., and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al., is configured to apply a power to a plasma generating gas within the reactor housing to generate a plasma above the wafer. Concerning the reactor being configured to pre-clean contact openings formed on the wafer, it should be noted that the limitation is directed to method limitations instead of apparatus limitations, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Zhong et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al., is capable of being used to pre-clean openings on the wafer, if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
Additionally, Morimoto further discloses the use of 16 magnets, four sets of coils in a first sidewall surface (left) and four sets of coils in a second opposite sidewall surface (right) of the chamber as shown in modified Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image7.png
462
420
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second electromagnet of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Zhong et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al., as to comprise four sets of coils each because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently generate uniform magnetic field around the processing chamber and thereby improve the processing uniformity of the substrate being process within the apparatus. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the number of magnets during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired magnetic field and/or plasma characteristics, and therefore, such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
With respect to the pedestal extending from a first height of about 12 mm and a second height of 12.5 mm. Chen et al. discloses a plasma reactor comprising a pedestal 240 having a height between about 12 mm and about 12.5 mm (see, for example, figs. 2-3A and its description, and paragraphs 0015, 0022, 0027, and 0048). Also, Hamano et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a pedestal 25 capable of extending upward/downward a distance within 1 mm to 20 mm (see, for example, paragraph 0082). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Zhong et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al., as to comprise a pedestal capable of extending as claimed because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for efficiently and effectively support a substrate within a plasma reactor and to improve processing uniformity of the wafer. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the height of the pedestal during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired location of the wafer in the plasma/reactor, and such would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
With respect to claim 21, it should be noted that the limitations are directed to method limitations instead of apparatus limitations, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The DC current power supply of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Zhong et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Chen et al. or Hamano et al., is capable of applying the claimed bias voltage, if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan, US 6,632,324 in view of Kim et al., US 2004/0182319 and Zhong et al., US 8,671,878, and Morimoto, US 2002/0179249 or Yang et al., US 2010/0029082 and Ghanbari, US 5,556,521 or Wickramanayaka, US 6,333,601 or Quiles et al., US 6,562,189, as applied to claims 1-2 and 27 above, and further in view of Kim, US 2006/0096704 or Brown et al., US 2008/0014747.
Chan, Kim et al., Zhong et al., Morimoto, Yang et al., Ghanbari, Wickramanayaka and Quiles et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the pedestal comprises the claimed materials. Kim discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a pedestal, wherein the pedestal comprises a conductive top portion 14 comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion 16/13 comprising quartz (see, Figs. 1-2 and their descriptions, especially paragraph 0012). Also, Brown et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a pedestal, wherein the pedestal comprises a conductive top portion 48 comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion 50 comprising quartz (see, Fig. 3 and its description, especially paragraph 0015). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pedestal of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Zhong et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al., as to comprise a conductive top portion comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion comprising quartz, because such materials are known and used in the art as suitable materials for a pedestal in order to effectively and efficiently support the substrate in the chamber, withstand plasma chemistry and avoid contamination of the substrate and/or within the process chamber.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan, US 6,632,324 in view of Kim et al., US 2004/0182319 and Zhong et al., US 8,671,878 and Morimoto, US 2002/0179249 or Yang et al., US 2010/0029082 and Ghanbari, US 5,556,521 or Wickramanayaka, US 6,333,601 or Quiles et al., US 6,562,189, and Li et al., US 2016/0365360 and Ritchie et al., US 2013/0256126 or Keller et al., US 6,028,394, and Chen et al., US 2010/0271745 or Hamano et al., US 2015/0147894, as applied to claims 10, 12-14, 16, 21 and 23 above, and further in view of Kim, US 2006/0096704 or Brown et al., US 2008/0014747.
Chan, Kim et al., Zhong et al. Morimoto, Yang et al., Ghanbari, Wickramanayaka, Quiles et al., Li et al., Ritchie et al., Keller et al., Chen et al. and Hamano et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the pedestal comprises the claimed materials. Kim discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a pedestal, wherein the pedestal comprises a conductive top portion 14 comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion 16/13 comprising quartz (see, Figs. 1-2 and their descriptions, especially paragraph 0012). Also, Brown et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a pedestal, wherein the pedestal comprises a conductive top portion 48 comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion 50 comprising quartz (see, Fig. 3 and its description, especially paragraph 0015). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pedestal of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Zhong et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Chen et al. or Hamano et al., as to comprise a conductive top portion comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion comprising quartz, because such materials are known and used in the art as suitable materials for a pedestal in order to effectively and efficiently support the substrate in the chamber, withstand plasma chemistry and avoid contamination of the substrate and/or within the process chamber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references of record do not disclose the newly added limitations to independent claims 1/10/17 of a peripheral control device electrically connected to the reactor housing and configured to modulate energy of ions in the plasma to etch a dielectric layer on the substrate to form a contact opening to expose a contact region, and to pre-clean the exposed contact region to remove a residual material formed by the etch. It should first be noted that, as stated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) first paragraph rejection, the originally filed specification fails to describe the claimed “peripheral control device”. Additionally, the examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that, as stated in the above 35 USC 103 rejections: a) the specification of the instant claimed invention discloses that a substrate tuning bias supplied by a stacking direct current power supply unit and combined with an inductively coupled plasma power source can be used to modulate the direction and energy of the argon ions (see, for example, paragraphs 0021 and 0047 of the specification of the instant claimed invention); b) Kim et al. discloses a bias power supply comprising a RF bias power source and a direct current power supply electrically coupled to the substrate; and c) both primary references of Kim et al. and Chan disclose a RF power supply coupled to an inductively coupled power source. Therefore, the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al., and the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al., and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al., would comprise the stacking direct current power supply unit that can be used in combination with the inductively coupled plasma power source to modulate the energy of the ions in the plasma. Furthermore, as stated in the above rejections, the newly cited reference of Zhong et al. has been cited for its teachings of a control device that controls a bias power supply and the inductive RF power source.
With respect to the modulation of the energy of the ions in the plasma, and the modulation being used to etch a dielectric layer on the substrate to form a contact opening to expose a contact region, and pre-clean the exposed contact region to remove a residual material formed by the etch, it should be noted that, as stated in the above rejections, such limitations are directed to method limitations instead of apparatus limitations, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Zhong et al., or the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Zhong et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al., and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al., are capable of modulating the energy of the ions in the plasma, and performing the claimed etching and pre-clean processes if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yasui et al. (US 2005/0081999) is cited because of its teaching of a plasma processing reactor comprising a magnetic field generating means and a bias power supply comprising a DC power source and a RF power source.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUZ L ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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 at 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 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.
/LUZ L ALEJANDRO MULERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
November 11, 2025
Prosecution Insights