DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (8/19/2020), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-20) were pending on 8/19/2020.
In response to an election requirement on 10/27/2021, the Applicant elected with traverse, Group II claims 12-18 drawn to an apparatus. Claims 1-11 and 19-20 were withdrawn from consideration.
A Non-Final office action examining claims 12-18 was mailed on 1/26/2022. A Final office action in response to Applicant’s submission dated 5/5/2022 and 7/11/2022 was mailed on 7/29/2022. Claims 12-18 were examined. A second Non-Final office action in response to a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was mailed on 3/28/2024. A second Final office action in response to Applicant’s submission of 7/16/2024 was mailed on 10/24/2024. Claims were amended. Claims 12-18 and 21 were examined. A Third Non-Final office action was mailed on 3/26/2025 in response to a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/18/2025 was entered and claims 12-18 and 21 were examined. A third Final office action in response to Applicants submission of 5/5/2025. Claims 12-18 and 21 were examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Ghandehari and Kinoshita do not disclose atomic layer deposition.
As repeated earlier elected claims are directed to an apparatus. It is noted that the disclosed apparatus discloses an apparatus for both CVD or ALD process. If the Applicant wants to limit the apparatus to an ALD apparatus the specific steps corresponding to the ALD process should have been claimed to be programmed as being integrated in controller/computer memory.
It is further noted that CVD or ALD is characterized by process and not by apparatus since basic requirement for deposition- excitation, gases and pressure control are common.
As noted below:
Singh et al (US 20070259111) disclose same apparatus usable for photo assisted ALD or CVD (Para 6-7 and Fig 7). Fig 7 disclose UV radiation assisted deposition. Further Singh et al disclose that both CVD and ALD processes could use UV radiation (Para 57 and 88) and teach that UV works to excite gas to ionize and work similarly in both ALD and CVD.
Garatt et al disclose photo-assisted ALD apparatus (US 20170121356 Para 19, 92).
Osamu Kamiya (US 4581249) discloses ALD process using two precursors activated by different wavelength radiation λA and λB (Fig 2 and Col 3 lines 25-37).
Claim Interpretation
Claim 12 has been amended to include the limitation “A photolithographic apparatus configured for atomic layer deposition” as the preamble of the claim. It is however noted that configuration for an apparatus for ALD is not understood to mean any special change or structural modification to an apparatus except executing an ALD process. Nothing in the specification or claim points to any other interpretation.
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.
Claims 12-13, 15-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over to Ghandehari et al (US 20020146648) in view of Prescop et al (US 9453281) or Chiang et al (US 6416822) as further supplemented by Singh et al (US 20070259111).
Ghandehari et al disclose an irradiation system (Fig 1 14 could be a movable light source like laser- see para 28) configured to irradiate a selected portion of a surface of a substrate with electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength of less than 100 nm (Para 25) and an environment control system (vacuum and gas -para 25) to allow the composition of the environment above the substrate to perform an CVD process.
Ghandehari et al teach both CVD and ALD process using a computerized process controller (Fig 1, 20 and 24 and Para 6-9, 30, 33-34, 60, 64, 67, 74, 87-89, 105, 107, 122, 127-128, 151, 155, 164-165, 188, 194-195, 222, 232-233, 241 and 243-244).
Ghandehari et al do not disclose an electric field controller configured to apply an electric field that is oriented so as to force secondary electrons away from the substrate.
Prescop et al disclose methods, devices and systems for patterning of substrates using charged particle beams without photomasks and without a resist layer. Material can be deposited onto a substrate, as directed by a design layout database, localized to positions targeted by multiple, matched charged particle beam columns (206). Prescop et al further disclose applying a voltage (602) negative with respect to the column of beam (Fig 6).
Prescop et al states that substrate stage electrical bias 602 can be used, for control of beam energy at each column 206, to optimize the efficiency of charged-particle induced chemistry and/or physical effects (Col 14 line 64-Col 15 line12).
Prescop et al further state that local photon injectors 104 can also be used to shine photons, with wavelength(s) appropriate to one or more substrate surface materials, on the main-field deflection area 410 to further accelerate certain types of material addition by exciting substrate surface material electrons to a higher energy state. For example, deep UV is characteristic for photochemistry of various materials. (Col 10 lines 24-30).
Regarding the limitation of the orientation of the electric field, it is noted that the negative voltage will force secondary electron away from substrate and accelerate ions towards it.
Regarding amendment voltage is applied to substrate. As discussed above.
Additionally, Chiang et al disclose ALD system where precursor ions arrive at the substrate to get deposited. Chiang further teach that bias can control the ion energy of the precursors for deposition (Col 10 lines 43-67 and negative vias 185 in Fig 1). As before, negative bias would drive electrons away from the substrate.
Singh et al (US 20070259111) disclose same apparatus usable for photo assisted ALD or CVD (Para 6-7 and Fig 7). Fig 7 disclose UV radiation assisted deposition. Further Singh et al disclose that both CVD and ALD processes could use UV radiation (Para 57 and 88) and teach that UV works to excite gas to ionize and work similarly in both ALD and CVD.
Regarding the limitation related to control, prior art including Ghandehari et al, computerized control of all systems is disclosed as discussed above.
Regarding claim 13 the field will be perpendicular to substrate, being perpendicular to conducting surface.
Regarding claim 15 process gas is controlled by environment control system.
Claims16 and 21, include the following limitation:
“the control of the environment is such that a portion of secondary electrons generated by interaction between the electromagnetic radiation and the substrate interact with the precursor material in the environment; and the interaction between the secondary electrons and the precursor material is such as to promote deposition of material derived from the precursor material”,
This is a functional limitation and appears to use both environment control system and electric field controller. Both environment control system and electric field controller are disclosed in the cited prior art. The electric field disclosed in secondary references would therefore is capable of this function.
Regarding claim 17 Ghandehari et al includes control of processing materials and therefore discloses environment control system as recited in this claim.
Regarding claim 18 the apparatus disclosed by Ghandehari could work like a lithographic apparatus since irradiation is disclosed.
Claims 12-13, 15-18 and 21 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over to Keizo Kinoshita (JP 5-275259) in view of Arai et al (JP 6369978) (Both from IDS) as further supplemented by Singh et al (US 20070259111).
Keizo Kinoshita discloses that a sample 4 is irradiated with synchrotron radiation 22 (corresponding to the “electromagnetic radiation having a wave length of less than 100nm”") via a mask 7 and also via an organic metal gas 9 of trimethyl aluminum (the gas pressure is controlled to be 107 Torr) such that metal aluminum is deposited on a surface of the sample 4, whereby a conductor coil pattern is formed ((see, for example, paragraphs 0015, 0030-0032 and 0036, and Fig. 2).
Keizo Kinoshita do not disclose electric field controller.
Arai et al discloses that, when a Si semiconductor substrate is irradiated with an ultraviolet laser beam 2 in an AI(CH3)3 gas such that an Al film is formed on the Si semiconductor substrate, a voltage is applied to the Si semiconductor substrate while an electrode 10 is used as a + electrode, whereby the Al film can be prevented from expanding
toward the area around a part of the Si semiconductor substrate which is irradiated with the laser beam (see, page 2, top left column, line 15 to bottom right column, line 11, and Fig. 1).
In view of the above, providing, in Keizo Kinoshita as a + electrode, an electrode like the electrode 10 of Arai et al with the aim of, for example, improving the shape of a pattern could have easily been achieved by a person skilled in the art. Further, a person skilled in the art could easily understand that the electric field generated in the above case had the effect of “forcing electrons away from the substrate.”
When referring to paragraph 0036 of Keizo Kinoshita, it can be understood that any metal-containing gas may be employed. Thus, selecting, as appropriate, the type of a metal-containing gas to be used according to the type of a film which is desired to be formed merely serves as the exertion of ordinary creativity by a person skilled in the art.
Regarding the latest amendment, Singh et al (US 20070259111) disclose same apparatus usable for photo assisted ALD or CVD (Para 6-7 and Fig 7). Fig 7 disclose UV radiation assisted deposition. Further Singh et al disclose that both CVD and ALD processes could use UV radiation (Para 57 and 88) and teach that UV works to excite gas to ionize and work similarly in both ALD and CVD. Further a controller would be inherent to control the steps for manufacturing outlined above.
Regarding claim 13 the field will be perpendicular to substrate, being perpendicular to conducting surface.
Regarding claim 15 process gas is controlled by environment control system in Keizo Kinoshita.
Regarding claim 16 the limitation
“the control of the environment is such that a portion of secondary electrons generated by interaction between the electromagnetic radiation and the substrate interact with the precursor material in the environment; and the interaction between the secondary electrons and the precursor material is such as to promote deposition of material derived from the precursor material”,
appears to point to the interaction between the precursor and secondary electron, is a function limitation and appears to use both environment control system and electric field controller. Both environment control system and electric field controller are disclosed in the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 17 Keizo Kinoshita includes control of processing materials and therefore discloses environment control system as recited in this claim.
Regarding claim 18 the apparatus disclosed by Keizo Kinoshita could work like a lithographic apparatus since irradiation through mask is disclosed.
Regarding claim 21as discussed above the presence of bias and its generation of secondary ions would increase the density of reactants to promote deposition. Again, as discussed above this functional limitation is within the capability of the cited prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Azana Ladron (US 20180164354) teaches effect of external electric field applied to the thin film material and/or the substrate, on which the thin film material is formed, in order to concentrate free charge carriers (positive or negative charge) in selected areas of the thin film material and/or selected areas of the substrate to enhance the response of the thin film material and/or the substrate (Para 40). This teaching is pertinent to the recitation of electric field controller in claim 12.
Also, Ohta et al (US 20070231010) disclose deposition on a substrate Fig 3, 34 using optical radiation (36) in the presence of gas 32. Also, disclosed is bias voltage to emit electrons.
JP 59002046 discloses secondary electrons during patterning by X-Ray.
Garatt et al disclose photo-assisted ALD apparatus (US 20170121356 Para 19, 92).
Singh et al (US 20070259111) discloses same apparatus usable for photo assisted ALD or CVD (Para 6-7 and Fig 7).
Osamu Kamiya (US 4581249) discloses ALD process using two precursors activated by different wavelength radiation λA and λB (Fig 2 and Col 3 lines 25-37).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 PM.
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 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716