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
Claims 1, 9-16, & 21-24 are pending based on the elected species.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 9-16, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US PG Pub 2016/0141170; hereafter ‘170) in view of Ohshimizu (Polymer Journal, Vol. 39, No. 8, pp. 777–782 (2007); hereafter Ohshimizu) and Becker et al. (US Patent 6,814,825; hereafter ‘825).
Claim 1: ‘170 is directed to a method of processing a plurality of substrates (note there are multiple examples and thus a processing a plurality of wafers, abstract), the method comprising:
loading a substrate onto a coating track moving the substrate into a module of the coating track (a substrate is loaded on the holder (abstract, ¶ 19 & Fig. 2);
performing a process to modify a film formed over the substrate (abstract);
obtaining, at a controller, optical sensor data from an optical sensor, the optical sensor data comprising a measurement of a property of the film (Figs. 3 & 4; ¶s 53-77; claims 1, 12, & 18);
applying the film by spin coating (¶s 22-25) to a desired thickness and leveling (see ¶s 31 & 37)
determining based on the measurement of the property of the film a drying metric correlated to a solvent content of the photoresist (¶s 3-6, 39, the measurement is a vapor pressure in the system which is directly related to the solvent concentration of the film); and
based on the determined drying metric, adjusting a process parameter of the process (¶s 3-6, 39, & 53-57 and Figs. 3 & 4).
’170 teaches that the film comprises an organic sublimable material that is not particularly limited as long as it forms an organic film and can include benzamide derivatives (see ¶ 25) and ‘170 is in the field of semiconductor processing with photoresists wherein resists are used for the same purpose as the organic sublimable material (¶ 7).
Ohshimizu is directed towards an organic material (title) and teaches that the materials are used as photoresists (col. 1, pg 777) in the field of electronics (pg 777) wherein the organic material is a benzamide (title).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the benzamide of Ohshimizu as the particular benzamide material in the process of ‘170 because it is an art recognized benzamide and would have predictably been suitable for the process of ‘170.
‘170 does not provide details of the spin coating process.
However, ‘825, which is directed towards controlling thickness during spin coating (title) teaches using an optical sensor to monitor the thickness of the applied film and adjusting spin speed to adjust the film based on the optical sensor data (col. 3, lines 30-45 and claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of ‘825 into the combination and further provide an optical sensor to monitor the film during the spin coating process and adjust the spin speed based on the optical sensor data used to measure the film thickness and levelness and control said thickness and levelness because the use of an optical sensor to optimize spin speed for film thickness and levelness is an art recognized improvement in the field of spin coating and would have predictably improved the process of ‘170.
Claim 9: ‘170 is directed towards a method of processing a plurality of wafers (note there are multiple examples and thus a processing a plurality of wafers, abstract), the method comprising:
loading a substrate into a module with a volatile organic compounds (VOC) sensor (Figs. 3 & 4; ¶s 53-77; claims 1, 12, & 18);
processing the substrate in the module to modify a film formed over the substrate (Figs. 3 & 4; ¶s 53-77; claims 1, 12, & 18);
obtaining VOC sensor data from the VOC sensor during the processing (Figs. 3 & 4; ¶s 53-77; claims 1, 12, & 18); and
based on the VOC sensor data, adjusting a process parameter of the processing at a controller (Figs. 3 & 4; ¶s 53-77; claims 1, 12, & 18).
‘170 further teaches applying the film by spin coating (¶s 22-25) to a desired thickness and leveling (see ¶s 31 & 37) in which the VOC sensor is used to monitor and control the process.
‘170 does not teach that the process parameter is a spin speed of the substrate.
However, ‘825, which is directed towards controlling thickness (i.e. levelness) during spin coating (title) teaches using a sensor to monitor the thickness of the applied film and adjusting spin speed to adjust the film based on the sensor data (col. 3, lines 30-45 and claim 7). ‘825 further teaches beginning the process with presets of desired values and adjusting the values to obtain the desired results (col. 3, lines 15-31) wherein the desired values are adjusted during production (col. 3, lines 45-55) – i.e. adjusting the process parameters comprises providing feed forward signal to adjust the recipe for a subsequent process to obtain the desired results.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of ‘825 into the process and adjust the spin speed during the process based on the sensor data wherein the adjusting comprises providing a feed forward signal to adjust a recipe for a subsequent process because spin speed is an art recognized parameter to change to control the coating process and the adjustment of the spin speed based on the sensor data would have predictably aided in producing the desired level coatings and ‘825 teaches adjusting the presets to obtain the desired results when performing processes.
Claim 10: ‘170 further teaches adjusting the process parameter comprises:
determining an end point of the processing and terminating the processing (Fig. 4).
Claim 11: ‘170 further teaches obtaining optical sensor data from an optical sensor during the processing, the optical sensor being disposed in the module, wherein adjusting the process parameter comprises adjusting the process parameter based on the optical sensor data (the detector comprises at least one of a VOC and optical detector, claim 12, which is used to adjust the process parameter, Figs. 3 & 4).
Claim 12: ‘170 further teaches:
correlating the optical sensor data with the VOC sensor data (the two sensors’ data is used in conjunction to adjust the process and thus correlated); and
performing, at the controller, a first correlation between a concentration of volatile organics obtained from the VOC sensor data with a property of the film obtained from the optical sensor data (see claim 12 & ¶s 38-40).
Claim 13: ’170 further discloses converting the VOC sensor data to an ambient condition in the module during the processing or a property of the film and adjusting the process parameter of the processing comprises based on the ambient condition of the film, adjusting the process parameter (see ¶s 38-40).
Claim 14: The module comprises a coating module (abstract) and adjusting the process parameter comprises adjusting a coating process parameter of the coating module (abstract & ¶s 38-40).
Claim 15: Processing the substrate comprises performing a spin-coating process (see abstract & ¶s 19-20).
Claim 16: ‘170 further discloses comparing at the controller, the VOC data to a stored endpoint threshold (¶s 63-74).
Claim 21: ‘170 further teaches obtaining VOC sensor data from the VOC sensor during the performing, wherein adjusting a process parameter further comprises adjusting a process parameter of the processing at a controller based on the VOC sensor data (the detector comprises at least one of a VOC and optical detector, claim 12, which is used to adjust the process parameter, Figs. 3 & 4).
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘170 in view of Crowe et al. (US Patent 5,165,792; hereafter ‘792).
Claim 22: ‘170 discloses a method of processing a plurality of wafers (note there are multiple examples and thus a processing a plurality of wafers, abstract), the method comprising:
loading a substrate onto a coating track with a volatile organic compounds (VOC) sensor and an optical sensor (the detector comprises at least one of a VOC and optical detector, claim 12, which is used to adjust the process parameter, Figs. 3 & 4);
processing the substrate in the coating track to modify a film formed over the substrate (Figs. 3 & 4; ¶s 53-77; claims 1, 12, & 18);
obtaining VOC sensor data from the VOC sensor and optical sensor data from the optical sensor during the processing (Figs. 3 & 4; ¶s 53-77; claims 1, 12, & 18);
correlating the optical sensor data with the VOC sensor data (the two sensors’ data is used in conjunction to adjust the process and thus correlated; see claim 12 & ¶s 38-40);
performing, at a controller, a first correlation between a concentration of volatile organics obtained from the VOC sensor data with a measurement of a property of the film obtained from optical sensor data (the two sensors’ data is used in conjunction to adjust the process and thus correlated; see claim 12 & ¶s 38-40); and
based on the VOC sensor data and the optical sensor data, adjusting a process parameter of the processing at the controller (Figs. 3 & 4; ¶s 53-77; claims 1, 12, & 18).
‘170 discloses photoionization detectors and optical-absorption concentration detectors as detectors.
‘170 does not teach a laser-based transceiver as the detector.
However, ‘792, which is directed towards analytical methods of samples (abstract) discloses that photoionization detectors and laser diode spectroscopy (i.e. a laser-based transceiver) are alternatives for analyzing gas streams (see col. 7, lines 45-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of ‘792 into the process of ‘170 and use laser diode spectroscopy in place of photoionization detectors as the optical sensor because they are art recognized alternatives and it is prima facie obvious to use art recognized alternatives.
Claim 23: ‘170 further teaches performing, at the controller, a second correlation between a change in the concentration of volatile organics with a change in the property of the film (the two sensors’ data is used in conjunction to adjust the process and thus correlated; see claim 12 & ¶s 23, 26, 32-40, & 62).
Claim 24: ‘170 further teaches adjusting the process parameter of the processing comprises converting the VOC sensor data to an ambient condition in the coat track during the processing or a property of the film; and based on the ambient condition or the property of the film, adjusting the process parameter (see ¶s 38-40).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s argument that ‘170 does not teach “measuring a property of the photoresist film” because the measurement of ‘170 is “directed to the environment above the substrate, not to the film formed over the substrate itself”; the Office does not find this argument convincing because the vapor pressure indirectly measures the solvent content of the film based on partial pressures of the solvent as it evaporates and thus teaches the limitation as recited.
In regards to applicant’s argument that ‘170 does not teach “determining a drying metric” or “a drying metric based on the measurement of the property of the film and correlated to a solvent content of the film”; the Office does not find this argument convincing because ‘170 teaches measuring the vapor pressure which is directly related to the solvent content of the film as discussed above and thus teaches determining a drying metric based on the measure of the property of the film and correlated to a solvent content of the film.
In regards to applicant’s argument that the combination does not teach “adjusting the process parameter comprises providing a feedforward signal to adjust a recipe for a subsequent process for the substrate” as recited in amended claim 9; the Office does not find this argument convincing because as discussed above, ‘825 teaches adjusting the presets during processing to obtain the desired results in processing and thus the combination teaches the claim limitation as discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights