DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raley et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2017/0256395, here after Raley).
Claim 21 is rejected. Raley teaches a method, comprising;
providing a first gas supply setting to configure a gas supply device to supply a
gas mixture to a substrate carrier holding a substrate;
receiving critical dimension (CD) data measured on the substrate;
adjusting the first gas supply setting based on the critical dimension (CD) data
being outside a predetermined range; and providing a second gas supply setting to the
substrate carrier [fig. 9, 0010, 0056-0057]. Raley teaches treating one substrate on a substrate carrier [fig. 9] with O2 and CO2 gases [0056], therefore teaches generating a first gas supply setting that comprises a percentage of oxygen (correlated to one substrate).
Claim 22 is rejected as Raley teaches the first and second gas supply settings
comprise types of one or more gases, an amount of each of the one or more gases, a
flow rate of each of the one or more gases, a supply duration of each of the one or more
gases, and ratios (in adding a gas to mixture of prior gasses the gas ratio also will be
changes as well) between gases [0010, 0057 lines 10-end].
Claim 23 is rejected. Raley teaches the critical dimension (CD) data comprises of
optical metrology data [0057 lines 5-7].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 11, 13, 15-16, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over A. Raley et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2017/0256395, here after Raley).
Claim 1 is rejected. Raley teaches a method, comprising:
providing a first setting to configure a gas supply device to supply a first gas
mixture to a substrate carrier holding a first substrate (using a fixed flow rate of trimming
gas for fixed time duration of exposure) [fig. 9, 0010 lines 1-6];
receiving critical dimension (CD) data measured on the first substrate after the
first substrate completes (final structure pattern) a process operation [0010 lines 6-end];
and in response to the CD data being outside a predetermined range (target CD),
providing a second setting to configure the gas supply device to supply a second gas
mixture to the substrate carrier [0010 lines 6-end]. Raley teaches treating one substrate on a substrate carrier [fig. 9] with O2 and CO2 gases [0056], therefore teaches generating a first gas supply setting that comprises a percentage of oxygen (correlated to one substrate). Although Raley does not clearly teach to supply the second gas mixture to the second substrate, however, it is obvious if the second setting is obtained after final processing of the first substrate it will be use for the next substrate (second substrate on the substrate carrier). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Raley
when the second setting is obtained after final processing of the first substrate it will be
used for the next substrate, because this is an optimum setting has been obtained.
Claim 2 is rejected as Raley further teaches the first and second settings comprise types of one or more gases [0057], an amount of each of the one or more gases, a flow rate of each of the one or more gases, a supply duration of each of the one or more gases [0010].
Claim 3 is rejected as Raley teaches the CD data comprises optical metrology
data [0057 lines 5-7].
Claim 5 is rejected as Raley teaches the first and second gas mixtures comprise
an inert gas including Argon (Ar) [0045-0046] which in fact protect the first and second
substrates from oxidation.
Claim 6 is rejected as Raley teaches the first and second gas mixtures comprise
oxygen (O2) [0057] which in fact can oxidize a structure on the first and second
substrates.
Claim 9 is rejected as Raley teaches providing the second setting comprises
adjusting a duration of O2 in the second gas mixture (adding CxFy to O2/Ar mixture for
a decided time) [0057].
Claim 11 is rejected. Raley teaches a method, comprising:
receiving a gas supply setting;
supplying, to a substrate carrier holding a first substrate, a gas mixture based on
the gas supply setting [fig. 9, 0056];
receiving an adjustment in the gas supply setting based on critical dimension
(CD) data measured on the first substrate after the first substrate completes a process
operation, wherein the adjustment in the gas supply setting is in response to the CD
data being outside a predetermined range [fig. 9, 0057]; and providing a second setting
to configure the gas supply device to supply a second gas mixture to the substrate
carrier [0010 lines 6-end]. Raley teaches treating one substrate on a substrate carrier [fig. 9] with O2 and CO2 gases [0056], therefore teaches generating a first gas supply setting that comprises a percentage of oxygen (correlated to one substrate). Although Raley does not clearly teach to supply the second gas mixture to the second substrate, however, it is obvious if the second setting is obtained after final processing of the first substrate it will be use for the next substrate (second substrate on the substrate carrier). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Raley when the second setting is obtained after final processing of the first substrate it will be used for the next substrate, because this is an optimum setting has been obtained.
Claim 13 is rejected as Raley teaches the gas mixture comprise an inert gas
including Argon (Ar) [0056, 0045-0046] which in fact protect the first and second
substrates from oxidation.
Claim 15 is rejected the adjustment in the gas supply setting comprises changing
duration of O2 with respect to the gas supply setting (Raley teaches providing the
second setting comprises adjusting a duration of O2 in the second gas mixture, adding
CxFy to O2/Ar mixture for a decided time) [0057].
Claim 16 is rejected as Raley teaches;
receiving an other gas supply setting; and
supplying, to the substrate carrier, an other gas mixture based on the other gas
supply setting [0057], wherein the gas mixture comprises an inert gas including Ar
[0056] which in fact to protect a structure on the first substrate from oxidation and the
other gas mixture comprises O2[0057] which in fact to oxidize the structure.
Claims 25 and 27 are rejected as obviously after the process the substrate carrier has to be disconnected from a process station (which is after the first substrate completes the process operation).
Claim 26 is rejected as Raley also teaches trimming SiON layer with the CD data comprises a thickness of an oxide layer on the first substrate [0062-0062, 0057].
Claim 28 is rejected as Raley teaches the CD data comprises a thickness (using ellipsometer) of an oxide layer (SiON) on the first substrate; and the second setting comprises a percentage of O2[O2 amount in gas mixture for etching SiON layer) [0057].
Claims 8, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over A. Raley et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2017/0256395, here after Raley), further in view of HiroyuKi Takaba et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2015/0064924, here after Takaba).
Claims 8, and 24 are rejected. Raley teaches providing additional CD trimming
[0056], and does not teach the second setting comprises adjusting a ratio between N2
and O2 in the second gas mixture. Takaba teaches etching layer by O2 and N2, and
teaches adjusting a flow rate of N2 with respect to O2 and separate control of CD
etching can be controlled [0061]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Raley
when the etching is done by N2 and O2 and adjusting a flow rate of N2 with respect to
O2 and separate control of CD, because it is a suitable way of etching, where the
etching can be controlled.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over A. Raley et
al (U. S. Patent Application: 2017/0256395, here after Raley), further in view of HiroyuKi
Takaba et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2015/0064924, here after Takaba), and Shin-Bok
Lee et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2011/0303917, here after Lee).
Claim 4 is rejected. Raley teaches providing additional CD trimming [0056], and
does not teach the first and second gas mixtures comprise extreme clean dry air
(XCDA). Takaba teaches etching layer by O2 and N2, and teaches adjusting a flow rate
of N2 with respect to O2 and separate control of CD etching can be controlled [0061],
and Lee teaches adding clean air to mixture of oxygen and oxygen for removing organic
layer [0072]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention was made to have a method of Raley when removing organic
layer is done by N2 and O2, and adding clean air to it, because it is a suitable way of
etching the organic film. The clean air should be extreme clean dry air (XCDA) as it is
using in vacuum chamber and is in fact to adjusting a relative humidity (RH) in the
substrate carrier.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/15/25, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 112(b) of claims 2, 15, and 22 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims are still rejected over Raley because it can reject the amended claims(please see claim rejection above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712575166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights