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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lian, Lei et al. (US 20040087152 A1) in view of, if necessary, Lill; Thorsten B. et al. (US 6824813 B1) and further in view of Meng; Ching Ling et al. (US 20200043710 A1). Lian teaches a plasma processing apparatus (Figure 7) comprising: a processing chamber (42; Figure 7; [0038]) in which a sample is plasma processed; a radio frequency power supply (“electrode power supply”; Figure 7; [0042]) which supplies radio frequency power ([0042]) for generating plasma; a sample stand (46/62; Figure 7; [0038]) on which the sample is placed; an optical system (40; Figure 7; [0044]) comprising an incident light source (66; Figure 7; [0044]) that emits incident ultraviolet-ray (176; Figure 2; [0044]) light onto a reference groove pattern (127; Figure 2; [0021]) on the sample, a detector (180; Figure 7; [0025]) which detects interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,7; [0022]-[0023]) reflected (178a-c; Figure 2,7; [0022]-[0023]) by the sample, and a spectrometer (180+72; Figure 4,7; claims 3,6; [0032]-[0033]-Applicant’s 61; Figure 1) that disperses the interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,7; [0022]-[0023]) and which transmits a reference spectrum (“pre-etch stage calibration check”; [0032]; “...a stored characteristic waveform, OR other representative pattern..”; [0043]) of the interference light; and a control device (72, 64, 334,339; Figure 6-8; [0043], [0056]) configured to receive the reference spectrum (“pre-etch stage calibration check”; [0032]; “...a stored characteristic waveform, OR other representative pattern..”; [0043]) of the interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,7; [0022]-[0023]) transmitted by the spectrometer (180+72; Figure 4,7; claims 3,6; [0032]-[0033]-Applicant’s 61; Figure 1) and (A) measure a thickness (Figure 6; [0036]) of a protective film (130; Figure 2; [0036]-[0037]) formed on a desired material (122; Figure 2; [0021]) of the sample using the reference spectrum (“pre-etch stage calibration check”; [0032]; “...a stored characteristic waveform, OR other representative pattern..”; [0043]) of the interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,3,7; [0022]-[0023]) reflected (178a-c; Figure 2,7; [0022]-[0023]) by the sample which has been irradiated with the ultraviolet-ray (176; Figure 2; 220nm<λ<300nm; [0023]) light, OR (B) to determine selectivity of the protective film (130; Figure 2; [0036]-[0037]) using the interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,3,7; [0022]-[0023]) reflected (178a-c; Figure 2,7; [0022]-[0023]) by the sample which has been irradiated with the ultraviolet-ray light, by determining, for each (A) or (B), that the interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,3,7; [0022]-[0023]) reflected (178a-c; Figure 2,7; [0022]-[0023]) by the sample for a selectively-deposited protective film (130; Figure 2; [0036]-[0037]) has a signal intensity (Figure 3,4; [0027], [0056]) that exceeds a stored signal intensity (Figure 3,4; [0027], [0056]) for the interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,3,7; [0022]-[0023]) reflected (178a-c; Figure 2,7; [0022]-[0023]) by the sample for a uniformly-deposited protective film (130; Figure 2; [0036]-[0037]) by a first specified value (“pre-determined level”; [0056]; “first process conditions”; [0036]) for a first wavelength (179; Figure 7,8; [0023], [0049]-[0050]) within a processing time, with respect to a case in which the selectively-deposited protective film protective film (130; Figure 2; [0036]-[0037]) is uniformly-deposited - claim 1. The Examiner believes both (A) and (B) are met.
Lian further teaches:
The plasma processing apparatus (Figure 7) according to claim 1, wherein the control device (72, 64, 334,339; Figure 6-8; [0043], [0056]) is further configured to measure the thickness (Figure 6; [0036]) of the protective film (130; Figure 2; [0036]-[0037]) or to determine selectivity of the protective film (130; Figure 2; [0036]-[0037]) based on a result of comparison between a spectrum of the interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,3,7; [0022]-[0023]) which has been monitored (“continuously measured”; [0036]) and a spectrum of the interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,3,7; [0022]-[0023]) which has been preliminarily acquired (“reflectance “snapshot”“; [0032]-[0033]) upon formation of the protective film (130; Figure 2; [0036]-[0037]), as claimed by claim 2
The plasma processing apparatus (Figure 7) according to claim 2, wherein the spectrum of the monitored interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,3,7; [0022]-[0023]) and the spectrum of the preliminarily acquired (“reflectance “snapshot”“; [0032]-[0033]) interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,3,7; [0022]-[0023]) are standardized (“pre-etch stage calibration check”; [0032]; “...a stored characteristic waveform, or other representative pattern..”; [0043]) by a spectrum of the interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,3,7; [0022]-[0023]) of the sample which has not been plasma processed, as claimed by claim 3
The plasma processing apparatus (Figure 7) according to claim 3, wherein if the spectrum of the standardized (“pre-etch stage calibration check”; [0032]; “...a stored characteristic waveform, or other representative pattern..”; [0043]) and monitored (“continuously measured”; [0036]) interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,3,7; [0022]-[0023]) takes a value larger than a given value, the control device (72, 64, 334,339; Figure 6-8; [0043], [0056]) determines that the protective film (130; Figure 2; [0036]-[0037]) has been selectively formed on the desired material (122; Figure 2; [0021]) of the sample, as claimed by claim 4
The plasma processing apparatus (Figure 7) according to claim 1 wherein the control device (72, 64, 334,339; Figure 6-8; [0043], [0056]) is further configured to determine that the interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,3,7; [0022]-[0023]) reflected (178a-c; Figure 2,7; [0022]-[0023]) by the sample for the selectively-deposited protective film (130; Figure 2; [0036]-[0037]) has a signal intensity (Figure 3,4; [0027], [0056]) that exceeds the stored value (“pre-etch stage calibration check”; [0032]; “...a stored characteristic waveform, or other representative pattern..”; [0043]) signal intensity (Figure 3,4; [0027], [0056]) for the interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,3,7; [0022]-[0023]) reflected (178a-c; Figure 2,7; [0022]-[0023]) by the sample for the uniformly-deposited protective film (130; Figure 2; [0036]-[0037]) by a second specified value (“pre-determined level”; [0056]; “second process conditions”; [0036]) for a second wavelength (179; Figure 7,8; [0023], [0049]-[0050]) within the processing time, as claimed by claim 8
The Examiner’s grounds of rejection is based on the fact that, contrary to Applicant’s below arguments, nowhere in Applicant’s claimed invention is there claimed descriptive functional material that excludes Lian’s process. Specifically, Applicant’s functionally weighed control device is only “configured to measure a thickness of a protective film selectively formed on a desired material of the sample using interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,7; [0022]-[0023]) reflecting from the sample which has been irradiated with an ultraviolet-ray”. Lian’s protective film (130; Figure 2; [0036]-[0037]) is “formed” as shown and described on Lian’s desired material (122; Figure 2; [0021]).
Further, if a functionally unclaimed process is improperly weighed, then Lian also states that the disclosed film monitoring and control also applies to deposition processes [0020]:
“
However, the endpoint detection can be used in the etching of other materials such as conductors, or in deposition processes, such as chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and physical vapor deposition (PVD) processes.
“
Lian is believed to teach a spectrometer (180+72; Figure 4,7; claims 3,6; [0032]-[0033]-Applicant’s 61; Figure 1) based on at least the Figure 4 spectra collected and plotted as shown. However, Lian and Lill do not teach fiber optics for distribution and collection of light from Lian and Lill’s light sources.
Meng also teaches a plasma reactor system (Figure 1,2) including optical process control systems (101,102) including a separately illustrated detector (110) and spectrometer (112). Meng further states that “detectors” and “spectrometers” are one in the same – “The optical sensor 101 also includes a detector such as spectrometer 112.” ([0026]). Meng also uses optical fiber (218; Figure 2; [0044]) for light collection and transmission.
In the event that the Examiner’s above grounds applied under Lian are not accepted, then Lill also teaches a similar interference spectra process control means that is also applicable to deposition systems as taught by Lill (column 20; lines 17-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Lian to deposit films under the above disclosed controller as taught by Lian ([0020]) and Lill (column 20; lines 17-27).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Lian to use Meng’s optical fiber to transmit/receive spectrometer data.
Motivation for Lian to deposit films under the above disclosed controller as taught by Lian ([0020]) and Lill (column 20; lines 17-27) is for forming the necessary films as taught by both Lian and Lill.
Motivation for Lian to use Meng’s optical fiber to transmit/receive spectrometer data is for “the background light due to the plasma light emission or equipment lights can be filtered out from the reflected light beam through signal processing algorithms.” as taught by Meng ([0033]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lian, Lei et al. (US 20040087152 A1) in view of, if necessary, Lill; Thorsten B. et al. (US 6824813 B1) and further in view of Meng; Ching Ling et al. (US 20200043710 A1). Lian, Lill, and Meng are discussed above. Lian further teaches Lian’s plasma processing apparatus (Figure 7) according to claim 8, wherein Lian’s control device (72, 64, 334,339; Figure 6-8; [0043], [0056]) is further configured to determine that a specified wavelength (179; Figure 7,8; [0023], [0049]-[0050]) at which a signal intensity (Figure 3,4; [0027], [0056]) ratio of Lian’s signal intensity (Figure 3,4; [0027], [0056]) for Lian’s interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,3,7; [0022]-[0023]) reflected (178a-c; Figure 2,7; [0022]-[0023]) by Lian’s sample for Lian’s selectively-deposited protective film (130; Figure 2; [0036]-[0037]), and Lian’s stored signal intensity (“pre-determined level”; [0056]) for Lian’s interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,3,7; [0022]-[0023]) reflected (178a-c; Figure 2,7; [0022]-[0023]) by Lian’s sample for a uniformly-deposited protective film (130; Figure 2; [0036]-[0037]), converges to 1 - claim 9. Lian’s discussion in [0056] teaches the claimed invention. In particular, Lian’s statement of “…once the radiation signal intensity has reached, for example, a pre-determined level for a certain amount of time.” Requires that the ratio of the measured radiation signal intensity to the pre-determined radiation signal intensity is unity once the radiation signal intensity “has reached” the pre-determined level. “Has reached” is interpretted here as the measured radiation signal intensity = the pre-determined radiation signal intensity.
Lian does not teach Lian’s signal intensity (“pre-determined level”; [0056]) for Lian’s interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,3,7; [0022]-[0023]) reflecting from Lian’s sample for a uniformly-deposited protective film (130; Figure 2; [0036]-[0037]) is longer than Lian’s specified wavelength (179; Figure 7,8; [0023], [0049]-[0050]) within Lian’s processing time - claim 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skil in the art at the time the invention was made for Lian to optimize Lian’s specified wavelength (179; Figure 7,8; [0023], [0049]-[0050]) relative to Lian’s interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,3,7; [0022]-[0023]) reflecting from Lian’s sample for Lian’s selectively-deposited protective film (130; Figure 2; [0036]-[0037]) with Lian’s light wavelength selector (179; [0023]-[0024]..).
Motivation for Lian to optimize Lian’s specified wavelength (179; Figure 7,8; [0023], [0049]-[0050]) relative to Lian’s interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,3,7; [0022]-[0023]) reflecting from Lian’s sample for Lian’s selectively-deposited protective film (130; Figure 2; [0036]-[0037]) with Lian’s light wavelength selector (179; [0023]-[0024]..) is “…in order to maximize the intensity signal 210 of the reflected (178a-c; Figure 2,7; [0022]-[0023]) light 178 at an initial point of the substrate etching process.” as taught by Lian ([0049]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
Thus, in contrast with Applicant’s claimed apparatus, it is apparent that Lian does not teach or suggest a spectrometer (61) that disperses the interference light through an optical fiber (60) and which transmits a reference spectrum of the interference light, and then transmits the reference spectrum to the optical system control unit 39.
“
And…
“
Thus, in contrast with Applicant’s claimed apparatus, Lill also does not teach or suggest a a spectrometer (61) that disperses the interference light through an optical fiber (60) and which transmits a reference spectrum of the interference light, and then transmits the reference spectrum to the optical system control unit 39.
“
In contrast, the Examiner has reconsidered Lian and re-affirms Lian as teaching a spectrometer (180+72; Figure 4,7; claims 3,6; [0032]-[0033]-Applicant’s 61; Figure 1) that disperses the interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,7; [0022]-[0023]) and which transmits a reference spectrum (“pre-etch stage calibration check”; [0032]; “...a stored characteristic waveform, OR other representative pattern..”; [0043]) of the interference light; and a control device (72, 64, 334,339; Figure 6-8; [0043], [0056]) configured to receive the reference spectrum (“pre-etch stage calibration check”; [0032]; “...a stored characteristic waveform, OR other representative pattern..”; [0043]) of the interference light (178a-c; Figure 2,7; [0022]-[0023]) transmitted by the spectrometer (180+72; Figure 4,7; claims 3,6; [0032]-[0033]-Applicant’s 61; Figure 1).
The Examiner acknowledges that Lian and Lill do not teach fiber optics for distribution and collection of light from Lian and Lill’s light sources. For this reason the Examiner notes the teaching of Meng also teaches a plasma reactor system (Figure 1,2) including optical process control systems (101,102) including a separately illustrated detector (110) and spectrometer (112). Meng further states that “detectors” and “spectrometers” are one in the same – “The optical sensor 101 also includes a detector such as spectrometer 112.” ([0026]). Meng also uses optical fiber (218; Figure 2; [0044]) for light collection and transmission.
Applicant states:
“
It is thus apparent that Lian and Lill are directed to fundamentally different technical solutions, and one skilled in the art would have had no reason to seek to modify Lian’s structure based on Lill’s similar teachings in an effort to achieve Applicant’s claimed apparatus.
“
In response to applicant's argument that Lian and Lill are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Lian and Lill are each in the field of the inventor’s endeavor (wafer processing) and are each reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned – process control via optical detection.
Applicant states:
“
Thus, Meng actually describes, in a cited portion, an optical sensor 101 having an illumination system (108), a collection system (110), and a spectrometer 112. Meng, paragraph [0026]; and Fig. 1…. Therefore, in Applicant’s claimed device, the detector is a separate structural element from the spectrometer.
“
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant states:
“
Applicant respectfully submits that one skilled in the art would not have understood Meng’s optical fiber 218 that collects light as teaching or suggesting Applicant’s claimed optical system including a spectrometer that disperses the interference light through an optical fiber, as recited in Applicant’s Claim 1.
“
Applicant’s position is noted, however, optical fiber is know to both collect light and transmit light and that motivation for Lian to use Meng’s optical fiber to transmit/receive spectrometer data is for “the background light due to the plasma light emission or equipment lights can be filtered out from the reflected light beam through signal processing algorithms.” as taught by Meng ([0033]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Process monitoring and control via irradiation is also taught by US 20080176149 A1, US 20040035529 A1, and US 20160181134 A1
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 Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716