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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to make the claims to make them a system, wherein the substrate has a processing target film, the plasma causing a process of the processing target film on the surface of the substrate, the pattern being composed of a different material from the processing target film, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2015/0206763 to Suzuki et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0190475 to Shin and United States Patent Application No. 2020/0063269 to Lee is presented below.
The rejection below is thus made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0206763 to Suzuki et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0190475 to Shin and United States Patent Application No. 2020/0063269 to Lee.
In regards to Claim 1, Suzuki teaches a system comprising a plasma processing apparatus Fig. 1, 4A in which a substrate W2 (a specific type of wafer with an organic film to be etched as shown in Fig. 2B) having a processing target film 72 and a mask pattern PR on a surface is processed [0039], the plasma processing apparatus comprising: a processing container 10 in which the substrate W is processed; an upper electrode 2 that is installed in the processing container; a substrate placement table 3 that includes a lower electrode 30 facing the upper electrode and on which the substrate is placed; an outer circumferential ring 4 that is arranged on an outer edge portion of the substrate placement table and surrounds a periphery of the substrate; and a power supply 26, 38 that supplies power to at least one of the upper electrode or the lower electrode to generate plasma in the processing container [0042], the plasma causing a generation of a deposition film in the processing container [0044-0046], the plasma causing a process of the processing target film on the surface of the substrate (etching of layer 72), wherein the outer circumferential ring is composed of a different material from the deposition film (the ring being made out of silicone [0034], the coating being made out of carbon [0044]); the film being made out of the deposition film including a first component (carbon/organic film [0045-0046]), the deposition film includes a pattern (solid coating) the first component (organic/carbon film [0045-0046]), the mask pattern includes the first component (organic/carbon film [0045-0046]), and a coverage of the pattern with respect to the outermost surface of the outer circumferential ring is -20% or more and +20% or less of a coverage of the mask pattern with respect to a surface of the substrate (as the coating on the wafer, (as shown on the coating of the dummy wafer A on the ring 4, as shown in Fig. 4A [0028-0089].
Suzuki teaches the coating using a dummy wafer to produce a target film etching suppresses the unbalanced distribution of active species of the plasma between the central portion and the edge portion such that a highly uniform etching process can be implemented [0007-0013].
Suzuki does not expressly teach the solid coating is a pattern or that the pattern is composed of a different material from the processing target film.
Shin teaches a focus ring 100 Fig. 2A, with a pattern 120 Fig. 2A, 121f Fig. 7, which creates a greater uniformity of the plasma as the plasma field is extended beyond the edge portion of the wafer and the process characteristics of the edge portion of the wafer can be uniform and the useful life of the focus ring may increase [0041; 0016-0083].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Suzuki, by forming a pattern on the top surface of the focus ring, as per the teachings of Shin. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of extending the plasma field allowing for greater uniformity of wafer processing. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. As the ions do not bombard the top surface of the focus ring but move outwards to exist the focus ring, thus not bombarding the focus ring as extensively, the ring also has a greater longevity, which directly suggests that the material of the ring can be changed to be different from the processing target film as greater edge uniformity can be formed.
Suzuki in view of Shin does not expressly teach that the material is different from the processing target film.
Lee teaches a focus ring Fig. 1, 2 which has different coating layers 220, 400 which are a combination of TaC and SiC [0067; 0040-0110]. Lee teaches the material improves product durability [0033].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a top surface/coating of a focus ring analogous to that of Suzuki in view of Shin out of TaC and SiC, as taught by Lee, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 1. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of the claim would have a combination coating of TaC and SiC, which would making the pattern composed of a different material from the processing target film which is carbon in Suzuki.
In regards to Claim 2, Suzuki teaches the pattern contains carbon or silicon
In regards to Claim 3, Suzuki teaches the pattern contains CVD carbon as a main component [0034], and the outer circumferential ring contains silicon, silicon oxide, or silicon carbide as a main component [0044-0046]; as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 4, Suzuki teaches the outer circumferential ring contains silicon or silicon carbide as a main component [0034], but does not expressly teach the pattern contains silicon oxide as a main component.
Gopalan teaches that the coating can be made out of quartz, i.e., silicon oxide [0027].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a coating analogous to that of Suzuki out of silicon oxide, as taught by Gopalan, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 4.
In regards to Claim 7, Suzuki teaches the outer circumferential ring 4 includes: a lower ring 39 arranged on the outer edge portion of the substrate placement table 3; and an upper ring 4 arranged on the lower ring and having the pattern on a surface (as shown in Fig. 4A).
In regards to Claim 8, Suzuki teaches a storage container 93 Fig. 9 that stores the outer circumferential ring 4; and a transfer arm 87 that transfers the outer (as shown in Fig. 6) circumferential ring between the storage container and the processing container [0067-0081].
In regards to Claim 9, Suzuki teaches a collection container 82 that collects the outer circumferential ring that has been used for processing of the substrate (as it is a standby module), wherein the transfer arm 87 transfers the outer circumferential ring between the processing container 91, 92 and the collection container [0064-0066].
In regards to Claim 21, Suzuki teaches the first component is carbon, as it is an organic film [0044-0046].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. United States Patent Application No. 2013/0026693 to Ranish et al, which teaches a multilayered coating on the top of the edge ring.
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 TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716