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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 21, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 requires “a controller programmed to: an amount…”. Correction is required. The Examiner added text below consistent with prior claim scope.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: those following a “double patterning process”.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: those following a “trimming step”.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: those following a “double patterning process”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kasai, Shigeru (US 20040144770 A1) in view of, if necessary, Matsuzawa; Yutaka et al.(US 20070095799 A1). Kasai teaches a control system (24,26; Figure 1), comprising: a processing chamber (4; Figure 1) to perform a double patterning process using a plurality of deposition and etching steps ([0010],[0017],claim 5; “etching processes”; [0059]; “processing time”; throughout); and a controller (26, 24; Figure 1; [0019]-[0021]) programmed to: determine (“host computer”; not shown; [0022], [0040]) an amount of accumulation (Dt; Figure 1; [0022], [0023], [0040]-”thickness meter”) of material on surfaces within the processing chamber (4; Figure 1) during at least one of a deposition step ([0010],[0017],Claim 5) and an etching step (“etching processes”; [0059]; “processing time”; throughout) performed in the processing chamber (4; Figure 1) during the double patterning process; adjust a set point (“target values”, rt - [0022], [0023], [0040], [0031]) for a control parameter (“controlled parameter”, “processing conditions...processing pressure..processing time”; [0022], [0023], [0040]) for a subsequent one of the deposition step ([0010],[0017],Claim 5) and the etching step (“etching processes”; [0059]; “processing time”; throughout) based on (“on the basis of the set film thickness Dt”; Figure 1; [0023]) the amount (rt expression (1) of previous processing cycle n-1,n-2,...; [0031]) of accumulation (Dt; Figure 1; [0022], [0023], [0040]-”thickness meter”) of material on the surfaces within the processing chamber (4; Figure 1); determine (“host computer”; not shown; [0022], [0040]) a correlation (ARMA; [0025]) between the adjustment to the set point (“target values”, rt - [0022], [0023], [0040], [0031]) for the control parameter (“controlled parameter”, “processing conditions...processing pressure..processing time”; [0022], [0023], [0040]) and the amount (rt expression (1) of previous processing cycle n-1,n-2,...; [0031]) of accumulation (Dt; Figure 1; [0022], [0023], [0040]-”thickness meter”) of material on the surfaces within the processing chamber (4; Figure 1); and adjust the control parameter (“controlled parameter”, “processing conditions...processing pressure..processing time”; [0022], [0023], [0040]) by an adjustment amount (rt expression (1) of previous processing cycle n-1,n-2,...; [0031]) for a next one of the deposition step ([0010],[0017],Claim 5) and the etching step (“etching processes”; [0059]; “processing time”; throughout) based on (“on the basis of the set film thickness Dt”; Figure 1; [0023]) the correlation (ARMA; [0025]), wherein the adjustment amount (rt expression (1) of previous processing cycle n-1,n-2,...; [0031]) compensates for a current amount (rt expression (1) of previous processing cycle n-1,n-2,...; [0031]) of accumulation (Dt; Figure 1; [0022], [0023], [0040]-”thickness meter”) of material on the surfaces within the processing chamber (4; Figure 1), as claimed by claim 1. With respect to the claimed “double patterning process”, Applicant has not provided sufficient distinguishing structural characteristics of Applicant's claimed invention to contrast the Examiner's cited prior art. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examer notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Kasai further teaches:
The controller (26, 24; Figure 1; [0019]-[0021]) of claim 1, wherein the control parameter (“controlled parameter”, “processing conditions...processing pressure..processing time”; [0022], [0023], [0040]) is an amount of pressure within the processing chamber (4; Figure 1), and wherein the controller (26, 24; Figure 1; [0019]-[0021]) is programmed to determine (“host computer”; not shown; [0022], [0040]) the adjustment amount (rt expression (1) of previous processing cycle n-1,n-2,...; [0031]) using stored data (ARMA; [0025]) and adjust the amount of the pressure (“controller parameter”; [0022], [0023], [0040]) in accordance with the adjustment amount (rt expression (1) of previous processing cycle n-1,n-2,...; [0031]), as claimed by claim 2
The controller (26, 24; Figure 1; [0019]-[0021]) of claim 2, wherein the stored data (ARMA; [0025]) is a polynomial correlating accumulation (Dt; Figure 1; [0022], [0023], [0040]-”thickness meter”) amounts (rt expression (1) of previous processing cycle n-1,n-2,...; [0031]) to respective adjustment amounts (rt expression (1) of previous processing cycle n-1,n-2,...; [0031]), as claimed by claim 3
The controller (26, 24; Figure 1; [0019]-[0021]) of claim 2, wherein the adjustment amount (rt expression (1) of previous processing cycle n-1,n-2,...; [0031]) is a ratio (A(Z-1)/B(Z-1); [0029], [0030]) of (i) an amount of pressure required to compensate for the amount (rt expression (1) of previous processing cycle n-1,n-2,...; [0031]) of accumulation (Dt; Figure 1; [0022], [0023], [0040]-”thickness meter”) to (ii) a setpoint pressure (rt expression (1) for processing cycles (Figure 2) n; [0031]), as claimed by claim 4. Replace controlled parameter “temperature” with controlled parameter “pressure” in [0039]. See also [0056].
The controller (26, 24; Figure 1; [0019]-[0021]) of claim 2, wherein the controller (26, 24; Figure 1; [0019]-[0021]) is programmed to multiply a setpoint pressure (rt expression (1) for processing cycles (Figure 2) n; [0031]) by the adjustment amount (rt expression (1) of previous processing cycle n-1,n-2,...; [0031]) to adjust the control parameter (“controlled parameter”, “processing conditions...processing pressure..processing time”; [0022], [0023], [0040]), as claimed by claim 5
The controller (26, 24; Figure 1; [0019]-[0021]) of claim 1, wherein the controller (26, 24; Figure 1; [0019]-[0021]) is configured to determine (“host computer”; not shown; [0022], [0040]) the amount (rt expression (1) of previous processing cycle n-1,n-2,...; [0031]) of accumulation (Dt; Figure 1; [0022], [0023], [0040]-”thickness meter”) based on (“on the basis of the set film thickness Dt”; Figure 1; [0023]) at least one of a number of etching steps (“etching processes”; [0059]; “processing time”; throughout; Figure 2) performed within the processing chamber (4; Figure 1), a number of cycles (Figure 2) of etching steps (“etching processes”; [0059]; “processing time”; throughout; Figure 2) and deposition steps ([0010],[0017],Claim 5) performed within the processing chamber (4; Figure 1), a total duration (“control parameter” rt = “processing time”; [0010], [0022], [0027]) (“N”; [0042]-[0048]) of etching steps (“etching processes”; [0059]; “processing time”; throughout; Figure 2) and deposition steps ([0010],[0017],Claim 5) performed within the processing chamber (4; Figure 1), and a number of substrates processed within the processing chamber (4; Figure 1), as claimed by claim 6
The controller (26, 24; Figure 1; [0019]-[0021]) of claim 1, wherein the control parameter (“controlled parameter”, “processing conditions...processing pressure..processing time”; [0022], [0023], [0040]) is a duration (“control parameter” rt = “processing time”; [0010], [0022], [0027]) of the etching step (“etching processes”; [0059]; “processing time”; throughout), and wherein the controller (26, 24; Figure 1; [0019]-[0021]) is programmed to determine (“host computer”; not shown; [0022], [0040]) the adjustment amount (rt expression (1) of previous processing cycle n-1,n-2,...; [0031]) using stored data (ARMA; [0025]) and adjust a duration (“control parameter” rt = “processing time”; [0010], [0022], [0027]) of the etching step (“etching processes”; [0059]; “processing time”; throughout) in accordance with the adjustment amount (rt expression (1) of previous processing cycle n-1,n-2,...; [0031]), as claimed by claim 7
The controller (26, 24; Figure 1; [0019]-[0021]) of claim 7, wherein the adjustment amount (rt expression (1) of previous processing cycle n-1,n-2,...; [0031]) corresponds to an amount to increase the duration (“control parameter” rt = “processing time”; [0010], [0022], [0027]) of the etching step (“etching processes”; [0059]; “processing time”; throughout) to compensate for the amount of accumulation (Dt; Figure 1; [0022], [0023], [0040]-”thickness meter”), as claimed by claim 8
The controller (26, 24; Figure 1; [0019]-[0021]) of claim 7, wherein the controller (26, 24; Figure 1; [0019]-[0021]) is programmed to multiply the duration (“control parameter” rt = “processing time”; [0010], [0022], [0027]) of the etching step (“etching processes”; [0059]; “processing time”; throughout) by the adjustment amount (rt expression (1) of previous processing cycle n-1,n-2,...; [0031]) to adjust the control parameter (“controlled parameter”, “processing conditions...processing pressure..processing time”; [0022], [0023], [0040]), as claimed by claim 9
Kasai’s “set parameters”, discussed throughout, includes film thickness Dt and appears to be measured “by a thickness meter or the like” ([0040]) only between “processing cycles (Figure 2)” ([0038]; Figure 2). As a result, Kasai’s “set parameter” of an amount of accumulation (Dt; Figure 1; [0022], [0023], [0040]-”thickness meter”) of material on surfaces within the processing chamber (4; Figure 1) is not made during at least one of a deposition step ([0010],[0017],Claim 5) and an etching step (“etching processes”; [0059]; “processing time”; throughout) performed in the processing chamber (4; Figure 1). (Emphasis added).
However, the Examiner believes that a broad interpretation of Kasai’s disccrete process of Figure 2 can be considered a single process and thus meet the claimed “during” clause. In the event that a broad interpretation of Kasai’s disclosure is not deemed accepted, then:
Matsuzawa also teaches a deposition apparatus (Figure 1) including “a thickness meter or the like” ([0040]; Kasai) being a “polarization analyzer” (7; Figure 1) for real-time film thickness measurement and process control ([0030],[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for Kasai to use Matsuzawa’s “polarization analyzer” (7; Figure 1) for real-time film thickness measurement and process control as taught by Kasai’s “a thickness meter or the like” ([0040]; Kasai).
Motivation for Kasai to use Matsuzawa’s “polarization analyzer” (7; Figure 1) for real-time film thickness measurement and process control as taught by Kasai’s “a thickness meter or the like” ([0040]; Kasai) is for “abnormality detection in real time” as taught by Matsuzawa ([0011]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai, Shigeru (US 20040144770 A1) in view of, if necessary, Matsuzawa; Yutaka et al.(US 20070095799 A1) in view of Krivokapic; Zoran et al. (US 6586755 B1). Kasai and Matsuzawa are discussed above. Kasai and Matsuzawa do not teach:
The controller (26, 24; Figure 1; [0019]-[0021]) of claim 7, wherein the etching step (“etching processes”; [0059]; “processing time”; throughout) is a trimming step, as claimed by claim 10.
A system comprising the controller (26, 24; Figure 1; [0019]-[0021]) of claim 10,wherein the controller (26, 24; Figure 1; [0019]-[0021]) is further programmed to perform a spacer layer deposition step ([0010],[0017],Claim 5) within the processing chamber (4; Figure 1) subsequent to the trim step, as claimed by claim 11.
Krivokapic also teaches a semiconductor film manufacturing process (Figure 5B) including a triming step (542; Figure 5B) prior to a deposition step (547,548; Figure 5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for Kasai to add Krivokapic’s trim and deposition sequence as taught by Krivokapic.
Motivation for Kasai to add Krivokapic’s trim and deposition sequence as taught by Krivokapic is for improving “final yield” as taught by Krivokapic (column 3; lines 24-32).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
Specifically, Kasai's film thickness Dt is "the thickness of a film formed on a wafer by the film-forming process," ([0024]) that "is given to the processing condition compensator 26 on the basis of a predetermined recipe for the film forming process" ([0022]). Accordingly, Kasai's film thickness Dt is the thickness of the film on the wafer and not of the material accumulated on the surfaces of the processing chamber.
“
And…
“
Accordingly, Kasai's model function is based on film thickness Dt, which is the thickness of film on the wafer and not of the material accumulated on the surfaces of the processing chamber, and Kasai's model function is therefore not based on an amount of material accumulated on the surfaces within a processing chamber.
“
In response, Kasai's film thickness being “the thickness of a film formed on a wafer by the film-forming process” is within the scope of the claimed “an amount of accumulation of material on surfaces within the processing chamber”. A “the thickness of a film formed on a wafer” is a “surface within the processing chamber”.
Applicant states:
“
Applicant respectfully submits that Kasai does not disclose a double patterning process using a plurality of deposition and etch steps and a controller as now claimed.
“
In response, the Examiner disagrees. The claimed “double patterning process” is considered an open ended claim recitation that is believed to be as being incomplete for omitting essential steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. See above. Further, the plural deposition and etching processes are indeed taught by Kasai as shown in Figure 2 and the stated deposition step ([0010],[0017],Claim 5) and etching steps (“etching processes”; [0059]; “processing time”; throughout). Further, see MPEP § 2172.01 with respect to the claimed “double patterning process”. The claimed “double patterning process” omits steps that the Examiner cannot asses with respect to the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Process control including US 7201174 B2; US 20180033672 A1; US 20210143037 A1; and US 20020180449 A1 describe similar controllers.
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