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 claims 1-12 and 25-30 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The obvious double patenting rejections will be maintained below.
Claim 1 was amended to recite that the sensors generate a spatially resolved measurement of the parameter across the reference substrate or the heated pedestal. The prior art of SK Siltron (KR 20190009533) teaches sensors (first and second pyrometers that measure the temperature of the reference wafer). The teachings of SK Siltron were combined with the teachings of Popiolkowski et al (US 2004/0056211) which teaches a method of texturizing the surface of a workpiece/chamber component see abstract. The texturizing is provided by scanning an electromagnetic beam 102 across the chamber component. According to [0051] of Popiolkowski et al the beam has a spatial distribution of energy that varies dependent upon the composition of film thickness of the workpiece see [0054] of Popiolkowski et al.
Applicant argues that the prior art of SK Siltron generates no map and does not perform targeted spatial modification as is recited in amended claim 1. However, see Figs. 5B and 6B of SK Siltron which illustrate a map of the film thickness at specific wafer points (locations along the wafer). Figs. 5B and 6B are interpreted as maps of non-uniformity across the reference substrate.
PNG
media_image1.png
344
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5b above of Popiolkowski et al
PNG
media_image2.png
252
565
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6b above of Popiolkowski et al
Claim 2 is amended to recite that the regions of different emissivity are deliberately designed based on the determined non-uniformities and wherein the surface area is changed by different amounts in different regions based on the determined non-uniformities. Popiolkowski et al teaches the modification of the surface of the chamber component comprise providing the chamber component with bead blasting see [0008], [0031], [0036], [0080] of the workpiece and chamber component/process kit see [0081]. The surface of the wafer/chamber component having regions of different emissivity as the emissivity is an inherent property of the material of construction of the coating and/or chamber component the emissivity is affected by the topography or thickness of the material in each region. Emissivity is the measure of a material’s effectiveness in emitting energy as thermal radiation the emissivity is affected by many variables including material of construction, topography, and thickness. Bead blasting changes the surface in different regions and the result will be uneven topography especially when refurbishing. The motivation to further modify the cleaning of the chamber/chamber components in the method of SK Siltron with the step of physical modifying (texturizing) a surface of a chamber component before using the chamber component in a process chamber ensures that the contamination of chamber is minimized by ensuring foreign matter does not accumulate as any detached or flaked off materials has been texturized/modified away as suggested by Popiolkowski et al. Noting that combining the teachings of Siltron and Popiolkowski et al with refurbishing the chamber components which would result in regions of different emissivity and changing the surface of the component as needed in different regions as suggested by the prior art of Popiolkowski et al.
Claim 26 was amended to recite that the surface comprising the bulk material is a base substrate material surface of the chamber component that is free of an applied coating prior to physically modifying the surface. Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to teach this limitation. See [0037] and claim 38 of Popiolkowski et al where the material of construction of the workpiece is recited no applied coating until the texturizing step according to [0008] of Popiolkowski et al.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9, 11, 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 and 37-41 of copending Application No. 16/718, 029 (reference application) in view of Popiolkowski et al (US 2004/0056211).
Regarding claim 1: See claim 1 of the reference application where the step of measuring a parameter of a reference substrate or a heated pedestal using one or more sensors and modifying a surface of a chamber component (texturizing the surface of a chamber component) based on the measured parameter. The reference application (claim 1) also claims the step of determining deposition film thickness non-uniformities or thermal non-uniformities across the reference substrate or the heated pedestal based on the measured parameter; and physically modifying a surface of a chamber component physically based on the determined deposition film thickness non-uniformities or thermal non-uniformities. See claim 8 of the reference application where a thermal map is generated based on the measured parameter and texturizing the surface of the chamber component based on the thermal map where temperature is the parameter measured.
The reference application fails to claim that the physical modifying a surface of a chamber component before using the chamber component in a process chamber.
The prior art of Popiolkowski et al teaches a method of surface texturizing a wafer and chamber components. See [0082] of Popiolkowski et al where it is recited that the cleaning process and texturizing steps are completed, but prior to the step of placing the component in a process chamber. The motivation to modify the method of the reference application with the step of physical modifying (texturizing) a surface of a chamber component before using the chamber component in a process chamber ensures that the contamination of chamber is minimized by ensuring foreign matter does not accumulate as any detached or flaked off materials has been texturized/modified away as suggested by Popiolkowski et al. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the reference application with the step of physical modifying (texturizing) a surface of a chamber component before using the chamber component in a process chamber ensures that the contamination of chamber is minimized by ensuring foreign matter does not accumulate as any detached or flaked off materials has been texturized/modified away as suggested by Popiolkowski et al.
Regarding claim 2: See the recitation of different emissivity in claim 1 of the reference application. The chamber component with a surface finish having regions of different emissivity. See also claims 9 and 13 of the reference application are recited.
Regarding claim 3: See claim 4 of the reference application where the chamber component is texturized (modifying) via laser, water jetting, bead blasting, or chemical texturing.
Regarding claim 4: See claims 5 and 23 of the reference application.
Regarding claim 5: See claims 1 and 6 of the reference application.
Regarding claim 6: See claim 7 of the reference application.
Regarding claim 7: See claim 8 of the reference application.
Regarding claim 8: See claims 1 and 9 of the reference application.
Regarding claim 9: See claims 10 and 22 of the reference application.
Regarding claim 11: See claim 11 of the reference application.
Regarding claim 12: See claim 12 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 10 and 26-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 and 37-41 of copending Application No. 16/718, 029 (reference application) in view of Popiolkowski et al (US 2004/0056211), as applied to claims 1-9, 11, 12 above, and in further view of Lin et al (US 2005/0089699).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 10: The claims of the reference application as modified by the prior art of Popiolkowski et al were discussed above. The modification fails to claim the step of processing a substrate using the modified chamber component and reapplying the protective coating after processing the substrate.
The prior art of Lin et al teaches cleaning and refurbishing chamber components. Where [0003], [0019], [0030], and [0037]. Lin et al suggested that cleaning the chamber component and reapplied the coating to ensure that the chamber component is amply protected and not exposed to the chemical and physical stress of the manufacturing process. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to clean the chamber component and reapplied the coating to ensure that the chamber component of the reference application as modified by Popiolkowski et al that is amply protected as suggested by the prior art of Lin et al.
Regarding claim 26: See claim 1 of the reference application where the step of measuring a parameter of a reference substrate or a heated pedestal using one or more sensors and modifying a surface of a chamber component (texturizing the surface of a chamber component) based on the measured parameter. The reference application (claim 1) also claims the step of determining deposition film thickness non-uniformities or thermal non-uniformities across the reference substrate or the heated pedestal based on the measured parameter; and physically modifying a surface of a chamber component physically based on the determined deposition film thickness non-uniformities or thermal non-uniformities.
The reference application fails to claim that the surface comprises a bulk material of a chamber component..
The prior art of Lin et al teaches cleaning and refurbishing chamber components, where component made of the bulk material is interpreted as the material provided to the chamber when processing begins there is an original material when the component is previously unused and when it has been refurbished so that the component will be reused is has been texturized to refurbish it.
See also [0003], [0019], [0030], and [0037] of Lin et al. Lin et al suggested that cleaning the chamber component and reapplied the coating to ensure that the chamber component is amply protected and not exposed to the chemical and physical stress of the manufacturing process. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to clean the chamber component and reapplied the coating to ensure that the chamber component of the reference application is amply protected as suggested by the prior art of Lin et al.
The combined teachings of the reference application and Lin et al fail to specifically claim the step of physical modifying a surface of a chamber component before using the chamber component in a process chamber.
The prior art of Popiolkowski et al teaches a method of surface texturizing a wafer and chamber components. See [0082] of Popiolkowski et al where it is recited that the cleaning process and texturizing steps are completed, but prior to the step of placing the component in a process chamber. The motivation to modify the method of the reference application and Lin et al with the step of physical modifying (texturizing) a surface of a chamber component made from bulk material before using the chamber component in a process chamber ensures that the contamination of chamber is minimized by ensuring foreign matter does not accumulate as any detached or flaked off materials has been texturized/modified away as suggested by Popiolkowski et al. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the reference application with the step of physical modifying (texturizing) a surface of a chamber component before using the chamber component in a process chamber ensures that the contamination of chamber is minimized by ensuring foreign matter does not accumulate as any detached or flaked off materials has been texturized/modified away as suggested by Popiolkowski et al.
Regarding claim 27: See claims 1 and 5-9 of the reference application.
Regarding claim 28: See claims 10-12 of the reference application.
Regarding claim 29: See claim 23 of the reference application.
Regarding claim 30: See claims 1 and 9 of the reference application.
Claim 25 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 and 37-41 of copending Application No. 16/718, 029 (reference application) in view of Popiolkowski et al (US 2004/0056211), as applied to claims 1-9, 11, and 12 above, and in further view of Rajagopalan et al (US 2006/0093756).
The claims of the reference application as modified by the prior art of Popiolkowski et al were discussed above. The modification fails to suggest the protective coating specifically comprises a silicon oxide (SiO), silicon nitride (SiN), silicon carbon nitride (SiCN), or a combination thereof.
The prior art of Rajagopalan et al teaches a high-power dielectric seasoning where the walls and chamber components of the chamber are densely coating (physical modifying). See [0035] of Rajagopalan et al suggests the following materials to coat the walls and chamber components such as SiO, SiN as they are typically materials used to construct the substrate and prevents other materials from adhering to the chamber components and walls see [0015] Rajagopalan et al. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the claims and resulting apparatus from the claims of the reference application as modified by the prior art of Popiolkowski et al to provide coatings constructed of materials suggested by the prior art of Rajagopalan et al to prevent other materials from adhering to those components and/or wall to prevent contamination or peel off onto the substrates.
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, 26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SK Siltron (KR 20190009533 using the Machine Generated English Translation provided by applicant in the IDS dated 1/5/2004) in view of Popiolkowski et al (US 2004/0056211).
Regarding claim 1: SK Siltron teaches a method, comprising: measuring a parameter of a reference substrate (wafer W) or a heated pedestal (susceptor 200) using one or more sensors (see the use of pyrometer 700 which includes upper pyrometer 710 and lower pyrometer 720) to measure the temperature of the wafer and or heated pedestal; determining deposition film thickness (see the discussion of the film thickness of Si coating) non-uniformities or thermal non-uniformities across the reference substrate or the heated pedestal based on the measured parameter via the controller 900 (see discussion of the pyrometer determines the film thickness and how, when, and duration of cleaning); and physically modifying a surface of a chamber component (chamber cleaning) based on the determined deposition film thickness non-uniformities or thermal non-uniformities. See abstract, page 1 paragraph 9/background of the invention, discussing the pyrometers determining whether to coat the chamber. See also page 2 paragraphs 2 and 3, page 4 paragraphs 4 and 13, and pages 5 and 6 of the description of the KR patent. Note that the prior art of SK Siltron measures the temperature of the wafer and the susceptor (heated pedestal due to heater 600) using the pyrometer 700. According to SK Siltron the RPM or rotation speed of the heated pedestal is also determined and the RPM is used to determine the film thickness see Figs. 5b and 6b of Sk Siltron. SK Siltron also teaches that the quality of the cleaning and the quality of the Si film is determined.
The prior art of SK Siltron fails to claim that the physical modifying a surface of a chamber component before using the chamber component in a process chamber.
The prior art of Popiolkowski et al teaches a method of surface texturizing a wafer and chamber components. See [0082] of Popiolkowski et al where it is recited that the cleaning process and texturizing steps are completed, but prior to the step of placing the component in a process chamber. Bead blasting treatment is discussed in [0066] and [0067] of Popiolkowski et al. According to the prior art of Popiolkowski et al the bead blasting treatment also removes any loosely adhered material such as protuberances formed by the texturization process. The motivation to modify the method of the reference application with the step of physical modifying (texturizing) a surface of a chamber component before using the chamber component in a process chamber ensures that the contamination of chamber is minimized by ensuring foreign matter does not accumulate as any detached or flaked off materials has been texturized/modified away as suggested by Popiolkowski et al. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of SK Siltron with the step of physical modifying (texturizing) a surface of a chamber component before using the chamber component in a process chamber ensures that the contamination of chamber is minimized by ensuring foreign matter does not accumulate as any detached or flaked off materials has been texturized/modified away as suggested by Popiolkowski et al.
The prior art of SK Siltron (KR 20190009533) teaches sensors (first and second pyrometers that measure the temperature of the reference wafer). The teachings of SK Siltron were combined with the teachings of Popiolkowski et al (US 2004/0056211) which teaches a method of texturizing the surface of a workpiece/chamber component see abstract. The texturizing is provided by scanning an electromagnetic beam 102 across the chamber component. According to [0051] of Popiolkowski et al the beam has a spatial distribution of energy that varies dependent upon the composition of film thickness of the workpiece see [0054] of Popiolkowski et al. Figs. 5B and 6B of SK Siltron which illustrate a map of the film thickness at specific wafer points (locations along the wafer). Figs. 5B and 6B are interpreted as maps of non-uniformity across the reference substrate.
Regarding claim 2: The method of Siltron fails to teach a) providing the chamber component with a surface finish having regions of different emissivity and b) that modifying the surface of the component by changing a surface area in different regions of the surface.
Recall the teachings of Popiolkowski et al. Popiolkowski et al teaches the modification of the surface of the chamber component comprise providing the chamber component with bead blasting see [0008], [0031], [0036], [0080] of the workpiece and chamber component/process kit see [0081]. The surface of the wafer/chamber component having regions of different emissivity as the emissivity is an inherent property of the material of construction of the coating and/or chamber component the emissivity is affected by the topography or thickness of the material in each region. Emissivity is the measure of a material’s effectiveness in emitting energy as thermal radiation the emissivity is affected by many variables including material of construction, topography, and thickness. Bead blasting changes the surface in different regions and the result will be uneven topography especially when refurbishing. The motivation to further modify the cleaning of the chamber/chamber components in the method of SK Siltron with the step of physical modifying (texturizing) a surface of a chamber component before using the chamber component in a process chamber ensures that the contamination of chamber is minimized by ensuring foreign matter does not accumulate as any detached or flaked off materials has been texturized/modified away as suggested by Popiolkowski et al. Noting that combining the teachings of Siltron and Popiolkowski et al with refurbishing the chamber components which would result in regions of different emissivity and changing the surface of the component as needed in different regions as suggested by the prior art of Popiolkowski et al.
Regarding claim 3: The prior art of SK Siltron teaches cleaning the chamber but fails to teach the recited methods of cleaning. The surface of the chamber component modifying by bead blasting see abstract, see [see [0008], [0031], [0036], [0080] of Popiolkowski et al.
The motivation further modify the cleaning of the chamber/chamber components in the method of SK Siltron by bead blasting as suggested by Popiolkowski et al is that the bead blasting offer an fast effective method of cleaning the chamber/components and provides for modifying in a non-uniform manner to effect the surface roughness of the chamber/components to ensure the unwanted particles are less likely to adhere and thus limits contamination by unwanted particles/deposits. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to further modify the cleaning of the chamber/chamber components in the method of SK Siltron by bead blasting as suggested by Popiolkowski et al.
Regarding claim 5: SK Siltron teaches a method with a step of modifying the surface of the chamber component is performed in a non-uniform manner. SK Siltron teaches the non-uniform coating of the wall/ see page 3 last paragraph and the discussion of debris coating) and thus the need to clean those surfaces that have been undesirably coated/non-uniformly coated in a non-uniform manner.
Regarding claim 26: K Siltron teaches a method, comprising: measuring a parameter of a reference substrate (wafer W) or a heated pedestal (susceptor 200) using one or more sensors (see the use of pyrometer 700 which includes upper pyrometer 710 and lower pyrometer 720) to measure the temperature of the wafer and or heated pedestal; determining deposition film thickness (see the discussion of the film thickness of Si coating) non-uniformities or thermal non-uniformities across the reference substrate or the heated pedestal based on the measured parameter via the controller 900 (see discussion of the pyrometer determines the film thickness and how, when, and duration of cleaning); and physically modifying a surface of a chamber component (chamber cleaning) based on the determined deposition film thickness non-uniformities or thermal non-uniformities. See abstract, page 1 paragraph 9/background of the invention, discussing the pyrometers determining whether to coat the chamber. See also page 2 paragraphs 2 and 3, page 4 paragraphs 4 and 13, and pages 5 and 6 of the description of the KR patent.
The prior art of SK Siltron et al fails to teach that the surface comprises a bulk material of a chamber component.
The prior art of Popiolkowski et al teaches texturizing the wafer and/or chamber components, where component made of the bulk material is interpreted as the material provided to the chamber when processing begins there is an original material when the component is previously unused and when it has been refurbished so that the component will be reused is has been texturized to refurbish it. See [0082] of Popiolkowski et al where it is recited that the cleaning process and texturizing steps are completed, but prior to the step of placing the component in a process chamber. See [0037] and claim 38 of Popiolkowski et al where the material of construction of the workpiece is recited no applied coating until the texturizing step according to [0008] of Popiolkowski et al. See [0037] and claim 38 of Popiolkowski et al where the material of construction of the workpiece is recited no applied coating (insinuating bulk material) until the texturizing step according to [0008] of Popiolkowski et al.
The motivation to modify the method of the reference application and Lin et al with the step of physical modifying (texturizing) a surface of a chamber component made from bulk material before using the chamber component in a process chamber ensures that the contamination of chamber is minimized by ensuring foreign matter does not accumulate as any detached or flaked off materials has been texturized/modified away as suggested by Popiolkowski et al. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the reference application with the step of physical modifying (texturizing) a surface of a chamber component before using the chamber component in a process chamber ensures that the contamination of chamber is minimized by ensuring foreign matter does not accumulate as any detached or flaked off materials has been texturized/modified away as suggested by Popiolkowski et al.
Regarding claim 30: The method of Siltron fails to teach a) providing the chamber component with a surface finish having regions of different emissivity and b) that modifying the surface of the component by changing a surface area in different regions of the surface. The non-uniform emissivity profile is the different emissivity over different regions of the wafer surface.
Recall the teachings of Popiolkowski et al. Popiolkowski et al teaches the modification of the surface of the chamber component comprise providing the chamber component with bead blasting see [0008], [0031], [0036], [0080] of the workpiece and chamber component/process kit see [0081]. The surface of the wafer/chamber component having regions of different emissivity as the emissivity is an inherent property of the material of construction of the coating and/or chamber component the emissivity is affected by the topography or thickness of the material in each region. Emissivity is the measure of a material’s effectiveness in emitting energy as thermal radiation the emissivity is affected by many variables including material of construction, topography, and thickness. Bead blasting changes the surface in different regions and the result will be uneven topography especially when refurbishing. The motivation to further modify the cleaning of the chamber/chamber components in the method of SK Siltron with the step of physical modifying (texturizing) a surface of a chamber component before using the chamber component in a process chamber ensures that the contamination of chamber is minimized by ensuring foreign matter does not accumulate as any detached or flaked off materials has been texturized/modified away as suggested by Popiolkowski et al. Noting that combining the teachings of Siltron and Popiolkowski et al with refurbishing the chamber components which would result in regions of different emissivity and changing the surface of the component as needed in different regions as suggested by the prior art of Popiolkowski et al.
Claims 9-12, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SK Siltron (KR 20190009533) in view of Popiolkowski et al (US 2004/0056211), as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 26, and 30 , and in further view of Lin et al (US 2005/0089699).
The teachings of SK Siltron as modified by Popiolkowski et al were discussed above as applied to claims 1-5, and 8.
The teachings of SK Siltron as modified by Popiolkowski et al were discussed above.
Regarding claims 9-11: The teachings of SK Siltron as modified by Popiolkowski et al fails to teach the step of providing a protective coating before or after the physical modifying of the chamber component/wall.
Regarding claim 9: The prior art of Lin et al teaches coating the chamber component with a protective coating before and after the modifying/texturizing of the chamber component. See [0003], [0006], [0019].
Regarding claim 10: The prior art of Lin et al teaches cleaning and refurbishing chamber components. See Lin et al [0003], [0019], [0030], and [0037].
Regarding claim 11: The prior art SK Siltron refers to a chamber insinuating a single chamber. See Fig. 3 of Lin et al which illustrates a single process chamber where the chamber component is coated with a protecting coating, then modifying the surface of the chamber component, and coating the chamber component is a single which is interpreted as the same process chamber.
Regarding claim 28: Se the prior art of Lin et al discuss re-coating or reapplication of the coating after modifying the surface such as bead blasting in [0003] and [0004] and see also throughout Lin et al where refurbishment is recited and see Fig. 2 of Lin et al.
Regarding claim 29: The prior art of Lin et al teaches the refurbishment of the coating occurring in-situ as they steps occur within substate processing chamber 106.
The motivation to provide a protective coating as suggested by Lin et al in the method of SK Siltron is that can prevent damage to the chamber component(s). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of SK Siltron to provide a protective coating as suggested by Lin et al.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SK Siltron (KR 20190009533A) in view of Popiolkowski et al (US 2004/0056211), as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 26, and 30, and in further view of Sata (US 2004/0266222).
The teachings of SK Siltron as modified by Popiolkowski et al were discussed above.
The method resulting from the combined teachings of SK Siltron and Popiolkowski et al fails to
teach:
Regarding claim 6: The method of claim 1, further comprising applying a transfer function to the measured parameter of the reference substrate or the heated pedestal to generate a target pattern and modifying the surface of the chamber component based on the target pattern.
Regarding claim 7: The method of claim 1, further comprising generating a thermal map (interpreted as monitoring points along the component or at specific zones/ regions) based on the measured parameter and modifying the surface of the chamber component based on the thermal map.
The prior art of Sata teaches heat treatment apparatus and heat treatment method where the temperature of the heated pedestal (hot plate 3) is monitored via temperature sensors 32a-32csee Figs. 1 and 3 of Sata and [0038] of Sata where the temperature is measured and controlled at the left, center, and right to create thermal map. The data received from the temperature control and monitoring in forms the modification necessary on the future process regime. See [0030] – [0080] of Sata. In [0048] it is discussed that the measured temperature could be the substrate temperature and/or pedestal/stage temperature. The further modification of the method of SK Siltron with the teaching of Sata is to enhance process control by providing more qualitative analysis of the chamber component which would give indirect temperature monitoring of the substrate and/or direct substrate temperature to help achieve the optimal process result. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to further modify the process resulting from the combined teachings of SK Siltron and Popiolkowski et al to provide the teaching of Sata is to enhance process control by providing more qualitative analysis of the chamber component which would give indirect temperature monitoring of the substrate and/or direct substrate temperature to help achieve the optimal process result.
Claims 9-12 and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SK Siltron (KR 20190009533) in view of Popiolkowski et al (US 2004/0056211), as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 26, and 30, and in further view of Rajagopalan et al (US 2006/0093756).
The teachings of the prior art of SK Siltron as modified by Popiolkowski et al were discussed above.
The method resulting from the combined teachings of SK Siltron and Popiolkowski et al fails to
teach the step of providing a protective coating as recited in claims 9-11. Also, the method resulting from the combined teachings of SK Siltron and Popiolkowski et al fails to teach that the protective coating is provided to multiple chambers. Furthermore, the combined teachings of SK Siltron and Popiolkowski et al to teach that the protective coating specifically comprises a silicon oxide (SiO), silicon nitride (SiN), silicon carbon nitride (SiCN), or a combination thereof as recited in claim 25.
The prior art of Rajagopalan et al teaches a high-power dielectric seasoning (adding a protecting coating) where the walls and chamber components of the chamber are densely coated (physical modifying). See [0035] of Rajagopalan et al suggests the following materials to coat the walls and chamber components such as SiO, SiN as they are typically materials used to construct the substrate and prevents other materials from adhering to the chamber components and walls see [0015], [0021] and [0037] Rajagopalan et al. The prior art of Rajagopalon et al illustrates in Fig. 1 a cross-sectional view of a chamber 100 with dual stations. This plurality of processing stations within a single chamber is an alternative structure of the conventional plurality multichamber system. The protective coating suggested by Rajagopalon is provided for both stations or alternatively in multiple processing chambers. Throughout prior art of Rajagopalan et al the seasoning step is described as occurring before and after substrate processing so that the components and/or chamber wall can be adequately covered/protected see for example in [0007] Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the method resulting from the combined teachings of the prior art of SK Siltron and Popiolkowski et al to provide coatings constructed of materials suggested by the prior art of Rajagopalan et al to prevent other materials from adhering to those components and/or wall to prevent contamination or peel off onto the substrates.
Claim 4, 8, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SK Siltron (KR 20190009533) in view of Popiolkowski et al (US 2004/0056211), as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 26, and 30 , and in further view of Chen et al (US 2018/0226304).
The teachings of the prior art of SK Siltron as modified by Popiolkowski et al were discussed above. Specifically, SK Siltron teaches a method with a step of measuring the parameter of the reference substrate and modifying the surface of the chamber component are done in a single process chamber. SK Siltron teaches a reactor (a single process chamber) and measuring the temperature (the parameter) and cleaning the chamber (modifying). See pages 1 and 2 of SK Siltron. See the prior art of Popiolkowski et al where according [0054] the film thickness is measured.
Regarding claims 4 and 27: The method resulting from the combined teachings of SK Siltron and Popiolkowski et al fails to teach that measuring the parameter of specifically a reference substrate.
The prior art of Chen et al teaches a system and method for measuring substrate and film thickness distribution. See in [0003] of Chen et al that interferometry is taught as that multiple regions of the wafer are measured to determine the film thickness. There is a discussion of a bare wafer (interpreted as a reference substrate) and a sample (also interpreted as a reference substrate). The motivation to measure the parameter using a reference substrate is to calibrate the sensor to ensure that the sensor is working properly and that the measurements are accurate as suggested by Chen et al. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to further modify the method resulting from the combined teachings of SK Siltron and Popiolkowski et al to use a reference substrate to measure the parameter (film thickness in the case of Chen et al) to calibrate the sensor.
Regarding claim 8: The prior art of SK Siltron et al fails to teach that the measuring of the parameter is of the reference substrate and that the parameter is at least one of the substrate film thickness, dielectric constant, or substrate film stress.
See the prior art of Popiolkowski et al where according [0054] the film thickness is measured. The motivation to measure the film thickness as suggested by Popiolkowski et al is that the film thickness can provide qualitative analysis of the efficacy of the chamber component and whether the chamber/chamber components requires further texturing. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the film thickness of the wafer as and additional qualitative analysis is determining if the chamber and/or chamber component requires texturing to enhance the efficacy of the semiconductor manufacturing process.
The prior art of Chen et al teaches a system and method for measuring substrate and film thickness distribution. See in [0003] of Chen et al that interferometry is taught as that multiple regions of the wafer are measured to determine the film thickness. There is a discussion of a bare wafer (interpreted as a reference substrate) and a sample (also interpreted as a reference substrate). The motivation to measure the parameter using a reference substrate is to calibrate the sensor to ensure that the sensor is working properly and that the measurements are accurate as suggested by Chen et al. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to further modify the method resulting from the combined teachings of SK Siltron and Popiolkowski et al to use a reference substrate to measure the parameter (film thickness in the case of Chen et al) to calibrate the sensor.
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 SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 pm.
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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights