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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-10 and 12-22 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 place the ashing gas source along a sidewall, 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. 2016/0097131 to Agarwal in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0016635 to Hsiao et al and United States Patent Application No. 2002/0002948 to Hongo is presented below.
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, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2016/0097131 to Agarwal in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0016635 to Hsiao et al and United States Patent Application No. 2002/0002948 to Hongo.
In regards to Claim 1, Agarwal teaches a processing chamber 100 Fig. 1, comprising: a chamber wall 105 (vertical walls), an electrostatic chuck 122 inside the chamber wall and configured to secure a wafer 301, the electrostatic chuck connected with a bias power 125 [0026]; at least one coil 148 connected with a source power 142; an etchant intake conduit (167 from 162, [0040-0045]) configured provide to supply an etchant to a metal layer of the wafer within the processing chamber in accordance with a photoresist mask of the wafer [0040-0048], wherein the processing chamber is configured to perform metal etching using the etchant [0040, metal layer 304]; a gas intake conduit 167 connected with a gas source (hydrogen gas [0051], not shown), wherein the gas intake conduit is configured to supply the processing chamber with a gas from the gas source during performance of to perform in-situ plasma ashing within the processing chamber following the metal etching [0049-0052, see Fig. 2], such that the processes are done in-situ as they are in the same chamber and sequentially and a pumping port 145 [0018-0067].
Agarwal does not expressly teach the gas comprises a mixture of N2 and 02;the metal layer is aluminum (Al);the etchant comprises a dry etchant selected from a group consisting of: Cl2, CCl4,SiCl4, and/or BCl3 so as to produce AlCl3 as an etching by product; the 02 reacts with the photoresist mask in accordance with CxHyOz + 02 ->C02 + CO + H2O; and the N2 reacts with the etching byproduct AlCl3 in accordance with AlCl3 + N2 -AlN + C12; and a suction conduit configured to remove the AlN, the C12 and ash produced during the plasma ashing from the processing chamber via suction forces.
Hsiao teaches a plasma ash process on a substrate 100 Fig. 1F in a plasma processing chamber 201 Fig. 2, wherein the substrate W is on a substrate support 202, the substrate having a conductive layer of copper/metal and the ashing step or process is a combination of oxygen gas and nitrogen gas [0032] [0020-0082].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art 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 gas source material analogous to that of Agarwal out of nitrogen gas and oxygen gas sources, as taught by Hsiao, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
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 substrate analogous to that of Agarwal out of substrate with a metal layer, as taught by Hsiao, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
Agarwal in view of Hsiao does not expressly teach the metal layer is aluminum.
It has been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Rishoi, 94 USPQ 71; In re Young, 25 USPQ 69; In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348; and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Thus the type of metal layer on the substrate is not considered a positive limitation as it is the article to be worked upon and the apparatus of Agarwal in view of Hsiao would be capable of processing a metal layer that is aluminum, based on user selection of the type of substrate, there being no structural limitations in the claims to prevent this otherwise.
Agarwal in view of Hsiao do not expressly teach the etchant comprises a dry etchant selected from a group consisting of: Cl2, CCl4, SiCl4, and/or BCl3 so as to produce AlCl3 as an etching byproduct; the O2 reacts with the photoresist mask in accordance with CxHyOz + O2 -> CO2 + CO + H2O: and the N2 reacts with the etching byproduct AlCl3 in accordance with AlCl3 + N2 -> AlN + Cl2.
However, it has been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Rishoi, 94 USPQ 71; In re Young, 25 USPQ 69; In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348; and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. As the limitation of an etchant is not positively recited (as an etchant intake conduit is recited and not an etchant source), the limitation of an etchant is not considered a positive limitation and the apparatus of Agarwal in view of Hsiao would be capable of processing a dry etchant of Cl2, CCl4, SiCl4, and/or BCl3, based on user selection of the type of etchant, there being no structural limitations in the claims to prevent this otherwise.
Furthermore, Agarwal in view of Hsiao does not expressly teach that the dry etchant reacts to produce AlCl3 as an etching byproduct; the O2 reacts with the photoresist mask in accordance with CxHyOz + O2 -> CO2 + CO + H2O: and the N2 reacts with the etching byproduct AlCl3 in accordance with AlCl3 + N2 -> AlN + Cl2.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Agarwal in view of Hsiao is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Agarwal in view of Hsiao would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to produce the chemical reactions as presented in the claim, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Agarwal in view of Hsiao and that of the claim.
The resulting apparatus would thus be able to perform the plasma reactions as claimed, thus creating the byproducts as claimed.
Agarwal teaches a suction port 145 [0022].
Hsiao teaches a plasma itching/ashing process apparatus Fig. 2, which has a suction conduit 206 which is a gas exhaust mechanism (vacuum pump not shown [0040]) which removes by-products and byproduct ashing (gases from the ash process [0040-0041]) from within the plasma chamber, as well as measuring through an analyzer on the pumping line/conduit thus monitor in real-time the status of the photoresist removal process by analyzing the byproduct gas discharged from the processing chamber [0020-0082].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Agarwal, with the exhaust system of Hsiao, which using suction to remove ashing by-products (see Fig. 6, 8 and thus implicitly ash) produced during the plasma ashing from the processing chamber via suction forces. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B.
Agarwal in view of Hsaio do not expressly teach the gas intake conduit is on the chamber wall and separated from the etchant intake conduit.
Hongo teaches a processing chamber Fig. 1, wherein the gas sources 131, 161 are supplied on the vertical sidewalls through rings/conduits 140, 170 and have only one gas source to each conduit (such that different gas sources are separate from each other) as an art analogous structure for gas supply vs. a showerhead [0104; 0048-0136].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Agarwal in view of Hsiao, by using the alternative/art analogous intake conduits with separate gas sources, as per the teachings of Hongo for art analogous structures. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim, as the resulting structure would form a gas intake conduit on the chamber wall and separated from the etchant intake conduit.
In regards to Claim 5, Agarwal teaches the source power is configured to provide over 1600 watts while maintaining the processing chamber at a temperature range of 40 to 60 degrees centigrade to perform the plasma ashing [0052].
In regards to Claim 7, Agarwal teaches an apparatus Fig. 1, comprising: a processing chamber 100 and a chamber wall 105 comprising an enclosed area 101 within the chamber wall in which both metal etching and plasma ashing are performed in situ, without transferring the wafer (as shown in Fig. 2), the enclosed area configured to receive a wafer therein; an etchant conduit (line from 162 to 167) coupled to the processing chamber and configured to provide an etchant 162 into the enclosed area for etching a metal layer of the wafer in accordance with a photoresist mask placed on the wafer when the wafer is positioned within the enclosed area [0025]; an ashing conduit (coupled 167 hydrogen, not shown [0050-0060] to the processing chamber and configured to provide an ashing gas into the enclosed area to remove photoresist material after etching is completed [0040-0060]; at least one coil 142 disposed in the processing chamber (system of 100 shown in all of Fig. 1) a power source 142 coupled to the processing chamber at least one coil 148 configured to provide a predetermined power to the at least one coil within the enclosed area of Fig. 1 during both the metal etching and the plasma ashing process (see Fig. 2); a gas source 160configured to provide an ashing gas; a gas intake conduit 167 connected with the gas source, wherein the gas intake conduit is configured to supply the processing chamber with the ashing gas from the gas source during after the metal etching for performance of plasma ashing within the processing chamber (as shown in Fig. 2), , such that the processes are done in-situ as they are in the same chamber and sequentially and a pumping port 145 [0018-0067].
Agarwal does not expressly teach the gas comprises a mixture of N2 and 02;the metal layer is aluminum (Al);the etchant comprises a dry etchant selected from a group consisting of: Cl2, CCl4,SiCl4, and/or BCl3 so as to produce AlCl3 as an etching by product; the 02 reacts with the photoresist mask in accordance with CxHyOz + 02 ->C02 + CO + H2O; and the N2 reacts with the etching byproduct AlCl3 in accordance with AlCl3 + N2 -AlN + C12; and a suction conduit configured to remove the AlN, the C12 and ash produced during the plasma ashing from the processing chamber via suction forces.
Hsiao teaches a plasma ash process on a substrate 100 Fig. 1F in a plasma processing chamber 201 Fig. 2, wherein the substrate W is on a substrate support 202, the substrate having a conductive layer of copper/metal and the ashing step or process is a combination of oxygen gas and nitrogen gas [0032] [0020-0082].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art 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 gas source material analogous to that of Agarwal out of nitrogen gas and oxygen gas sources, as taught by Hsiao, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
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 substrate analogous to that of Agarwal out of substrate with a metal layer, as taught by Hsiao, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
Agarwal in view of Hsiao does not expressly teach the metal layer is aluminum.
It has been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Rishoi, 94 USPQ 71; In re Young, 25 USPQ 69; In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348; and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Thus the type of metal layer on the substrate is not considered a positive limitation as it is the article to be worked upon and the apparatus of Agarwal in view of Hsiao would be capable of processing a metal layer that is aluminum, based on user selection of the type of substrate, there being no structural limitations in the claims to prevent this otherwise.
Agarwal in view of Hsiao do not expressly teach the etchant comprises a dry etchant selected from a group consisting of: Cl2, CCl4, SiCl4, and/or BCl3 so as to produce AlCl3 as an etching byproduct; the O2 reacts with the photoresist mask in accordance with CxHyOz + O2 -> CO2 + CO + H2O: and the N2 reacts with the etching byproduct AlCl3 in accordance with AlCl3 + N2 -> AlN + Cl2.
However, it has been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Rishoi, 94 USPQ 71; In re Young, 25 USPQ 69; In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348; and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. As the limitation of an etchant is not positively recited (as an etchant intake conduit is recited and not an etchant source), the limitation of an etchant is not considered a positive limitation and the apparatus of Agarwal in view of Hsiao would be capable of processing a dry etchant of Cl2, CCl4, SiCl4, and/or BCl3, based on user selection of the type of etchant, there being no structural limitations in the claims to prevent this otherwise.
Furthermore, Agarwal in view of Hsiao does not expressly teach that the dry etchant reacts to produce AlCl3 as an etching byproduct; the O2 reacts with the photoresist mask in accordance with CxHyOz + O2 -> CO2 + CO + H2O: and the N2 reacts with the etching byproduct AlCl3 in accordance with AlCl3 + N2 -> AlN + Cl2.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Agarwal in view of Hsiao is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Agarwal in view of Hsiao would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to produce the chemical reactions as presented in the claim, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Agarwal in view of Hsiao and that of the claim.
The resulting apparatus would thus be able to perform the plasma reactions as claimed, thus creating the byproducts as claimed.
Agarwal teaches a suction port 145 [0022].
Hsiao teaches a plasma itching/ashing process apparatus Fig. 2, which has a suction conduit 206 which is a gas exhaust mechanism (vacuum pump not shown [0040]) which removes by-products and byproduct ashing (gases from the ash process [0040-0041]) from within the plasma chamber, as well as measuring through an analyzer on the pumping line/conduit thus monitor in real-time the status of the photoresist removal process by analyzing the byproduct gas discharged from the processing chamber [0020-0082].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Agarwal, with the exhaust system of Hsiao, which using suction to remove ashing by-products (see Fig. 6, 8 and thus implicitly ash) produced during the plasma ashing from the processing chamber via suction forces. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B.
Agarwal in view of Hsaio do not expressly teach the gas intake conduit is on the chamber wall and separated from the etchant intake conduit.
Hongo teaches a processing chamber Fig. 1, wherein the gas sources 131, 161 are supplied on the vertical sidewalls through rings/conduits 140, 170 and have only one gas source to each conduit (such that different gas sources are separate from each other) as an art analogous structure for gas supply vs. a showerhead [0104; 0048-0136].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Agarwal in view of Hsiao, by using the alternative/art analogous intake conduits with separate gas sources, as per the teachings of Hongo for art analogous structures. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim, as the resulting structure would form a gas intake conduit on the chamber wall and separated from the etchant intake conduit.
In regards to Claim 8, Agarwal teaches the predetermined power is greater than 1600 watts [0048; 0052].
In regards to Claim 9, Agarwal teaches the processing chamber comprises a wall 110 that separates the at least one coil from the metal layer.
In regards to Claim 10, Agarwal teaches the source power is configured to provide over 1600 watts while maintaining the processing chamber at a temperature range of 40 to 60 degrees centigrade to perform the plasma ashing [0052].
In regards to Claim 12, Agarwal teaches the processing chamber further comprises an electrostatic chuck 122 for supporting the wafer within the enclosed area.
In regards to Claim 13, Agarwal teaches the electrostatic chuck is biased with a predetermined bias power 125 [0026].
In regards to Claim 14, Nishimura in view of Agarwal and Hsiao teaches in Agarwal the electrostatic chuck 125 is biased with a predetermined bias power at 0, as it cycles off [0026].
In regards to Claim 21, Agarwal teaches the etchant intake conduit and the ashing conduit are on the wall and the at least one coil comprises a plurality of coils on the wall between the etching intake conduit and the ashing conduit, as broadly recited, as the coils and the intake conduit is on the same wall.
In regards to Claim 22, Agarwal teaches wherein the suction circuit comprises a vacuum pump on the wall adjacent the plurality of coils [0022], as generally shown in Fig. 1.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2016/0097131 to Agarwal in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0016635 to Hsiao et al and United States Patent Application No. 2002/0002948 to Hongo, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2009/0179003 to Nishimura.
The teachings of Agarwal in view of Hsiao and Hongo are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claims 2 and 3, Agarwal in view of Hsiao and Hongo does not expressly teach the processing chamber is part of a semiconductor processing workstation with a loadlock for ingress or egress of the wafer or the semiconductor processing workstation is configured to move the wafer from an alignment chamber to the processing chamber, and then to the loadlock for egress of the wafer from the processing chamber.
Nishimura teaches a processing chamber 400 Fig. 3, 220 Fig. 1 comprising: a substrate support 412 configured to secure a wafer W, at least one coil 440 connected with a source power 442; an etchant intake conduit 460, 464, 466 configured provide an etchant 460 to a metal layer of the wafer [0005, 0014, 0090, 0101, 0126-0127, 0130] within the processing chamber 402, 404 in accordance with a photoresist mask of the wafer [0101-0102]; a gas source 450 configured to provide a gas, and a gas intake conduit 450, 454, 456 connected with the gas source 450, wherein the gas intake conduit is configured to supply the processing chamber with a gas from the gas source during performance of plasma ashing [0081-0082] see controllers and switching, 0120] within the processing chamber, and a suction pipe 434 that is connected to an exhaust device [0078]; [0040-0184].
Nishimura teaches the processing chamber 220, 400 is part of a semiconductor processing workstation [0064] with a loadlock 230M, 230N for ingress or egress of the wafer [0047-0048].
Nishimura teaches the semiconductor processing workstation is configured to move the wafer from an alignment chamber (positioning 210) to the processing chamber, and then to the loadlock 230 for egress of the wafer from the processing chamber 220.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have applied the processing chamber of Agarwal to the system of Nishimura, as an art analogous application of a processing chamber to a system, and vice versa. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B. It has also been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II.
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Agarwal in view of Hsiao and Hongo and taken the individual processing chamber and applied it to a processing chamber in the system of Nishimoto for processing a wafer.
Claims 6, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2016/0097131 to Agarwal in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0016635 to Hsiao et al and United States Patent Application No. 2002/0002948 to Hongo, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent No. 6787054 to Wang et al.
The teachings of Agarwal in view of Hsiao and Hongo are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claims 6, 21 and 22, Agarwal teaches the source power is further configured to apply power to at least one coil in the processing chamber [0025], and the processing chamber comprises a wall 110 that separates the at least one coil from the metal layer but does not expressly teach the chamber wall comprises a dome shaped wall or that the at least one coil comprises a plurality of coils arranged in an arc shape on the dome shaped wall.
Wang teaches the coil 185 and the chamber wall 120 is a dome (Col. 5 lines 1-13) with the coil being formed on the chamber wall/ceiling with the coil is formed a plurality of coils arrange din an arc shape on the dome shaped wall, as shown in Fig. 2, the gas inlets 150 formed in the dome sidewall (as also shown in Fig. 2), the coils winding around the dome and also around the gas inlet/intake conduit, the electrostatic chuck being between the intake conduit and the vacuum pump 165 (Col. 4 line 53-Col. 14 line 40).
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Agarwal in view of Hsiao and Hongo by making the upper ceiling and vertical sidewalls domed shape with the gas line in the coils as an art analogous shape and arrangement of the coil, gas and processing chamber shape. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus would also fulfill the limitations of Claims 21 and 22, wherein the etchant intake conduit and the ashing gas intake conduit are on the dome-shaped wall and the at least one coil comprises a plurality of coils on the dome-shaped wall between the etchant intake conduit and the ashing gas intake conduit and the suction circuit comprises a vacuum pump on the dome-shaped wall adjacent the plurality of coils, the gas intake conduit comprises a dedicated ashing gas conduit, and the electrostatic chuck is between the vacuum pump and the dedicated ashing gas conduit.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claims.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2009/0179003 to Nishimura in view of United States Patent Application No. 2016/0097131 to Agarwal, United States Patent Application No. 2020/0016635 to Hsiao et al and United States Patent Application No. 2002/0002948 to Hongo.
In regards to Claim 15, Nishimura teaches an apparatus Fig. 1-3, comprising: a loadlock 210; a processing chamber 220/400 comprising an enclosed area (interior of 402, 404) in which both metal etching and plasma ashing are performed in situ (as they are done in the closed system of vial controllers of valves and switches [0055-0059], Fig. 5 as they are also not exposed to air), the enclosed area configured to receive a wafer W therein, and the processing chamber further comprising a wafer chuck (support of 412) configured to support the wafer within the enclosed area; an etchant conduit 464, 466 coupled to the processing chamber and configured to provide an etchant 460 into the enclosed area for etching a metal layer of the wafer in accordance with a photoresist mask placed on the wafer when the wafer is positioned within the enclosed area [0005, 0014, 0090, 0101, 0126-0127, 0130]; an ashing conduit 454, 456 coupled to the processing chamber and configured to provide an ashing gas 450 into the enclosed area to remove photoresist material after etching is completed [0103-0130]; a power source 442 coupled to the processing chamber configured to provide a predetermined power to at least one coil 440 within the enclosed area during an ashing process; and a robotic arm 250 configured to transfer the wafer from the loadlock onto the wafer chuck in the enclosed area of the processing, and a gas source 450 configured to provide a gas [0050-0054; 0040-0184].
Nishimura does not expressly teach in-situ etching and ashing in the same chamber, the gas comprises a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen, the metal layer is aluminum, the etchant comprises a dry etchant selected from a group consisting of: Cl2, CCl4, SiCl4, and/or BCl3 so as to produce AlCl3 as an etching byproduct; the O2 reacts with the photoresist mask in accordance with CxHyOz + O2 -> CO2 + CO + H2O: and the N2 reacts with the etching byproduct AlCl3 in accordance with AlCl3 + N2 -> AlN + Cl2.
Agarwal teaches a processing chamber 100 Fig. 1, comprising: an electrostatic chuck 122 configured to secure a wafer 301, the electrostatic chuck connected with a bias power 125 [0026]; at least one coil 148 connected with a source power 142; an etchant intake conduit (167 from 162, [0040-0045]) configured provide to supply an etchant to a metal layer of the wafer within the processing chamber in accordance with a photoresist mask of the wafer [0040-0048], wherein the processing chamber is configured to perform metal etching using the etchant [0040, metal layer 304]; a gas intake conduit 167 connected with a gas source (hydrogen gas [0051]), wherein the gas intake conduit is configured to supply the processing chamber with a gas from the gas source during performance of to perform in-situ plasma ashing within the processing chamber following the metal etching [0049-0052, see Fig. 2], such that the processes are done in-situ as they are in the same chamber and sequentially and a pumping port 145 [0018-0067].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Nishimura with the processing chamber of Agarwal, as an art analogous processing chamber.
Nishimura in view of Agarwal does not expressly teach the gas comprises a mixture of N2 and 02;the metal layer is aluminum (Al);the etchant comprises a dry etchant selected from a group consisting of: Cl2, CCl4,SiCl4, and/or BCl3 so as to produce AlCl3 as an etching by product; the 02 reacts with the photoresist mask in accordance with CxHyOz + 02 ->C02 + CO + H2O; and the N2 reacts with the etching byproduct AlCl3 in accordance with AlCl3 + N2 -AlN + C12; and a suction conduit configured to remove the AlN, the C12 and ash produced during the plasma ashing from the processing chamber via suction forces.
Hsiao teaches a plasma ash process on a substrate 100 Fig. 1F in a plasma processing chamber 201 Fig. 2, wherein the substrate W is on a substrate support 202, the substrate having a conductive layer of copper/metal and the ashing step or process is a combination of oxygen gas and nitrogen gas [0032] [0020-0082].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art 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 gas source material analogous to that of Agarwal out of nitrogen gas and oxygen gas sources, as taught by Hsiao, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
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 substrate analogous to that of Agarwal out of substrate with a metal layer, as taught by Hsiao, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
Nishimura in view of Agarwal and Hsiao does not expressly teach the metal layer is aluminum.
It has been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Rishoi, 94 USPQ 71; In re Young, 25 USPQ 69; In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348; and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Thus the type of metal layer on the substrate is not considered a positive limitation as it is the article to be worked upon and the apparatus of Nishimura in view of Agarwal and Hsiao would be capable of processing a metal layer that is aluminum, based on user selection of the type of substrate, there being no structural limitations in the claims to prevent this otherwise.
Nishimura in view of Agarwal and Hsiao do not expressly teach the etchant comprises a dry etchant selected from a group consisting of: Cl2, CCl4, SiCl4, and/or BCl3 so as to produce AlCl3 as an etching byproduct; the O2 reacts with the photoresist mask in accordance with CxHyOz + O2 -> CO2 + CO + H2O: and the N2 reacts with the etching byproduct AlCl3 in accordance with AlCl3 + N2 -> AlN + Cl2.
However, it has been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Rishoi, 94 USPQ 71; In re Young, 25 USPQ 69; In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348; and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. As the limitation of an etchant is not positively recited (as an etchant intake conduit is recited and not an etchant source), the limitation of an etchant is not considered a positive limitation and the apparatus of Nishimura in view of Agarwal and Hsiao would be capable of processing a dry etchant of Cl2, CCl4, SiCl4, and/or BCl3, based on user selection of the type of etchant, there being no structural limitations in the claims to prevent this otherwise.
Furthermore, Nishimura in view of Agarwal and Hsiao does not expressly teach that the dry etchant reacts to produce AlCl3 as an etching byproduct; the O2 reacts with the photoresist mask in accordance with CxHyOz + O2 -> CO2 + CO + H2O: and the N2 reacts with the etching byproduct AlCl3 in accordance with AlCl3 + N2 -> AlN + Cl2.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Nishimura in view of Agarwal and Hsiao is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Agarwal in view of Hsiao would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to produce the chemical reactions as presented in the claim, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Nishimura in view of Agarwal and Hsiao and that of the claim.
The resulting apparatus would thus be able to perform the plasma reactions as claimed, thus creating the byproducts as claimed.
Agarwal teaches a suction port 145 [0022].
Hsiao teaches a plasma itching/ashing process apparatus Fig. 2, which has a suction conduit 206 which is a gas exhaust mechanism (vacuum pump not shown [0040]) which removes by-products and byproduct ashing (gases from the ash process [0040-0041]) from within the plasma chamber, as well as measuring through an analyzer on the pumping line/conduit thus monitor in real-time the status of the photoresist removal process by analyzing the byproduct gas discharged from the processing chamber [0020-0082].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Nishimura in view of Agarwal and Hsiao, with the exhaust system of Hsiao, which using suction to remove ashing by-products (see Fig. 6, 8 and thus implicitly ash) produced during the plasma ashing from the processing chamber via suction forces. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B.
Nishimura in view of Agarwal and Hsaio do not expressly teach the gas intake conduit is on the chamber wall and separated from the etchant intake conduit.
Hongo teaches a processing chamber Fig. 1, wherein the gas sources 131, 161 are supplied on the vertical sidewalls through rings/conduits 140, 170 and have only one gas source to each conduit (such that different gas sources are separate from each other) as an art analogous structure for gas supply vs. a showerhead [0104; 0048-0136].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Nishimura in view of Agarwal and Hsiao, by using the alternative/art analogous intake conduits with separate gas sources, as per the teachings of Hongo for art analogous structures. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim, as the resulting structure would form a gas intake conduit on the chamber wall and separated from the etchant intake conduit.
In regards to Claim 16, Nishimura in view of Agarwal and Hsiao and Hongo teaches in Agarwal the processing chamber comprises a wall 110 that separates the at least one coil from the metal layer.
In regards to Claim 17, Nishimura in view of Agarwal and Hsiao and Hongo teaches in Agarwal an electrostatic chuck 122 for supporting the wafer within the enclosed area.
In regards to Claim 20, Nishimura teaches the loadlock 210 is configured to receive the wafer from an external automated material handling system 300.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. United States Patent Application No. 2015/0371875 to Sasaki et al, which teaches different gas lines at different locations.
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
Prosecution Insights