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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "first concentration ring 201a" and "second outer protection ring 201b" have both been used inconsistently. In Fig. 2B, first concentration ring 201a should be second outer protection ring 201b and second outer protection ring 201b should be first concentration ring 201a. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The originally filed specification and drawings do not disclose: “a part of the first concentration ring extending outside the inner edge of the second outer protection ring being located on a top surface of the second outer protection ring.”
Instead, the originally filed disclosure describes a different positional relationship. The specification and drawings state that the outer edge of the first concentration ring 201a is in contact with the inner edge of the second outer protection ring 201b, and the contact position between the outer edge of the first concentration ring 201a and the inner edge of the second outer protection ring 201b in the cross-section is L-shaped. At the L-shaped contact edge, the top part of the first concentration ring 201a extends along to the top surface of the second outer protection ring 201b, but with a shorter extension distance.
Accordingly, the originally filed disclosure does not provide written description support for the amended limitation that a portion of the first concentration ring is located on the top surface of the second outer protection ring.
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 1-15 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 recites “outside the inner edge of the second outer protection ring.” The term “outside” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “outsides” refers to a position radially outward beyond the inner edge toward the outer edge of the second outer protection ring, or to any position not coincident with the inner edge. The claim fails to provide objective boundaries for determining the spatial relationship.
Claim 1 recites “at least completely covered.” It is unclear the use of the term “at least” is inconsistent with the concept of being “completely covered”.
Claims 2-15 are also rejected being dependent on rejected claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamawaku (US20200373131A1) and further in view of Kim (KR102393963B1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamawaku teaches a method for improving stability of an etching rate of an etching chamber (Fig. 1, chamber 11), comprising:
Step 3: the second focusing ring being in a two-piece structure (Fig. 5, focus ring 25), the two-piece structure consisting of a first concentration ring (inner focus ring 25a) and a second outer protection ring (outer focus ring 25b), and a material of the first concentration ring being the same as the material of the first focusing ring (Para [0049], the inner focus ring 25a is made of silicon (Si)),
a service life of a material of the second outer protection ring being longer than a service life of the material of the first concentration ring (Para [009], the outer focus ring 25b is made of silicon carbide (SiC). Thus a service life of a material of outer focus ring 25b being longer than a service life of the material of the inner focus ring 25a),
an outer edge of the first concentration ring being located between an outer edge and an inner edge of the second outer protection ring, and a part of the first concentration ring extending outside the inner edge of the second outer protection ring being located on a top surface of the second outer protection ring (Fig. 5, inner focus ring 25a extends to the top surface of the outer focus ring 25b),
the diameter of the outer edge of the first concentration ring extending to a position where the damage range is at least completely covered, so that an exposed surface of the second outer protection ring is located on an outer side of the damage range (Para [0103], plasma in the inner space of the processing chamber 15 can be concentrated on a position corresponding to the inner focus ring 25a as compared to a position corresponding to the outer focus ring 25b); and
step 4: performing the etching process to a wafer with the etching film layer by adopting the etching chamber with the second focusing ring, the surface of the second outer protection ring being prevented from being damaged to improve the stability of the etching rate by using a feature that the exposed surface of the second outer protection ring is located on the outer side of the damage range (Para [0085], obtain high temperature of the flange 25e by the radiant heat from the plasma; higher temperature reduced the condensation of reaction. Therefore, the etching rate is stable as described in paragraph [0004]).
But Yamawaku does not disclose step 1: providing a first focusing ring, the first focusing ring being in a one-piece structure, a material of the first focusing ring being selected according to a material of an etching film layer, and the material of the first focusing ring being required to ensure that an etching rate deviation of an edge meets a first required value when the material of the etching film layer is etched; step 2: performing a fatigue damage test to the first focusing ring in the etching chamber by adopting an etching process of the etching film layer to obtain a damage range of the first focusing ring.
However, King teaches step 1: providing a first focusing ring, the first focusing ring being in a one-piece structure, a material of the first focusing ring being selected according to a material of an etching film layer, and the material of the first focusing ring being required to ensure that an etching rate deviation of an edge meets a first required value when the material of the etching film layer is etched (Figs. 1-3, in the method for reusing and replacing the plasma focus ring of the semiconductor etching apparatus according to the present invention, the upper ring 110 and the lower ring 120 in which the slot 121 is formed are formed as a single piece);
step 2: performing a fatigue damage test to the first focusing ring in the etching chamber by adopting an etching process of the etching film layer to obtain a damage range of the first focusing ring (Figs. 1-3, if the slot part is damaged even if the upper ring is not damaged during use, the lower ring forming the damaged slot part is cut without replacing the entire plasma focus ring).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify a deposit removing method for a substrate processing apparatus of Yamawaku (US20200373131A1) in incorporating the multi-part focus ring reuse and replacement structure disclosed by Kim (KR102393963B1). Kim teaches selectively replacing only a worn portion of a single-piece focus ring based on its damage part. Applying such a known reusable structure to the plasma processing apparatus of Yamawaku would have been predictable modification to reduce the cost of parts and improve the economic feasibility, see attached translation.
PNG
media_image1.png
259
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamawaku (US20200373131A1) in view of Kim (KR102393963B1), and further in view of Imafuku (JPH08162444A)
Regarding claim 2, Yamawaku in view of Kim teaches the method for improving the stability of the etching rate of the etching chamber according to claim 1 respectively, but does not specify, wherein step 1, the material of the etching film layer comprises Si or SiN, and the material of the first focusing ring is quartz.
However, Imafuku teaches wherein step 1, the material of the etching film layer comprises Si or SiN, and the material of the first focusing ring is quartz (Fig. 6A-6B, the film thickness uniformity with respect to poly-Si, the material of the focus ring 14 is alumite, quartz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have “the material of the etching film layer comprises Si or SiN, and the material of the first focusing ring is quartz”, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamawaku (US20200373131A1) in view of Kim (KR102393963B1), and further in view of Endo (JP2010183074A).
Regarding claim 3, Yamawaku in view of Kim teaches the method for improving the stability of the etching rate of the etching chamber according to claim 1 respectively, but does not specify, wherein, in step 1, the material of the etching film layer comprises an LK material, Si02, Si, SiN or SiCN, and the material of the first focusing ring is polysilicon.
However, Endo teaches in step 1, the material of the etching film layer comprises an LK material, Si02, Si, SiN or SiCN, and the material of the first focusing ring is polysilicon (for oxide film etching, the material for forming the focus ring 12 is preferably polysilicon, silicon carbide, or the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have “the material of the etching film layer comprises an LK material, Si02, Si, SiN or SiCN, and the material of the first focusing ring is polysilicon”, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamawaku (US20200373131A1) in view of Kim (KR102393963B1), and further in view of Yoo (KR20230120297A).
Regarding claim 4, Arun in view of Landis teaches the method for improving the stability of the etching rate of the etching chamber according to claim 1, Arun teaches in step 1, material of the etching film layer comprises Al or TiN (In the focus ring for a plasma processing apparatus according to the present invention, the material of the prevention film layer is titanium (Ti), tantalum (Ta), tungsten (W), titanium carbide (TiC), titanium nitride (TiN), and tantalum nitride), the material of the first focusing ring is a ceramic material, and the ceramic material comprises aluminum oxide or yttrium oxide (focus ring is yttrium oxide (Y2O3)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have “material of the etching film layer comprises Al or TiN, the material of the first focusing ring is a ceramic material, and the ceramic material comprises aluminum oxide or yttrium oxide”, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamawaku (US20200373131A1) in view of Kim (KR102393963B1), and further in view of landis (US20050099135A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yamawaku in view of Kim teaches the method for improving the stability of the etching rate of the etching chamber according to claim 1 respectively, but does not specify, wherein in step 2, in the fatigue damage test, a bias voltage in the etching process of the etching film layer is a highest bias voltage.
However, Landis teaches in step 2, in the fatigue damage test, a bias voltage in the etching process of the etching film layer is a highest bias voltage (As described in Para [0028-0029] of Landis, RF bias voltage applied to the substrate holder ranging from about 1 MHz to about 100 MHz to sustain plasma, which inherently includes operation at the highest bias voltage conditions relevant for testing component durability and process stability).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to perform the fatigue damage test at the highest bias voltage to simulate worst-case plasma exposure conditions.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify a deposit removing method for a substrate processing apparatus of Yamawaku (US20200373131A1) in incorporating the method for fabricating a focus ring assembly having one or more wear indicators for determining the lifetime of the focus ring disclosed by Landis (US20050099135A1). The combination of these familiar elements can improve maintenance of the plasma processing system, as described in paragraph [0001] of Landis.
Regarding claim 6, Yamawaku in view of Kim and Landis teaches the method for improving the stability of the etching rate of the etching chamber according to claim 5, wherein, in step 2, in the fatigue damage test, a total duration of the etching process of the etching film layer is an MTBC cycle, and the MTBC cycle represents mean time between clean of the etching chamber (As described in Para [0031-0033] of Landis, wear indicators on the focus ring allow monitoring of erosion levels. Based on this monitoring, the replacement timing is determined. This effectively represents routine inspection and maintenance activities aimed at maintaining stable plasma processing performance. Therefore, routine maintenance cycles and process control based on operational uptime and cleaning intervals to ensure stable etching performance).
Thus, it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art to set test durations according to MTBC cycles, as such scheduling represents a conventional and expected process optimization. Regular chamber cleaning intervals, maintenance based on operational uptime, and periodic replacement of consumable components are well-known routine practice to maintain etching process stability.
Regarding claim 7, Yamawaku in view of Kim and Landis teaches the method for improving the stability of the etching rate of the etching chamber according to claim 6, wherein, in step 2, the damage range is obtained by measuring a thickness of the first focusing ring after the fatigue damage test is completed, the greater a decrease of the thickness, the greater the damage, and the damage range is a range in which the thickness of the first focusing ring is less than a second required value (As described in Para [0031-0033] of Landis, wear indicators enable monitoring erosion depth and scheduling replacement).
Regarding claim 8, Yamawaku in view of Kim and Landis teaches the method for improving the stability of the etching rate of the etching chamber according to claim 7, wherein the second required value is required to ensure that the etching rate deviation of the edge in step 4 meets the first required value (As described in Para [0032-0033] of Landis, wear indicator-based replacement minimizes process variation).
Regarding claim 9, Yamawaku in view of Kim and Landis teaches the method for improving the stability of the etching rate of the etching chamber according to claim 8, wherein the first required value is 3% (As described in Para [0031-0033] of Landis, routine maintenance and process control based on operational uptime and etching stability. wear indicators on the focus ring enable monitoring of erosion and determining replacement timing).
Regarding claim 10, Yamawaku in view of Kim and Landis teaches the method for improving the stability of the etching rate of the etching chamber according to claim 7, wherein, in step 3, the radius of the outer edge of the first concentration ring is realized by adding a redundant window based on the radius of the outer edge of the damage range, and the redundant window is a spacing between the outer edge of the first concentration ring and the outer edge of the damage range (As described in Para [0034-0036] of Landis, design allowances for centering/focus rings with clearance fits and wear margins).
Regarding claim 11, Yamawaku in view of Kim and Landis teaches the method for improving the stability of the etching rate of the etching chamber according to claim 10, wherein the redundant window is 50% of the spacing between the outer edge of the first focusing ring and the outer edge of the damage range (As described in Para [0036] of Landis, Adjustments in ring dimensions and coating for durability disclosed).
Regarding claim 12, Yamawaku in view of Kim and Landis teaches the method for improving the stability of the etching rate of the etching chamber according to claim 1, wherein a first wafer placement part is provided on the first focusing ring, the first wafer placement part is disposed close to the inner edge of the first focusing ring, and the wafer is placed on the first wafer placement part of the first focusing ring in the etching process (As described in Para [0021] of Landis, focus ring surrounds substrate edge to control plasma chemistry).
Regarding claim 13, Yamawaku in view of Kim and Landis teaches the method for improving the stability of the etching rate of the etching chamber according to claim 12, wherein a second wafer placement part is provided on the first concentration ring of the second focusing ring, the second wafer placement part is disposed close to the inner edge of the first concentration ring, and the wafer is placed on the second wafer placement part of the first concentration ring in the etching process (As described in Para [0034-0036] of Landis, precise wafer positioning via focus and centering rings).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamawaku (US20200373131A1) in view of Kim (KR102393963B1) and Imafuku (JPH08162444A), and further in view of Chen (CN103903948A).
Regarding claim 14, Yamawaku in view of Kim and Imafuku teaches the method for improving the stability of the etching rate of the etching chamber according to claim 2 respectively, but does not specify wherein in step 3, the material of the second outer protection ring is a ceramic material and the ceramic material comprises aluminum oxide or yttrium oxide
However, Chen teaches in step 3, the material of the second outer protection ring is a ceramic material and the ceramic material comprises aluminum oxide or yttrium oxide (Fig. 4, outer ring 111 is containing the compound of yttrium, such as Y2O3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify a deposit removing method for a substrate processing apparatus of Yamawaku (US20200373131A1) in incorporating the method for focusing ring improving uniformity of wafer edge etching rate disclosed by Chen (CN103903948A). The combination of these familiar elements can reduce cycle and the cost of part replacement, see attached translation.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamawaku (US20200373131A1) in view of Kim (KR102393963B1) and landis (US20050099135A1), and further in view of Chen (CN103903948A).
Regarding claim 15, Yamawaku in view of Kim and Landis teaches the method for improving the stability of the etching rate of the etching chamber according to claim 13 respectively, but does not specify, wherein a pedestal is provided in the etching chamber; in step 1, the first focusing ring sleeves the pedestal; and in step 4, the second focusing ring sleeves the pedestal.
However, Chen teaches wherein a pedestal is provided in the etching chamber;
in step 1, the first focusing ring sleeves the pedestal; and in step 4, the second focusing ring sleeves the pedestal (Fig. 1, one is improved the inhomogeneity focusing ring 1 of Wafer edge etch-rate, it is arranged at the outer circumferential side of the substrate of the pedestal top in a plasma etch chamber).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify a deposit removing method for a substrate processing apparatus of Yamawaku (US20200373131A1) in incorporating the method for focusing ring improving uniformity of wafer edge etching rate disclosed by Chen (CN103903948A). The combination of these familiar elements can reduce cycle and the cost of part replacement, see attached translation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the claimed “damage range” requires determining a plasma bombardment region and Landis fails to disclose such a feature. However, the claim language does not limit the “damage range” to a plasma bombardment or ion impact distribution. Rather, the damage range is determined after the etching process and is therefore defined by the resulting material condition of the focusing ring. Therefore, Landis teaches the claimed “damage range”.
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 JAHAE KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1844. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at (571) 271-1867. 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.
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JAHAE KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2897