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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Matsudo (US 20100206482).
Regarding claim 1. Matsudo teaches in the drawings a substrate processing system (the entire process system, figs. 1, 3, including process apparatus 1, temp measuring unit 100, path altering unit 150 [05 62 63]) comprising: a gas source (showerhead 11 [54]) to supply a first gas to a process module of the substrate processing system (fig. 1, [54] processing gas supplied into the internal space/processing volume of apparatus 1 above the wafer); an RF source (RF/HF power supply [51]) to supply RF power to the process module (supplied to apparatus 1 via its 4, 6 [51] and/or 11 [54]) to generate plasma when the first gas is supplied to the process module of the substrate processing system (generated via parallel plate/capacitively coupled plasma of processing gas in the processing volume of 1 between two parallel opposing plate electrodes, eg 4, 11, at least one of which is powered by said RF/HF power [50 51 54]); a substrate (wafer W) arranged in the process module (fig. 1) to be processed by the plasma ([50]); a light source (light source 110 [62] fig. 3) coupled to the process module (110 is connected to chamber 2 of apparatus 1, fig. 3) using a mounting assembly (via collimator 27+optical fiber 23 attached/mounted to bottom of 1, fig. 1, 3 and side, fig. 23, 24) to introduce light into the process module (fig. 1, [66-72] a reference beam of light split from the light of 110 sent into 1) and configured to irradiate an internal component of the process module other than the substrate during the plasma generation (light beam sent to the focus ring 29 in 1, fig. 1-22 and also prism 220+29, fig. 23 24 during plasma processing [64 72 101 122, 132-138]).
Regarding claim 2. Matsudo teaches the substrate processing system of claim 1 wherein the light source is coupled to the process module to introduce light into the process module synchronously with the supply of the RF power to the process module during the plasma generation (as discussed in claim 1, light is supplied into the chamber as part of the monitoring during the plasma processing when RF power from the HF power supply is supplied to maintain the processing plasma to control the temperature during processing [101 122, 132-138]; again, this is an intended use directed to the process of using the apparatus and does structurally limit nor patentably distinguishes it, MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 8. Matsudo teaches the substrate processing system of claim 1 wherein the light source is external to the process module (fig. 3, 110 external to 2 which is part of 1, fig. 1) and is arranged proximate to a viewing port of the process module (proximate is a broad term and does not specify a particular distance; fig. 3, 110 is close to the bottom left corner of 2, which is where the light passing/viewing port 19 is located, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15. Matsudo teaches the substrate processing system of claim 1 wherein the light source is external to the process module (fig. 3, 110 external to 2 which is part of 1, fig. 1) and the light from the light source is introduced into the process module using optical fibers (as previously discussed, the light is sent into 2 via optical fibers between 110-120, 120-130 and 23, fig. 3).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (JP 2002110636) in view of Matsudo (US 20100206482).
Regarding claim 1. Tajima teaches in the drawings a substrate processing system (etching apparatus 1 [19]) comprising: a gas source (gas inlet 2a, supplying etching gas [19 21]) to supply a first gas to a process module of the substrate processing system (2a supplies the gas to process chamber 2 [19-21] fig. 1); an RF source (HF/RF supply 8 [20]) to supply RF power to the process module to generate plasma when the first gas is supplied to the process module of the substrate processing system (8 supplies the RF power inductively via coils 6 inside 2 to excite the supplied etching gas inside 2 into plasma [8-10, 20 21]); a substrate arranged in the process module to be processed by the plasma (W wafer inside 2 treated by plasma [20]) but does not teach a light source coupled to the process module using a mounting assembly to introduce light into the process module and configured to irradiate an internal component of the process module other than the substrate during the plasma generation; however, Matsudo teaches in the drawings a light source (light source 110 [62] fig. 3) coupled to the process module (110 is connected to chamber 2 of apparatus 1, fig. 3) using a mounting assembly (via collimator 27+optical fiber 23 attached/mounted to bottom of 1, fig. 1, 3 and side, fig. 23, 24) to introduce light into the process module (fig. 1, [66-72] a reference beam of light split from the light of 110 sent into 1) and configured to irradiate an internal component of the process module other than the substrate during the plasma generation (light beam sent to the focus ring 29 in 1, fig. 1-22 and also prism 220+29, fig. 23 24 during plasma processing [64 72 101 122, 132-138]). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Tajima to control plasma processing more accurately and finely and perform the processing with high accuracy [122].
Regarding claim 2. Tajima in view of Matsudo teaches the substrate processing system of claim 1 wherein the light source is coupled to the process module to introduce light into the process module (as discussed in claim 1) synchronously with the supply of the RF power to the process module during the plasma generation (as discussed in claim 1, light is supplied as part of the monitoring during the plasma processing when RF power from 8 is supplied to maintain the etching plasma to control the temperature during processing [Matsudo 101 122, 132-138]; again, this is an intended use directed to the process of using the apparatus and does structurally limit nor patentably distinguishes it, MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 15. Tajima in view of Matsudo teaches the substrate processing system of claim 1 wherein the light source is external to the process module (based on the Matsudo light source, fig. 3, 110 external to 2 which is part of 1, fig. 1) and the light from the light source is introduced into the process module using optical fibers (as previously discussed, the light is sent into 2 via optical fibers between 110-120, 120-130 and 23, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18. Tajima in view of Matsudo teaches the substrate processing system of claim 15 wherein the process module includes a pedestal (support member 3 [19] fig. 1) wherein the optical fibers are routed from under the process module at a location outside a perimeter of the pedestal (based on the Matsudo light/source detection system fig. 1, 3, the optical fibers (20-23 [61]) are routed from under the process module (fig. 1, they are guided/routed from under the process chamber 1) at a location outside the perimeter of the pedestal (20-23 are below/outside the entire chamber 1, thus also outside/away from and below the edge/perimeter of mounting table 3).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsudo (US 20100206482) in view of Savas (US 20210050213).
Regarding claim 4. Matsudo teaches the substrate processing system of claim 1 but does not teach wherein: the light generated by the light source includes only ultraviolet light or only visible light; however, Savas teaches in [51 94] the light generated by the light source (UV light source 160) includes only ultraviolet light or only visible light (UV light only from UV light source). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify Matsudo to use it as a form of xenon lamp as a light source, Matsudo [67], Savas [51] and also facilitating plasma ignition Savas [83]; Matsudo further teaches the process module is configured to generate inductively coupled plasma or a capacitively coupled plasma (as discussed in claim 1, CCP via the parallel electrodes in 1).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 7, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (JP 2002110636) in view of Matsudo (US 20100206482) and Takizawa (US 20100131226).
Regarding claim 3. Tajima in view of Matsudo teaches the substrate processing system of claim 1 further comprising a controller (controller 22 [29]) but does not teach it controls the RF source and the light source and to synchronize the introduction of the light from the light source into the process module with the supply of the RF power from the RF source to the process module during the plasma generation. However, Takizawa teaches in fig. 3 control unit 20/processing control unit 24 [71] controls the RF source ([86] controls the output RF/HF voltage for plasma generation) and the light source (controls laser light via 52 [87]) and to synchronize the introduction of the light from the light source into the process module with the supply of the RF power from the RF source to the process module during the plasma generation (fig. 4 [96] the plasma power is controlled to be supplied when the laser light is emitted, since the light-based detection is for plasma electron temperature when plasma power is applied). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Tajima in order to make plasma processing efficient [2] and to provide a relatively cheap plasma electron temperature measuring device having relatively simple structure, which is capable of computing plasma electron temperature with relatively high accuracy [12].
Regarding claim 5. Tajima in view of Matsudo teaches the substrate processing system of claim 1 wherein the light has a first wavelength (such as the 1300nm via the Matsudo light source [67]), but does not teach the substrate processing system further comprising a second light source to introduce light having a second wavelength into the process module synchronously with the supply of the RF power during the plasma generation. However, Takizawa teaches in [77] comprising a second light source (two laser light sources) to introduce light having a second wavelength (they have different wavelengths) into the process module (fig. 1a, 32 emits the laser light into the chamber 12 [76]) synchronously with the supply of the RF power during the plasma generation (as discussed in claim 3). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Tajima to make plasma processing efficient [2] and to provide a relatively cheap plasma electron temperature measuring device having relatively simple structure, which is capable of computing plasma electron temperature with relatively high accuracy [12] and adapts the wavelengths/light to desired conditions [78].
Regarding claim 7. Tajima in view of Matsudo teaches the substrate processing system of claim 1 wherein the light source is configured to output light having different wavelengths (the Matsudo based light source has a wideband wavelength source [67] which provides a wide band/range of wavelengths), the substrate processing system further comprising a controller (controller 22 [29]) but does not teach it is to select a wavelength of the light output by the light source based on the first gas. However, Takizawa teaches in fig. 3 control unit 20/processing control unit 24 [71] is to select a wavelength of the light output by the light source based on the first gas (Takizawa uses the selected wavelengths, which are controlled by 20 [71 87 88] based on He [77] which is part of process/etch gas mixture [72]). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Tajima to obtain diagnostic information about the plasma [72].
Regarding claim 19. Tajima in view of Matsudo teaches the substrate processing system of claim 1 further comprising a controller (controller 22 [29]) but does not teach it is to control the light source to introduce the light in the form of light pulses into the process module during the plasma generation. However, Takizawa teaches in fig. 3 control unit 20/processing control unit 24 [71] control the light source to generate the light as light pulses and to introduce the light pulses into the process module during the plasma generation (fig. 4 [71 108], the controlled laser/light source irradiates/generates the light in repetitive applications/pulses from S104-112 and irradiates/introduces the light into the process chamber until a distribution is derived when plasma is active/being generated). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Tajima to obtain diagnostic information about the plasma [72].
Regarding claim 20. Tajima in view of Matsudo, Takizawa teaches the substrate processing system of claim 19 wherein the controller selects at least one of a pulse width and a pulse repetition rate of the light pulses based on the first gas (as discussed, the Takizawa based controlled amount of pulse/repeating applications of light pulses of S106 depends on when the helium gas distribution is derived, fig. 4 [108], and the light application/pulse width, which wavelength is a form or unit of, is dependent on the He state to be excited, [98-105]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (JP 2002110636) in view of Matsudo (US 20100206482), Takizawa (US 20100131226) and Fong (US 5935334).
Regarding claim 6. Tajima in view of Matsudo, Takizawa teaches the substrate processing system of claim 5 further comprising a controller (controller 22 [29]) but does not teach it is to select the second light source in response to the gas source supplying a second gas to the process module instead of the first gas. However, Fong teaches in 36:31-55 control structure, fig. 1a, d col.17-18, which controls the entire apparatus and its operations, to select the second light source (using different wavelengths for different types of gas, 39:45-58, which is set by filtering, 39:26, 67 as would be known to those skilled in the art of optics, each filter slot is also a different source of light/light opening) in response to the gas source supplying a second gas to the process module instead of the first gas (as discussed, in response to different absorptions, which is linked to different chemicals supplied/detected in the reactor such as SiF4 vs F2, 39:50-52), wherein the second gas is different than the first gas (as discussed). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Tajima to determine processing endpoints 38:19-55.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (JP 2002110636) in view of Matsudo (US 20100206482) and Walther (US 20090078871)
Regarding claim 9. Tajima in view of Matsudo teaches the substrate processing system of claim 1 but does not teach wherein the light source is arranged inside the process module. However, Walther teaches in figs. 2 3 the light source 260 is arranged inside the process module 210. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Tajima as an alternate configuration to external positioning of the light source relative to the process module/chamber [33 25] that would reduce space usage making the apparatus more compact, as can be seen in the drawings. Additionally, per MPEP 2144.04, it has been held that differences in arrangement of parts did not render claims patentable. Tajima further teaches wherein the light source is encapsulated with a material other than glass (as can be seen in Walther fig. 2, Tajima fig. 1, the light sources are surrounding by space/gas or air, in other words, nitrogen, oxygen or etching/process gas that are other than glass).
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (JP 2002110636) in view of Matsudo (US 20100206482), Collins (US 6514376) and Yang (US 20190385862)
Regarding claim 10. Tajima in view of Matsudo teaches the substrate processing system of claim 1 wherein the process module includes a dielectric window (ceramic dome 5 [20], through which radiation from 6 and light from 12 passes) but does not teach the light source includes light emitting diodes disposed in the dielectric window. However, Collins teaches light/radiant lamp heaters 72, det. Desc para. 10 disposed in dielectric AlN window/torus w opening, det desc para. 11. Yang teaches in [33] where radiant lamp heat source can be LEDs. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Tajima to heat and control the temperature of reactor or window surfaces as desired to suit particular processes, background para. 1-2 Collins, using LEDs as an alternate light source for the lamps, Yang [33].
Regarding claim 11, Tajima in view of Matsudo, Collins and Yang teaches the substrate processing system of claim 10 wherein the light emitting diodes output ultraviolet light, visible light, or light having different wavelengths (as discussed in claim 7, since only a filtered wavelength is used, it is filtered/selected from a variety of wavelengths are produced from the light source/diode).
Regarding claim 12. Tajima in view of Matsudo, Collins and Yang teaches the substrate processing system of claim 10 further comprising a controller (22 [29]) but does not teach it is to turn the light emitting diodes on and off individually. However, Yang teaches a controller (160 [35 36]) to turn the light emitting diodes on and off individually (controls all/each of the individual lamps/led 140 which must be turned on/off at start/end of processing). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Tajima to enhance control over the lamps via a controller [35 36], which enhances process the lamp operation automation/accuracy and precision using computerized elements [35].
Regarding claim 13. Tajima in view of Matsudo, Collins and Yang teaches the substrate processing system of claim 10 further comprising a controller (controller 22 [29]) but does not teach it turns the light emitting diodes on and off in a pattern. However, Collins teaches in fig. 17 a controller (controller 300, temp controller 218, det desc para. 32) turns the light emitting diodes on and off in a pattern (controls the entire system, including the top lamps 72’ which are arranged in a pattern/around top of chamber and turned on/off at start/end of a process). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Tajima to enhance control over the entire operation via a system controller, det desc para. 32, which enhances process automation/accuracy and precision.
Regarding claim 14. Tajima in view of Matsudo, Collins and Yang teaches the substrate processing system of claim 10 further comprising a controller (22 [29]) but does not teach it is to control wavelengths of light output by the light emitting diodes individually. However, both Yang and Collins teaches a controller (Yang 160 [35 36] Collins controller 300, temp controller 218, det desc para. 32) control wavelengths of light output by the light emitting diodes individually (controls entire operation of all/each of the individual lamps 140 Yang [34 35]; similarly controls heating power of all/each individual lamps 72’ det desc para. 32 Collins; controlling lamp power is controlling wavelength of all/each of the individual lights since no power means no wavelength and power on results in light output or non-zero wavelength). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Tajima to enhance control over the lamps via a controller Yang [35 36] Collins det desc para. 32, which enhances process the lamp operation automation/accuracy and precision using computerized elements.
Claim(s) 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (JP 2002110636) in view of Matsudo (US 20100206482) and Matsudo2 (US 20150168130)
Regarding claim 16. Tajima in view of Matsudo teaches the substrate processing system of claim 15 but does not teach wherein the process module includes a showerhead and the optical fibers are routed through the showerhead. However, Matsudo2 teaches in fig. 1 the process module/chamber 11 [22] includes a showerhead 26 [28] and the optical fibers/optical collimators 45 [32] are routed through the showerhead (fig. 1, routed through perforated/showerhead cooling plate 28). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Tajima in order to be able to measure the amount of wear and temperature of the component, Matsudo2 [2-10] and provide a gas distribution head that has multiple holes across the wafer surface [28], fig. 1, which would improve gas distribution/process uniformity across the wafer.
Regarding claim 17. Tajima in view of Matsudo teaches the substrate processing system of claim 15 wherein the process module includes a dielectric window (ceramic dome 5 [20]) but does not teach a gas injector arranged therein and wherein the optical fibers are routed through the gas injector. However, Matsudo2 teaches a gas injector (showerhead 26 [28]) arranged therein (arranged in the wall of the chamber ceiling fig. 1, equivalent to the ceramic dome which is also the chamber ceiling) and wherein the optical fibers are routed through the gas injector (fig. 1, the optical fibers and its end/collimators [32] penetrate the upper part of 26 and through the perforate cooling plate 28). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Tajima in order to be able to measure the amount of wear and temperature of the component, Matsudo2 [2-10] and provide a gas distribution head that has multiple holes across the wafer surface [28], fig. 1, which would improve gas distribution/process uniformity across the wafer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection as necessitated by the amendments does not rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments regarding the respective claims. Regarding the applicant’s argument of claim 19 that he cannot find any mention in Takizawa of any light generated as light pulses. Repeating steps 104-114 does make Takizawa's light generated as light pulses. The argument was considered but was not persuasive. Per Merriam-Webster, the definition of a pulse includes a transient variation of a quantity (such as electric current or voltage) whose value is normally constant, an electromagnetic wave or modulation thereof of brief duration and a dose of a substance especially when applied over a short period of time. Each application or irradiation of the laser constitutes a transient/temporary change or increase of energy applied and is also a dose of EM energy/light applied over a temporary/short period of time during a particular process step, eg S106.
Hence, as shown in fig. 4, looping from S116 to S104 until the derivation is achieved at S116 involves at least multiple S106 temporal applications/pulses of laser. Regarding the applicant’s argument on claim 20, he alleges that Takizawa does not disclose a light generated as light pulses. However, this argument was considered but is unpersuasive, as it was just discussed above regarding claim 19. The applicant argues that Takizawa's S106 or any other portion simply does not describe what is claimed in claim 20. The argument was considered but is unpersuasive because the applicant does not specifically point what part(s) of the claim language is/are not specifically taught in the detailed analysis and citations mentioned in the rejection, and amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references, MPEP 707.07(f). The comments on the other dependent claims have been considered but since they depend on the remarks above, they are also addressed by the responses provided above.
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 YUECHUAN YU whose telephone number is (571)272-7190. 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/YUECHUAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718