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 on 18 Feb 2026 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 19 Dec 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 19 Dec 2025 with RCE filed 18 Feb 2026.
Claims 1-15, 24-26 are pending. Claim 1, 2, 3, 6, 14, 15, 24 is amended. Claims 16-23 are canceled.
Specification
Specification objections discussed in the final rejection of 23 Oct 2025 is withdrawn in light of amended Specification filed 19 Dec 2025.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 limitation "a magnetic field sensor comprising a plurality of standalone magnetic field sensors disposed within the vacuum chamber and configured to dynamically detect, during the processing of the substrate, at a substrate level and at a plurality of radially distributed locations across the processing zone, a first signal representing an axial magnetic field and a second signal representing a radial magnetic field associated with the vacuum chamber” is interpreted to mean a plurality of standalone magnetic field sensors are disposed with the vacuum chamber and are capable of dynamically detecting during the processing of the substrate an axial magnetic field and radial magnetic field at the substrate level and at a plurality of radially distributed locations. The claim does not limit the location of the standalone magnetic field sensors to be disposed at the substrate level and at a plurality of radially distributed locations across the processing zone. Examiner notes that standalone sensors 1416 disclosed in the instant application Specification para.[0063] [0083], [0087] and Fig. 14 are not understood to be disposed at a substrate level but is understood from the disclosure to be capable of measuring the magnetic field in multiple locations in the chamber.
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 2 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(s) 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 inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, limitation "the magnetic field controller is configured to, during the processing of the substrate, maintain at each of the plurality of locations a ratio of a magnitude of the first signal representing the axial magnetic field to a magnitude of the second signal representing the radial magnetic field within a specified tolerance band about a target ratio" does not have sufficient support in the original disclosure. Examiner further explains specifically limitation "within a specified tolerance band about a target ratio" does not have clear support in the original Specification. Examiner explains that "target ratio" is understood to mean "threshold ratio value" and "tolerance band" is understood to mean a range, wherein the above discussed limitation is interpreted to mean that the magnetic field controller is configured to control at each of the plurality of locations a ratio of the axial magnetic field to the radial magnetic field within a certain target/threshold range. However, para. [0081] provides support for "the current through coils 1302-1308 (or any other processing characteristic of the coils) may be varied individually for each coil (e.g. by the magnetic field controller 1418 during the setup of the vacuum chamber or dynamically during processing) to achieve a different Bz/Br ratio for optimal tuning plasma uniformity across the substrate surface" and para. [0084] recites "The magnetic field controller 1403 may adjust at least one characteristic of one or more supplemental magnetic fields, including one or more of an axial supplemental magnetic field 1408 (with a magnitude Bzs) and/or a radial supplemental magnetic field 1409 (with a magnitude Brs), to achieve a combined magnetic field with a specific Bz/Br ratio of magnitudes.” Nowhere in the original Specification recites a "specified tolerance band" or range for the ratio at a plurality of locations. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot conclude that the Applicant/inventors had possession of the claimed invention of claim 2.
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, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al. (US 2005/0167051 A1 hereinafter “Hoffman”) in view of Garcia de Gorordo et al. (US 2014/0273304 A1 hereinafter “Garcia”), Lai et al. (US 2017/0316942 A1 hereinafter “Lai”), and Bailey, III et al. (US 6, 341, 574 B1 hereinafter “Bailey”).
Regarding claim 1, Hoffman teaches a substrate processing apparatus (comprising capacitively coupled plasma reactor Fig. 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 7, 52, para. [0074], see also para. [0013]-[0014], [0019],[0050] and all of the figures including the multiple different embodiments), comprising:
a vacuum chamber (comprising chamber sidewall 5, Fig. 1A, 1B, 7; para. [0074], claim 1) including a processing zone (comprising inside volume surrounded by sidewall 5, Fig. 1A, 1B, 7) for processing a substrate (comprising 20, Fig. 1A, 1B; comprising 110, Fig. 52, para. [0144]) using plasma (para. [0074], abstract, title, claim 1);
at least two magnetic field sources (comprising inner coil 60 and outer coil 65, Fig. 1A, 1B, 1C, para. [0076] -[0078]; comprising five overhead coils 4060, 4062, 4064, 4066, 4068, Fig. 40, para. [0182]; comprising overhead coils 60, 65, outer coil 5220, bottom coil 5210, Fig. 52, para. [0195]) configured to generate an axial supplemental magnetic field and a radial supplemental magnetic field through the processing zone (i.e. comprising inner volume surrounded by sidewall 5, Fig. 1A, 1B) of the vacuum chamber (comprising 5, Fig. 1A and 1B) (para.[0011], [0198], [0204], claim 6 and 9); and
a magnetic field controller (comprising controller 90, Fig. 1A, 1B, 1C, 40, para. [0080], [0093], [0182]) configured to individually (i.e. independently) adjust at least one characteristic of the axial supplemental magnetic field and the radial supplemental magnetic field (para. [0093],[0096], [0133], [0134], see also fig. 18, 19, 20, 21).
Hoffman further teaches the radial magnetic field (comprising Br, Fig. 55A, 55B, 55C, para. [0053]-[0054], [0198]-[0200]) being parallel to the substrate and orthogonal to the axial magnetic field (comprising Bz, Fig. 55A, 55B, 55C, para. [0053]-[0054], [0198]-[0200]).
Hoffman does not explicitly teach: a magnetic field sensor comprising a plurality of standalone magnetic field sensors disposed within the vacuum chamber and configured to dynamically detect, during the processing of the substrate, at a substrate level and at a plurality of radially distributed locations across the processing zone, a first signal representing an axial magnetic field and a second signal representing a radial magnetic field associated with the vacuum chamber; the magnetic field controller is coupled to the magnetic field sensor and the at least two magnetic field sources, wherein the individual adjustment to the at least one characteristic of the axial supplemental magnetic field and the radial supplemental magnetic field during the processing of a substrate made by the magnetic field controller are based on the first signal and the second signal (i.e. the signal representing the axial and radial magnetic field associated with the vacuum chamber during the processing of the substrate).
However, Garcia teaches substrate processing apparatus (comprising process chamber 200, Fig. 2, para. [0027]) including a magnetic field sensor comprising a plurality of standalone magnetic field sensors (comprising magnetic field sensors 218, Fig. 2, para. [0030]) disposed within the vacuum chamber (para. [0030]) and configured to detect, a first signal representing an axial magnetic field and a second signal representing a radial magnetic field (x, y, and z-direction; i.e. Z is the axial direction and x or y would be a radial direction) associated with the vacuum chamber (para. [0021]) wherein the collected data corresponding to the magnetic field in the processing zone (comprising 204, Fig. 2, para. [0030]) can be used to minimize skew (i.e. optimize substrate processing) (para. [0016]-[0017], [0026]).
Additionally, Lai teaches a substrate processing apparatus (comprising semiconductor manufacturing system 300, Fig. 3, para. [0028]-[0029]), comprising a plurality of standalone magnetic field sensors (comprising magnetic field sensors 350, Fig. 3, para. [0031]) configured to dynamically detect (i.e. in real time/feedback control, para. [0038]) the magnetic field at a substrate level (as understood from Fig. 3 and magnetic field sensors 350A and 350B) as well as configured to dynamically detect magnetic fields at multiple locations within the chamber (para. [0031],[0032]). Lai additionally teaches that a separate sensor of the magnetic field sensors can be associated with each of the magnetic field sources (comprising electromagnetic elements 332, Fig. 3) such that feedback may be provided individually for each of the magnetic field sources (comprising 332, Fig. 3) (para. [0032]). Lai teaches that such a configuration enables feedback control of the magnetic field sources for adjusting the magnetic field in the processing zone to improve or optimize substrate processing uniformity (para. [0022], [0032], [0033], [0038]).
Further, Examiner notes that Hoffman teaches the magnetic field sources (comprising 60 and 65, Fig. 1A, 1B, 1C, para. [0076] -[0078]; comprising coils 4060, 4062, 4064, 4066, 4068, Fig. 40, para. [0182]; comprising coils 60, 65, 5220, 5210, Fig. 52, para. [0195]) are radially distributed along the processing zone and thus would be capable of providing magnetic fields at radially distributed locations across the processing zone.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add or provide a magnetic field sensor comprising a plurality of standalone magnetic field sensors disposed within the vacuum chamber and configured to dynamically detect, during the processing of the substrate, at a substrate level and at a plurality of radially distributed locations (i.e. associated with each magnetic field source of Hoffman) across the processing zone, a first signal representing an axial magnetic field and a second signal representing a radial magnetic field associated with the vacuum chamber, the radial magnetic field being parallel to the substrate and orthogonal to the axial magnetic field because Garcia teaches that magnetic field sensors enable collecting data corresponding to the actual magnetic field in the processing zone/volume of the vacuum chamber (i.e. magnetic fields associated with the vacuum chamber during the processing of the substrate) which can be used to minimize skew/optimize substrate processing (para. [0016]-[0017], [0026]), because Lai further teaches configuring magnetic field sensors to dynamically detect a magnetic field at a substrate level and at multiple locations within the chamber and configured to have each magnetic field sensor associated with each magnetic field source to enable providing individual feedback control of each magnetic field source (Lai: para. [0032]) for adjusting the magnetic field in the processing zone to improve or optimize substrate processing uniformity (para. [0022], [0032], [0033], [0038]). Examiner further explains when modifying the apparatus of Hoffman in view of teachings of Lai to include the plurality of standalone magnetic field sensors associated with each magnetic field source, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “detect, during the processing of the substrate…at a plurality of radially distributed locations across the processing zone...magnetic field” would obviously be met since the magnetic field sources of Hoffman are radially distributed across the chamber and the magnetic field sources would provide magnetic fields radially distributed across the chamber.
Hoffmann in view of Garcia and Lai as applied above does not explicitly teach the magnetic field controller is coupled to the magnetic field sensor and the at least two magnetic field sources, wherein the individual adjustment to the at least one characteristic of the axial supplemental magnetic field and the radial supplemental magnetic field during the processing of a substrate made by the magnetic field controller are based on the first signal and the second signal (i.e. the signal representing the axial and radial magnetic field associated with the vacuum chamber during the processing of the substrate).
However, Lai teaches a substrate processing apparatus (comprising semiconductor manufacturing system 300, Fig. 3, para. [0028]-[0029]), comprising: a magnetic field controller (comprising control system 140, Fig. 3, para. [0032]) coupled to the magnetic field sensor (comprising 350A and 350B, Fig. 3) and the at least two magnetic field sources (comprising 332A, 332B, 332C, 332D, Fig. 3) and configured to adjust aspects of the current flowing through the windings based on the information/signal from the magnetic field sensors during substrate processing (para. [0032],[0033],[0038]), wherein the adjustments can be made individually (i.e. independently) to affect at least one characteristic of the magnetic field (para. [0030],[0036]). Lai teaches that such a configuration enables feedback control of the magnetic field sources for adjusting the magnetic field in the processing zone to improve or optimize substrate processing uniformity (para. [0022], [0032], [0033], [0038]).
Further, Bailey teaches a substrate processing apparatus (plasma processing system, abstract, see Fig. 1, 5a-6b) including at least two magnetic field sources (comprising 132 and 180, Fig. 5B, col 14 line 5-col 15 line 17, abstract) and further teaches providing an appropriate feedback mechanism to monitor the process uniformity on a substrate in real time and to modify the radial variation in the controllable magnetic field strength and topology in real time in order to achieve desired optimum process uniformity result while, additionally or alternatively, the radial variation in the controllable magnetic field strength and topology may be dialed to different settings to achieve the right uniformity control for different etch steps in a given etch process with our without feedback mechanism using settings based on data collected in advanced, empirically or otherwise and employed during etching (col 16 line 1-11). In other words, Bailey teaches/suggests real-time magnetic field strength and topology adjustments during substrate processing to optimize substrate processing in addition to having different magnetic field strength and topology settings at different steps which can be obtained in advance, empirically.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the magnetic field controller to be coupled to the magnetic field sensor and the at least two magnetic field sources, such that the adjustments made by the magnetic field controller during substrate processing are based on the first signal and the second signal (i.e. the signal representing the axial and radial magnetic field associated with the vacuum chamber during processing of the substrate) because Lai teaches that coupling a magnetic field controller to the magnetic field sensor and the at least two magnetic field sources enables feedback control of the at least two magnetic field sources for improved/optimized substrate processing (Lai: para. [0022], [0032], [0038]) and because Bailey teaches/suggest using a feedback control mechanism for real-time adjustments of the magnetic field in addition to magnetic field settings dialed in for different steps during processing to achieve the right uniformity control wherein the settings can be empirically obtained in advanced and employed during processing (Bailey: col 16 line 1-18).
Regarding claim 2, see discussion regarding U.S.C. 112a rejection above, Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai and Bailey teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above including a magnetic field controller configured to provide control during the processing of the substrate (i.e. real-time feedback control) as discussed in claim 1 rejection.
Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai and Baily as applied above does not explicitly teach that the magnetic field controller is configured to maintain at each of the plurality of locations a ratio of a magnitude of the first signal representing the axial magnetic field to a magnitude of the second signal representing the radial magnetic field within a specified tolerance band about a target ratio.
However, Lai already teaches that each magnetic field sensor can be disposed in different locations in the process chamber and each magnetic field source is associated with a separate/individual magnetic field sensor (comprising 350, Fig. 3) such that feedback may be provided individually for each of the magnetic field sources (comprising 332, Fig. 3) using the magnetic field controller (comprising 140, Fig. 3) (para. [0031],[0032]).
Additionally, Hoffman further teaches that the magnetic field sources (comprising inner coil 60 and outer coil 65, Fig. 1A, 1B, 1C, para. [0076] -[0078]; comprising five overhead coils 4060, 4062, 4064, 4066, 4068, Fig. 40, para. [0182]; comprising overhead coils 60, 65, outer coil 5220, bottom coil 5210, Fig. 52, para. [0195]) are located at radially different locations across the process chamber and provide magnetic fields at radially different locations of the processing zone/wafer (as understood from Fig. 1A, 1B, 1C, 40, 52) and the magnetic field sources are independently controlled to change the radial distribution of the plasma ion density (para.[0077],[0095]-[0096], [0100],[0198]). Hoffman further teaches that the control of the axial magnetic field (Bz) relative to the radial magnetic field (Br) (i.e. control of the ratio of Bz/Br) is closely linked to improving device damage results on the wafer (para. [0198],[0204]). In other words, Hoffman teaches/suggests the relationship of the magnitude of the axial magnetic field relative to the magnitude of the radial magnetic field (i.e. ratio of Bz/Br) is a result-effective variable which affects wafer/substrate processing. Without evidence of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot consider the ratio of a magnitude of the first signal representing the axial magnetic field to a magnitude of the second signal representing the radial magnetic field to be critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the magnetic field controller to maintain an optimized ratio of a magnitude of the first signal representing the axial magnetic field to a magnitude of the second signal representing the radial magnetic field within a specified tolerance band about a target ratio at each of the plurality of locations (i.e. optimize the ratio of the magnitude of the axial magnetic field and the radial magnetic field of each magnetic field source which affects the magnetic field at the plurality of locations) because Lai already teaches each magnetic field source is associated with a separate/individual magnetic field sensor and because Hoffman further teaches each of the magnetic field sources are individually controlled and affect the magnetic field at a plurality of locations in the processing zone/wafer and additionally teaches/suggests the ratio of the magnitude of the axial magnetic field and the magnitude of the radial magnetic field is a result-effective variable which affects wafer/substrate processing wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the ratio of a magnitude of the first signal representing the axial magnetic field to a magnitude of the second signal representing the radial magnetic field within a specified tolerance band about a target ratio at each of the plurality of locations to enable optimized magnetic field at a plurality of locations for optimized wafer/substrate processing.
Regarding claim 3, Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai, and Bailey teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Lai further teaches a respective magnetic field sensor of the plurality of standalone magnetic field sensors (comprising 350, Fig. 3) is associated with a corresponding one of the at least two magnetic field courses (comprising 332, Fig. 3), and wherein the magnetic field controller is configured to adjust current through each of the at least two magnetic field sources (comprising 332, Fig. 3) based on a measurement from its associated magnetic field sensor (comprising 350, Fig. 3) (para. [0032]). Thus, the combination meets claim 3 limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai, and Bailey teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above. Garcia teaches further teaches wherein the magnetic field sensor is configured to measure a magnitude of the first signal representing the axial magnetic field and a magnitude of the second signal representing the radial magnetic field (para. [0021]).
Regarding claim 5, Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai, and Bailey teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 4 as applied above and Hoffman further teaches the controller is configured to adjust the at least one characteristic wherein the at least one characteristic comprises one or more of a magnitude (i.e. strength) and a direction of the axial supplemental magnetic field and the radial supplemental magnetic field (para. [0077]-[0081], [0093], [0198], [0204]).
Regarding claim 6, Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai, and Bailey teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 4, 5 as applied above and Hoffman further teaches wherein the at least two magnetic field sources (comprising inner coil 60 and outer coil 65, Fig. 1A, 1B, 1C, para. [0076] -[0078]; comprising five overhead coils 4060, 4062, 4064, 4066, 4068, Fig. 40, para. [0182]; comprising overhead coils 60, 65, outer coil 5220, bottom coil 5210, Fig. 52, para. [0195]) comprise a first magnetic field source (comprising one of 60 or 65, Fig. 1A, 1B, 1C; comprising one of 4060, 4062, 4064, 4066, 4068, Fig. 40; comprising one of 60, 65, outer coil 5220, bottom coil 5210, Fig. 52) and a second magnetic field source (comprising a different one of 60 or 65, Fig. 1A, 1B, 1C; comprising a different one of 4060, 4062, 4064, 4066, 4068, Fig. 40; comprising a different one of 60, 65, outer coil 5220, bottom coil 5210, Fig. 52) that are parallel to each other, and wherein the magnetic field controller (comprising 90, Fig. 1A) is configured to: adjust one or more of a current through the first magnetic field source and a current through the second magnetic field source to adjust one or more of the magnitude and the direction of the axial supplemental magnetic field and the radial supplemental magnetic field (para. [0077]-[0080], [0090]).
Regarding claim 7, Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai, and Bailey teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 4, 5, 6 as applied above and Hoffman further teaches wherein the magnetic field controller (comprising 90, Fig. 1A) is configured to: adjust the current through the first magnetic field source independently of the current through the second magnetic field source (para. [0072],[0077],[0177], [0182]).
Regarding claim 8, Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai, and Bailey teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 4, 5, 6 as applied above and Hoffman further teaches wherein the magnetic field controller (comprising 90, Fig. 1A) is configured to: adjust the current (para. [0077]) through the first magnetic field source (comprising one of 60 and 65, Fig. 1A; comprising one of 60, 65, outer coil 5220, bottom coil 5210, Fig. 52) and the current through the second magnetic field source (comprising a different one of 60 and 65, Fig. 1A; comprising a different one of 60, 65, outer coil 5220, bottom coil 5210, Fig. 52) until a ratio of the magnitude of the first signal representing the axial magnetic field and the magnitude of the second signal representing the radial magnetic field reaches a ratio threshold value (i.e. desired value) (para. [0136]-[0141]; [0198]-[0209], see also Fig. 55A-58B).
Regarding claim 9, Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai, and Bailey teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 4, 5, 6 as applied above and Hoffman further teaches wherein the magnetic field controller (comprising 90, Fig. 1A) is configured to: adjust the current through the first magnetic field source and the current through the second magnetic field source until the magnitude of the first signal representing the axial magnetic field reaches a first threshold value (i.e. desired value) and a magnitude of the second signal representing the radial magnetic field reaches a second threshold value (i.e. desired value) (para. [0077], [0198]-[00200], see also claim 12, 14, 15).
Regarding claim 10, Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai, and Bailey teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one characteristic (i.e. a characteristic that that magnetic field controller adjusts) of one or more of the axial supplemental magnetic field and the radial supplemental magnetic field comprises one or more of: a number of windings in each of the at least two magnetic field sources; a distance from a first of the at least two magnetic field sources to the substrate; a distance from a second of the at least two magnetic field sources to the substrate; and a distance between the at least two magnetic field sources.
However, Lai further teaches adjusting/controlling a distance between a first of the at least two magnetic field sources to the substrate and a distance from a second of the at least two magnetic field courses to the substrate; and a distance between the at least two magnetic field sources (para. [0026],[0030]) to mechanically adjust the electromagnetic field and increase uniformity of the plasma with respect to the substrate (para. [0026]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the apparatus such that the at least one characteristic (i.e. a characteristic that that magnetic field controller adjusts) of one or more of the axial supplemental magnetic field and the radial supplemental magnetic field comprises one or more of a distance from a first of the at least two magnetic field sources to the substrate; a distance from a second of the at least two magnetic field sources to the substrate; and a distance between the at least two magnetic field sources because Lai teaches that such a configuration enables mechanically adjust the electromagnetic field and increase uniformity of the plasma with respect to the substrate (para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 11, Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai, and Bailey teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as applied above and Hoffman further teaches wherein the at least two magnetic field sources (comprising 60 and 65, Fig. 1B and 1C) comprise a plurality of coils, each coil comprising a plurality of windings (i.e. plural turns) (para. [0076]).
Regarding claim 12, Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai, and Bailey teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 11 as applied above and Hoffman further teaches wherein the plurality of coils (comprising 60 and 65 having plural turns, Fig. 1A-1C, para. [0076]) are mounted externally to the vacuum chamber (comprising 5, Fig. 1A). Thus, the combination meets claim 12 limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai, and Bailey teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 11 as applied above and Hoffman further teaches an embodiment including at least one of the plurality of coils (comprising 401, Fig. 53A and 54, para. [0199]) is mounted internally to the vacuum chamber (comprising 5, Fig. 53A) (Examiner explains that the substrate support 15 is mounted inside the vacuum chamber and the coil 401 is inside the substrate support 15 and is thus considered to be mounted internally to the vacuum chamber 5). Thus, the combination meets claim 13 limitations.
Regarding claim 14, Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai, and Bailey teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 11 as applied above.
Hoffman further teaches wherein the plurality of coils comprises at least four coils (comprising 60, 65, 5220, 5210, Fig. 52; comprising overhead coils 4060, 4062, 4064, 4066, 4068, Fig. 40, para. [0182]) that are parallel (i.e. central horizontal axis of each coil shown in Fig. 52 are on different planes) to each other and the substrate (comprising 110, Fig. 52) (see at least embodiment shown in Fig. 40 and Fig. 52 and para. [0182], [0195], claim 1 and 4), wherein the magnetic field controller (comprising 90, Fig. 1A) is configured to adjust current through each other at least four coils independently (para. [0072],[0077],[0177], [0182]).
Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai, and Bailey as applied above does not clearly and explicitly teach that the magnetic field controller makes adjustments based on a magnitude of one or more of the axial supplemental magnetic field and the radial supplemental magnetic field measured during the processing of the substrate by the magnetic field sensor.
However, Garcia teaches further teaches wherein the magnetic field sensor is configured to measure a magnitude of the first signal representing the axial magnetic field and a magnitude of the second signal representing the radial magnetic field (para. [0021]), wherein a controller is provided to control the magnetic field sources (i.e. electromagnets) and to read the data from the one or more magnetic field sensors (comprising 218, Fig. 2) (para. [0030]) to optimize substate processing (i.e. minimize processing skew)(para. [0019]).
Additionally, Lai teaches that information obtained from magnetic field sensors may be used to independently adjust aspects of the current flowing through the magnetic field sources in a feedback loop in order to produce a desired magnetic field to optimize/increase substrate processing uniformity (para. [0032][0038][0045]).
Further, Bailey teaches a substrate processing apparatus (plasma processing system, abstract, see Fig. 1, 5a-6b) including at least two magnetic field sources (comprising 132 and 180, Fig. 5B, col 14 line 5-col 15 line 17, abstract) and further teaches providing an appropriate feedback mechanism to monitor the process uniformity on a substrate in real time and to modify the radial variation in the controllable magnetic field strength and topology in real time in order to achieve desired optimum process uniformity result while, additionally or alternatively, the radial variation in the controllable magnetic field strength and topology may be dialed to different settings to achieve the right uniformity control for different etch steps in a given etch process with our without feedback mechanism using settings based on data collected in advanced, empirically or otherwise and employed during etching (col 16 line 1-11). In other words, Bailey teaches/suggests real-time magnetic field strength and topology adjustments during substrate processing to optimize substrate processing in addition to having different magnetic field strength and topology settings at different steps which can be obtained in advance, empirically.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the magnetic field controller to make adjustments based on information obtained from the magnetic field sensors such as a magnitude of one or more of the axial supplemental magnetic field and the radial supplemental magnetic field measured during the processing of the substrate by the magnetic field sensor because Garcia teaches that the magnetic field sensor measures magnitude of the axial supplemental magnetic field and the radial supplemental magnetic field and that collected data of the magnetic field sensor can be used to optimize substrate processing (Garcia: para. [0019],[0021],[0030]) and because Lai teaches information obtained from magnetic field sensors may be used to independently adjust aspects of the current flowing through the magnetic field sources in a feedback loop in order to produce a desired magnetic field to optimize/increase substrate processing uniformity (para. [0032][0038][0045]) and because Bailey teaches/suggest using a feedback control mechanism for real-time (i.e. during the processing of the substrate) adjustments of the magnetic field in addition to magnetic field settings dialed in for different steps during processing to achieve the right uniformity control wherein the settings can be empirically obtained in advanced and employed during processing (Bailey: col 16 line 1-18).
Regarding claim 26, Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai, and Bailey teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Hoffman further teaches an embodiment (Fig. 1A-1C, 52) wherein the at least two magnetic field sources comprise a plurality of coils (comprising 60, 65, Fig. 1A-1C, 52) having different diameters (para. [0079]) and positioned at different distances from the substrate (comprising 20, Fig. 1B; comprising 110, Fig. 52) (para. [0078], as understood from Fig. 1A-1C, 52), and wherein the magnetic field controller (comprising controller 90, Fig. 1A, 1B, 1C, 40, para. [0080], [0093], [0182]) is to independently control spatial distribution (i.e. magnitude and direction) of the axial and radial supplemental magnetic fields (para. [0080]-[0081], [0093], [0096], [0112], [0133], [0134], See Fig. 19 and 20 having arrows representing the magnitude and direction of the magnetic field). Thus, the combination meets claim 26 limitations.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al. (US 2005/0167051 A1 hereinafter “Hoffman”) in view of Garcia de Gorordo et al. (US 2014/0273304 A1 hereinafter “Garcia”), Lai et al. (US 2017/0316942 A1 hereinafter “Lai”), Bailey, III et al. (US 6, 341, 574 B1 hereinafter “Bailey”) as applied in claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 26 above and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2001/0002584 A1 hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 15, Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai, and Bailey teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Hoffman further teaches a plasma density sensor (i.e. conventional probe) configured to measure density of the plasma within the vacuum chamber (para. [0119]) wherein the magnetic field controller (comprising 90, Fig. 1A) is configured to adjust current through each of the at least two magnetic field sources independently (para. [0072],[0077],[0177], [0182]).
Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai, and Bailey as applied above does not clearly and explicitly teach that the plasma density sensor is coupled to the magnetic field controller and the magnetic field controller is configured to make adjustments based on the measured density of the plasma.
However, Liu teaches coupling a plasma density sensor (comprising Langmuir probe 74, Fig. 2) to a magnetic field controller (comprising controller 62, Fig. 2), wherein the magnetic field controller is configured to make adjustments on the magnetic field sources (comprising 207, Fig. 2) based on the directly measured density of the plasma (para. [0036]).
Additionally, Hoffman teaches there is a good correlation between magnetic field/pressure of the magnetic field sources and the plasma ion density distribution (para. [0112]) and further teaches using this magnetic field/pressure to adjust/change the plasma ion density distribution (para. [0095]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the plasma density sensor to be coupled to the magnetic field controller and the magnetic field controller is configured to make adjustments based on the measured density of the plasma because Liu teaches such a configuration enables making adjustments on the magnetic field sources based on the directly measured density of the plasma (Liu: para. [0036]) and because Hoffman teaches that the magnetic field affects the plasma density and can be used to adjust/control the plasma density wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that controlling/adjusting the plasma density would enable controlling/adjusting substrate processing.
Claim(s) 24, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al. (US 2005/0167051 A1 hereinafter “Hoffman”) in view of Garcia de Gorordo et al. (US 2014/0273304 A1 hereinafter “Garcia”), Lai et al. (US 2017/0316942 A1 hereinafter “Lai”) and Bailey, III et al. (US 6, 341, 574 B1 hereinafter “Bailey”) as applied in claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 26 above and further in view of Banna et al. (US 2014/0209244 A1 hereinafter “Banna”).
Regarding claim 24, Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai and Bailey teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the vacuum chamber further comprises: a magnetic shield structure surrounding at least a portion of the vacuum chamber to at least partially adjust magnetic fields in the processing zone.
However, Banna teaches a substrate processing apparatus (comprising plasma reactor 100, Fig. 1, para. [0018]) including a vacuum chamber (comprising process chamber 104 having body/wall 130, Fig. 1, para. [0024]) and a magnetic shield structure (comprising magnetic shield 154, Fig. 1, para. [0044]) surrounding at least a portion of the vacuum chamber to at least partially adjust (i.e. shield) magnetic fields in the processing zone (comprising inside space of process chamber 104, Fig. 1)(para. [0044]-[0045]). Banna teaches that external magnetic fields from Earth’s magnetic field and adjacent processing chambers can skew processing of a substrate (i.e. differences in process results from one region of the substrate to another) (para. [0015]-[0016]), wherein providing a magnetic shield structure enables shielding the processing zone (comprising inside space of process chamber 104, Fig. 1) from the impact of external magnetic fields (para. [0044]-[0045]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide a magnetic shield structure surrounding at least a portion of the vacuum chamber to at least partially adjust magnetic fields in the processing zone because Banna teaches that such a configuration can enable shielding the processing zone from the impact of external magnetic fields to mitigate or correct skewed processing of a substrate (para. [0015]-[0016], [0044]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 25, Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai and Bailey teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above and Hoffman further teaches wherein at least one of the at least two magnetic field sources (comprising 60, 65, Fig. 1A, 1B, 1C, 52) is mounted externally to the vacuum chamber ((comprising chamber sidewall 5, Fig. 1A, 1B, 7).
Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai and Bailey as applied above does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the at least two magnetic field sources is mounted internally within the vacuum chamber.
However, Banna teaches a substrate processing apparatus (comprising plasma reactor 100, Fig. 1, para. [0018]) including a vacuum chamber (comprising process chamber 104 having body/wall 130, Fig. 1, para. [0024]) and an externally mounted magnetic field source (comprising first electromagnets 128, Fig. 1, para. [0032], [0034], [0038]) and an internally mounted magnetic field source (comprising second electromagnets 152, Fig. 1) wherein the internally mounted magnetic field source (comprising 152, Fig. 1) is provided below the substrate plane (para. [0039]). Banna teaches that such a configuration enables controlling the strength of the first magnetic field from the externally mounted magnetic field source (comprising 128, Fig. 1) and the strength of the second magnetic field from the internally mounted magnetic field source (comprising 152, Fig. 1) to provide extreme edge control of substrate process results (i.e. controlling edge etch rate and center etch rate) (para. [0039]).
Examiner notes that Hoffman Fig. 52 embodiment teaches a magnetic field source (comprising 5210, Fig. 52) below a plane of the substrate/wafer (para. [0195]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure at least one of the at least two magnetic field sources to be internally mounted within the vacuum chamber (Hoffman: comprising 7, Fig. 1A) {i.e. rearrange 5210, Fig. 52 of Hoffman to be internally mounted within the vacuum chamber} because Banna teaches this is a known suitable alternative configuration of a substrate processing apparatus having magnetic field sources which would enable providing extreme edge control of substrate process results (Banna: para. [0039]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 Dec 2025 with RCE filed 18 Feb 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as further discussed below.
Applicant argues (remarks bottom page 8-upper page 9) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1, Ramaswamy does not teach standalone magnetic field sensors and measuring during wafer processing.
Examiner responds Applicant’s amendments necessitated modification to the claim rejections. In the current rejections, Ramaswamy is no longer cited. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments directed toward Ramaswamy are moot.
Applicant argues (remarks page 9) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1, Garcia does not teach or suggest dynamic in-situ measurement concurrently with the processing a of a production substrate and does not teach or suggest standalone sensors in the sense of being a distributed array across the processing zone at the substrate level.
Examiner responds Garcia is not cited to teach dynamic measurements. Garcia is cited to teach a plurality of magnetic field sensors disposed in the chamber as discussed in detail in claims rejections above. In the instant case, Lai and Bailey are cited to teach motivation for providing dynamic detection of the magnetic field (i.e. real-time feedback control), as discussed in detail in claims rejections above. Additionally, “a distributed array across the processing zone at the substrate level” is not commensurate with the claims. Furthermore, the claims are currently amended to recite “standalone sensors” wherein Examiner notes that the instant application does not provide sufficient support for standalone sensors in an array. Examiner notes that the wafer sensor/smart sensor embodiment is the embodiment which has support for being in an array (see instant application Specification para. [0103]), but the wafer sensor/smart sensor embodiment is not claimed in the current claims.
Applicant argues (remarks middle page 9) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1, Lai does not teach or suggest a distributed array at the substrate level (e.g. "at a substrate level and at a plurality of distributed locations across the processing zone", as recited by amended claim 1).
Examiner responds “distributed array at the substrate level” is not commensurate with the claim limitations. Furthermore, Lai does teach a plurality of magnetic field sensors at a substrate level (comprising sensors 350A and 350B, Fig. 3 and para. [0031]) and additionally teaches a plurality of magnetic field sources disposed at multiple locations within the processing chamber (para. [0031]).
Applicant argues (remarks page 10) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1, Lai, Hoffman, Bailey, alone or in combination do not teach or suggest adjustments based on a distributed, multi-location, in-situ array of axial/radial signals during processing. Ramaswamy's multi-location array is tied to a diagnostic puck, not to standalone sensors during production processing. Garcia lacks the "during processing" dynamic aspect and does not teach or suggest a distributed, substrate-level array driving adjustments during processing.
Examiner responds Ramaswamy is no longer cited in the current rejections. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments directed toward Ramaswamy are moot. Furthermore, “a distributed, multi-location, in-situ array of axial/radial signals during processing” is not commensurate with the claims. The combination of Hoffman, Garcia, Lai and Bailey do teach the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in detail above. Garcia is not cited to teach the limitation “during processing.” Lai and Bailey teach/suggest limitation “during processing” (i.e. real-time feedback control) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to configure the magnetic field sensor and the magnetic field controller to be coupled together and to detect and adjust magnetic field during processing because Lai teaches that coupling a magnetic field controller to the magnetic field sensor and the at least two magnetic field sources enables feedback control of the at least two magnetic field sources for improved/optimized substrate processing (Lai: para. [0022], [0032], [0038]) and because Bailey teaches/suggest using a feedback control mechanism for real-time adjustments of the magnetic field in addition to magnetic field settings dialed in for different steps during processing to achieve the right uniformity control wherein the settings can be empirically obtained in advanced and employed during processing (Bailey: col 16 line 1-18).as discussed in detail in claims rejections above.
Applicant argues (remarks page 10) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1, none of the cited reference (Hoffman, Ramaswamy, Gorordo de Garcia, Lai, and Bailey) alone or in combination teach/suggest "a magnetic field controller coupled to the magnetic field sensor and the at least two magnetic field sources, the magnetic field controller configured to individually adjust at least one characteristic of the axial supplemental magnetic field and the radial supplement magnetic field during the processing of the substrate, based on the first signal and the second signal" as recited in claim 1.
Examiner responds Hoffman, Garcia, Lai and Bailey in combination teaches "a magnetic field controller coupled to the magnetic field sensor and the at least two magnetic field sources, the magnetic field controller configured to individually adjust at least one characteristic of the axial supplemental magnetic field and the radial supplement magnetic field during the processing of the substrate, based on the first signal and the second signal" as recited in claim 1. Hoffman teaches a magnetic field controller and at least two magnetic field sources, Garcia teaches a plurality of standalone magnetic field sensors configured to measure a first signal representing an axial magnetic field and a second signal representing a radial magnetic field, Lai teaches a plurality of standalone magnetic field sensors configured provide feedback control and to be coupled with a controller and wherein Bailey teaches/suggest providing feedback control enables magnetic field strength and topology adjustments during substrate processing (i.e. real-time adjustments) to optimize substrate processing. Thus, it would be obvious to configure the magnetic field controller to be coupled to the magnetic field sensor and the at least two magnetic field sources, such that the adjustments made by the magnetic field controller during substrate processing are based on the first signal and the second signal (i.e. the signal representing the axial and radial magnetic field associated with the vacuum chamber during processing of the substrate) because Lai teaches that coupling a magnetic field controller to the magnetic field sensor and the at least two magnetic field sources enables feedback control of the at least two magnetic field sources for improved/optimized substrate processing (Lai: para. [0022], [0032], [0038]) and because Bailey teaches/suggest using a feedback control mechanism for real-time adjustments of the magnetic field in addition to magnetic field settings dialed in for different steps during processing to achieve the right uniformity control wherein the settings can be empirically obtained in advanced and employed during processing (Bailey: col 16 line 1-18).
Applicant argues (remarks page 10) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1, Liu and Banna do not overcome the deficiencies of Hoffman, Ramaswamy, Gorordo de Garcia, Lai, and Bailey.
Examiner responds Liu and Banna are not cited to teach the limitations of independent claim 1. Teachings of Hoffman, Garcia, Lai and Bailey have already been discussed in detail above. Ramaswamy is no longer cited in the current rejections.
Applicant argues (remarks page 11) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of dependent claim 2, none of the cited references, alone or in combination, teaches amended claim 2 limitations "the magnetic field controller is configured to, during the processing of the substrate, maintain at each of the plurality of locations a ratio of a magnitude of the first signal representing the axial magnetic field to a magnitude of the second signal representing the radial magnetic field within a specified tolerance band about a target ratio."
Examiner responds, claim 2 is rejected under U.S.C. 112 (a) for not having sufficient support in the original disclosure as explained in detail above in claims rejections. Additionally, claim 2, Hoffman in view of Garcia, Lai and Bailey teaches a magnetic field controller configured to provide control during the processing of the substrate (i.e. real-time feedback control) as discussed in claim 1 rejection. Lai already teaches that each magnetic field source is associated with a separate/individual magnetic field sensor (comprising 350, Fig. 3) such that feedback may be provided individually for each of the magnetic field sources (comprising 332, Fig. 3) using the magnetic field controller (comprising 140, Fig. 3) (para. [0032]). Additionally, Hoffman further teaches that the magnetic field sources (comprising 60 and 65, Fig. 1A, 1B, 1C; comprising 4060, 4062, 4064, 4066, 4068, Fig. 40; comprising 60, 65, 5220, 5210, Fig. 52) are located at different locations across the process chamber and provide magnetic fields at different locations of the processing zone/wafer (as understood from Fig. 1A, 1B, 1C, 40, 52) and the magnetic field sources are independently controlled to change the radial distribution of the plasma ion density (para.[0077],[0095]-[0096], [0100],[0198]). Hoffman further teaches that the control of the axial magnetic field (Bz) relative to the radial magnetic field (Br) (i.e. control of the ratio of Bz/Br) is closely linked to improving device damage results on the wafer (para. [0198],[0204]). In other words, Hoffman teaches/suggests the relationship of the magnitude of the axial magnetic field relative to the magnitude of the radial magnetic field (i.e. ratio of Bz/Br) is a result-effective variable which affects wafer/substrate processing. Without evidence of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot consider the ratio of a magnitude of the first signal representing the axial magnetic field to a magnitude of the second signal representing the radial magnetic field to be critical. Thus, it would be obvious to configure the magnetic field controller to maintain an optimized ratio of magnitude of the axial magnetic field to the magnitude of the radial magnetic field within a specified tolerance band about a target ratio at each of the plurality of locations to enable optimized magnetic field at a plurality of locations for optimized wafer/substrate processing, as explained in detail in claims rejections above.
Applicant argues (remarks page 12) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of dependent claim 3, none of the cited references, alone or in combination, teaches amended claim 3 limitations "a respective magnetic field sensor of the plurality of standalone magnetic field sensors is associated with a corresponding one of the at least two magnetic field sources, and wherein the magnetic field controller is configured to adjust current through each of the at least two magnetic field sources based on a measurement from its associated magnetic field sensor."
Examiner responds Lai explicitly teaches in para. [0032] “The magnetic field sensors 350 may be coupled to the control system 140 and may be included in feedback loops that adjust the current through the …electromagnetic elements 332…each of the electromagnetic elements 332 is associated with a separate sensor of the magnetic field sensors 350 such that feedback may be provided individually for each of the electromagnetic elements 332.” Thus, the combination of Hoffman, Garcia, Lai and Bailey meet amended claim 3 limitations.
Applicant argues (remarks bottom page 12-upper page 13) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of dependent claim 14, none of the cited references alone or in combination teach/suggest "wherein the plurality of coils comprises at least four coils that are parallel to each other and the substrate, and wherein the magnetic field controller is configured to: adjust current through each of the at least four coils independently, based on a magnitude of one or more of the axial supplemental magnetic field and the radial supplemental magnetic field measured during the processing of the substrate by the magnetic field sensor" as recited in amended dependent claim 14. Garcia does not teach or suggest dynamic, during processing measurement. Lai does not teach
Examiner responds that claim 14 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Examiner explains that combination of teachings of Lai and Bailey teach/suggest dynamic detection of magnetic fields during processing as explained in detail in claims rejections above.
In light of the above, independent claim 1 is rejected.
Further, in view of Examiner’s remarks regarding independent claims 1, dependent claims 2-15, 24-26 are also rejected, as detailed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights