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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and remarks in the reply filed 9/9/2025 have been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-5 and 8-17 are pending. Claims 3, 4, and 17-20 have been canceled. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitiello et al. (US 2019/0032199), and further in view of Dictus (US 2009/0173359) and Kohno et al. (US 8,366,953).
Regarding Claim 1: Vitiello teaches a chamber cleaning method, comprising:
processing a wafer using plasma in a chamber [0097-0098]; and
removing copper from the chamber, wherein removing copper includes:
forming copper oxide on an inner wall of the chamber by oxidizing copper in the chamber by a plasma treatment that uses a first gas comprising oxygen [0008, 0014];
removing the copper oxide by a plasma treatment that uses a second gas [0014, 0027].
Vitiello does not expressly disclose the second gas comprises chlorine, hydrogen, or nitrogen. Dictus, however, teaches that chlorine containing gases and hydrogen are suitable for use in plasma treatments that remove copper oxide contaminants [0024-0026, 0067]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art method by providing the second gas comprising chlorine since Dictus teaches that chlorine and hydrogen gases are used in plasma treatments performed to remove copper oxide contamination.
Vitiello does not expressly disclose performing a first and second monitoring operation that monitors a copper contamination state in the chamber using an optical diagnostic method. Dictus teaches monitoring a copper contamination state in a process chamber using an optical diagnostic method [0033]. Kohno teaches that it is known to perform monitoring operations to monitor multiple plasma processes in a process chamber to perform endpoint detection for the corresponding plasma process (col. 20, claim 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vitiello by performing first and second monitoring operations that monitor the copper contamination state in the chamber using an optical diagnostic method in order to determine the endpoint of the plasma process, as suggested by Dictus and Kohno.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3: The prior art teaches the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Dictus is cited for teaching the monitoring operations, and further teaches that the monitoring operations comprise optical emission spectroscopy, which inherently comprises analyzing a wavelength intensity representative of copper in the chamber with the optical diagnostic method. Though Dictus does not expressly disclose deriving a correlation between a wavelength intensity value and a copper mass analyzed by a quantitative analysis method, Dictus does teach determining a copper mass analyzed by a total reflection x-ray fluorescence analysis method ([0021, 0082]; Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art method by deriving a correlation between a wavelength intensity value and a copper mass analyzed by a TXRF method in order to determine how much copper contaminant is being removed during cleaning, as suggested by Dictus.
Regarding Claim 4: Vitiello, Dictus, and Kohno teach the elements of Claim 1, as discussed above. Dictus is cited for teaching performing a monitoring operation for the copper state in the chamber using optical emission spectrometry [0033].
Regarding Claim 5: The prior art teaches the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Dictus and Kohno are cited for teaching performing the monitoring operations, and Kohno further teaches performing the monitoring operation in real time (col. 16, ll. 17-33).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitiello et al. (US 2019/0032199), Dictus (US 2009/0173359), and Kohno et al. (US 8,366,953) as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Hoinkis et al. (US 2014/0345645).
Regarding Claim 8: The prior art teaches the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Vitiello teaches that the chamber to be cleaned can be deposition chambers such as CVD chambers [0097], but is silent as to the plasma treatment using a capacitively coupled plasma method. However, Hoinkis teaches that it is known to use capacitively coupled plasma for plasma processing when cleaning processing chambers [0019]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art methods by employing capacitively coupled plasma method for the plasma treatment, as taught by Hoinkis.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitiello et al. (US 2019/0032199), Dictus (US 2009/0173359), and Kohno et al. (US 8,366,953) as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2015/0064810).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10: The prior art teaches the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Vitiello teaches that the wafer is processed using plasma, but is silent as to the wafer being processed in a state in which copper pads for a copper-to-copper bonding are exposed to an upper surface thereof. However, Liu teaches processing a wafer in a state in which copper pads for a copper-to-copper bonding are exposed to an upper surface thereof [0012] and wherein the wafer is processed by a plasma treatment that uses oxygen or nitrogen [0020]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art method by cleaning a chamber in which the wafer processed is in a state in which copper pads for a copper to copper bonding are exposed to an upper surface thereof and wherein the plasma treatment uses oxygen or nitrogen, as in Liu, since such wafer processing would yield copper residues on the chamber and benefit from the chamber cleaning.
Claims 11, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitiello et al. (US 2019/0032199), and further in view of Dictus (US 2009/0173359).
Regarding Claim 11: Vitiello teaches a chamber cleaning method, comprising:
processing a wafer using plasma in a chamber [0097];
forming copper oxide on an inner wall of the chamber by oxidizing copper in the chamber by a plasma treatment that uses a first gas comprising oxygen [0008, 0014];
removing the copper oxide by a plasma treatment that uses a second gas [0014, 0027].
Vitiello does not expressly disclose the second gas comprises at least one of chlorine, hydrogen, or nitrogen. Dictus, however, teaches that chlorine containing gases and hydrogen are suitable for use in a plasma treatment for removing copper oxide contaminants [0024-0026, 0067]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art method by providing the second gas comprising chlorine and hydrogen since Dictus teaches that these gases are known for use in a plasma treatment performed to remove the copper contaminants.
Vitiello does not expressly disclose monitoring a copper contamination state in the chamber using optical emission spectroscopy. Dictus teaches monitoring a copper contamination state in a process chamber using optical emission spectroscopy [0033]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vitiello by monitoring the copper contamination state in the chamber using optical emission spectroscopy in order to ensure efficient cleaning and determine the endpoint of the plasma process, as suggested by Dictus.
Regarding Claim 12: Vitiello and Dictus teach the elements of Claim 11 as discussed above. Dictus is cited for teaching the monitoring operation, and further teaches that the monitoring operation comprises optical emission spectroscopy, which inherently comprises analyzing a wavelength intensity representative of copper in the chamber with the optical diagnostic method. Though Dictus does not expressly disclose deriving a correlation between a wavelength intensity value and a copper mass analyzed by a quantitative analysis method, Dictus does teach determining a copper mass analyzed by a total reflection x-ray fluorescence analysis method ([0021, 0082]; Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art method by deriving a correlation between a wavelength intensity value and a copper mass analyzed by a TXRF method in order to determine how much copper contaminant is being removed during cleaning, as suggested by Dictus.
Regarding Claim 16: Vitiello and Dictus teach the elements of Claim 11 as discussed above. Vitiello further teaches the wafer is processed before forming the copper oxide [0097-0101]. Though Vitiello does not expressly disclose processing the wafer is performed after removing the copper oxide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to process the wafer in a cleaned chamber.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitiello et al. (US 2019/0032199) and Dictus (US 2009/0173359) as applied to Claim 11, and further in view of Kohno et al. (US 8,366,953).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14: Vitiello and Dictus teach the elements of Claim 11 as discussed above. Dictus is cited for teaching monitoring the copper contamination state. Dictus does not expressly disclose monitoring after the copper oxide is formed and after removing the copper oxide. Dictus does not expressly disclose removing the copper oxide when a copper contamination degree in the chamber is greater than a reference value. Kohno teaches that it is known to perform monitoring operations to monitor multiple plasma processes in a process chamber to perform endpoint detection for the corresponding plasma process (col. 20, claim 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vitiello and Dictus by performing the monitoring operation after the copper oxide is formed and after the copper oxide is removed in order to determine if the corresponding contamination has been sufficiently removed, as suggested by Dictus and Kohno. It would have been further obvious to remove the copper oxide when the contamination is greater than a reference value in order to ensure the contamination has been removed sufficiently.
Regarding Claim 15: Vitiello and Dictus teach the elements of Claim 11 as discussed above. Dictus is cited for teaching monitoring the copper contamination state, but does not expressly disclose monitoring in real time while forming the copper oxide and removing the copper oxide. Kohno teaches that it is known to perform monitoring operations to monitor multiple plasma processes in a process chamber to perform endpoint detection for the corresponding plasma process (col. 20, claim 13). Kohno further teaches performing the monitoring operation in real time (col. 16, ll. 17-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vitiello and Dictus by monitoring the contamination state in real time in order to determine the endpoint, as suggested by Kohno.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the gases in Dictus are gases for converting contamination into halide compounds, not gases for removing copper oxides as in the present application. However, the claimed limitation recites “removing the copper oxide by a plasma treatment that uses a second gas… wherein the second gas comprises at least one of chlorine, hydrogen, or nitrogen”. Dictus indeed teaches that the plasma treatment simultaneously uses a chlorine comprising gas (e.g., BCl3 to convert the copper oxide contaminant into a copper halide compound) and hydrogen gas to remove the volatilized copper halide product [0067]. In this plasma treatment step, both the chlorine and hydrogen gases contribute to the removal of the oxide compound. The claim limitation merely requires a plasma treatment step which uses at least one of these gases to remove the copper oxide compound, which is effectively accomplished by the teaching of Dictus.
Applicant has argued that there is no motivation to combine Dictus with Vitiello to reach the feature of “the first gas comprises oxygen and the second gas comprises at least one of chlorine, hydrogen, and nitrogen” because Vitiello teaches that metal deposits are oxidized using oxygen, ozone, or nitrous oxide, and then volatilized using hydrofluoroacetylacetone, while Dictus teaches converting copper contaminants into halide compounds and the exposing them to a photon-containing ambient for removal. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both Vitiello and Dictus are directed to removing copper oxide contaminants from the chamber. Dictus further provides motivation for removal with the chlorine and hydrogen gases citing that it allows the removal to proceed at lower temperatures (room temperature, for example) [0030].
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
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 NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714