Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 2/2/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and thus the rejections are withdrawn.
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) 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 20050133361 A1) in view of Liu (CN 111411342 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ding (US 20050133361 A1) teaches a method of compensating for erosion of a sputtering target 34 disposed at a distance from a plurality of magnets (74, 78) and within a processing volume of a sputter reactor 30 (processing chamber) while a power supply 54 delivers power to the target (energizing) to sputter the target, wherein the erosion is compensated for by moving the magnets toward or away from the target at a controlled distance based on the deviation of target voltage as a function of target usage/consumption, which is necessarily related to/based on an initial target age at a start of the processing and an instantaneous target age, such that the magnet to target spacing changes as the target erodes to maintain a constant target voltage by counteracting the change in voltage due to erosion (based on an inverse target voltage) according to an empirically determined algorithm (Abstract, para 0008, 0010-0015, 0019, 0040, 0043, 0050, 0063-0064, 0069-0070; Fig. 4, 7, 9).
Ding fails to explicitly teach that the magnets are moved based on an inverse target voltage curve that is pre-determined using a third order polynomial. However, Liu (CN 111411342 A), in the analogous art of sputtering control, teaches real-time compensation to limit change of working parameters, such as target voltage, with target material consumption wherein the compensation may be achieved according to the function ΔY=ax+bx2+cx3 (curve determined using a third order polynomial), where ΔY is a compensation amount for a target operating parameter, such as a target to substrate distance, target voltage, or target deposition time, wherein a, b, and c are correction parameters, wherein x is the target consumption value, and wherein the compensation is pre-determined according to the relationship between the target material consumption value and the compensation parameter (para 0010-0020, 0028-0029, 0043-0044, 0049, 0070-0072, 0078-0080, 0084; Fig. 3). Ding teaches that compensation results can be improved by more frequently moving the magnetron with finer resolution and that the spacing of the magnetron and the target is increased as target usage increases to compensate for the increase in target voltage as the target is used more, indicating that the magnetron spacing/movement is based on a function to counter the voltage increase (based on an inverse target voltage curve) (para 0043-0044, 0063-0064; Fig. 7, 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the magnet-target spacing adjustment function of Ding with a third order polynomial compensation function, as described by Liu, to accurately control the magnet-target spacing to maintain a constant target voltage as the target erodes, especially because Liu describes that the target voltage may be compensated/adjusted directly using the polynomial function and Ding teaches the target voltage is adjusted by changing the magnet-target spacing, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of controlling the magnet-target spacing. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The combination of Ding and Liu teaches the third order polynomial is ΔY=ax+bx2+cx3 (Liu para 0012-0014, 0070-0071), which is equivalent to the form of y=c3(x-x0)3+c2(x-x0)2+c1(x-x0)+c0 wherein y is the target to plurality of magnets spacing offset, x is target consumption (instantaneous target age), and x0 is starting target consumption (initial target age), wherein the starting target consumption value is defined as 0 and ΔY is the change in target to magnet spacing/offset, which is equivalent to y-c0 where c0 is the initial target to magnet offset, and wherein a, b, and c are coefficients equivalent to c1, c2, and c3, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ding and Liu teaches that the target may be tantalum (Ta) or titanium (Ti) (Ding para 0076; Liu para 0023).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ding and Liu teaches that the compensation parameters and correction parameters (coefficients) in the third order polynomial can be determined according to the target material type (specific for a corresponding target) (Liu para 0024-0025, 0068, 0078, 0095).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ding and Liu teaches the correction parameters (coefficients) are determined according to the target material and process recipe (Liu para 0076, 0103) and thus are necessarily dependent/based upon an erosion rate of the target.
Regarding claim 6, the previous combination of Ding and Liu teaches maintaining the voltage of the target around a nominal/set target voltage (Ding para 0064; Liu para 0078-0080, Fig. 3) but fails to explicitly teach the voltage is maintained to about 1 percent to about 3 percent of a nominal voltage. However, Ding teaches that more frequently moving the magnetron with finer resolution may result in decreased deviations and the magnetron may be moved when a set voltage deviation amount occurs and wherein the compensation influences the film deposition quality and target lifetime (para 0040, 0043-0044, 0064), thus indicating that the allowed voltage deviation is a result-effective variable influencing the film quality and target lifetime. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum or workable ranges of voltage deviation by routine optimization, which can include a deviation of 1% to 3%. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ding and Liu teaches that the plurality of magnets (74, 78) may be rotated by a rotary drive shaft 82 to improve uniformity and change the radial position of the magnetron (Ding para 0011-0014; Fig. 4).
Alternatively, Liu teaches the compensation may also include increasing (adjusting) target power as the target erodes and the compensation may include compensating multiple parameters (para 0043). Ding also teaches that sputter degradation may be compensated for by increasing the target power (para 0007). Because Liu teaches that such control methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the target power to further compensate for target erosion with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 20050133361 A1) in view of Liu (CN 111411342 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hauert (US 20110307068 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ding and Liu teaches the third order polynomial is ΔY=ax+bx2+cx3, where a, b, and c are correction parameters determined according to the type of target material and the process recipe (Liu para 0012-0014, 0070-0071), which is equivalent to the form of y=c3(x-x0)3+c2(x-x0)2+c1(x-x0)+c0 wherein y is the target to plurality of magnets spacing offset, x is target consumption (instantaneous target age), and x0 is starting target consumption (initial target age), wherein the starting target consumption value is defined as 0 and ΔY is the change in target to magnet spacing/offset, which is equivalent to y-c0 where c0 is the initial target to magnet offset, and wherein a, b, and c are constant coefficients equivalent to c1, c2, and c3, respectively.
The previous combination of Ding and Liu fails to explicitly teach that the target ages “x” and “x0” are in kWh. However, Liu teaches that “x” is a target material consumption value (para 0014) but is silent to its units. Additionally, Ding teaches that the target usage may be measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh) of cumulative power since it was fresh (x-x0 where x0 is defined as 0) where compensation is achieved as a function of target usage in kilowatt-hours (para 0007, 0014, 0063, 0070; Fig. 7, 9). Therefore, because Ding teaches that such consumption units were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the compensation function of Ding and Liu based upon target consumption values in kilowatt-hours (kWh) with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
The previous combination of Ding and Liu fails to explicitly teach the constant coefficients are empirically determined and calculated to produce an inverse of a corresponding target voltage curve under processing conditions over a target life determined from a beginning of the target life after burn-in. However, Ding teaches that the amount of displacement for a given target, magnetron, initial spacing, and general operating conditions may be determined empirically/experimentally (para 0044, 0063-0064). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the means of calculating the compensation function/correction parameters of Liu with an empirically/experimentally derived method of determining the function, as described by Ding, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Additionally, because the compensation function counteracts the change in voltage due to erosion, the calculated function/equation (including coefficients) produces an inverse of a target voltage curve under processing conditions as the target erodes (over a target life) such that the voltage is constant (target voltage curve during erosion + inverse target voltage curve due to adjustment of magnet-target spacing = constant voltage).
The combination of Ding and Liu fails to explicitly teach the inverse of a corresponding voltage curve is determined from a beginning of the target life after burn-in. However, Hauert (US 20110307068 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches a tantalum target may be cleaned by burn-in before performing deposition (para 0058-0059). Ding and Liu each teach the target may be tantalum (Ding para 0076; Liu para 0023) and Liu teaches the compensation is performed during the thin film deposition process (para 0028). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a burn-in process on the tantalum target of Ding in view of Liu prior to deposition to clean the target and remove any contaminants. As a result, the compensation function would only be concerned with adjusting the parameters during deposition, which occurs after burn-in, and therefore, the inverse voltage curve would be determined from the beginning of the deposition process (beginning of the target life after burn-in).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 20050133361 A1) in view of Liu (CN 111411342 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lemson (US 20090066342 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the previous combination of Ding and Liu teaches maintaining the voltage of the target around a nominal/set target voltage (Ding para 0064; Liu para 0078-0080, Fig. 3) but fails to explicitly teach the voltage is maintained to about 1 percent to about 3 percent of a nominal voltage. However, Lemson (US 20090066342 A1), in the analogous art of voltage control in plasma processes, teaches that, during plasma processing, a control algorithm may be used to control the output voltage to be within about 1.5% of a voltage set point to produce more accurate products, where plasma applications require voltage accuracy within 1.5% of a set point (para 0011, 0014, 0033, 0053, 0069). Additionally, Ding teaches that more frequently moving the magnetron with finer resolution may result in decreased deviations and the magnetron may be moved when a set voltage deviation amount occurs (para 0040, 0043-0044, 0064). Because Lemson teaches that such voltage deviation standards were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the magnet spacing compensation such that the voltage is maintained within 1.5% of a nominal value to improve process accuracy with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection is based on inference perched upon inference all based on the applicant’s disclosure and nothing in Ding or Liu discloses that a target can be maintained at a substantially constant voltage during the processing by moving the plurality of magnets either away from or closer to the target based on an initial target age and an instantaneous age where the moving is based on an inverse target voltage curve that is pre-determined using a third order polynomial. Specifically, a cubic function has a shape that may be shifted along the x and y axis based on the coefficients and the applicant utilizes the inverse of only a portion of this shape, while Liu does not utilize a distance between a plurality of magnets based on an inverse target voltage curve. This argument is not persuasive because, as presently claimed, the limitation “based on an inverse target voltage curve” is interpreted as meaning that the function/curve that the magnets move along is related to an inverse target voltage curve and the process of Ding in view of Liu includes a method of moving magnets to counteract a change in voltage due to target erosion, thus indicating that the movement of the magnets is based on an inverse target voltage curve because the combination of the “normal” target voltage curve and the inverse target voltage curve resulting from the third order polynomial movement of magnets results in a constant target voltage. Additionally, it should be noted that applicant’s statement that the applicant’s invention uses the inverse of “only a portion of this shape” is not persuasive because this limitation is not claimed.
Applicant argues that the correction of Liu is based on the target consumption value vs. the operating parameter as opposed to the present claims based on inverse target voltage related to the distance between the magnets and the target over time and there is no motivation or suggestion to assume that a cubic relationship between target consumption and a distance between the substrate and the target would suggest a cubic relationship exists for essentially any other parameter, such as the spacing of magnets from a target. This argument is not persuasive because the instant application, as seen in claim 5, similarly uses a correction based upon the target consumption value/age and the operating parameter (target to magnet spacing offset) and not a function of the inverse target voltage vs. the magnet to target distance. Additionally, one skilled in the art would expect a cubic relationship to exist between target consumption and distance between the spacing of magnets from the target because Ding teaches that the magnet to target spacing is adjusted according to the voltage increase and Liu teaches that the voltage may be compensated/adjusted directly using the third order polynomial and therefore the magnet to target spacing, which indirectly adjusts the voltage, would similarly be able to be used in a third order polynomial function to compensate for the voltage changes as the target erodes. Additionally, the cubic/third order function is an approximation of the compensation needed and therefore one skilled in the art would find it obvious to use a cubic/third order function to approximate the compensation even if there is not necessarily a cubic relationship between the target to magnet spacing and the target lifetime, especially because the higher order coefficients can be set at or near 0 if the relationship is found to be closer to a second order or first order function after experimentation.
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 PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights