DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments received 07/01/2026 with respect to claims 1-10 and 17-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 4-8 as set forth below in this Office action.
Claim Objection
3. Claims 11-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As set forth in the previous Office action, claims 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration by the Examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non- elected invention. Please change the status identifier of claims 11-16 into -- Withdrawn --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. Claims 1-4, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 20210074583 A1) in view of Salinas et al. (US 20240062993 A1).
Regarding claim 1, You discloses a processing tool, comprising: a chamber (200 in Fig. 2); a remote plasma source (RPS) (277 in Fig. 2) coupled to the chamber by an adapter (e.g., the showerhead assembly 230 in Fig. 2); an RPS match (e.g., the combination of 241/243 in Fig. 2) coupled to the RPS (para. 0033, 0042); a first temperature sensor (290/292) in the chamber (in Fig. 2); and a reflector plate (e.g., the substrate support pedestal 248) within the chamber (Fig. 2).
You does not mention explicitly: a second temperature sensor in the adapter; and wherein the RPS is outside of a perimeter of the reflector plate from a plan view perspective.
Salinas discloses a substrate processing tool comprising: a deposition chamber (103 in Fig. 1) equipped with a first temperature sensor (T) (para. 0041); an adapter (showerhead assembly 112 in Fig. 1 or 300A in Fig. 3A) for delivering a plurality of precursors/gases into the deposition chamber (para. 0041, 0045), wherein the adapter is equipped with a second temperature sensor (para. 0050: “The showerhead assembly 300A may further comprise temperature sensors 331 to measure a temperature of the showerhead body 308”; see also para. 0051 and 0070 of U.S. provisional application 63/371,564 for supporting).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Salinas’ teaching of the second temperature sensor into You’s adapter (showerhead assembly) to achieve the claimed invention. Doing so would allow for controlling the temperature of the adapter (showerhead assembly) so that the adapter is kept within a temperature range configured for the thin film being deposited (Salinas, para. 0029, 0032).
The combination of Yu and Salinas is silent on: wherein the RPS is outside of a perimeter of the reflector plate from a plan view perspective.
However, the limitation in question is considered merely a design option of the manner of coupling Yu’s RPS (277) to the gas panel (258). While the gas panel (258) must be aligned with the inlet ports 232′ of the chamber’s lid, the RPS (277) may be placed either inside or outside of a perimeter of the reflector plate from a plan view perspective, which does not affect the functionality of the intended use of the invention. The skilled person would practice such a variation of design options without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances. It has been held that an obvious matter of engineering design choice is not patentably advanced.
Regarding claim 2, You discloses: wherein the processing tool is a rapid thermal processing (RTP) tool (para. 0076).
Regarding claim 3, You discloses: wherein the first temperature sensor (290/292) is configured to measure a temperature of the reflector plate (para. 0047).
Regarding claim 4, You does not but Salinas discloses: wherein the second temperature sensors provides an internal temperature measurement of the adapter or an external temperature measurement of the adapter (see discussion of sensors 331 in Fig. 3A). As such, the combination of You and Salinas renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding claim 6, You discloses: a match sensor (e.g., optical metrology 240) for the RPS match, wherein the match sensor detects one or more of a stub setting, a forward power, a power setpoint and feedback, a reflected power and, a tuning match position (para. 0038-0039: optical monitoring system 240 configured to provide process state monitoring, such as plasma monitoring, temperature monitoring, and the like; see also para. 0043: “ … and reflected back to, the optical monitoring system 240”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of You and Salinas renders it obvious: wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are inputs to a chamber health monitoring algorithm (Salinas, para. 0041, 0045, 0050).
6. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. in view of Salinas et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Yang et al. (US 20190272998 A1) and Martinez Jarquin et al. (US 20150262804 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of You and Salinas is silent on: wherein the adapter is a quartz lined stainless steel adapter.
Yang discloses a substrate processing tool comprising: a deposition chamber (Fig. 1; para. 0023-0025); an adapter (e.g., the RPS adapter 110 or inlet adapter; see para. 0025, 0030: “an inlet adapter, … may be between isolator 104 and mixing manifold 112”), wherein the adapter is a stainless steel adapter (para. 0030, 0034).
Martinez Jarquin teaches a plasma adapter (21 in Fig. 2), wherein the plasma adapter is a quartz lined adapter (para. 0034).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a quartz lined stainless steel adapter as an inlet adapter for delivering plasma jet as taught by Yang and Martinez Jarquin and apply such a quartz lined stainless steel adapter into the combination of You and Salinas to achieve the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of such a combination were predictable for gas inlet fluidly coupled a deposition chamber for semiconductor processes, since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness and the mere application of known technologies to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would involve only routine skill in the art.
7. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. in view of Salinas et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Blutke et al. (US 6153852 A).
Regarding claim 7, You discloses: a mass of gas is flown into the RPS (para. 0042). The combination of You and Salinas is silent on: a mass flow meter for detecting the mass of gas flown into the RPS.
Blutke discloses a substrate processing tool (Abstract) comprising: a mass flow meter for detecting the flow rate of plasma gas (col. 16, lines 3-16) flown into a reaction chamber (10 in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Blutke’s teaching of the mass flow meter into the processing tool of You for detecting the mass of gas flown into the RPS, such that the gas flown into the RPS from the gas panel can be regulated as needed (You, para. 0035). It has been held that the mere application of known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would involve only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, You discloses: a third temperature sensor (240) configured to provide process state monitoring and facilitate an integrated deposition process (para. 0039: “the optical monitoring system 240 … uses optical metrology to provide information that enables process adjustment to … provide process state monitoring (such as plasma monitoring, temperature monitoring, and the like) as needed”). You does not mention explicitly: said third temperature sensor is deployed in an exhaust (226/228) of the chamber (Fig. 2).
However, the teaching of Blutke includes: a feedback sensor is preferably disposed at an exhaust of the reaction vessel for monitoring and optimizing the product yield from the reaction vessel (col. 5, lines 5-11).
In view of Blutke’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify You’s exhaust (226/228) of the chamber to incorporate a temperature feedback sensor to achieve the claimed invention. Doing so would allow for facilitating an integrated deposition process by monitoring the process state such as temperature in the exhaust of the chamber. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of such a combination were predictable for optimizing the product yield for semiconductor processing, since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness and the mere application of known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would involve only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of You and Salinas is silent on: a third temperature sensor in the RPS.
The teaching of Blutke includes: a temperature sensor in a plasma source (a sensor is configured to measure a temperature change of a heat sink around a body of the ICP torch 22 and related structure, see col. 16, line 66 – col. 17, line 4).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify You’s RPS to incorporate a temperature sensor to achieve the claimed invention. Doing so would allow for facilitating an integrated deposition process by monitoring the process state. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of such a combination were predictable for optimizing the product yield for semiconductor processing, and the mere application of known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would involve only routine skill in the art.
8. Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. in view of Blutke et al. and Salinas et al.
Regarding claim 17, You discloses a processing tool, comprising: a chamber (200 in Fig. 2); a remote plasma source (RPS) (277 in Fig. 2) coupled to the chamber by an adapter (e.g., the showerhead assembly 230 in Fig. 2); a reflector plate (e.g., the substrate support pedestal 248) within the chamber (Fig. 2); an RPS match (e.g., the combination of 240/241/243 in Fig. 2) coupled to the RPS (para. 0042-0043), wherein the RPS match comprises: one or more sensors including sensors (e.g., optical metrology 240) for measuring a stub setting, a forward power setting, a power setpoint and feedback setting, a reflected power and, a tuning match position (para. 0038-0039: optical monitoring system 240 configured to provide process state monitoring, such as plasma monitoring, temperature monitoring, and the like; see also para. 0043: “ … and reflected back to, the optical monitoring system 240”); a first temperature sensor (172 in Fig. 1 or 290/292 in Fig. 2) in the chamber.
You does not mention explicitly: a mass flow meter (MFM) coupled to the RPS, wherein the MFM is configured to measure an amount of gas sent to the RPS; a second temperature sensor in the adapter; and wherein the RPS is outside of a perimeter of the reflector plate from a plan view perspective.
Blutke discloses a substrate processing tool (Abstract) comprising: a mass flow meter for detecting the flow rate of plasma gas (col. 16, lines 3-16) flown into a reaction chamber (10 in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Blutke’s teaching of the mass flow meter into the processing tool of You for detecting the mass of gas flown into the RPS, such that the gas flown into the RPS from the gas panel can be regulated as needed (You, para. 0035). It has been held that the mere application of known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would involve only routine skill in the art.
Salinas discloses a substrate processing tool comprising: a deposition chamber (103 in Fig. 1) equipped with a first temperature sensor (T) (para. 0041); an adapter (showerhead assembly 112 in Fig. 1 or 300A in Fig. 3A) for delivering a plurality of precursors/gases into the deposition chamber (para. 0041, 0045), wherein the adapter is equipped with a second temperature sensor (para. 0050: “The showerhead assembly 300A may further comprise temperature sensors 331 to measure a temperature of the showerhead body 308”; see also para. 0051 and 0070 of U.S. provisional application 63/371,564 for supporting).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Salinas’ teaching of the second temperature sensor into You’s adapter (showerhead assembly) to achieve the claimed invention. Doing so would allow for controlling the temperature of the adapter (showerhead assembly) so that the adapter is kept within a temperature range configured for the thin film being deposited (Salinas, para. 0029, 0032).
As to the limitation wherein the RPS is outside of a perimeter of the reflector plate from a plan view perspective, it is considered that the claimed spatial arrangement of the RPS with respect to the perimeter of the reflector plate is merely a design option of the manner of coupling Yu’s RPS (277) to the gas panel (258). While the gas panel (258) must be aligned with the inlet ports 232′ of the chamber’s lid, the RPS (277) may be placed either inside or outside of a perimeter of the reflector plate from a plan view perspective, which does not affect the functionality of the intended use of the invention. The skilled person would practice such a variation of design options without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances. It has been held that an obvious matter of engineering design choice is not patentably advanced.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of You, Blutke and Salinas renders it obvious: wherein the one or more sensors, the MFM, the first temperature sensor, and the second temperature sensor are configured to provide data that is used by a processor to determine chamber health (You, para. 0035; Blutke, col. 16, lines 3-16; Salinas para. 0041, 0045, 0050).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, You does not mention: wherein the processor generates a drift index; wherein an alert is generated when the drift index is at or above 0.4 on a scale from 0.0 to 1.0.
The teaching of Blutke includes: a processor generates a drift index, wherein an alert is generated when the drift index is at or above threshold value (col. 16, lines 3-16; col. 17, lines 11-30: measuring the temperature change of the heat sink will provide a close approximation of Pr+Pc, and during operation of the ICP torch, a measured value for (Pr+Pc) and a value Po can be input to the computer or other processor to determine the actual measured efficiency of the ICP torch, this efficiency will then be displayed to the torch operator on a real time basis, and as the plasma gas flow rate or the power level is varied, the display will alert the operator of the change in the efficiency of the torch).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Blutke’s teaching of the drift index and the related alert into You to achieve the claimed invention. Doing so would allow for alerting the operator of the change in the efficiency of the semiconductor processes (Blutke, col. 16, lines 3-16; col. 17, lines 11-30).
The combination of You and Blutke is silent on said threshold value is at or above 0.4 on a scale from 0.0 to 1.0. However, the feature in question is considered merely a design choice of the threshold value, which does not affect the functionality of the intended use of the invention and the skilled person would apply without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances. It has been held that an obvious matter of engineering design choice is not patentably advanced.
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights