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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/20/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection, 112(a), and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/23/2025.
Claim Status
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claims 1, 6-9, and 14 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 8 recite the claim limitation “…without removing the polymer layer from an upper surface of the substrate”. As written, it is unclear as to what surface or surfaces “an upper surface of the substrate” refers. For instance, the upper surface could correspond to the upper surface of the base layer of the substrate, the upper surface of a subsequent layer on top of the base layer, or both. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets “an upper surface of the substrate” to refer to the top surface of a layer within which the cavity is formed, in line with Figs. 1A-1E of the instant Specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yieh (US 20150093907 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yieh teaches an apparatus (Yieh, Fig. 6, [0048]-[0049], system 600), comprising;
a loadlock to receive a substrate (Yieh, Fig. 6, [0048]-[0049], wafer loading port 604);
a transfer chamber, coupled to the loadlock, and arranged to transfer the substrate under vacuum (Yieh, Fig. 6, [0048]-[0049], mainframe 602 has robotic mechanism for transferring wafers between loading port 604 and angled ion beam chamber 608 and deposition chamber 610, where the angled ion beam chamber may be a vacuum chamber, [0052]);
an angled ion beam etch station, coupled to the transfer chamber (Yieh, Fig. 6, [0048]-[0049], mainframe 602 has robotic mechanism for transferring wafers between loading port 604 and angled ion beam chamber 608), to direct a reactive angled ion beam to the substrate at a non-zero angle of incidence with respect to a normal to a substrate plane (Yieh, Fig. 8, [0052], angled ion beams 807 are directed to wafer 801 at a non-zero angle relative to the plane of wafer 801);
a polymer deposition chamber, coupled to the transfer chamber, arranged to deposit a polymer layer on the substrate, including within a cavity of the substrate (Yieh, Fig. 6, [0048]-[0050], system 600, which comprises deposition chamber 610 connected to mainframe 602, is an exemplary system for performing the cyclical gap fill method, where deposition step 402 forms layer 502 via the deposition chamber, Fig. 4, [0043]); and
a controller, coupled to the polymer deposition chamber, the transfer chamber and the angled ion beam etch station (Yieh, Fig. 10, [0055], computer system 1000 has set of instructions for causing the machine to execute one or more of the methods described in the disclosure), to cycle the substrate over a plurality of etch cycles, wherein a given etch cycle comprises deposition of the polymer layer in the polymer deposition chamber, etching of the substrate in the angled ion beam etch station to remove the polymer layer from an entire height of a sidewall of the cavity without removing the polymer layer from an upper surface of the substrate following at least two consecutive etch cycles of the plurality of etch cycles, and transporting the substrate between the polymer deposition chamber and the angled ion beam etch station via the transfer chamber (Yieh, Figs. 4 and 6, [0048], system 600 is used for performing disclosed embodiments of the gap fill method, where Fig. 4 [0046] details a gap fill method wherein four or more cycles of operations 402 and 404 occur, where one cycle consists of deposition operation 402 followed by angled ion beam etching operation 404, and where the angle of the ion beams 314A and 314B can be changed in a range of 1-85 degrees such that the beams can treat some or all portions of the sidewalls 308, [0032]-[0034]).
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US 20170042010 A1), further in view of Yang (US 20160314985 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liang teaches an apparatus (Liang, Fig. 1D, [0034], system 150), comprising;
at least one plasma chamber (Liang, Fig. 1D, [0034], plasma chamber 110), the at least one plasma chamber comprising an extraction plate having an extraction aperture (Liang, Fig. 1D, [0036], extraction plate 116 having extraction apertures) arranged to:
direct a reactive angled ion beam to a substrate at a non-zero angle of incidence with respect to a normal to a substrate plane (Liang, Fig. 2C, [0038], ions 210 are directed to substrate 200 at non-zero angles of incidence with respect to a perpendicular 214 to a substrate plane 212); and
direct depositing species to the substrate to deposit a polymer layer on the substrate, including within a cavity of the substrate (Liang, Fig. 2A, [0037], reactive gas is directed to substrate 200 to create layer of material 206); and
a controller, coupled to the at least one plasma chamber (Liang, Fig. 1D, [0036]-[0039], system 150 includes controller 174 which controls various components of system 150), and arranged to cycle the substrate over a plurality of etch cycles, wherein consecutive etch cycles each comprise deposition of the polymer layer from the depositing species and etching of the substrate using the reactive angled ion beam to remove the polymer layer from an entire height of a sidewall of the cavity (Liang, Figs. 2A-2F, [0037]-[0039], system 150 performs the directional ALE process, which includes a cycle of forming layer of material 206 on surface of substrate 200, then etching using directed ions 210, and repeating for at least one additional cycle).
Liang fails to explicitly teach wherein the polymer layer remains on an upper surface of the substrate.
However, Yang teaches a cyclical deposition etching process (Yang, Fig. 1, [0040], deposition operation 104 and etch operation 106 repeated in cycles), applied to a cavity (Yang, Fig. 2A), where the deposition time relative to the etching time is varied for the first few cycles to build up deposition on the upper mask surface (Yang, [0049]-[0059]), and where residual deposition remains on the hard mask on the etch is complete (Yang, [0059]).
Yang is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of plasma processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have applied adjusting the deposition time relative to the etching time for the initial cycles as taught by Yang to the apparatus of Liang as doing so would protect surfaces that are undesired to be etched, allowing to achieve selectivity requirements (Yang, [0059]).
Regarding claim 2, Liang teaches a process chamber to house the substrate (Liang, Fig. 1D, [0022], substrate 106 is located in process chamber 102); and
a substrate stage, disposed in the process chamber (Liang, Fig. 1D, [0021], stage 104 is disposed in process chamber 102) and arranged to scan the substrate with respect to the reactive angled reactive ion beam along a first direction within the substrate plane (Liang, Fig. 1D, [0021], stage 104 is movable at least along a Y-axis, where substrate 106 is located on stage 104).
Regarding claim 3, Liang teaches the extraction aperture being elongated along a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction (Liang, Fig. 1A and 1B, [0023], aperture 124 extends along the X-axis, and stage 104 moves along the Y-axis).
Regarding claim 4, Liang teaches wherein the at least one plasma chamber is a single plasma chamber (Liang, Figs. 2A-2F, [0037]-[0039], system 150 performs the directional ALE process, and there is a single plasma chamber 110).
Regarding claim 5, Liang teaches a beam blocker, disposed over the extraction aperture (Liang, Fig. 1A, [0026], beam blocker 118 is disposed above aperture 124), wherein the beam blocker defines the first extraction aperture and a second extraction aperture (Liang, Fig. 1A, [0026], beam blocker 118 defines first extraction aperture 160 and second extraction aperture 162), wherein the reactive angled ion beam is a first reactive angled ion beam, wherein the second extraction aperture is arranged to direct a second reactive angled ion beam to the substrate at a second non-zero angle of incidence with respect to the normal to the substrate plane (Liang, Fig. 1A, [0026], two beams 130 are directed to the substrate 106 at non-zero angles of incidence, Fig. 2C, [0038]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US 20170042010 A1) in view of Yang (US 20160314985 A1) as applied in claims 1-5, and further in view of Zhang (US 20020019139 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-5 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 6, Liang teaches a bias supply to apply a voltage between the at least one plasma chamber and the process chamber (Liang, Fig. 1D, [0025], bias supply 154 is connected between chamber 110 and stage 104), a first value of the voltage for extracting the reactive angled ion beam, and a second value of the voltage from the bias supply for depositing the polymer layer (Liang, Figs. 1C and 1D, [0034]-[0035], stage 104 is biased at a first voltage to extract beams 130 to etch a layer on substrate 106, and is set to a second voltage to not extract beams 130 and instead form layer 206).
Liang fails to explicitly teach wherein a first value of the voltage for generating the reactive angled ion beam is greater than a second value of the voltage for depositing the polymer layer.
However, Zhang teaches wherein a first value of the voltage for generating the reactive angled ion beam is greater than a second value of the voltage for depositing the polymer layer (Zhang, Fig. 4, [0020]-[0025], during deposition stage 40, bias power 50c can be zero to 100W, while source power 48c is 800 to 2000W).
Zhang is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have used a lower bias value during the deposition process as taught by Zhang because doing so would ensure that during the deposition phase, areas of the wafer both with and without features would receive reduced rate of removal of etch-passivating deposits across all surfaces vs increasing bias, whereby ions would impact surfaces directionally and reduce the passivation deposit thickness in said direction (Zhang, [0023]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein a first value of the voltage for extracting the reactive angled ion beam is greater than a second value of the voltage from the bias supply for depositing the polymer layer“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The bias power supply of Liang is connected such that it provides a voltage difference between the chamber and stage, and the values can be changed between steps, thereby being capable of structurally meeting the claim limitation. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 7, Liang teaches wherein the second value is 200 V or less (Liang, [0034], stage 104 may be biased in voltage range -10V to -10000V).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the second value is 200 V or less“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The bias power supply of Liang is connected such that it provides a voltage difference between the chamber and stage, and the values can be changed in a range of 10V to 10000V, thereby being capable of structurally meeting the claim limitation. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yieh (US 20150093907 A1) as applied in claim 8, and further in view of Liang (US 20170042010 A1).
The limitations of claim 8 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, Yieh teaches wherein the angled ion beam etch station comprising:
a plasma chamber for generating a plasma therein (Yieh, Fig. 8, [0054], helical antenna 814 generates plasma in the space it surrounds); and
a substrate stage, disposed to scan the substrate with respect to the angled reactive ion beam along a first direction (Yieh, Fig. 8, [0052]-[0053], stage 804 can move in the direction 806 under ion beams 807).
Yieh fails to teach an extraction plate, disposed along a side of the plasma chamber, and including an extraction aperture to direct the angled reactive ion beam to the substrate.
However, Liang teaches an extraction plate, disposed along a side of the plasma chamber, and including an extraction aperture to direct the angled reactive ion beam to the substrate (Liang, Fig. 1D, [0025], extraction plate 116 having extraction apertures).
Liang is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the extraction plate of Liang into the apparatus of Yieh as doing so would enable extraction of ions in the plasma beam in a manner that allows control of the ion angular distribution in addition to the angular spread (Liang, [0025]).
Regarding claim 10, Yieh fails to teach the extraction aperture being elongated along a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction.
However, Liang teaches the extraction aperture being elongated along a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction (Liang, Fig. 1D, [0025], extraction plate 116 having extraction apertures 124, where aperture 124 extends along the X-axis, and stage 104 moves along the Y-axis, Figs. 1A and 1B, [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the extraction plate and orientation of the extraction plate of Liang into the apparatus of Yieh as doing so would enable extraction of ions in the plasma beam in a manner that allows control of the ion angular distribution in addition to the angular spread (Liang, [0025]).
Regarding claim 11, Yieh teaches a beam blocker (Yieh, Fig. 8, [0054], sheath modifier 822, wherein the beam blocker defines the first extraction aperture and a second extraction aperture (Yieh, Fig. 8 and 9B, [0054], areas left and right of sheath modifier 822, each of which have ion beams 807) wherein the reactive angled ion beam is a first reactive angled ion beam (Yieh, Fig. 8 and 9B, [0054], ion beam to left of sheath modifier 822), wherein the second extraction aperture is arranged to direct a second reactive angled ion beam to the substrate (Yieh, Fig. 8 and 9B, [0054], ion beam to right of sheath modifier 822) at a second non-zero angle of incidence with respect to the normal to the substrate plane (Yieh, Fig. 8 and 9B, [0054], each ion beam 807 angle is non-zero relative to the wafer 801 surface).
Yieh fails to teach a beam blocker, disposed over the extraction aperture.
However, Liang teaches a beam, disposed over the extraction aperture (Liang, Fig. 1A, [0026], aperture 124 is disposed below beam blocker 118).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the extraction plate and orientation of the extraction plate of Liang into the apparatus of Yieh as doing so would enable extraction of ions in the plasma beam in a manner that allows control of the ion angular distribution in addition to the angular spread (Liang, [0025]).
Regarding claim 12, Yieh teaches the plasma chamber comprising a first plasma chamber to generate a first plasma therein (Yieh, Fig. 8, [0054], helical antenna 814 generates plasma in the space it surrounds, where system 800 is an example of the angled ion beam station), the polymer deposition chamber comprising a second plasma chamber to generate a second plasma therein (Yieh, [0050], deposition chamber 610 may be a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition chamber, or any other appropriate deposition chamber, including the angled ion beam system which can be used for deposition, Fig. 3B, [0031]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 13, Yieh teaches the first plasma comprising a CF4/O2 plasma, and the second plasma comprising a CH3F plasma (Yieh, [0031], the ion species of generated ion beams 314A and 314B from generated plasma may be, for example, Si+, O+, N+, As+, B+, P+, H+, Al+, C+, F+, or any other molecular ions appropriate for a given application).
To clarify the record, the limitation “the first plasma comprising a CF4/O2 plasma, and the second plasma comprising a CH3F plasma “ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The angled ion beam system of Liang, which can be used for either deposition operations or etching operations, has a gas injection means, a plasma generation mechanism, and lists representative constituent ions of plasmas that include those recited in the claim, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yieh (US 20150093907 A1) and Liang (US 20170042010 A1), as applied in claims 9-13, and further in view of Zhang (US 20020019139 A1).
The limitations of claims 9-13 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 14, Yieh teaches a bias supply to apply a first voltage between the first plasma chamber and the substrate (Yieh, Fig. 8, [0054], bias power supply 816 supplies bias voltage to the stage 804 to accelerate ions from the plasma towards the wafer 801).
Yieh fails to explicitly teach wherein the second plasma chamber is arranged to be biased with respect to the substrate at a second voltage from a second bias supply, less than the first voltage.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the second plasma chamber is arranged to be biased with respect to the substrate at a second voltage, less than the first voltage (Zhang, Fig. 4, [0020]-[0025], bias power 50d during etching process stage 42 is higher than bias power 50c during deposition stage 40).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have used a lower bias value during the deposition process as taught by Zhang because doing so would ensure that during the deposition phase, areas of the wafer both with and without features would receive reduced rate of removal of etch-passivating deposits across all surfaces vs increasing bias, whereby ions would impact surfaces directionally and reduce the passivation deposit thickness in said direction (Zhang, [0023]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the second plasma chamber is arranged to be biased with respect to the substrate at a second voltage from a second bias supply, less than the first voltage“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The bias power supply of Yieh is connected such that it provides a voltage difference between the chamber and stage, and the values can be changed within a voltage range including pulsing on/off capability, thereby being capable of structurally meeting the claim limitation. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 03/20/2026, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Liang, teach the claim limitations “to remove the polymer layer from an entire height of a sidewall of the cavity without removing the polymer layer from an upper surface of the substrate” of independent claim 1 as newly amended. In response to the amendments, the Examiner has newly rejected the claims in the “Claims Rejections” sections above, thereby rendering the arguments moot.
In the Applicant’s response filed 03/20/2026, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Yieh, teach the claim limitations “to remove the polymer layer from an entire height of a sidewall of the cavity without removing the polymer layer from an upper surface of the substrate following at least two consecutive etch cycles of the plurality of etch cycles” of independent claim 8 as newly amended. Particularly, that reference Yieh partially maintains material layers on the sidewalls. The Examiner has carefully considered the arguments but does not find them persuasive. Yieh teaches where the angle of the ion beams 314A and 314B can be changed in a range of 1-85 degrees such that the beams can treat some or all portions of the sidewalls 308 (Yieh, [0032]-[0034]), thereby being capable of meeting the claim limitation.
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 TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights