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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 8-27 are pending.
Claims 1-7 are cancelled.
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.
Claims 8, 11-12, 14, 16, 24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lubomirsky (US Pub. 2013/0105303).
Regarding claims 8, 12, 24, and 27, Lubomirsky teaches a plasma processing apparatus ([0072] and Fig. 10, entirety), comprising: a chamber including a lower region and an upper region above the lower region ([0053] and Fig. 10, first chamber #684 and second chamber #681), the upper region being a region in which a plasma including ions and radicals is generated ([0058] and Fig. 10, plasma #692), and the lower region being a region in which a vapor deposition process is performed on a substrate ([0035] details deposition operation; Fig. 10: substrate #302); a lower electrode inside the lower region of the chamber ([0050]: chuck #650 acts as lower electrode), the substrate being loaded onto the lower electrode (see Fig. 10); a shower head inside the chamber ([0051] and Fig. 10, showerhead #625), the shower head separating the lower region and the upper region (see Fig. 10); plasma inlet holes penetrating the shower head in a vertical direction ([0053] and Fig. 10, apertures #682), the plasma inlet holes being configured to allow the ions and the radicals flow from the upper region to the lower region of the chamber ([0062]); process gas supply holes in the shower head ([0053] and Fig. 10, apertures #683), the process gas supply holes being configured to supply a process gas to the lower region of the chamber ([0053]); a process gas supply configured to supply the process gas to the process gas supply holes (Fig. 10, Ar source #690 and/or OMCTS source #695; [0037]); and an antenna on the upper region of the chamber ([0073] and Fig. 10, coils #1052), the antenna being configured to generate a magnetic field and an electric field inside the upper region of the chamber ([0073]: uses an RF generator to generate inductively coupled plasma, thus necessarily has an EM-field influence), wherein each of the process gas supply holes is between two of the plasma inlet holes (Fig. 10, #682 between adjacent #683, see related embodiment in Fig. 5A detailing this configuration).
Regarding claims 11 and 26, Lubomirsky teaches wherein the chamber is configured to have the plasma generated only in the upper region among the lower region and the upper region, such that the ions and the radicals in the lower region are provided from the upper region through the plasma inlet holes ([0073] and Fig. 10, plasma #692 only in upper chamber passing through #682).
Regarding claim 14, Lubomirsky teaches a source gas supply line penetrating the antenna ([0053] and Fig. 10, gas inlet #676); and a source gas supply configured to supply a source gas to the upper region of the chamber through the source gas supply line (Fig. 10, Ar source #690 and/or OMCTS source #695; [0037]).
Regarding claim 16, Lubomirsky teaches wherein: the shower head includes a central region vertically overlapping the lower electrode, and an edge region that surrounds the central region, the plasma inlet holes are in each of the central region and the edge region, and the process gas supply holes are only in the central region among the central region and the edge region (Fig. 10, #682 are present in any reasonable “edge region”, and #683 are present in only a “central region” such that an empty “edge region” exists).
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.
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 9-10 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky (US Pub. 2013/0105303), as applied to claims 8, 11-12, 14, 16, 24, and 26-27 above, further in view of Ravi (US Pub. 2021/0032753).
The limitations of claims 8, 11-12, 14, 16, 24, and 26-27 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 9 and 25, Lubomirsky does not explicitly teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Ravi teaches wherein a diameter of each of the plasma inlet holes is greater than a diameter of each of the process gas supply holes (Ravi – [0033]-[0034] and Fig. 2, size of openings #242 and #214 may differ).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the diameter of the inlet/supply holes of Lubomirsky in order to selectively pass radicals while restricting ions in the plasma flow (Ravi – [0033]).
Regarding claim 10, Lubomirsky does not explicitly teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Ravi teaches wherein a diameter of each of the plasma inlet holes is within a range of 15 mm to 50 mm (Ravi – [0034]: ~12 mils to ~25 mils or larger).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the hole diameters of Lubomirsky to the range disclosed by Ravi since courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.sd 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky (US Pub. 2013/0105303), as applied to claims 8, 11-12, 14, 16, 24, and 26-27 above, further in view of Chandrachood (US Pub. 2008/0102202).
The limitations of claims 8, 11-12, 14, 16, 24, and 26-27 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, Lubomirsky teaches source gas supply lines penetrating a side wall of the chamber; and a source gas supply configured to supply a source gas to the upper region of the chamber through the source gas supply lines (Fig. 10).
Lubomirsky does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the source gas supply having an annular shape that surrounds an outer wall of the chamber.
However, Chandrachood teaches wherein a source gas supply has an annular shape that surrounds an outer wall of the chamber (Chandrachood – [0062] and Fig. 28, gas flow lines #358 and valves #350 formed in an annular shape outside the chamber; see Fig. 25).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the source gas supply plenum of Lubomirsky to comprise that of Chandrachood in order to adjust gas distribution to correct non-uniformities (Chandrachood – [0062]) and facilitate easy removal/replacement of parts (Chandrachood – [0066]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky (US Pub. 2013/0105303), as applied to claims 8, 11-12, 14, 16, 24, and 26-27 above, further in view of Kim (US Pub. 2009/0183833).
The limitations of claims 8, 11-12, 14, 16, 24, and 26-27 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 15, Lubomirsky does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Kim teaches a plasma adjuster ([0032] and Fig. 1, plate #131) connected to an upper surface of the shower head (Fig. 1, each and every element is part of a rigidly constructed apparatus, thus can reasonably be considered as “connected to” each other part of the apparatus); and plasma adjusting holes in the plasma adjuster ([0033] and Fig. 2, holes #132), at least some of the plasma adjusting holes overlapping the plasma inlet holes in the vertical direction ([0034] and Fig. 4), respectively, wherein the plasma adjuster is moveable to adjust an overlap between the plasma adjusting holes and the plasma inlet holes to adjust sizes of the plasma inlet holes exposed to the upper region ([0034]: via driving unit #142).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Lubomirsky apparatus to comprise the plasma adjuster of Kim in order to selectively distribute plasma to the process chamber and reduce damage due to ion charge (Kim - [0034], [0042]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky (US Pub. 2013/0105303), as applied to claims 8, 11-12, 14, 16, 24, and 26-27 above, further in view of Tahara (US Pub. 2009/0008034).
The limitations of claims 8, 11-12, 14, 16, 24, and 26-27 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, Lubomirsky teaches wherein: the shower head includes a central region vertically overlapping the lower electrode, and an edge region that surrounds the central region, wherein the plasma inlet holes are in each of the central region and the edge region (see Fig. 10).
Lubomirsky does not explicitly teach wherein the process gas supply holes are only in the edge region among the central region and the edge region.
However, Tahara teaches this limitation (Tahara – [0082] and Fig. 6B, no #144a in central area #166).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the process gas supply hole arrangement of Lubomirsky with that of Tahara in order to tailor the distribution of deposition species to a substrate and increase uniformity (Tahara – [0083]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky (US Pub. 2013/0105303), as applied to claims 8, 11-12, 14, 16, 24, and 26-27 above, further in view of Ogawa (US Pub. 2018/0245216).
The limitations of claims 8, 11-12, 14, 16, 24, and 26-27 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 18, Lubomirsky teaches wherein: the shower head includes a central region vertically overlapping the lower electrode, and an edge region that surrounds the central region (see Fig. 10).
Lubomirsky does not teach wherein the plasma inlet holes are only in the edge region among the central region and the edge region, and the process gas supply holes are only in the central region among the central region and the edge region.
However, Ogawa teaches wherein gas holes can be present in only the center or only the edge region (Ogawa – [0068], [0076]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the plasma inlet holes and process gas supply holes of Lubomirsky to be only in the edge region and/or only in the central region since Ogawa teaches such an arrangement allows for tailored deposition profiles (Ogawa – [0065], [0068], [0072], [0076]).
Claims 19-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky in view of Ravi (US Pub. 2021/0032753).
Regarding claim 19, Lubomirsky teaches a plasma processing apparatus ([0072] and Fig. 10, entirety), comprising: a chamber including a lower region and an upper region above the lower region ([0053] and Fig. 10, first chamber #684 and second chamber #681), the upper region being a region in which a plasma including ions and radicals is generated ([0058] and Fig. 10, plasma #692), and the lower region being a region in which a vapor deposition process is performed on a substrate ([0035] details deposition operation; Fig. 10: substrate #302); a lower electrode inside the lower region of the chamber ([0050]: chuck #650 acts as lower electrode), the substrate being loaded onto the lower electrode (see Fig. 10); a shower head inside the chamber ([0051] and Fig. 10, showerhead #625), the shower head separating the lower region and the upper region (see Fig. 10); plasma inlet holes penetrating the shower head in a vertical direction ([0053] and Fig. 10, apertures #682), the plasma inlet holes being configured to allow the ions and the radicals flow from the upper region to the lower region of the chamber ([0062]); process gas supply holes in the shower head ([0053] and Fig. 10, apertures #683), the process gas supply holes being configured to supply a process gas to the lower region of the chamber ([0053]); a process gas supply configured to supply the process gas to the process gas supply holes (Fig. 10, Ar source #690 and/or OMCTS source #695; [0037]); and an antenna on the upper region of the chamber ([0073] and Fig. 10, coils #1052), the antenna being configured to generate a magnetic field and an electric field inside the upper region of the chamber ([0073]: uses an RF generator to generate inductively coupled plasma, thus necessarily has an EM-field influence), wherein each of the process gas supply holes is between two of the plasma inlet holes (Fig. 10, #682 between adjacent #683, see related embodiment in Fig. 5A detailing this configuration).
Lubomirsky does not teach wherein a diameter of each of the plasma inlet holes being greater than a diameter of each of the process gas supply holes.
However, Ravi teaches wherein a diameter of each of the plasma inlet holes is greater than a diameter of each of the process gas supply holes (Ravi – [0033]-[0034] and Fig. 2, size of openings #242 and #214 may differ).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the diameter of the inlet/supply holes of Lubomirsky in order to selectively pass radicals while restricting ions in the plasma flow (Ravi – [0033]).
Regarding claim 20, Lubomirsky teaches wherein each of the process gas supply holes is between two of the plasma inlet holes (Fig. 10, #682 between adjacent #683, see related embodiment in Fig. 5A detailing this configuration).
Regarding claim 21, Lubomirsky does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Ravi teaches wherein a diameter of each of the plasma inlet holes is within a range of 15 mm to 50 mm (Ravi – [0034]: ~12 mils to ~25 mils or larger).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the hole diameters of Lubomirsky to the range disclosed by Ravi since courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.sd 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 23, Lubomirsky teaches wherein: the shower head includes a central region vertically overlapping the lower electrode, and an edge region that surrounds the central region, the plasma inlet holes are in each of the central region and the edge region, and the process gas supply holes are only in the central region among the central region and the edge region (Fig. 10, #682 are present in any reasonable “edge region”, and #683 are present in only a “central region” such that an empty “edge region” exists).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky in view of Ravi (US Pub. 2021/0032753), as applied to claims 19-21 and 23 above, further in view of Kim (US Pub. 2009/0183833).
Regarding claim 22, modified Lubomirsky does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Kim teaches a plasma adjuster ([0032] and Fig. 1, plate #131) connected to an upper surface of the shower head (Fig. 1, each and every element is part of a rigidly constructed apparatus, thus can reasonably be considered as “connected to” each other part of the apparatus); and plasma adjusting holes in the plasma adjuster ([0033] and Fig. 2, holes #132), at least some of the plasma adjusting holes overlapping the plasma inlet holes in the vertical direction ([0034] and Fig. 4), respectively, wherein the plasma adjuster is moveable to adjust an overlap between the plasma adjusting holes and the plasma inlet holes to adjust sizes of the plasma inlet holes exposed to the upper region ([0034]: via driving unit #142).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Lubomirsky apparatus to comprise the plasma adjuster of Kim in order to selectively distribute plasma to the process chamber and reduce damage due to ion charge (Kim - [0034], [0042]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jung (US Pub. 2021/0151300) teaches a similar apparatus (Fig. 5). An (US Pub. 2021/0098232) teaches an apparatus with two-zone gas supply (Fig. 1). An (US Pub. 2020/0071822) teaches a two-plate distribution system (Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718