DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 6/23/26 has been accepted and entered. Accordingly, claims 1 and 3 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over US 20200058536 to Yang et al. (Yang) in view of US 9404872 to Wang et al. (Wang)
With respect to claim 1, Yang discloses a reflectometry system to monitor one or more conditions associated with an electrostatic chuck (ESC) in a process chamber, the reflectometry system comprising:
(FIG. 1, ESC and corresponding description)
a light source configured to emit a beam of light directed at the ESC prior to a substrate being placed on the ESC;
(FIG. 10, irradiating an electrostatic chuck, S20a; ¶¶ 25-26)
collection configured to receive light reflected from the ESC by the beam of light directed at the ESC prior to a substrate being placed on the ESC, and output a signal related to the one or more conditions associated with the ESC; and
(170, FIG. 2A, 3A and corresponding description; ¶¶ 16, 28, claims 1-3)
a processor configured to compare the signal with an expected signal for the ESC and provide, based on a determination that the signal does not match the expected signal, an indication of the one or more conditions of the ESC.
(s20b-S20c, FIG. 10 and corresponding description)
(¶¶ 16, 28 “The optical inspection instrument 170 may transmit radiation directly onto the electrostatic chuck ESC and receive a reflection of the radiation from the electrostatic chuck ESC. Subsequently, the optical inspection instrument 170 may analyze the transmitted and reflected radiation . . . compare a detected intensity with a predetermined standard intensity with respect to the reflected radiation for checking if a difference therebetween at a location falls
within a predetermined range, such as about 0% to about 5%. When the difference at a location is greater than about 5%, it may be assumed that the location on the protrusions PT of the electrostatic chuck ESC is contaminated by the particle P since the intensity of the reflected radiation may be decreased by the particle P”; claims 1-3; FIG. 3A-3B, 8-10 and corresponding descriptions)
Yang fails to explicitly disclose collection of the received light includes collection optics. However, collection optics were extremely well known at the time of effective filing. Wang, from the same field of endeavor, discloses collection optics (col. 8, l. 55 – col. 9, l. 2; col. 23, ll. 7-12). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to include collection optics in the system of Yang in order to increase the effective received signal to noise ratio of the collected radiation, i.e., improved impingement of received radiation upon a light detection element.
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 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over US 20170287753 to Musselman et al. (Mussel) in view of US 20200058536 to Yang et al. (Yang).
With respect to claim 1, Mussel discloses a reflectometry system to monitor one or more conditions associated with an electrostatic chuck (ESC) in a process chamber, the reflectometry system comprising:
(FIG. 1 and corresponding description, i.e., ¶¶ 30-35 processing chamber 100, electrostatic chuck 122, 6 processing chamber may include reflectometer; 22, 46, 53, 61)
a light source configured to emit a beam of light directed at the ESC and collection optics1 configured to receive light reflected from the ESC by the beam of light directed at the ESC and output a signal related to the one or more conditions associated with the ESC; and
(¶¶ 6 SR, LSR . . . CCD or photodiode senses the signal reflected from the surface of the substrate, characteristics of the reflected signal are indicative of various characteristics of the substrate; 22 direct an SR signal downward at the substrate; FIG. 5A-D and corresponding description)
a processor configured to process the output signal and compare the output signal with an expected signal; and
(i.e., signal compared with maximum signal intensity or signal intensity within desired range, ¶¶ 23; 24 optimal signal refers to an SR signal having desired characteristics as predetermined or calibrated according to user specifications, substrate specifications, process specifications, chamber specifications, etc. For example, SR signal amplitudes relative to wavelength may have a known relationship (e.g., as determined via modeling, experimentation, etc.); 57-60; 63)
based on the determination that the output signal does not match the expected signal, the processor further to provide an indication of the one or more conditions of the ESC.
(¶ 53 “controller 216 may determine (and indicate to a user via an LED, graphical interface, etc.) when the SR requires realignment. The controller 216 can perform the
measurement of the alignment of the SR via the above methods periodically, when prompted by a user, etc.; 60 correlates signal intensities to positions of the SR 316 . . . optimal SR signal intensity . . . controller 216 may provide feedback (e.g., via a graphical interface, LEDs, etc.) to a user indicating which direction to rotate the thumbscrews (or other adjustment mechanisms) until the SR 316 is in a position corresponding to the optimal SR signal intensity).
Mussel fails to explicitly disclose that the beam of light directed at the ESC is prior to a substrate being placed thereon such that the expected signal is for the ESC, i.e., directly reflected from the ESC, rather than directly reflected form a substrate on the ESC.
Yang, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a beam of light directed at an ESC prior to a substrate being placed thereon such that an expected signal is for the rather than reflected form a substrate on the ESC
(¶¶ 16, 28 “The optical inspection instrument 170 may transmit radiation directly onto the electrostatic chuck ESC and receive a reflection of the radiation from the electrostatic chuck ESC. Subsequently, the optical inspection instrument 170 may analyze the transmitted and reflected radiation . . . compare a detected intensity with a predetermined standard intensity with respect to the reflected radiation for checking if a difference therebetween at a location falls
within a predetermined range, such as about 0% to about 5%. When the difference at a location is greater than about 5%, it may be assumed that the location on the protrusions PT of the electrostatic chuck ESC is contaminated by the particle P since the intensity of the reflected radiation may be decreased by the particle P”; claims 1-3; FIG. 3A-3B, 8-10 and corresponding descriptions)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to apply the light source monitoring, i.e., light intensity detection of Mussel to a light source directed at an ESC, and compared with an expected signal, as taught by Yang, as cited above, in order to improve quality control of a semiconductor production process (Yang, ¶ 16) such that production issues such as deteriorated wafer performance can be avoided (Yang, ¶ 16). In addition, for a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing, detected reflected or scattered light from a surface to investigate properties of that surface was a well known concept regardless of the surface investigated, i.e., ESC, substrate, etc. such that using applying the concepts of Mussel to an ESC, as taught by Yang would be well within a PHOSITA at the time of invention.
In addition, Yang discloses performing radiation threshold analysis with respect to an ESC and with respect to an element placed on top of the ESC in an interchangeable manner (i.e., 2A-2B / 3A-3B and corresponding descriptions respectively). Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, to pick radiation threshold analysis with respect to an ESC and incorporate it into the system of Mussel since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential to the recognized need and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 2, Mussel in view of Yang disclose the indication is at least one of an alarm and an annunciator2.
(Mussel, ¶¶ 53, 60 graphical interface for the user)
(Yang, ¶¶ 27, 62-63)
With respect to claim 3, Mussel in view of Yang disclose the annunciator is a display on a graphical user-interface (GUI) of the reflectometry system.
(Mussel, ¶¶ 53, 60 graphical interface for the user)
With respect to claim 4, Mussel in view of Yang disclose the one or more conditions includes bolts holding the ESC to a remainder of the process chamber have loosened.
(Mussel, ¶¶ 58, 59-60 correspond to deviations of respective first and second thumbscrews from
their original positions (i.e., corresponding to position of the SR 316 and the original signal intensity) . . . correlates signal intensities to positions of the SR 316 . . . optimal SR signal intensity . . . controller 216 may provide feedback (e.g., via a graphical interface, LEDs, etc.) to a user indicating which direction to rotate the thumbscrews (or other adjustment mechanisms) until the SR 316 is in a position corresponding to the optimal SR signal intensity); 29 thumbscrews, other alignment mechanisms)
With respect to claim 6, Mussel in view of Yang disclose the one or more conditions includes an indication that maintenance3 of the ESC is needed.
(
(Mussel, ¶¶ 58, 59-60 correspond to deviations of respective first and second thumbscrews from their original positions (i.e., corresponding to position of the SR 316 and the original signal intensity) . . . correlates signal intensities to positions of the SR 316 . . . optimal SR signal intensity . . . controller 216 may provide feedback (e.g., via a graphical interface, LEDs, etc.) to a user indicating which direction to rotate the thumbscrews (or other adjustment mechanisms) until the SR 316 is in a position corresponding to the optimal SR signal intensity); 29 thumbscrews, other alignment mechanisms)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170287753 to Musselman et al. (Mussel) in view of Yang and further in view of US 6813032 to HUNTER (Hunter)
With respect to claim 5, Mussel in view of Yang fail to explicitly disclose wherein the indication of the one or more conditions includes a microroughness level of an uppermost surface of the ESC has changed from an expected value of microroughness4.
Hunter, from the same field of endeavor, discloses monitoring the uppermost surface of a substrate of a processing chamber for indications of one or more conditions including an microroughness or smoothness had deviated from an expected value
(col. 2, ll. 1-32 inspecting substrate of the processing chamber, examining a substrate for selected characteristics which include particles, processing flaws, orientation, center finding, reflectivity, substrate type, discontinuity; col. 3, ll. 2-7 integrated system capable of rapidly inspecting semiconductor substrates and determining one or more conditions of the substrate in order to detect anomalies and facilitate a subsequent substrate handling decision; col. 3, ll. 29-63 optical inspection to monitor substrate surface topography . . . signal illuminates a substrate, receives reflections, to detect surface topographical effects; col. 32, ll. 52-67 monitoring substrate surface using values compared against expected values; col. 6, ll. 35-67 optical detected to detect light reflected from substrate surface; col. 12 – col. 13, l. 47; col. 18, ll. 44-64; col. 20, l. 25 – col. 21, l. 35; col. 21, ll. 26-42; col. 27, ll. 1-30)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to monitor the substrate surface of Mussel for microroughness, as taught by Hunter, in order to improve the speed, reliability and costs of substrate monitoring (Hunter, col. 2-3), warn users of defects (Hunter, col. 7), providing highly detailed inspection without reducing through time (Hunter, section VII including col. 21).
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 KENNETH J MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-4854. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 No limiting definition provided but can include an optical detector (Spec. ¶ 38)
2 No limiting definition provided for “annunciator” but can include a GUI (Spec. ¶ 75).
3 No limiting definition of “maintenance” provided but the specification states it includes issues that may need to be performed relative to the ESC and bolt position (¶ 75).
4 No limiting definition provided by can include an indication of how smooth something is (Spec. ¶ 75)
Prosecution Insights