DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 3/13/2026.
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 1-25 are pending.
Claims 9-25 are withdrawn.
Claim 1 is currently amended.
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 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voronin (US Pub. 2016/0372306) in view of Sadeghi (US Pub. 2022/0344184).
Regarding claim 1, Voronin teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1, entirety) for thinning and reducing the surface roughness of a substrate ([0003]: substrate etching), the apparatus comprising: a plasma chamber ([0017] and Fig. 1, chamber #101); a plasma generation device for sustaining a plasma within the plasma chamber ([0024] and Fig. 1, power source #160, antenna #162, and related components); a substrate support disposed within the plasma chamber for supporting the substrate ([0018] and Fig. 1, susceptor #112 for substrate W); at least one gas inlet for introducing a gas or gas mixture into the plasma chamber ([0022] and Fig. 1, gas injection openings #182 from gas supply system #180 and related components); at least one plasma controlling structure configured to control the distribution of the plasma within the plasma chamber ([0018]: focus ring on susceptor #112, not pictured); and a controller ([0027] and Fig. 1, control unit #150), wherein the controller is configured to: generate the plasma within the plasma chamber from the gas or gas mixture ([0016]).
Voronin does not teach wherein the controller is configured to: receive a measured variation in thickness of a substrate, a measured average substrate thickness, a target variation in thickness of the substrate and a target average substrate thickness; generate a generated etch routine that will provide the target variation in thickness of the substrate and a target average substrate thickness based on the measured variation in thickness and the measured average substrate thickness; and based on the generated etch routine, control at least one plasma controlling structure within the plasma chamber in accordance with the generated etch routine.
However, Sadeghi teaches the above (Sadeghi – [0193]: thickness measuring; [0187]: averaging; [0144]: adjust edge ring height).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to program the Voronin controller with the process control procedure of Sadeghi in order to optimize process results (Sadeghi – [0065]) for autonomous process optimization between process modules (Sadeghi – [0068]).
Regarding claim 2, Voronin does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Sadeghi teaches wherein the controller is configured to control at least one of a position, orientation, or configuration of the at least one plasma controlling structure in order to control the distribution of the plasma within the plasma chamber (Sadeghi – [0193]: thickness measuring; [0187]: averaging; [0144]: adjust edge ring height).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to program the Voronin controller with the process control procedure of Sadeghi in order to optimize process results (Sadeghi – [0065]) for autonomous process optimization between process modules (Sadeghi – [0068]).
Regarding claim 3, Voronin teaches wherein the at least one plasma controlling structure comprises at least one annular ring structure ([0018]: focus ring).
Regarding claim 4, Voronin does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Sadeghi teaches wherein the at least one annular ring structure is movable along an axis perpendicular to the substrate support (Sadeghi – [0144]: adjust edge ring height vertically relative to chuck).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to program the Voronin controller with the process control procedure of Sadeghi in order to optimize process results (Sadeghi – [0065]) for autonomous process optimization between process modules (Sadeghi – [0068]).
Regarding claim 5, Voronin teaches wherein the at least one annular ring structure comprises a uniformity ring ([0018]: focus ring).
Regarding claim 7, Voronin teaches wherein the substrate support comprises an electrostatic chuck (ESC) ([0018] and Fig. 1, #112 comprises electrostatic chuck #136).
Regarding claim 8, Voronin teaches wherein the plasma generation device is an inductively coupled plasma generation device ([0017]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voronin (US Pub. 2016/0372306) and Sadeghi (US Pub. 2022/0344184), as applied to claims 1-5 and 7-8 above, further in view of Nangoy (US Patent 9,117,868).
The limitations of claims 1-5 and 7-8 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 6, modified Voronin does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Nangoy teaches wherein the at least one annular ring structure comprises a wafer edge protection (WEP) structure (Nangoy – C9, L9-12 and Fig. 4B, shadow ring #470, movable vertically).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Voronin apparatus to comprise the shadow ring of Nangoy in order to provide additional protection from plasma bombardment and reduce byproduct deposition from etching processes (Nangoy – C8, L61-66).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended claim 1 to eliminate indefinite claim language, thus the §112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejection of claim 1, particularly in regards to Sadeghi, have been carefully considered and are not persuasive.
As an initial matter, the Examiner notes the disclosure of Sadeghi is extremely large- containing 269 numbered paragraphs and 28 drawing sheets.
The Examiner has attempted to cite a variety of paragraphs supporting the rejection, but notes that the reference is replete with additional information explaining the concepts set forth in the rejection. Citing each and every paragraph in support of the rejection would not be feasible, thus the Examiner will attempt to provide additional clarification and citation in this section in support of the §103 rejections.
The Examiner has not changed the grounds of rejection from those presented in the previous Office Action, and is merely citing additional portions of the Sadeghi reference to elaborate upon the rejection.
The Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA in the PECVD arts would be fully apprised of the claimed methodology based upon the totality of the reference and what it would reasonably convey.
Regarding the “first” argument (Remarks, pg. 8), Applicant alleges Sadeghi does not teach a “measured average”. The Examiner believes this to be incorrect.
As noted in the body of the rejection, Sadeghi teaches using a wide beam spot laser “to average the effect of the uneven surface and obtain stable measurements” (par. [0187]).
Applicant appears to insinuate that the claim is limited to measuring, obtaining, and comparing an average total substrate thickness (i.e., averaged over the entire surface and not merely a spot). This is not consistent with the BRI of the claim language, which the Examiner respectfully submits is reasonably met by Sadeghi’s disclosure of a “spot averaging” technique.
In addition to the above, the Examiner notes that Sadeghi does not appear to exclude the possibility of measuring the entire substrate.
In par. [0008], Sadeghi remarks “the controller is configured to measure a change in thickness of… the semiconductor substrate”.
In par. [0021], Sadeghi states “the geometric parameter includes thickness, flatness, or surface roughness of the substrate”, not thicknesses.
In par. [0067], Sadeghi describes measurement of a “thickness profile” of a substrate, which would necessarily involve at least several measurements of a substrate.
In par. [0153], Sadeghi describes 2D and 3D sensing techniques that would be capable of measuring the entire substrate.
While Sadeghi does not explicitly use the word “entire” or “total”, it is at least heavily implied that the entire substrate is measured.
Regarding the “second” and “third” arguments (Remarks, pg. 9), Applicant alleges Sadeghi does not teach generating an etch routine based upon measured/received data and controlling a plasma apparatus in accordance with this routine. The Examiner believes this to be incorrect.
Sadeghi specifically explains generating and implementing an etch routine in response to collected and received data (see at least pars. [0004],[0006],[0009],[0013],[0015],[0019]-[0025],[0029]-[0035] of the Summary section; par. [0065] details comparing actual/expected thicknesses).
For at least these reasons, the §103 rejections are maintained.
The Examiner respectfully suggests that Applicant could add additional limitations of the controller configuration expanding upon the measured thicknesses of the substrate if they feel Sadeghi does not teach their inventive concept and/or desired scope.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights