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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on June 25, 2026 is acknowledged.
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, 8, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homma et al (US 4,717,462) in view of Actor et al (US 5,478,455).
Regarding claim 1: Homma et al teaches a metal etch tool (see col. 1 lines 56-68), comprising: a chamber 10; an electrode (cathode 11) inside the chamber; and a target material 13 inside the chamber. See Figs. 1 and 2 of Homma et al.
PNG
media_image1.png
776
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The prior art of Homma et al fails to teach wherein the electrode and the target material have a same material composition.
The prior art of Actor et al teaches a processing chamber with an electrode/target assembly 70, collimator 60, and pedestal 30. In col. 1 lines 35-45 of Actor et al it is suggested that it conventional for the cathode/target assembly where the target and cathode are disposed upon or integrated with each other that the material of construction of the cathode and target have the same material composition. The material of construction of chamber components such as the electrodes and target material are matter of optimization and design choice. It is obvious that there is a reasonable expectation of success that materials of construction of the target and cathode have the same material composition so that there is no contamination, heat loss or negative consequences due to the proximity of different materials with different physical and chemical properties. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to ensure that the electrode and target of Homma et al be constructed of the same material composition as suggested by the prior art or Actor et al.
Regarding claim 4: Homma et al teaches a pedestal 12 inside the chamber, wherein the pedestal 12 is to provide a sample surface for substrate 16.
Regarding claims 8 and 13: Homma et al teaches that the electrode 11 is not between the target material 13 and the pedestal 12.
Regarding claim 11: Homma et al teaches that a collimator 14 between the target material 13 and the pedestal 12.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homma et al (US 4,717,462) in view of Actor et al (US 5,478,455) as applied to claims 1, 4, 8, 11, and 13 above, and in further view of You et al (US 11,094,588).
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Homma et al and Actor et al were discussed above.
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Homma et al and Actor et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 2: The metal etch tool of claim 1, wherein the electrode and the target material include copper.
The prior art of You et al teaches semiconductor applications where copper is suggested as a material of construction is conventionally known. See copper is cited in col. 1 lines 39-52 as a material of construction as it has advantageous chemical and physical properties.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to ensure that the electrode and target of Homma et al be constructed of the same material composition as suggested by the prior art or Actor et al and then to use copper as a material of construction of the target and electrode as copper is a known material of construction as suggested by the prior art of You et al.
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Homma et al and Actor et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 14: The metal etch tool of claim 1, further comprising a gas source coupled to the chamber, wherein the gas source includes CH3 or C2H6.
The prior art of You et al teaches a processing chamber where a plethora of gases are listed as in col. 5 lines 29-46 where CH3 and C2H6 are listed as known hydrocarbon gases are known as suitable gases for use in semiconductor manufacturing. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide such hydrocarbon gases as CH3 and C2H6 as suggested by You et al in the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Homma et al and Actor et al.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homma et al (US 4,717,462) in view of Actor et al (US 5,478,455) as applied to claims 1, 4, 8, 11, and 13 above, and in further view of Tracy et al (US 2005/0040794).
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Homma et al and Actor et al were discussed above.
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Homma et al and Actor et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 3: The metal etch tool of claim 1, wherein the electrode and the target material include platinum.
The prior art of Tracy et al teaches a sputtering system 100 where a target material is sputtered onto a substrate. See [0024] of Tracy et al that suggests platinum as the specific target material used. The material of construction of the electrode and target are materials of design choice and optimization where the material of construction would be determined without undue routine experimentation such that the chosen material has the optimal chemical and physical properties to yield the desired product result. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to ensure that the electrode and target of Homma et al be constructed of the same material composition as suggested by the prior art or Actor et al and then to use platinum as a material of construction of the target and electrode as copper is a known material of construction as suggested by the prior art of Tracy et al.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homma et al (US 4,717,462) in view of Actor et al (US 5,478,455) as applied to claims 1, 4, 8, 11, and 13 above, and in further view of Givens et al (US 5,807,467).
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Homma et al and Actor et al were discussed above.
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Homma et al and Actor et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 5: The metal etch tool of claim 4, wherein the electrode is between the target material and the pedestal.
Regarding claim 12: The metal etch tool of claim 11, wherein the electrode is between the target material and the collimator.
The prior art of Givens et al teaches an in-situ preclean in a PVD chamber. See Figs. 2-4 of Givens et al with a target 24, collimator 28, and an electrode 40. See also that Givens et al in col. 5 line 50 where the chamber is also used in plasma etch processes. See col. 6 lines 45-53 of Givens et al where it is suggested the location of the electrode, target, collimator and pedestal are matters of design choice and optimization. Furthermore, under MPEP §2144.04 and §2144.VI, “rearrangement of parts” is generally considered an obvious design choice unless it produces a new or unexpected result, as illustrated by cases such as In re Kuhle and In re Japikse. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to rearrange the location of the electrode, target, and collimator such as that the electrode is between the target material and the collimator as the location of these chamber components are a matter of design choice and optimization as suggested by the prior art of Givens et al to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Homma et al and Actor et al.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homma et al (US 4,717,462) in view of Actor et al (US 5,478,455) and Givens et al (US 5,807,467) as applied to claims 5 and 12 above, and in further view of You et al (US 11,094,588).
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Homma et al, Actor et al, and Givens et al were discussed above.
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Homma et al, Actor et al, and Givens et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 6: The metal etch tool of claim 5, wherein the electrode has a coil shape.
Regarding claim 7: The metal etch tool of claim 5, wherein the electrode has a serpentine shape.
Recall the teachings of You et al above. You et al teaches uses magnetron coils as a substitute for electrodes as the plasma generator. See col. 10 lines 3-18 of You et al where it is suggested that the coils are serpentine shapes therein You et al suggests that various shapes of the electrode/magnetron can be used. The shape of the electrode and specific type of plasma generator are a matter of optimization and design choice. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to shape the electrode as a coil and that the coils are specifically serpentine shaped or to use coils as substitute for the electrodes as suggested by the prior art of You et al.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homma et al (US 4,717,462) in view of Actor et al (US 5,478,455) as applied to claims 1, 4, 8, 11, and 13 above, and in further view of Wu et al (US 2012/0318773).
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Homma et al and Actor et al.
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Homma et al and Actor et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 9: The metal etch tool of claim 8, wherein the electrode has a helical coil shape.
The prior art of Wu et al illustrates a plasma reactor in Fig. 2A with a collimators 262 and 264 where electromagnetic coils 221 that can have a helical coil shape. The motivation to shape the coils into a helical shape is that this shape provide an optimal design to enhance and maintain the helical motion of the reactive specifies for sufficient momentum and energy is provided to keep the reactive species spinning down to the upper surface 253 of the substrate 250. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to shape the electrode as a coil and that the coils are specifically helical coil or to use coils as substitute for the electrodes as suggested by the prior art of Wu et al.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homma et al (US 4,717,462) in view of Actor et al (US 5,478,455) as applied to claims 1, 4, 8, 11, and 13 above, and in further view of Chiang et al (US 6,758,947).
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Homma et al and Actor et al.
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Homma et al and Actor et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 10: The metal etch tool of claim 8, wherein the electrode has a band shape.
Chiang et al illustrates in Fig. 2 (provided below) with target cathode 212, coils 214, and pedestal 200. See the paragraph that joins columns 10 and 11 in the prior art of Chiang et al where plasma is generated using metal coil strip (band shaped) 214. The motivation to shape the coils into a band shape is that this shape provide an optimal design to enhance and maintain the plasma as suggested by Chiang et al. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to shape the electrode as a coil and that the coils are specifically band shaped or to use coils as substitute for the electrodes as suggested by the prior art of Chiang et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
563
705
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Chiang et al
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6,471,830 Moslehi et al teaches a cathode (electrode) 134 with target 600, collimator 103, and substrate see Fig. 1 . Fig. 4 illustrates cools 120.
JP H10204634A Matsuura Masamichi et al teaches a processing chamber with electrode 40, target 41, coil 42, and substrate 54.
Demaray et al US 5,330,628 teaches target 27, collimator 63, cathode 23, and pedestal 24 see Fig. 1.
Leiphart US 6,090,246 teaches a process chamber with a target 36, electrode 34, collimator 44, and pedestal 38.
US 5,403,459 Guo teaches a process chamber 14 with a collimator 34, target 31, electrode/cover plate 10, and pedestal 16. See Figs. 1 and 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights