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 Group I, claims 1-14, drawn to an apparatus, and species 1a, in the reply filed on 01/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/12/2026.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 15-20 are currently withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “141” has been used to designate both “antenna power supply” and the top wall of the chamber body in Figure 1. Additionally, reference character “122” has been used to designate both “gas line” and the element connected to window 117 in Figure 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen (US 20220359217 A1), in view of Biloiu (US 20200098540 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Andersen teaches a processing apparatus (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021], semiconductor processing apparatus), comprising:
a chamber operable to contain a plasma (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021], ion source chamber 100), the chamber defined by a plurality of sidewalls, a first end wall, and a second end wall opposite the first end wall (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021], plurality of chamber walls 101 at top, left, right, and bottom sides);
an extraction assembly coupled to the second end wall (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0023], extraction plate 103 coupled to chamber side walls 101), the extraction assembly comprising an aperture positionable relative to a substrate (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0023], extraction aperture 105 located above workpiece 10), wherein ions are extracted through the aperture and delivered to the substrate at a non-zero angle relative to a perpendicular extending from the substrate (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0023]-[0024], ions exit aperture 105 at non-zero angles as beamlets 191 and 192), and wherein the substrate is positioned external to the chamber (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021]-[0025], workpiece 10 is located external to chamber 100); and
an actuator operable to dither the substrate relative to the extraction assembly as the ions are extracted through the aperture (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021]-[0025], scan motor 157 moves the platen 155 holding workpiece 10 in direction 151).
Andersen fails to teach a plurality of apertures.
However, Biloiu teaches a plurality of apertures (Biloiu, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0028], cut-out region 128 is formed into apertures 132 and 134, with beam blockers 124A and 124B, respectively, to form four angled ion beams 130).
Biloiu 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 modified the extraction plate of Andersen in the manner of Biloiu to incorporate multiple apertures and beam blockers as doing so affords the ability to increase beam current and processing throughput in a compact plasma-based ion beam system, in comparison to known 2-slit configurations (Biloiu, [0041]-[0043]).
To clarify the record, the limitations “wherein ions are extracted through the plurality of apertures and delivered to the substrate at a non-zero angle relative to a perpendicular extending from the substrate“, “dither the substrate relative to the extraction assembly as the ions are extracted through the plurality of apertures” 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 apparatus of Andersen comprises a chamber, a coil disposed around the chamber and connected to a power supply, an extraction plate disposed downstream of the plasma and above a workpiece, an aperture within the extraction plate, a blocker disposed in line with the aperture, a motor associated with the platen, a power supply connected to the platen, and a controller in communication with the gas supply, power supplies, and scanning motor (Andersen, [0029]), thereby being capable of meeting the claim limitations. Similarly, the apparatus of Biloiu comprises an extraction plate disposed downstream of the plasma and above a workpiece, a plurality of apertures within the extraction plate, and a plurality of beam blockers disposed in line with the apertures, thereby being capable of 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 2, Andersen teaches an RF coil to energize a process gas to form a plasma in the chamber (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021], RF antenna 110 ionizes a feed gas in chamber 100).
To clarify the record, the limitation “to energize a process gas to form a plasma in the chamber” 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 apparatus of Andersen comprises a chamber, a coil disposed around the chamber and connected to a power supply, a gas supply in communication with a gas source and the chamber, and a controller in communication with the gas supply and power supplies (Andersen, [0029]), thereby being 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).
Regarding claim 3, Andersen teaches wherein the second end wall has an interior side opposite an exterior side, and wherein the substrate is positioned adjacent the exterior side (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021], RF antenna 110 ionizes a feed gas in chamber 100).
Regarding claim 4, Andersen teaches wherein the extraction assembly comprises an extraction plate comprising a beam blocker (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0024], beam blocker 150), wherein ion beamlets are extracted through the aperture (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0024], beamlets 191 and 192 exit aperture 105), and wherein the aperture is defined by the beam blocker (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0024], beam blocker 150 is located above aperture 105).
Andersen fails to teach a plurality of apertures and associated plurality of beam blockers.
However, Biloiu teaches a plurality of apertures and associated plurality of beam blockers (Biloiu, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0028], cut-out region 128 is formed into apertures 132 and 134, with beam blockers 124A and 124B, respectively, to form four angled ion beams 130).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the extraction plate of Andersen in the manner of Biloiu to incorporate multiple apertures and beam blockers as doing so affords the ability to increase beam current and processing throughput in a compact plasma-based ion beam system, in comparison to known 2-slit configurations (Biloiu, [0041]-[0043]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein ion beamlets are extracted through the plurality of apertures” 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 apparatus of Andersen comprises a chamber, a coil disposed around the chamber and connected to a power supply, an extraction plate disposed downstream of the plasma and above a workpiece, an aperture within the extraction plate, a blocker disposed in line with the aperture, a power supply connected to the platen, and a controller in communication with the gas supply, and power supplies (Andersen, [0029]), thereby being capable of meeting the claim limitations. Similarly, the apparatus of Biloiu comprises an extraction plate disposed downstream of the plasma and above a workpiece, a plurality of apertures within the extraction plate, and a plurality of beam blockers disposed in line with the apertures, thereby being capable of 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 5, Andersen teaches wherein the first end wall, the second end wall, and the plurality of sidewalls are a dielectric material (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021], chamber walls 101 may be constructed of a dielectric material), and wherein the extraction plate is conductive (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0023], extraction plate 103 may be constructed of an electrically conductive material).
Regarding claim 6, Andersen teaches a power supply operable to provide a pulsed bias (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0029], workpiece bias power supply 160 output is a pulsed DC voltage), wherein a duty cycle in response to the pulsed bias varies (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0029], workpiece bias power supply 160 can vary frequency and amplitude) as the substrate is dithered relative to the extraction assembly as the ions are extracted through the aperture (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021]-[0025], scan motor 157 moves the platen 155 holding workpiece 10 in direction 151).
Andersen fails to teach a plurality of apertures.
However, Biloiu teaches a plurality of apertures (Biloiu, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0028], cut-out region 128 is formed into apertures 132 and 134, with beam blockers 124A and 124B, respectively, to form four angled ion beams 130).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the extraction plate of Andersen in the manner of Biloiu to incorporate multiple apertures and beam blockers as doing so affords the ability to increase beam current and processing throughput in a compact plasma-based ion beam system, in comparison to known 2-slit configurations (Biloiu, [0041]-[0043]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein a duty cycle in response to the pulsed bias varies as the substrate is dithered relative to the extraction assembly as the ions are extracted through the plurality of apertures“ 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 apparatus of Andersen comprises a chamber, a coil disposed around the chamber and connected to a power supply, an extraction plate disposed downstream of the plasma and above a workpiece, an aperture within the extraction plate, a blocker disposed in line with the aperture, a motor associated with the platen, a power supply connected to the platen that can pulse and vary frequency/amplitude, and a controller in communication with the gas supply, power supplies, and scanning motor (Andersen, [0029]), thereby being 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).
Regarding claim 7, Andersen teaches wherein the pulsed bias is a pulsed DC bias (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0029], workpiece bias power supply 160 output is a pulsed DC voltage).
Regarding claim 8, Andersen teaches wherein the actuator is operable to dither the substrate repeatedly between a first position and a second position (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021]-[0025], scan motor 157 moves the platen 155 holding workpiece 10 in direction 151), and wherein the power supply reduces the duty cycle (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0029], workpiece bias power supply 160 can vary frequency and amplitude) when the substrate is in the first position and the second position.
To clarify the record, the limitations “dither the substrate repeatedly between a first position and a second position, and wherein the power supply reduces the duty cycle when the substrate is in the first position and the second position“ 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 apparatus of Andersen comprises a chamber, a coil disposed around the chamber and connected to a power supply, an extraction plate disposed downstream of the plasma and above a workpiece, an aperture within the extraction plate, a blocker disposed in line with the aperture, a motor associated with the platen, a power supply connected to the platen that can pulse and vary frequency/amplitude, and a controller in communication with the gas supply, power supplies, and scanning motor (Andersen, [0029]), thereby being 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).
Regarding claim 9, Andersen teaches a plasma processing apparatus (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021], semiconductor processing apparatus), comprising:
a plasma chamber operable to contain a plasma (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021], ion source chamber 100), the plasma chamber defined by a plurality of sidewalls, a first end wall, and a second end wall opposite the first end wall (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021], plurality of chamber walls 101 at top, left, right, and bottom sides);
an extraction assembly coupled to the second end wall (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0023], extraction plate 103 coupled to chamber side walls 101), the extraction assembly comprising an extraction plate partially covering an opening through the second end wall (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0023], extraction plate 103 coupled to chamber side walls 101 and present between bottom end of chamber 101 and workpiece 10), wherein ions extracted through an aperture of the extraction plate are delivered to a substrate at a non-zero angle relative to a perpendicular extending from the substrate (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0023]-[0024], ions exit aperture 105 at non-zero angles as beamlets 191 and 192), and wherein the substrate is positioned external to the plasma chamber (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021]-[0025], workpiece 10 is located external to chamber 100); and
an actuator operable to dither the substrate relative to the extraction plate as the ions are extracted through the aperture (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021]-[0025], scan motor 157 moves the platen 155 holding workpiece 10 in direction 151).
Andersen fails to teach a plurality of apertures.
However, Biloiu teaches a plurality of apertures (Biloiu, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0028], cut-out region 128 is formed into apertures 132 and 134, with beam blockers 124A and 124B, respectively, to form four angled ion beams 130).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the extraction plate of Andersen in the manner of Biloiu to incorporate multiple apertures and beam blockers as doing so affords the ability to increase beam current and processing throughput in a compact plasma-based ion beam system, in comparison to known 2-slit configurations (Biloiu, [0041]-[0043]).
To clarify the record, the limitations “wherein ions extracted through a plurality of apertures of the extraction plate are delivered to a substrate at a non-zero angle relative to a perpendicular extending from the substrate“, “dither the substrate relative to the extraction assembly as the ions are extracted through the plurality of apertures” 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 apparatus of Andersen comprises a chamber, a coil disposed around the chamber and connected to a power supply, an extraction plate disposed downstream of the plasma and above a workpiece, an aperture within the extraction plate, a blocker disposed in line with the aperture, a motor associated with the platen, a power supply connected to the platen, and a controller in communication with the gas supply, power supplies, and scanning motor (Andersen, [0029]), thereby being capable of meeting the claim limitations. Similarly, the apparatus of Biloiu comprises an extraction plate disposed downstream of the plasma and above a workpiece, a plurality of apertures within the extraction plate, and a plurality of beam blockers disposed in line with the apertures, thereby being capable of 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 11, Andersen teaches wherein the extraction plate comprises a beam blocker (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0024], beam blocker 150), and wherein ion beamlets are extracted through the beam blocker to process one or more areas of the substrate (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0024], beamlets 191 and 192 from blocker 150 exit aperture 105 towards workpiece 10).
Andersen fails to teach a plurality of apertures and associated plurality of beam blockers.
However, Biloiu teaches a plurality of apertures and associated plurality of beam blockers (Biloiu, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0028], cut-out region 128 is formed into apertures 132 and 134, with beam blockers 124A and 124B, respectively, to form four angled ion beams 130).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the extraction plate of Andersen in the manner of Biloiu to incorporate multiple apertures and beam blockers as doing so affords the ability to increase beam current and processing throughput in a compact plasma-based ion beam system, in comparison to known 2-slit configurations (Biloiu, [0041]-[0043]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein ion beamlets are extracted through the plurality of apertures” 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 apparatus of Andersen comprises a chamber, a coil disposed around the chamber and connected to a power supply, an extraction plate disposed downstream of the plasma and above a workpiece, an aperture within the extraction plate, a blocker disposed in line with the aperture, a power supply connected to the platen, and a controller in communication with the gas supply, and power supplies (Andersen, [0029]), thereby being capable of meeting the claim limitations. Similarly, the apparatus of Biloiu comprises an extraction plate disposed downstream of the plasma and above a workpiece, a plurality of apertures within the extraction plate, and a plurality of beam blockers disposed in line with the apertures, thereby being capable of 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 12, Andersen teaches a power supply operable to provide a pulsed bias (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0029], workpiece bias power supply 160 output is a pulsed DC voltage), wherein a duty cycle in response to the pulsed bias varies (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0029], workpiece bias power supply 160 can vary frequency and amplitude) as the substrate is dithered relative to the extraction assembly as the ions are extracted through the opening (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021]-[0025], scan motor 157 moves the platen 155 holding workpiece 10 in direction 151).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein a duty cycle in response to the pulsed bias varies as the substrate is dithered relative to the extraction assembly as the ions are extracted through the opening “ 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 apparatus of Andersen comprises a chamber, a coil disposed around the chamber and connected to a power supply, an extraction plate disposed downstream of the plasma and above a workpiece, an aperture within the extraction plate, a blocker disposed in line with the aperture, a motor associated with the platen, a power supply connected to the platen that can pulse and vary frequency/amplitude, and a controller in communication with the gas supply, power supplies, and scanning motor (Andersen, [0029]), thereby being 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).
Regarding claim 13, Andersen teaches wherein the pulsed bias is a pulsed DC bias (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0029], workpiece bias power supply 160 output is a pulsed DC voltage).
Regarding claim 14, Andersen teaches wherein the actuator is operable to dither the substrate repeatedly between a first position and a second position (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021]-[0025], scan motor 157 moves the platen 155 holding workpiece 10 in direction 151), and wherein the power supply reduces the duty cycle (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0029], workpiece bias power supply 160 can vary frequency and amplitude) when the substrate is in the first position and the second position.
To clarify the record, the limitations “dither the substrate repeatedly between a first position and a second position, and wherein the power supply reduces the duty cycle when the substrate is in the first position and the second position“ 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 apparatus of Andersen comprises a chamber, a coil disposed around the chamber and connected to a power supply, an extraction plate disposed downstream of the plasma and above a workpiece, an aperture within the extraction plate, a blocker disposed in line with the aperture, a motor associated with the platen, a power supply connected to the platen that can pulse and vary frequency/amplitude, and a controller in communication with the gas supply, power supplies, and scanning motor (Andersen, [0029]), thereby being 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen (US 20220359217 A1) in view of Biloiu (US 20200098540 A1), as applied in claims 1-9 and 11-14, and further in view of Ventzek (US 20220068607 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-9 and 11-14 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, Andersen teaches an RF coil to energize a process gas to form a plasma in the plasma chamber (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021], RF antenna 110 ionizes a feed gas in chamber 100).
Andersen fails to teach wherein the RF coil is positioned adjacent the first end wall of the plasma chamber.
However, Ventzek teaches wherein the RF coil is positioned adjacent the first end wall of the plasma chamber (Ventzek, Fig. 3B, [0055], for plasma subsystem 370, RF power source can be coupled to a planar coil over a top dielectric cover of chamber 350).
Ventzek 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 substituted the RF coil configuration of Andersen wherein the coil surrounds the sidewalls of the plasma chamber with the planar coil over a top dielectric cover of the plasma chamber as taught by Ventzek as they are art recognized equivalents known for the same purpose. Andersen teaches RF antenna 110 surrounds sidewalls of chamber 100 to ionize a feed gas and produce a plasma (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021]). Ventzek similarly teaches coil 356 surrounds chamber walls 354 of chamber 350 to ionize a gas and produce a plasma (Ventzek, Fig. 3B, [0054]). Ventzek further teaches that an equivalent embodiment for plasma subsystem 370, Fig. 3B, would be a planar coil over a top dielectric cover of chamber 350 (Ventzek, [0055]). See MPEP 2144.06 (II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Omstead (US 20160005594 A1) teaches chamber with ICP coils and extraction plate with plural applicators
Biloiu (US 20130193848 A1) teaches chamber with planar coil and dielectric wall liners
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