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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) that are not recited below and therefore the unrecited previously presented rejections are withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 8 and 15, the limitation “endpoint positioned at a top surface of the focus ring substantially co-planar with the top surface of the substrate holder” is not sufficiently supported by the original specification. Paragraph 0026 and Fig. 4A of the specification show that the endpoint 406a may be positioned at a top surface of the focus ring 120 and almost/substantially co-planar with the “wafer surface” 110 not the “top surface of the substrate holder” 108 as currently recited. Additionally, claim 8 also lacks written description support for the limitation “a fiber optic cable fed through the cavity, the fiber optic cable having an endpoint positioned at a top surface of the focus ring” in combination with the claim reciting that the cavity is in the shadow ring because there is no disclosure of a fiber optic cable fed through a cavity in the shadow ring while also having an endpoint positioned at a top surface of the focus ring. Therefore, claims 8 and 15 lack written description support and are rejected for containing new matter.
Claims 9-14 and 16-20 depend on claims 8 and 15 and thus are rejected by virtue of depending on a claim containing new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 1 and 6, the limitation “its species density as well as atomic or ionic composition” lacks antecedent basis because there is no previous recitation of a plasma species density or composition and therefore it is unclear what species density or atomic/ionic composition is being referred to (e.g., a species density of an entire plasma or species density in a particular portion of the plasma). This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “a species density as well as atomic or ionic composition”.
In claim 8, the limitation “a fiber optic cable fed through the cavity, the fiber optic cable having an endpoint positioned at a top surface of the focus ring substantially co-planar with the top surface of the substrate holder” is indefinite because claim 8 describes the “cavity” as included in the shadow ring surrounding the focus ring and not the focus ring itself and therefore it is unclear whether the fiber optic cable endpoint is required to be positioned at a top surface of the focus ring or at the shadow ring. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted to require at least either a fiber optic cable fed through a cavity in a focus ring having a top surface co-planar with the top surface of the substrate holder or a fiber optic cable fed through a cavity in the shadow ring and positioned at/aligned with the top surface of the focus ring.
In claim 15, the limitation “the top surface of the substrate holder” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because there is no previous recitation of a substrate holder or a top surface of the substrate holder and therefore it is unclear what substrate holder and surface are being referred to. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “a top surface of a substrate holder” or by reciting a substrate holder and top surface earlier in the claim (as in claim 8).
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-14, and 16-20 are indefinite by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 20230112818 A).
Regarding claim 1, Lee (KR 20230112818 A) teaches a vacuum chamber 10 (plasma chamber) of a plasma process system containing a substrate support 20 (substrate holder) with a top surface configured to hold a substrate 30 and a bottom surface and an edge ring 21 (ring assembly comprising a focus ring) horizontally surrounding the substrate, wherein the focus ring may contain sensors embedded within and connected by wires passing vertically from the bottom surface of the substrate holder to the top surface of the substrate holder through a hole/cavity in the focus ring, wherein the sensor embedded in the focus ring may be a light emission detection sensor 200 connected to a light emission spectrometer 210 through an optical fiber 220 (fiber optic cable) fed into the cavity, the optical fiber having the light emission detection sensor 200 at the endpoint of the fiber configured to collect and analyze light emitted from the plasma to determine the type of particles contained in the plasma, their energy intensity, and the relative amounts of particle components (species density and atomic or ionic composition) (para 0049-0050, 0055, 0057, 0062, 0130, 0133, 0136, 0149-0150; Fig. 22, 24). Alternatively, Lee teaches an optical emission spectrometer for analyzing particle components in the plasma (para 0050) and the instant specification uses an optical emission spectroscopy sensor (see specification para 0018) and therefore the optical emission spectrometer would necessarily be at least capable of determining a plasma species density and atomic or ionic composition.
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the light emission detection sensor is embedded in the edge/focus ring (para 0130, 0133; Fig. 24) and therefore is necessarily capable of (configured to) collecting light emitted at an edge of the substrate during plasma processing.
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(s) 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20230112818 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morvay (US 20180252650 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the focus ring includes a plurality of cavities arranged in the vertical direction, wherein wires/cables are fed through each cavity and each cable has an associated endpoint sensor (100, 200, 300) configured to measure the state of the plasma (para 0084; Fig. 22, 24).
Lee fails to explicitly teach a respective fiber optic cable fed through each cavity and each fiber optic cable having an associated endpoint configured to collect light emitted by the plasma. However, Morvay (US 20180252650 A1), in the analogous art of plasma optical emission detection, teaches multiple mutually parallel OES optical detectors (430, 440, 450) used to determine the chemical species in the plasma in different portions/locations in the plasma, which can be used to more accurately determine a plasma processing endpoint (para 0006, 0015-0017, 0019, 0045, 0058-0061, 0064, 0074; Fig. 4). Lee teaches a light emission detection sensor and spectrometer to provide an endpoint detection function that detects the endpoint of a plasma process (para 0057, 0150) and that a plurality of sensors may be included in the focus ring and the optical detectors may be embedded in the focus ring (para 0130, 0136). Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include multiple optical emission detection sensors, each having an associated optical fiber and cavity, embedded around the focus ring of Lee to increase the amount of locations in the plasma that can be analyzed and improve accuracy of the plasma analysis. Additionally, the mere duplication of optical detectors, and associated cavities, has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 3, Lee fails to explicitly teach the light emitted is in a visible range, a near-infrared range, or the visible range and the near-infrared range. However, Morvay (US 20180252650 A1), in the analogous art of plasma optical emission detection, teaches optical emission spectroscopy acquires optical emission spectra (light), wherein the spectra/light may be visible light or non-visible light, such as infrared, which contains near-infrared light (para 0005-0006, 0022, 0095). Because Morvay teaches that such light collection sources were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the optical emission sensors of Lee to collect visible and/or near-infrared light with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 4, Lee fails to explicitly teach the endpoint is configured to collect light emitted at a surface or an edge of the substrate during plasma processing. However, Morvay (US 20180252650 A1), in the analogous art of plasma optical emission detection, teaches optical emission spectroscopy acquires optical emission spectra (light) immediately above the surface of the substrate during plasma processing, wherein the angle of the optical detector can be controlled/set (para 0005-0006, 0015, 0018-0019, 0022-0023, 0031-0032). Because Morvay teaches that such light collection methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the optical emission sensors of Lee to collect light emitted at a surface of the substrate during plasma processing with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches a light emission sensor 200 (optical assembly) coupled to the endpoint of the fiber optic cable 220 (para 0057; Fig. 24) but fails to explicitly teach the optical assembly is configured to provide an image focal plane defining a volume of light to be collected. However, Morvay (US 20180252650 A1), in the analogous art of plasma optical emission detection, teaches optical emission spectroscopy using an optical detector (light emission sensor) that has optics configured to collect optical emissions from a volume/ray of space within the plasma (configured to provide an image focal plane defining a volume of light to be collected) (para 0023, 0037, 0044). Because Morvay teaches that such light collection methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the optical emission sensors of Lee to collect light in a volume/ray (configured to provide an image focal plane defining a volume of light) within the plasma with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20230112818 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20080194113 A1), Morvay (US 20180252650 A1), and Ludviksson (US 20040125360 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Lee fails to explicitly teach the ring assembly further comprises a shadow ring horizontally surrounding the focus ring, the shadow ring having a second cavity arranged in the vertical direction, and wherein the plasma chamber further comprises a second fiber optic cable fed through the second cavity, the second fiber optic cable having a second endpoint configured to collect light emitted by the plasma to determine its species density as well as atomic or ionic composition. However, Kim (US 20080194113 A1), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches a plasma etching chamber may include a ring assembly as part of an electrostatic chuck surrounding the wafer W that comprises an edge ring 22 (focus ring) directly surrounding the wafer and a quartz ring 24 (shadow ring) surrounding the edge ring (para 0031, 0046, 0049-0050; Fig. 3). Lee similarly teaches an edge ring 21 surrounding a substrate 30 as part of an electrostatic chuck/substrate support (para 0055; Fig. 24). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the ring assembly arrangement of Lee, including an edge/focus ring, with the ring assembly arrangement of Kim, including an edge/focus ring and a quartz/shadow ring because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of protecting the substrate support from plasma and/or guiding the plasma toward the substrate. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, Morvay (US 20180252650 A1), in the analogous art of plasma optical emission detection, teaches multiple mutually parallel OES optical detectors (430, 440, 450) used to determine the chemical species in the plasma in different portions/locations in the plasma, which can be used to more accurately determine a plasma processing endpoint (para 0006, 0015-0017, 0019, 0045, 0058-0061, 0064, 0074; Fig. 4). Additionally, Ludviksson (US 20040125360 A1), in the analogous art of process monitoring, teaches a plurality of emitters 28, which are monitoring structures, may be embedded in various ring structures (60, 61, 62), including focus rings, insulator rings, or shield rings that may be made of quartz or other materials (para 0052, 0059; Fig. 1, 2A). Lee teaches a light emission detection sensor and spectrometer to provide an endpoint detection function that detects the endpoint of a plasma process (para 0057, 0150) and that a plurality of sensors may be included in the focus ring and the optical detectors may be embedded in the focus ring (para 0130, 0136). Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include multiple optical emission detection sensors embedded in both the edge/focus ring and quartz/shadow ring of Lee in view of Kim in order to increase the amount of locations in the plasma that can be analyzed and improve accuracy of the plasma analysis. As a result, an optical emission detector located in the shadow ring would be connected to an optical fiber (second fiber optic cable) passing through a (second) cavity in the shadow ring arranged in a vertical direction and having a second endpoint configured to collect light emitted by the plasma to determine its species density and atomic/ionic composition, as with the first optical fiber (para 0057, 0150; Fig. 24).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20230112818 A) in view of Kim (US 20080194113 A1), Morvay (US 20180252650 A1), and Ludviksson (US 20040125360 A1), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Song (KR 20210110022 A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lee, Kim, Morvay, and Ludviksson teaches the quartz (shadow) ring 24 has a sloped/bevel feature (Kim Fig. 3) but fails to explicitly teach the second endpoint of the second fiber optic cable is arranged at the bevel feature such that the second fiber optic cable collects the light emitted by the plasma at different angles with respect to the top surface of the substrate holder. However, Morvay teaches the line of sight of the optical detectors may be at various angles with respect to each other and that the optical detectors may be arranged such that their rays/volumes encompass the largest amount of spatial information that can be acquired from the plasma (para 0039-0040, 0053). Additionally, Song (KR 20210110022 A), in the analogous art optical emission spectroscopy, teaches a plasma receiving unit for receiving light from the plasma to be sent to an optical emission spectrometer, wherein the plasma receiving unit is at the end of an optical fiber inserted into a through hole (cavity), and wherein the angle of the plasma receiving unit may be selected to be inclined with respect to the substrate (para 0036, 0039-0040; Fig. 4a-4b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange at least one optical detector to be angled toward the plasma through the slope/bevel of the shadow ring in order to maximize the amount of the plasma that can be detected. Alternatively, or in addition, shifting the position of an optical detector within the shadow ring to the bevel portion of the shadow ring would not have modified the operation of the device and thus is an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claim(s) 8-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20230112818 A) in view of Kim (US 20080194113 A1), Morvay (US 20180252650 A1), and Ludviksson (US 20040125360 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Lee (KR 20230112818 A) teaches a vacuum chamber 10 (plasma chamber) of a plasma process system containing a substrate support 20 (substrate holder) with a top surface configured to hold a substrate 30 and a bottom surface and an edge ring 21 (ring assembly comprising a focus ring) horizontally surrounding the substrate, wherein the focus ring may contain sensors embedded at a top surface of the focus ring and connected by wires passing vertically from the bottom surface of the substrate holder to the top surface of the substrate holder through a hole/cavity in the focus ring, wherein the sensor embedded in the focus ring may be a light emission detection sensor 200 connected to a light emission spectrometer 210 through an optical fiber 220 (fiber optic cable) fed into the cavity, the optical fiber having the light emission detection sensor 200 at the endpoint of the fiber configured to collect and analyze light emitted from the plasma to determine the type of particles contained in the plasma, their energy intensity, and the relative amounts of particle components (species density and atomic or ionic composition) (para 0049-0050, 0055, 0057, 0062, 0130, 0133, 0136, 0149-0150; Fig. 22, 24). Alternatively, Lee teaches an optical emission spectrometer for analyzing particle components in the plasma (para 0050) and the instant specification uses an optical emission spectroscopy sensor (see specification para 0018) and therefore the optical emission spectrometer would necessarily be at least capable of determining a plasma species density and atomic or ionic composition.
Lee fails to explicitly teach the top surface of the focus ring is substantially co-planar with the top surface of the substrate holder, a shadow ring horizontally surrounding the focus ring, wherein the shadow ring includes a cavity and fiber optic cable fed through the cavity, the fiber optic cable having an endpoint configured to collect light emitted by plasma to determine its species density as well as atomic or ionic composition. However, Kim (US 20080194113 A1), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches a plasma etching chamber may include a ring assembly as part of an electrostatic chuck surrounding the wafer W that comprises an edge ring 22 (focus ring) directly surrounding the wafer and having a top surface coplanar with the top surface of the chuck 20 (substrate holder) and a quartz ring 24 (shadow ring) surrounding the edge ring (para 0031, 0046, 0049-0050; Fig. 3). Lee similarly teaches an edge ring 21 surrounding a substrate 30 as part of an electrostatic chuck/substrate support (para 0055; Fig. 24). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the ring assembly arrangement of Lee, including an edge/focus ring, with the ring assembly arrangement of Kim, including an edge/focus ring having a top surface co-planar with the top surface of the substrate holder and a quartz/shadow ring because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of protecting the substrate support from plasma and/or guiding the plasma toward the substrate. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, Morvay (US 20180252650 A1), in the analogous art of plasma optical emission detection, teaches multiple mutually parallel OES optical detectors (430, 440, 450) used to determine the chemical species in the plasma in different portions/locations in the plasma, which can be used to more accurately determine a plasma processing endpoint (para 0006, 0015-0017, 0019, 0045, 0058-0061, 0064, 0074; Fig. 4). Additionally, Ludviksson (US 20040125360 A1), in the analogous art of process monitoring, teaches a plurality of emitters 28, which are monitoring structures, may be embedded in various ring structures (60, 61, 62), including focus rings, insulator rings, or shield rings that may be made of quartz or other materials (para 0052, 0059; Fig. 1, 2A). Lee teaches a light emission detection sensor and spectrometer to provide an endpoint detection function that detects the endpoint of a plasma process (para 0057, 0150) and that a plurality of sensors may be included in the focus ring and the optical detectors may be embedded in the focus ring (para 0130, 0136). Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include optical emission detection sensors embedded in both the edge/focus ring and quartz/shadow ring of Lee in view of Kim in order to increase the amount of locations in the plasma that can be analyzed and improve accuracy of the plasma analysis. As a result, an optical emission detector located in the shadow ring would be connected to an optical fiber passing through a cavity in the shadow ring arranged in a vertical direction and having an endpoint configured to collect light emitted by the plasma to determine its species density and atomic/ionic composition, as with the optical fiber in the focus ring (para 0057, 0150; Fig. 24).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lee, Kim, Morvay, and Ludviksson teaches the edge/focus ring includes a plurality of cavities arranged in the vertical direction, wherein wires/cables are fed through each cavity and each cable has an associated endpoint sensor (100, 200, 300) configured to measure the state of the plasma (Lee para 0084; Fig. 22, 24). Additionally, Morvay teaches multiple mutually parallel OES optical detectors (430, 440, 450) used to determine the chemical species in the plasma in different portions/locations in the plasma, which can be used to more accurately determine a plasma processing endpoint (para 0006, 0015-0017, 0019, 0045, 0058-0061, 0064, 0074; Fig. 4). Furthermore, Ludviksson teaches a plurality of emitters 28, which are monitoring structures, may be embedded in various ring structures (60, 61, 62), including focus rings, insulator rings, or shield rings that may be made of quartz or other materials (para 0052, 0059; Fig. 1, 2A). Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include multiple optical emission detection sensors, each having a respective optical fiber and cavity, embedded around the focus/edge ring and shadow/quartz ring of Lee in view of Kim to increase the amount of locations in the plasma that can be analyzed and improve accuracy of the plasma analysis. Additionally, the mere duplication of optical detectors, and associated cavities, has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 10, the previous combination of Lee, Kim, Morvay, and Ludviksson fails to explicitly teach the light emitted is in a visible range, a near-infrared range, or the visible range and the near-infrared range. However, Morvay teaches optical emission spectroscopy acquires optical emission spectra (light), wherein the spectra/light may be visible light or non-visible light, such as infrared, which contains near-infrared light (para 0005-0006, 0022, 0095). Because Morvay teaches that such light collection sources were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the optical emission sensors of Lee to collect visible and/or near-infrared light with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lee, Kim, Morvay, and Ludviksson teaches the light emission detection sensor is embedded in the shadow/quartz ring (Lee para 0130, 0133, Fig. 24; Kim Fig. 3) and therefore is necessarily capable of (configured to) collecting light emitted at an edge of the substrate during plasma processing. Alternatively, Morvay teaches optical emission spectroscopy acquires optical emission spectra (light) immediately above the surface of the substrate during plasma processing, wherein the angle of the optical detector can be controlled/set (para 0005-0006, 0015, 0018-0019, 0022-0023, 0031-0032). Because Morvay teaches that such light collection methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the optical emission sensors of Lee to collect light emitted at a surface of the substrate during plasma processing with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lee, Kim, Morvay, and Ludviksson teaches a light emission sensor 200 (optical assembly) coupled to the endpoint of the fiber optic cable 220 (Lee para 0057; Fig. 24) but fails to explicitly teach the optical assembly is configured to provide an image focal plane defining a volume of light to be collected. However, Morvay teaches optical emission spectroscopy using an optical detector (light emission sensor) that has optics configured to collect optical emissions from a volume/ray of space within the plasma (configured to provide an image focal plane defining a volume of light to be collected) (para 0023, 0037, 0044). Because Morvay teaches that such light collection methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the optical emission sensors of Lee to collect light in a volume/ray (configured to provide an image focal plane defining a volume of light) within the plasma with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lee, Kim, Morvay, and Ludviksson teaches the optical fiber 220 connected to the optical emission detector 200 (as well as other sensor connections) passes from the bottom to the top of the substrate holder (cavity is arranged vertically) (Lee Fig. 24).
Regarding claim 15, Lee (KR 20230112818 A) teaches a vacuum chamber 10 of a plasma process system containing a substrate support 20 (substrate holder) with a top surface configured to hold a substrate 30 and a bottom surface and an edge ring 21 (ring assembly comprising a focus ring) horizontally surrounding the substrate, wherein the focus ring may contain sensors embedded/positioned at a first/top surface of the focus ring and connected by wires passing vertically from the bottom surface of the substrate holder to the top surface of the substrate holder through a (first) hole/cavity in the focus ring, wherein the sensor embedded in the focus ring may be a light emission detection sensor 200 connected to a light emission spectrometer 210 through an optical fiber 220 (first fiber optic cable) fed into the cavity, the optical fiber having the light emission detection sensor 200 at the endpoint of the fiber configured to collect and analyze light emitted from the plasma, where the light analyzed necessarily is at a first volume, to determine the type of particles contained in the plasma, their energy intensity, and the relative amounts of particle components (atomic or ionic composition) (para 0049-0050, 0055, 0057, 0062, 0130, 0133, 0136, 0149-0150; Fig. 22, 24). Alternatively, Lee teaches an optical emission spectrometer for analyzing particle components in the plasma (para 0050) and the instant specification uses an optical emission spectroscopy sensor (see specification para 0018) and therefore the optical emission spectrometer would necessarily be at least capable of determining an atomic or ionic composition.
Lee fails to explicitly teach the top surface of the focus ring is substantially co-planar with the top surface of the substrate holder, a shadow ring horizontally surrounding the focus ring, wherein the shadow ring includes a second cavity and second fiber optic cable fed through the second cavity, the second fiber optic cable having an endpoint configured to collect light emitted by plasma at a second volume to determine its species density as well as atomic or ionic composition. However, Kim (US 20080194113 A1), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches a plasma etching chamber may include a ring assembly as part of an electrostatic chuck surrounding the wafer W that comprises an edge ring 22 (focus ring) directly surrounding the wafer and co-planar with the top surface of the chuck 20 (substrate holder) and a quartz ring 24 (shadow ring) surrounding the edge ring (para 0031, 0046, 0049-0050; Fig. 3). Lee similarly teaches an edge ring 21 surrounding a substrate 30 as part of an electrostatic chuck/substrate support (para 0055; Fig. 24). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the ring assembly arrangement of Lee, including an edge/focus ring, with the ring assembly arrangement of Kim, including an edge/focus ring having a top surface co-planar with the substrate holder/chuck top surface and a quartz/shadow ring because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of protecting the substrate support from plasma and/or guiding the plasma toward the substrate. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, Morvay (US 20180252650 A1), in the analogous art of plasma optical emission detection, teaches multiple mutually parallel OES optical detectors (430, 440, 450) used to determine the chemical species in the plasma in different portions/locations in the plasma, which can be used to more accurately determine a plasma processing endpoint (para 0006, 0015-0017, 0019, 0045, 0058-0061, 0064, 0074; Fig. 4). Additionally, Ludviksson (US 20040125360 A1), in the analogous art of process monitoring, teaches a plurality of emitters 28, which are monitoring structures, may be embedded in various ring structures (60, 61, 62), including focus rings, insulator rings, or shield rings that may be made of quartz or other materials (para 0052, 0059; Fig. 1, 2A). Lee teaches a light emission detection sensor and spectrometer to provide an endpoint detection function that detects the endpoint of a plasma process (para 0057, 0150) and that a plurality of sensors may be included in the focus ring and the optical detectors may be embedded in the focus ring (para 0130, 0136). Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include optical emission detection sensors embedded in both the edge/focus ring and quartz/shadow ring of Lee in view of Kim in order to increase the amount of locations in the plasma that can be analyzed and improve accuracy of the plasma analysis. As a result, an optical emission detector located in the shadow ring would be connected to a (second) optical fiber passing through a (second) cavity in the shadow ring arranged in a vertical direction and having an endpoint at a first surface of the shadow ring configured to collect light emitted by the plasma, where the light analyzed necessarily is at a second volume, to determine the type of particles contained in the plasma, their energy intensity, and the relative amounts of particle components (its species density and atomic/ionic composition), as with the optical fiber in the focus ring (para 0057, 0150; Fig. 24).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lee, Kim, Morvay, and Ludviksson teaches the edge/focus ring includes a plurality of cavities arranged in the vertical direction, wherein wires/cables are fed through each cavity and each cable has an associated endpoint sensor (100, 200, 300) configured to measure the state of the plasma (Lee para 0084; Fig. 22, 24). Additionally, Morvay teaches multiple mutually parallel OES optical detectors (430, 440, 450) used to determine the chemical species in the plasma in different portions/locations (volumes) in the plasma, which can be used to more accurately determine a plasma processing endpoint (para 0006, 0015-0017, 0019, 0045, 0058-0061, 0064, 0074; Fig. 4). Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include multiple optical emission detection sensors, each having a respective optical fiber passing through a respective cavity, embedded around the focus/edge ring of Lee to increase the amount of different locations (volumes) in the plasma that can be analyzed and improve accuracy of the plasma analysis. Additionally, the mere duplication of optical detectors, and associated cavities, has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lee, Kim, Morvay, and Ludviksson teaches the edge/focus ring includes a plurality of cavities arranged in the vertical direction, wherein wires/cables are fed through each cavity and each cable has an associated endpoint sensor (100, 200, 300) configured to measure the state of the plasma (Lee para 0084; Fig. 22, 24). Additionally, Morvay teaches multiple mutually parallel OES optical detectors (430, 440, 450) used to determine the chemical species in the plasma in different portions/locations (volumes) in the plasma, which can be used to more accurately determine a plasma processing endpoint (para 0006, 0015-0017, 0019, 0045, 0058-0061, 0064, 0074; Fig. 4). Furthermore, Ludviksson teaches a plurality of emitters 28, which are monitoring structures, may be embedded in various ring structures (60, 61, 62), including focus rings, insulator rings, or shield rings that may be made of quartz or other materials (para 0052, 0059; Fig. 1, 2A). Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include multiple optical emission detection sensors, each having a respective optical fiber and cavity, embedded around the focus/edge ring and shadow/quartz ring of Lee in view of Kim to increase the amount of different locations (volumes) in the plasma that can be analyzed and improve accuracy of the plasma analysis. Additionally, the mere duplication of optical detectors, and associated cavities, has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 18, the previous combination of Lee, Kim, Morvay, and Ludviksson fails to explicitly teach the light emitted is in a visible range, a near-infrared range, or the visible range and the near-infrared range. However, Morvay teaches optical emission spectroscopy acquires optical emission spectra (light), wherein the spectra/light may be visible light or non-visible light, such as infrared, which contains near-infrared light (para 0005-0006, 0022, 0095). Because Morvay teaches that such light collection sources were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the optical emission sensors of Lee to collect visible and/or near-infrared light with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Lee, Kim, Morvay, and Ludviksson teaches the light emission detection sensor at the endpoint of the first fiber optic cable is embedded in the focus/edge ring (Lee para 0130, 0133; Fig. 24) and therefore is necessarily capable of (configured to) collecting light emitted at an edge of the substrate during plasma processing. Alternatively, Morvay teaches optical emission spectroscopy acquires optical emission spectra (light) immediately above the surface of the substrate during plasma processing, wherein the angle of the optical detector can be controlled/set (para 0005-0006, 0015, 0018-0019, 0022-0023, 0031-0032). Because Morvay teaches that such light collection methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the optical emission sensors of Lee to collect light emitted at a surface of the substrate during plasma processing with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lee, Kim, Morvay, and Ludviksson teaches a light emission sensor 200 (optical assembly) coupled to the endpoint of each fiber optic cable 220 (Lee para 0057; Fig. 24) but fails to explicitly teach the optical assembly is configured to provide an image focal plane defining a volume of light to be collected. However, Morvay teaches optical emission spectroscopy using an optical detector (light emission sensor) that has optics configured to collect optical emissions from a volume/ray of space within the plasma (configured to provide an image focal plane defining a volume of light to be collected) (para 0023, 0037, 0044). Because Morvay teaches that such light collection methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the optical emission sensors of Lee to collect light in a volume/ray (configured to provide an image focal plane defining a volume of light) within the plasma with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20230112818 A) in view of Kim (US 20080194113 A1), Morvay (US 20180252650 A1), and Ludviksson (US 20040125360 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Song (KR 20210110022 A).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lee, Kim, Morvay, and Ludviksson teaches the quartz (shadow) ring 24 has a sloped/bevel feature (Kim Fig. 3) but fails to explicitly teach the endpoint of the fiber optic cable is arranged at the bevel feature such that the second fiber optic cable collects the light emitted by the plasma at different angles with respect to the top surface of the substrate holder. However, Morvay teaches the line of sight of the optical detectors may be at various angles with respect to each other and that the optical detectors may be arranged such that their rays/volumes encompass the largest amount of spatial information that can be acquired from the plasma (para 0039-0040, 0053). Additionally, Song (KR 20210110022 A), in the analogous art optical emission spectroscopy, teaches a plasma receiving unit for receiving light from the plasma to be sent to an optical emission spectrometer, wherein the plasma receiving unit is at the end of an optical fiber inserted into a through hole (cavity), and wherein the angle of the plasma receiving unit may be selected to be inclined with respect to the substrate (para 0036, 0039-0040; Fig. 4a-4b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange at least one optical detector to be angled toward the plasma through the slope/bevel of the shadow ring in order to maximize the amount of the plasma that can be detected. Alternatively, or in addition, shifting the position of an optical detector within the shadow ring to the bevel portion of the shadow ring would not have modified the operation of the device and thus is an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the applicant argues that “its” clearly refers to plasma recited earlier in the claim and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that species density and atomic or ionic composition are measurable properties of the plasma not of any other element in the claimed apparatus. This argument is not persuasive because, though it may be clear to one skilled in the art that the species density and atomic or ionic composition refer to the plasma, the plasma may contain various species densities or atomic/ionic compositions and the claim is unclear as to which species density and composition are being referred to. For example, the limitation may be interpreted to refer to a species density and atomic/ionic composition of all components in the plasma or a specific component and may be interpreted to refer to a species density and atomic/ionic composition in the entire plasma or a density and composition only in a particular region being observed. The applicant’s argument that it is clear that the species density and compositions refer to the plasma assumes that there is only one species density and atomic/ionic composition that is inherent to the plasma, which is not accurate.
Applicant argues that no figure of Lee illustrates the light emission detection sensor being embedded within the edge ring nor does Lee disclose any functional or structural features related to the light emission detection sensor when embedded within the edge ring. This argument is not persuasive because Lee shows that a light emission detection sensor 200 may be embedded through the entire surface of the substrate support where the optical fiber and sensor pass through a cavity extending vertically through the substrate support and where the temperature sensor 300 and antenna built in sensor 100 may be embedded in the substrate support in a similar way to the light emission sensor 200 (see Fig. 20, 23-24) and also describes that the light emission detection sensor may be embedded in the edge ring (see paragraph 0130) similarly to the temperature sensor 300 and antenna built in sensor 100, which follow a similar path in both the edge ring and substrate support (see Fig. 20, 23-24); therefore, one skilled in the art would understand from the disclosure of Lee that the light emission sensor 200 embedded in the edge ring would pass through/into the edge ring in a similar way as it passes through the substrate support, including a cavity that the sensor and wire/cable pass through arranged in the vertical direction and having the sensor positioned at or near the top of the focus ring. Alternatively, the description of Lee states that the light emission sensor is embedded in the edge ring and the sensor detects the plasma; therefore, the light emission sensor would inherently include a cavity that the fiber optic cable passes through to reach the sensor/endpoint, where the cavity passes at least partially in the vertical direction so the sensor faces the plasma.
Applicant argues that Lee does not expressly disclose a cavity arranged in a vertical direction from the bottom surface of the substrate holder to the top surface of the substrate holder and a vertical cavity is not necessarily present because multiple other configurations could provide optical access, such as an angled, horizontal, curved, or any other number of geometric arrangements. This argument is not persuasive because the claim limitation is met by the teachings of Lee regarding the light emission sensor and other sensors in the edge/focus ring being arranged in a vertical direction (see Fig. 23-24). Additionally, it should be noted that the claimed limitation of “a cavity arranged in a vertical direction from the bottom surface of the substrate holder to the top surface of the substrate holder” does not necessarily require that the cavity is completely straight. Rather, the claim limitation defines the vertical direction as a direction from the bottom surface of the substrate holder to the top surface of the substrate holder and the cavity is required to be arranged in the vertical direction, which may include a curved, angled, or horizontal cavity so long as the cavity extends at least partially in the vertical direction, which would necessarily result from the shape/size of the sensor 200 as well as the fact that the sensor must face outward/vertically toward the plasma. It should also be noted that the fiber optic cable 408a of the applicant’s Fig. 4A has a wavy, not strictly vertical, path and the specification is not clear that “arranged in a vertical direction” should be interpreted to mean a completely straight/vertical cavity.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 8 and 15, that Lee and the other cited references do not teach the fiber optic cable having an endpoint positioned at a top surface of the focus ring substantially co-planar with the top surface of the substrate holder, the endpoint configured to collect light emitted by plasma. This argument is not persuasive because Kim describes a focus ring with a top surface substantially co-planar with the substrate holder/chuck, which, when combined with the teaches of Lee, results in the endpoint/sensor connected to the optical fiber of Lee being positioned at/near a top surface of the focus ring as seen by the other sensors (100, 300) in the edge/focus ring of Lee (see Fig. 23-24) where the top surface is at least substantially co-planar with the top surface of the substrate holder. It should also be noted that the amendments to claims 8 and 15 introduce new matter and thus have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as described above.
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 PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794