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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) that are not recited below and therefore the unrecited previously presented rejections are withdrawn.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 1-20 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 1, 8, and 15, the limitation “a top surface of the focus ring substantially co-planar with a top surface of the substrate” is not sufficiently supported by the original specification. Upon review of the specification, paragraph 0026 and Fig. 4a show that element 406a-c may positioned on a top surface of the focus ring and substantially co-planar with the wafer surface. The specification also describes in paragraph 0070 that the endpoint of the fiber optic cable 408a-c is positioned to be at the surface of the focus ring. Therefore, the specification has provided support for the endpoint being positioned at a top surface of the focus ring but not that the focus ring is substantially coplanar with the top surface of the substrate because element 406a-c is not the “endpoint” but an optical assembly attached to the endpoint. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claims to recite that the endpoint is positioned at a top surface of the focus ring and an optical assembly coupled to the endpoint is substantially coplanar with a top surface of the substrate.
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 8-14 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 claim 8, the limitation “the top surface of the substrate” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because there is no previous recitation of a top surface of the substrate (the claim only recites a top surface of the substrate holder and a top surface of the focus ring but not of the substrate) and therefore it is unclear what surface is being referred to. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “a top surface of the substrate”.
In claim 13, the limitation “the endpoint is arranged at the bevel feature” is indefinite because claim 8 describes the fiber optic cable and the endpoint as passing through a cavity in the focus ring and not the shadow ring and therefore it is unclear whether claim 13 requires the endpoint to be within the shadow ring or the focus ring or if the claim is intended to require a second endpoint and fiber optic cable passing through the shadow ring.
Claims 9-14 are indefinite by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim.
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) 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20230112818 A) in view of Himori (US 20170110296 A1).
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.
Lee teaches the wiring/optical fibers travel vertically from the bottom of the substrate holder to the top of the substrate holder (Fig. 24), thus implicitly indicating a vertically arranged cavity through which the wiring/optical fiber passes through (see MPEP 2125(I)). Alternatively, Lee fails to explicitly teach the focus ring includes a cavity arranged in a vertical direction. However, 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 a vertically arranged cavity/hole/passage in the focus ring in order to allow the vertically traveling wire/optical fiber to be fed through the focus ring while still facing the sensor toward the plasma region. Alternatively, or in addition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the shape of the passage/cavity to be vertically arranged because the shape of the passage/cavity is merely a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular cavity shape/arrangement is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Lee fails to explicitly teach the top surface of the focus ring is substantially co-planar with a top surface of the substrate. However, Himori (US 20170110296 A1), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches a substrate processing apparatus 10 may include an annular focus ring 27 surrounding the wafer W (substrate), where the top surface of the annular focus ring is substantially coplanar with the top surface of the substrate, and a shield ring 28 (shadow ring) horizontally surrounding the focus ring (para 0027, 0035-0036; Fig. 1). 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 Himori, including an edge/focus ring having a top surface co-planar with the top surface of the substrate and a shield/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).
The combination of Lee and Himori teaches the light emission detection sensor 200 (endpoint) may be embedded in the edge/focus ring 21 (Lee para 0133, 0136; Fig. 24) but fails to explicitly teach the endpoint of the fiber optic cable is positioned at a top surface of the focus ring co-planar with the top surface of the substrate. However, Lee teaches the built in sensor 100 and light emission detection sensor 200 (endpoint) may be buried at a predetermined depth in the substrate support or edge ring (focus ring) such that the value of the cutoff frequency measured according to the depth of the burial does not change, wherein the depth may be 1.5 mm or less (para 0033, 0116, 0130). 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 bury the light emission detection sensor (endpoint) within the focus ring at a depth of about 1.5 mm or less to prevent inaccuracy of measurement, which results in the light emission detection sensor being in contact with (i.e., “at”) the top surface of the focus ring, which is substantially coplanar with the top surface of the substrate.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lee and Himori teaches the light emission detection sensor is embedded in the edge/focus 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.
Claim(s) 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20230112818 A) in view of Himori (US 20170110296 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morvay (US 20180252650 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lee and Himori 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 (Lee 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, the combination of Lee and Himori 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, the combination of Lee and Himori 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, the combination of Lee and Himori 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 (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) in view of Himori (US 20170110296 A1), 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, the combination of Lee and Himori teaches the ring assembly includes a shield/shadow ring 28 horizontally surrounding the focus ring 27 (Himori para 0027, 0035-0036; Fig. 1) but fails to explicitly teach 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, 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 Himori (US 20170110296 A1), Morvay (US 20180252650 A1), and Ludviksson (US 20040125360 A1), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20080194113 A1) and Song (KR 20210110022 A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lee, Himori, Morvay, and Ludviksson fails to explicitly teach the shadow ring has a bevel feature, 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, Kim (US 20080194113 A1), in the analogous art of plasma processing chambers, teaches a quartz (shadow) ring 24 surrounding an edge ring and having a sloped/bevel feature (para 0046; Fig. 3). 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 shield/shadow ring shape of Himori with the quartz/shadow ring of Kim because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, 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 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20230112818 A) in view of Himori (US 20170110296 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 and a shadow ring horizontally surrounding the focus ring. However, Himori (US 20170110296 A1), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches a substrate processing apparatus 10 may include an annular focus ring 27 surrounding the wafer W (substrate), where the top surface of the annular focus ring is substantially coplanar with the top surface of the substrate, and a shield ring 28 (shadow ring) horizontally surrounding the focus ring (para 0027, 0035-0036; Fig. 1). 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 Himori, including an edge/focus ring having a top surface co-planar with the top surface of the substrate and a shield/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).
The combination of Lee and Himori teaches the light emission detection sensor 200 (endpoint) may be embedded in the edge/focus ring 21 (Lee para 0133, 0136; Fig. 24) but fails to explicitly teach the endpoint of the fiber optic cable is positioned at a top surface of the focus ring co-planar with the top surface of the substrate. However, Lee teaches the built in sensor 100 and light emission detection sensor 200 (endpoint) may be buried at a predetermined depth in the substrate support or edge ring (focus ring) such that the value of the cutoff frequency measured according to the depth of the burial does not change, wherein the depth may be 1.5 mm or less (para 0033, 0116, 0130). 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 bury the light emission detection sensor (endpoint) within the focus ring at a depth of about 1.5 mm or less to prevent inaccuracy of measurement, which results in the light emission detection sensor being in contact with (i.e., “at”) the top surface of the focus ring, which is substantially coplanar with the top surface of the substrate.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lee and Himori 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), thus implicitly indicating a vertically arranged cavity through which the wiring/optical fiber passes through (see MPEP 2125(I)). Alternatively, Lee fails to explicitly teach the focus ring includes a cavity arranged in a vertical direction. However, 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 a vertically arranged cavity/hole/passage in the focus ring in order to allow the vertically traveling wire/optical fiber to be fed through the focus ring while still facing the sensor toward the plasma region. Alternatively, or in addition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the shape of the passage/cavity to be vertically arranged because the shape of the passage/cavity is merely a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular cavity shape/arrangement is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20230112818 A) in view of Himori (US 20170110296 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Morvay (US 20180252650 A1), and Ludviksson (US 20040125360 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lee and Himori 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).
The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the shadow ring includes a plurality of cavities wherein a respective fiber optic cable is fed through each of the cavities, 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). 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 (shadow) rings (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 shield/shadow ring of Lee in view of Himori 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, a plurality of optical emission detectors located in the shadow ring would be connected to optical fibers passing through cavities in the shadow ring 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 fibers in the focus ring (Lee para 0057, 0150; Fig. 24). Alternatively, or in addition, the mere duplication of optical detectors, and associated cavities within the focus ring and shadow ring, has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20230112818 A) in view of Himori (US 20170110296 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Morvay (US 20180252650 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the previous combination of Lee and Himori 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 11, the combination of Lee and Himori teaches the light emission detection sensor is embedded in the edge/focus 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 (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 12, the combination of Lee and Himori 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 (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) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20230112818 A) in view of Himori (US 20170110296 A1)), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20080194113 A1), Morvay (US 20180252650 A1), Ludviksson (US 20040125360 A1), and Song (KR 20210110022 A).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lee and Himori fails to explicitly teach the shadow ring has a bevel feature and the endpoint is arranged at the bevel feature such that the fiber optic cable collects the light emitted by the plasma at different angles with respect to the top surface of the substrate holder. However, Kim (US 20080194113 A1), in the analogous art of plasma processing chambers, teaches a quartz (shadow) ring 24 surrounding an edge ring and having a sloped/bevel feature (para 0046; Fig. 3). 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 shield/shadow ring shape of Himori with the quartz/shadow ring of Kim because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, Morvay (US 20180252650 A1), in the analogous art of plasma optical emission detection, 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, 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 shield/shadow ring of Lee in view of Himori 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 (Lee para 0057, 0150; Fig. 24).
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) 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20230112818 A) in view of Himori (US 20170110296 A1), Morvay (US 20180252650 A1), and Ludviksson (US 20040125360 A1).
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, 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 a species density as well as atomic or ionic composition. Himori (US 20170110296 A1), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches a substrate processing apparatus 10 may include an annular focus ring 27 surrounding the wafer W (substrate), where the top surface of the annular focus ring is substantially coplanar with the top surface of the substrate, and a shield ring 28 (shadow ring) horizontally surrounding the focus ring (para 0027, 0035-0036; Fig. 1). 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 Himori, including an edge/focus ring having a top surface co-planar with the top surface of the substrate and a shield/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).
The combination of Lee and Himori teaches the light emission detection sensor 200 (endpoint) may be embedded in the edge/focus ring 21 (Lee para 0133, 0136; Fig. 24) but fails to explicitly teach the endpoint of the fiber optic cable is positioned at a top surface of the focus ring co-planar with the top surface of the substrate. However, Lee teaches the built in sensor 100 and light emission detection sensor 200 (endpoint) may be buried at a predetermined depth in the substrate support or edge ring (focus ring) such that the value of the cutoff frequency measured according to the depth of the burial does not change, wherein the depth may be 1.5 mm or less (para 0033, 0116, 0130). 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 bury the light emission detection sensor (endpoint) within the focus ring at a depth of about 1.5 mm or less to prevent inaccuracy of measurement, which results in the light emission detection sensor being in contact with (i.e., “at”) the top surface of the focus ring, which is substantially coplanar with the top surface of the substrate.
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 shield/shadow ring of Lee in view of Himori 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 (Lee para 0057, 0150; Fig. 24).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lee, Himori, 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. Alternatively, or in addition, 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, Himori, 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/shield ring of Lee in view of Himori 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, Himori, 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, Himori, 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, Himori, 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)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11-12, filed 5/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Himori (US 20170110296 A1).
Himori is recited to reach a focus ring substantially coplanar with a top surface of a substrate.
Applicant’s arguments regarding “envisaging” are rendered moot as there is no longer a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Applicant argues that the specification supports the vertical cavity limitation by reciting “the focus ring includes a cavity arranged in a vertical direction from the bottom surface of the substrate holder to the top surface of the substrate holder” and the “at least partially vertical” claim construction is unreasonably broad. This argument is not persuasive because though the recitation in the specification is identical to the claim limitation, the question is not about the support of the limitation but the scope of the claimed limitation. The examiner maintains that the claimed limitation merely requires that the cavity travels in the vertical direction defined by the direction from the bottom surface of the substrate holder to the top surface of the substrate holder especially because the cavity is described as being in the focus ring, which is not part of the substrate holder and the top surface of the substrate holder is holding the substrate, thus indicating that the cavity does not actually pass through the bottom and top surface of the substrate holder. The examiner concedes that the limitation requires the cavity to be arranged vertically as opposed to “partially vertically” or diagonally; however, Lee also teaches the wire/optical fiber and its associated cavity arranged in a vertical direction.
Applicant argues that Lee does not disclose the fiber optic cable having an endpoint positioned at a top surface of the focus ring substantially coplanar with a top surface of the substrate. This argument is not persuasive because Himori is recited to teach a top surface of the focus ring substantially coplanar with the top surface of the substrate and Lee teaches the sensor/endpoint may be embedded within the focus ring, which indicates that the top surface of the sensor/endpoint is in contact with, or “at”, a top surface that may be defined as the surface portion above the sensor. Alternatively, the “top surface” of the sensor may be defined as the portion of the focus ring directly in contact with the sensor/endpoint and this top surface is also “substantially” coplanar with the top surface of the substrate due to the small depth recited by Lee.
Applicant argues that there is no prior art basis from which a skilled artisan would be motivated to select from among the many possible cavity geometries and sensor placements, the specific combination of a vertical cavity running from the bottom surface to the top surface of the substrate holder with a fiber optic endpoint co-planar to the substrate surface. This argument is not persuasive because Lee illustrates a wire and sensor passing vertically into an edge/focus ring and therefore one skilled in the art would find it obvious to include a vertical cavity/passage for delivering the wire to the sensor in the cavity. Alternatively, the geometry/shape of the cavity would be an obvious matter of design choice absent any evidence that the particular shape is critical. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
It should be noted that the currently recited prior art rejections may be overcome by amending the claims to further define the optical assembly coupled to the endpoint (406a-c in Fig. 4A as recited in claims 5, 12 and 20) is disposed atop or on the focus ring and the optical assembly is substantially coplanar with a top surface of the substrate.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights