DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Present application 18/427610 (filing 1/30/2024) is a continuation-in-part (CIP) of 17/517626 (effective filing 10/25/2020) . Independent claims 1, 8, and 17 (along with associated dependent claims) contain subject matter (see below) that is supported in 18/427610 but not in 17/517626. As such, claims 1, 8, and 17 have priority to an effective filing date of 1/30/2024.
Claim 1: “adjusting the first negative potential to the wafer to reduce an adhesion of ejected contaminants from the sputtering target onto the wafer; and adjusting the second negative potential to the sputtering target to reduce an adhesion of ejected contaminants from the wafer onto the sputtering target”.
Claim 4: “the second negative potential applied to the sputtering target is between 100 volts and 1000 volts”.
Claim 5: “the first negative potential applied to the wafer is between 100 volts and 1000 volts”.
Claim 6: “comprising adhering the ejected contaminants from the sputtering target onto a removable shield covering the walls of said sputtering chamber during the application of the second negative potential to the sputtering target; and adhering the ejected contaminants from the wafer onto the shield covering the walls of said sputtering chamber during the application of the first negative potential to the wafer” (emphasis added).
Claim 8: “applying a first negative potential to the wafer while simultaneously applying a second negative potential to the sputtering target, and while no shutter is positioned between the wafer and the sputtering target” (emphasis added).
Claim 11: “the second negative potential applied to the sputtering target is between 100 volts and 1000 volts”.
Claim 12: “the first negative potential applied to the wafer is between 100 volts and 1000 volts”.
Claim 13: “comprising adhering ejected contaminants from the sputtering target onto a removable shield covering the walls of said sputtering chamber during the application of the second negative potential to the sputtering target; and adhering ejected contaminants from the wafer onto the removable shield covering the walls of said sputtering chamber during the application of the first negative potential to the wafer” (emphasis added).
Claim 14: “adjusting the first negative potential to the wafer to reduce an adhesion of ejected contaminants from the sputtering target onto the wafer; and adjusting the second negative potential to the sputtering target to reduce an adhesion of ejected contaminants from the wafer onto the sputtering target”.
Claim 17: “applying a first negative potential to the wafer while simultaneously applying a second negative potential to the sputtering target and while a surface of the wafer is visibly exposed to a surface of the sputtering target” (emphasis added).
Claim 19: “comprising adhering ejected contaminants from the sputtering target onto a removable shield covering the walls of said sputtering chamber during the application of the second negative potential to the sputtering target; and adhering ejected contaminants from the wafer onto the removable shield covering the walls of said sputtering chamber during the application of the first negative potential to the wafer” (emphasis added).
Claim 20: “adjusting the first negative potential to the wafer to reduce an adhesion of ejected contaminants from the sputtering target onto the wafer; and adjusting the second negative potential to the sputtering target to reduce an adhesion of ejected contaminants from the wafer onto the sputtering target”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2, 6, 9, 13, and 19 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.
Claim 2 (dependent on claim 1) recites “applying a third negative potential to the sputtering target to deposit a film onto the wafer”, rendering claim 2 unclear as to whether the “applying a third negative potential […] to deposit a film onto the wafer” is during the “method for in-situ etching of a wafer” of claim 1, or is after or distinct from the ”etching” of claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “the walls”, "the application", and “the shield”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 (dependent on claim 8) recites “applying a third negative potential to the sputtering target to deposit a film onto the wafer”, rendering claim 9 unclear as to whether the “applying a third negative potential […] to deposit a film onto the wafer” is during the “method for in-situ etching of a wafer” of claim 8, or is after or distinct from the ”etching” of claim 8.
Claim 13 and 19 each recites the limitations “the walls” and "the application". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Licata et al (US 6,224,724).
With respect to claims 1, 8, 14, 17, and 20, Licata discloses a method for using a sputter deposition apparatus [19] to perform a “plasma precleaning” (i.e. etching) of a wafer [12] prior to sputter deposition (or “cleaned in situ prior to metallization”) (Abstract; col. 14, lines 53-57), wherein the method comprises: providing the sputter deposition apparatus [19] with a “processing chamber” (i.e. claimed “sputtering chamber”) [13] having within a sputtering target [10] and the wafer or substrate [12] (fig. 2; col. 5, lines 38-67; col. 6, lines 1-8); introducing a gas into the sputtering chamber [13] to form a plasma of positive ions (fig. 2; col. 11, lines 15-40); and applying a first negative potential to the wafer [12] in the sputtering chamber [13] while also simultaneously applying a second negative potential to the sputtering target [10] for the plasma cleaning (col. 11, lines 27-31; col. 14, lines 53-63), wherein fig. 2 shows at least a portion of the sputtering target [10] is visibly exposed to at least a portion of the wafer [12] and no shutter is present between the sputtering target [10] and wafer [12] during the plasma precleaning (col. 14, lines 53-67). Licata further discloses the method comprises adjusting the first negative potential to the wafer [12], and also adjusting the second negative potential to the sputtering target [10] (col. 14, lines 53-63), wherein the adjusting the second negative potential accumulates coating material from the sputtering target [10] onto shield [170] (col. 12, lines 48-67). Since Licata teaches the claim requirements of adjusting the first negative potential to the wafer [12] and adjusting the second negative potential to the sputtering target [10], a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established that Licata also teaches the resulting: 1) adjusting of the first negative potential to the wafer [12] yields a property of “to reduce an adhesion of ejected contaminants from the sputtering target onto the wafer”; and 2) adjusting of the second negative potential to the sputtering target [10] yields a property of “to reduce an adhesion of ejected contaminants from the wafer onto the sputtering target” (MPEP 2112.01, I).
With respect to claims 2 and 9, Licata further discloses applying a third negative potential to the sputtering target [10] to deposit a film onto the wafer [12] (col. 15, lines 16-26).
With respect to claims 3 and 10, Licata further discloses the sputter deposition apparatus [19] is used for depositing films of either titanium (Ti) or titanium nitride (TiN) from the sputtering target [10] of Ti (col. 14, lines 44-67), and also suggests using the sputter deposition apparatus [19] for depositing films of aluminum (col. 5, lines 21-25), wherein the sputter deposition apparatus [19] uses a gas of argon for depositing a metal or an additional gas of nitrogen for reactive sputtering of a nitride (col. 6, lines 2-8; col. 15, lines 40-49); thus Licata suggests using the sputter deposition apparatus [19] for depositing a film of aluminum nitride using the sputtering target [10].
With respect to claims 6, 13, and 19, Licata further discloses the shield [170] is provided to cover walls [160],[161] to accumulate material from the plasma in volume [125] when applying the first and second negative potentials (col. 11, lines 67; col. 12, lines 1-9 and 48-67; col. 14, lines 53-67; col. 15, lines 1-15), wherein the material is ejected from the sputtering target [10] and the wafer [12] during the plasma precleaning (col. 12, lines 48-67; col. 14, lines 53-67; col. 15, lines 1-15). The shield [170] is fully capable of being removable in order for cleaning, general maintenance, or providing a new shield.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licata et al (US 6,224,724) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Kadlec et al (US 5,234,560).
With respect claims 4-5 and 11-12, the reference is cited as discussed for claims 1 and 8. However Licata is limited in that while a voltage is applied for the second negative potential (col. 11, lines 27-31; col. 14, lines 62-63), a particular voltage is not suggested.
Kadlec teaches a method of ion cleaning a substrate and a cathode (i.e. sputtering target) by simultaneously applying a negative potential of -600 V to the substrate and a negative potential of -500 V to the sputtering cathode prior to sputter depositing titanium nitride (Example 1, col. 11, lines 15-25), similar to the method of Licata.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the negative potentials of -600 V to the substrate and -500 V to the sputtering target as the particular voltages for the first and second negative potentials of Licata since Licata fails to specify particular voltages for the plasma precleaning, and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation for success in making the modification since Kadlec has shown success in simultaneously applying the negative potentials for plasma cleaning the substrate and the sputtering target.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licata et al (US 6,224,724) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Kojima et al (US 5,092,978).
With respect to claims 7 and 16, the reference is cited as discussed for claims 1 and 8. However Licata is limited in that heating the wafer is not suggested.
Kojima teaches a sputtering method of coating a substrate (i.e. wafer), wherein heating the substrate to 450oC reduces damage by a plasma process (such as the plasma precleaning and/or sputter depositing of Licata) (col. 1, lines 13-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat the wafer to 450oC as taught by Kojima during the plasma precleaning and/or sputter depositing of Licata to gain the advantage of reducing damage to the wafer.
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licata et al (US 6,224,724) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Denning et al (US 6,187,682).
With respect to claims 15 and 18, the reference is cited as discussed for claims 1 and 8. Licata further discloses the sputter deposition apparatus [19] is used for depositing a film of either titanium (Ti) or titanium nitride (TiN) from the sputtering target [10] of Ti (col. 14, lines 44-67), and also suggests using the sputter deposition apparatus [19] for depositing a film of aluminum (col. 5, lines 21-25), wherein the sputter deposition apparatus [19] uses a gas of argon for depositing a metal or an additional gas of nitrogen for reactive sputtering of a nitride (col. 6, lines 2-8; col. 15, lines 40-49); thus Licata suggests using the sputter deposition apparatus [19] for depositing a film of aluminum nitride using the sputtering target [10].
However Licata is limited in that purging the plasma from the sputtering chamber [13] prior to depositing the film on the wafer [12] is not suggested.
Denning teaches a method of insitu cleaning prior to sputter deposition in a sputtering chamber [12] (Abstract), wherein the insitu cleaning is via plasma (e.g. plasma precleaning) (Abstract; col. 2, lines 66-67; col. 3, lines 1-12), similar to the method of Licata. Denning further teaches that after the plasma cleaning, the sputtering chamber [12] either undergoes a “pumping cycle” (i.e. purging) to remove gases (and thus the plasma formed by the gases) (col. 4, lines 45-54; col. 6, lines 8-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a pumping cycle (i.e. purging) taught by Denning after the plasma precleaning to yield the predictable result of removing residual gases from the plasma precleaning prior to sputter deposition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794