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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/11/2026 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to the claims have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and thus the rejections are withdrawn.
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 12-13 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 12, the limitations “a difference” and “an error range” are indefinite because it is unclear whether the claims are intended to refer to the difference and error range described in claim 9 or a different “difference” and “error range”.
In claim 13, the limitation “based on no existence of an experimental simulation profile” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires an experimental simulation profile as in claim 9 or that there is no experimental profile.
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) 1-3, 9, 12-13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103) as being unpatentable over Tetiker (US 20170176983 A1) in view of Samukawa (US 9620338 B2) and Wilson (US 20050084987 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tetiker (US 20170176983 A1) teaches determining/generating a simulation profile of a feature on a semiconductor substrate after the feature has been etched by a plasma etching process through a simulation that depends on modeled reaction rates (defining a plasma reaction for the wafer), wherein the simulation model depends on physical and chemical parameters (reaction parameter) associated with the chemical reaction mechanisms, wherein the parameters may be calculated from models and describe physical and chemical reaction mechanisms, such as reaction probabilities and sticking coefficients (calculating a reaction parameter of the plasma reaction based on a physical reaction and chemical reaction that occur at the wafer), wherein the etch simulation profile computed/generated from the input parameters, including reaction parameters, is compared to an experimental etch simulation profile obtained from an etch experiment using the same initial conditions by determining an error metric indicative of the difference between the experimental and computed etch profiles, wherein the model parameters are adjusted (correcting the reaction parameter) based upon the error metric not being minimized, where the optimization procedure concludes (omitting the correcting of the reaction parameter) when the error metric is minimized and thus the calculated simulation profile is selected as a final/optimized simulation profile when the error metric is minimized, and wherein the etching (plasma treatment) is performed using/based on the optimized/final simulation profile model (para 0007, 0019-0022, 0038-0044, 0054-0055, 0059-0060, 0101, 0120, 0129, 0133-0134; Fig. 3).
Tetiker teaches the plasma parameters used in the optimization may include energy of radicals (para 0041) but fails to explicitly teach the reaction parameter comprises an energy of a neutral radical gas. However, Samukawa (US 9620338 B2), in the analogous art of simulating/predicting plasma processes, teaches that a simulator for a plasma etching/deposition process includes data for neutral particle/radical adsorption where the adsorption rate depends upon the energy of the neutral radical (an energy of a neutral radical gas) (col 5 line 35-67, col 6, col 7 line 1-53, col 11 line 37-59, col 14 line 50-57). Tetiker teaches calculating reaction rates associated with the etch process and that the reaction parameters are incorporated into the etch model/simulation to simulate the surface reactions on the wafer (para 0020-0021, 0038-0039, 0041, 0044). 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 the deposition and etching equations of Samukawa, which include neutral radical energy, in the model/simulation of Tetiker to more accurately simulate the surface reactions on the wafer with energy of neutral radical gas being a reaction parameter.
The combination of Tetiker and Samukawa fails to explicitly teach the correcting and selecting processes are performed based on the difference between the plasma process simulation profile and the experimental simulation profile being within or outside of an error range. However, Wilson (US 20050084987 A1), in the analogous art of process optimization, teaches that an optimization process may include error values generated by comparing measured characteristics, such as a thickness of a film, to target characteristics, such as a desired thickness distribution, wherein the optimization continues by determining/adjusting process parameters (correcting the reaction parameter) if the error value is outside of a predetermined (error) range, while the optimization stops (omitting the correcting) and subsequent processes may be performed with the determined parameters (selecting the profile as the final profile) when the error value is within the error range (para 0050-0052; Fig. 4). Tetiker similarly teaches optimizing parameters when an error is unsatisfactory and stopping the optimization when the error is satisfactory (para 0059-0060). 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 error minimization stopping condition of the optimization process of Tetiker with the error range stopping condition of the optimization process of Wilson because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of optimizing a process. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Tetiker, Samukawa, and Wilson teaches the reaction parameter includes process parameters such as substrate (wafer) temperature or pedestal temperature (a temperature of a bottom electrode supporting the wafer) (Tetiker para 0032, 0038-0039, 0042).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Tetiker, Samukawa, and Wilson teaches the reaction parameter depends on (has information of) the material composition of the surface being etched, including the wafer, and plasma parameters describing the plasma conditions (Tetiker para 0030, 0038, 0041, 0080).
Regarding claim 9, Tetiker (US 20170176983 A1) teaches determining/generating a simulation profile of a feature on a semiconductor substrate (wafer) after the feature has been etched by a plasma etching process through a simulation that depends on modeled reaction rates (defining a plasma reaction for the wafer), wherein the simulation model depends on physical and chemical parameters (reaction parameter) associated with the reaction mechanisms such as sputter yields and energies (based on a physical sputtering reaction) as well as reactant sticking coefficients (based on a chemical adsorption reaction), wherein the parameters may be calculated from models or literature, wherein the calculated etch simulation profile computed/generated from the input parameters, including reaction parameters, is compared to an experimental etch simulation profile obtained from an etch experiment using the same initial conditions by determining an error metric indicative of the difference between the experimental and computed etch profiles, wherein the model parameters are adjusted (correcting the reaction parameter) based upon the error metric not being minimized, where the optimization procedure concludes (omitting the correcting of the reaction parameter) when the error metric is minimized and thus the calculated simulation profile is selected as a final/optimized simulation profile when the error metric is minimized, and wherein the etching (plasma treatment) is performed using/based on the optimized/final simulation profile model (para 0007, 0019-0022, 0038-0044, 0054-0055, 0059-0060, 0101, 0120, 0129, 0133-0134; Fig. 3).
Tetiker teaches the plasma parameters used in the optimization may include energy of radicals (para 0041) but fails to explicitly teach the reaction parameter includes an energy of a neutral radical gas. However, Samukawa (US 9620338 B2), in the analogous art of simulating/predicting plasma processes, teaches that a simulator for a plasma etching/deposition process includes data for neutral particle/radical adsorption where the adsorption rate depends upon the energy of the neutral radical (an energy of a neutral radical gas) (col 5 line 35-67, col 6, col 7 line 1-53, col 11 line 37-59, col 14 line 50-57). Tetiker teaches calculating reaction rates associated with the etch process and that the reaction parameters are incorporated into the etch model/simulation to simulate the surface reactions on the wafer (para 0020-0021, 0038-0039, 0041, 0044). 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 the deposition and etching equations of Samukawa, which include neutral radical energy, in the model/simulation of Tetiker to more accurately simulate the surface reactions on the wafer with energy of neutral radical gas being a reaction parameter.
The combination of Tetiker and Samukawa fails to explicitly teach the correcting and selecting processes are performed based on the difference between the plasma process simulation profile and the experimental simulation profile being within or outside of an error range. However, Wilson (US 20050084987 A1), in the analogous art of process optimization, teaches that an optimization process may include error values generated by comparing measured characteristics, such as a thickness of a film, to target characteristics, such as a desired thickness distribution, wherein the optimization continues by determining/adjusting process parameters (correcting the reaction parameter) if the error value is outside of a predetermined (error) range, while the optimization stops (omitting the correcting) and subsequent processes may be performed with the determined parameters (selecting the profile as the final profile) when the error value is within the error range (para 0050-0052; Fig. 4). Tetiker similarly teaches optimizing parameters when an error is unsatisfactory and stopping the optimization when the error is satisfactory (para 0059-0060). 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 error minimization stopping condition of the optimization process of Tetiker with the error range stopping condition of the optimization process of Wilson because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of optimizing a process. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Tetiker, Samukawa, and Wilson teaches that when the error value (difference between calculated simulation profile and experimental simulation profile) is within an error range, the optimization procedure concludes and the calculated simulation profile is used as the final simulation profile (Tetiker para 0054, 0059-0060, Fig. 3; Wilson para 0050-0052, Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Tetiker, Samukawa, and Wilson teaches that, when the error falls within a the error range, the optimization procedure concludes and thus the calculated simulation profile is selected as the final/optimized simulation profile because there is no other experimental simulation profile to be compared to (based on no existence of an experimental simulation profile) (Tetiker para 0054, 0059-0060, Fig. 3; Wilson para 0050-0052, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Tetiker (US 20170176983 A1) teaches determining/generating a simulation profile of a feature on a semiconductor substrate after the feature has been etched by a plasma etching process through a simulation that depends on modeled reaction rates (defining a plasma reaction for the wafer), wherein the simulation model depends on physical and chemical parameters (reaction parameter) associated with the chemical reaction mechanisms, wherein the parameters may be calculated from models and describe physical and chemical reaction mechanisms, such as reaction probabilities and sticking coefficients, wherein the etch simulation profile computed/generated from the input parameters, including reaction parameters, is compared to an experimental etch simulation profile obtained from an etch experiment using the same initial conditions by determining an error metric indicative of the difference between the experimental and computed etch profiles and the final/optimized simulation profile is generated by minimizing the error metric, wherein the model parameters are adjusted (correcting the reaction parameter) based upon the error metric not being minimized, where the optimization procedure concludes (omitting the correcting of the reaction parameter) when the error metric is minimized and thus the calculated simulation profile is selected as a final/optimized simulation profile when the error metric is minimized, and wherein the etching (plasma treatment) is performed using/based on the optimized/final simulation profile model (para 0007, 0019-0022, 0038-0044, 0054-0055, 0059-0060, 0101, 0120, 0129, 0133-0134; Fig. 3). Tetiker also teaches preparing the semiconductor wafer 719 by placing it on a chuck 717 (bottom electrode), wherein the etching chamber operation may be adjusted in response to the computed etch profile using an optimized etch profile model (performing a plasma treatment for the wafer based on the final simulation profile) to etch the wafer (performing semiconductor processes on the wafer based on the plasma treatment) (para 0101, 0120, 0129, 0133-0134; Fig. 7). Tetiker also teaches the reaction parameter may include a wafer temperature, plasma properties such as flux and energies of ions (information of the plasma), and chemical reactions based on the material composition being etched (information of a material included in the wafer) (para 0038, 0041, 0044, 0080).
Tetiker teaches the plasma parameters used in the optimization may include energy of radicals (para 0041) but fails to explicitly teach the reaction parameter includes an energy of a neutral radical gas. However, Samukawa (US 9620338 B2), in the analogous art of simulating/predicting plasma processes, teaches that a simulator for a plasma etching/deposition process includes data for neutral particle/radical adsorption where the adsorption rate depends upon the energy of the neutral radical (an energy of a neutral radical gas) (col 5 line 35-67, col 6, col 7 line 1-53, col 11 line 37-59, col 14 line 50-57). Tetiker teaches calculating reaction rates associated with the etch process and that the reaction parameters are incorporated into the etch model/simulation to simulate the surface reactions on the wafer (para 0020-0021, 0038-0039, 0041, 0044). 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 the deposition and etching equations of Samukawa, which include neutral radical energy, in the model/simulation of Tetiker to more accurately simulate the surface reactions on the wafer with energy of neutral radical gas being a reaction parameter.
The combination of Tetiker and Samukawa fails to explicitly teach the correcting and selecting processes are performed based on the difference between the plasma process simulation profile and the experimental simulation profile being within or outside of an error range. However, Wilson (US 20050084987 A1), in the analogous art of process optimization, teaches that an optimization process may include error values generated by comparing measured characteristics, such as a thickness of a film, to target characteristics, such as a desired thickness distribution, wherein the optimization continues by determining/adjusting process parameters (correcting the reaction parameter) if the error value is outside of a predetermined (error) range, while the optimization stops (omitting the correcting) and subsequent processes may be performed with the determined parameters (selecting the profile as the final profile) when the error value is within the error range (para 0050-0052; Fig. 4). Tetiker similarly teaches optimizing parameters when an error is unsatisfactory and stopping the optimization when the error is satisfactory (para 0059-0060). 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 error minimization stopping condition of the optimization process of Tetiker with the error range stopping condition of the optimization process of Wilson because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of optimizing a process. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Tetiker, Samukawa, and Wilson teaches the plasma process simulation profile, including the final simulation profile, may include a wafer temperature, angular distribution of ions (angle of incidence of plasma ions with respect to the wafer), and an (incident) energy of the plasma ions as parameters (variables) (Tetiker para 0038, 0041).
Claim(s) 4-6, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetiker (US 20170176983 A1) in view of Samukawa (US 9620338 B2) and Wilson (US 20050084987 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Shindo (NPL – “An Empirical Formula for Angular Dependence of Sputtering Yields”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Tetiker, Samukawa, and Wilson teaches the calculating of the reaction parameter includes utilizing, and thus obtaining, flux and energy of ions in the plasma (ion information of the plasma) and material composition of the layer to be etched (information of the wafer) (Tetiker para 0021, 0038, 0041-0042, 0044, 0080). The aforementioned combination also teaches calculating the parameters includes determining/calculating sputter yields, etch threshold energy for physical sputtering, and angular yield functions (calculating a first parameter regarding the physical reaction) in addition to determining/calculating reactant sticking coefficients and rate constants (calculating a second parameter regarding the chemical reaction) (Tetiker para 0038, 0041-0042, 0055, 0057), wherein the sticking/adsorption to the wafer (second parameter) may depend on the energy of radicals (energy of the neutral radical gas) and the adsorption rate between the radical and the clean to-be-etched layer (information of the wafer) (Samukawa col 11 line 37-59).
The combination of Tetiker and Samukawa fails to explicitly teach the first parameter regarding the physical reaction is based on the plasma ion information and the wafer information. However, Shindo (NPL), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches calculating a sputtering yield using an equation dependent on the (average) atomic numbers and atomic masses of the projectile (plasma ions) and the target material (wafer information) as well as the energy of the plasma ions and the angle of incidence of the ions (pg. 58-59, 65-71). Tetiker teaches calculating the reaction parameter includes calculating parameters of a physical sputtering reaction based on a sputtering yield as well as an angular yield function (para 0041, 0055). 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 use the sputtering yield and angular dependence equations of Shindo, which include plasma ion information and wafer information, to represent the physical sputtering reaction more accurately when calculating the reaction parameters of Tetiker.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Tetiker, Samukawa, Wilson, and Shindo teaches the plasma ion information in the first parameter comprises average atomic mass and average atomic number of projectile (plasma ions) as well as the energy of the plasma ions and the angle of incidence of the plasma ions and that some of the wafer information includes an average atomic mass and atomic number of the wafer materials to be used in the physical/sputtering reaction (Shindo pg. 58-59, 65-71).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tetiker, Samukawa, Wilson, and Shindo teaches calculating a sputtering yield using an equation dependent on the sublimation energy (cohesive energy) and the threshold energy calculated based on the cohesive energy and calculating an optimal (maximum) angle of incidence based on the ion energy (Shindo pg. 58-59, 65-71).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Tetiker, Samukawa, and Wilson teaches the reaction parameter may include a temperature of the wafer as a variable (Tetiker para 0020, 0038) but fails to explicitly teach the reaction parameter has an average atomic mass of materials constituting the wafer, an average atomic number of the materials constituting the wafer, an average atomic mass of plasma ions, an average atomic number of the plasma ions. However, Shindo (NPL), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches calculating a sputtering yield using an equation dependent on the (average) atomic numbers and atomic masses of the projectile (plasma ions) and the target material (wafer) (pg. 58-59, 65-71). Tetiker teaches calculating the reaction parameter includes calculating parameters of a physical sputtering reaction based on a sputtering yield as well as an angular yield function (para 0041, 0055). 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 use the sputtering yield and angular dependence equations of Shindo, which include average atomic mass and average atomic number of the plasma ions and wafer, to represent the physical sputtering reaction more accurately when calculating the reaction parameters of Tetiker.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Tetiker, Samukawa, and Wilson teaches calculating the reaction parameter includes calculating parameters of a physical sputtering reaction based on a sputtering yield as well as an angular yield function (Tetiker para 0041, 0055) but fails to explicitly teach calculating a maximum angle of incidence of plasma ions based on the claimed equation and calculating the sputtering yield based on the claimed equations. However, Shindo (NPL), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches an optimal sputtering angle (maximum angle of incidence) may be calculated according to the equation
90
°
-
286
Ψ
0.45
(Eqn 21), which is equivalent to the claimed equation except that the art recites the angle in degrees rather than radians where Ψ is described by an equation similar to that of the claim and the sputtering yield at an angle may be calculated according to an equation similar to that of the claim (Eqn 20) as well as that the sputtering yield may be calculated using an equation similar to that of the claimed invention (Eqn 17) depending on f, fs, and Eth/E, which are described by similar equations (Eqn 12, 16, and 19) (pg. 66-71). Tetiker teaches calculating the reaction parameter includes calculating parameters of a physical sputtering reaction based on a sputtering yield as well as an angular yield function (para 0041, 0055). 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 use the sputtering yield and angular dependence equations of Shindo to represent the physical sputtering reaction more accurately when calculating the reaction parameters of Tetiker. The equations of claim 16 are similar to those described by Shindo; therefore, the equations taught by Shindo are necessarily a modification or approximation of (calculated based on) the claimed equation.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetiker (US 20170176983 A1) in view of Samukawa (US 9620338 B2), Wilson (US 20050084987 A1), and Shindo (NPL – “An Empirical Formula for Angular Dependence of Sputtering Yields”), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Doshita (NPL – “Dynamical aspect of Cl2 reaction on Si surfaces”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Tetiker, Samukawa, Wilson, and Shindo teaches calculating the reaction parameter includes calculating parameters of chemical adsorption based on a sticking coefficient (calculating the second parameter) (Tetiker para 0021, 0041, 0055) but fails to explicitly teach calculating adsorption energy based on the energy of the neutral radical gas and calculating a sticking coefficient based on the adsorption energy. However, Doshita (NPL), in the analogous art of adsorption, teaches that the precursor mediated sticking probability (sticking coefficient) may be described by a sticking coefficient equation, wherein (Ed-Ea) in the equation of Doshita is equal to the difference between the detrapping energy and the sticking energy, which is equivalent to an adsorption energy (pg. 265-268, Eqn 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the sticking coefficient of Tetiker using a calculation at least including the sticking probability equation of Doshita in order to improve accuracy of the simulation. As a result, the combination of Tetiker, Samukawa, and Doshita includes calculating a sticking coefficient based on a calculated adsorption energy where the adsorption energy is inherently at least dependent/based on the energy of the neutral radical gas. Alternatively, the sticking energy of Doshita, which is used in the calculation of the adsorption energy, may be defined as the energy of the adsorbed particles (neutral radical gas).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Tetiker, Samukawa, Wilson, Shindo, and Doshita teaches the sticking coefficient depends on (has) the surface temperature Ts (temperature of the wafer) (Doshita pg. 265, 268).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetiker (US 20170176983 A1) in view of Samukawa (US 9620338 B2) and Wilson (US 20050084987 A1), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Shinagawa (US 20220406580 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Tetiker, Samukawa, and Wilson fails to explicitly teach generating the final simulation profile comprises, based on no existence of experimental simulation profile, setting the calculated simulation profile as the final profile. However, Shinagawa (US 20220406580 A1), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches a method of building a control model that describes a relationship between a plasma parameter and a recipe parameter, measuring the wafer characteristic after performing the plasma process according to the recipe, and determining whether the wafer characteristic is within a predetermined range before recalibrating and optimizing the model if the wafer characteristic is not within a predetermined range, wherein the profile and characteristic are estimated by a virtual metrology model (para 0004, 0039-0040, 0052-0057; Fig. 1). Tetiker teaches a similar method of optimizing parameters and then comparing the model results to an experimental profile (para 0052-0060; Fig. 3). 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 substitute the evaluation method of Tetiker relying on an experimental profile with the evaluation method of Shinagawa relying on the wafer characteristics because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of optimizing operating parameters. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). As a result, the combination of Tetiker and Shinagawa does not rely on an experimental simulation profile and therefore the selecting of the calculated simulation profile as the final simulation profile is based on no existence of experimental simulation profile.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetiker (US 20170176983 A1) in view of Samukawa (US 9620338 B2) and Wilson (US 20050084987 A1), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yamamura (NPL – “Energy Dependence of Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monoatomic Solids at Normal Incidence”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Tetiker, Samukawa, and Wilson teaches calculating the reaction parameter comprises calculating parameters of the physical sputtering reaction based on a threshold energy (Tetiker para 0041, 0055) but fails to explicitly teach the threshold energy is calculated according to the recited equation. However, Yamamura (NPL), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches that the threshold energy is equal to
6.7
U
s
γ
when M1 is greater than or equal to M2 and equal to
(
1
+
5.7
(
M
1
M
2
)
)
U
s
γ
when M1 is less than or equal to M2, where γ is equal to
4
*
M
1
*
M
2
M
1
+
M
2
2
where Us is the surface binding energy (cohesive energy), M1 is the (average) atomic mass of the projectile (plasma ion), M2 is the (average) atomic mass of the target material (wafer), where the formulas provide an improved approximation compared to previous work (pg. 151-154, Eqn. 18-19). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the threshold energy of sputtering for the plasma process of Tetiker using the equations of Yamamura to improve accuracy of the simulation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10-11, filed 5/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 9, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 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 Wilson (US 20050084987 A1).
Wilson teaches using an error range to signal conclusion of an optimization process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 17, the aforementioned references fail to teach the sticking coefficient is calculated using the claimed equations for SC and Ptrap. In particular, Doshita describes a sticking coefficient equation similar to the claimed equation with an additional pre-exponential factor and does not provide the equation for Ptrap. Additionally, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the aforementioned references to meet the claimed limitation. Therefore, claim 17 contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Foucher (US 20160203945 A1) provides an alternative teaching of adjusting parameters to obtain a difference/error within a threshold, where the error threshold may be as an alternative to adjusting until it is no longer possible to reduce the difference (minimizing).
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