DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 12/1/2025.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s arguments dated 12/1/2025 have been considered and are persuasive. As such, the Restriction/Election requirement dated 10/2/2025 is withdrawn in its entirety.
Claims 14-20 remain withdrawn as set forth in the previous Office Action, and the requirement dated 6/17/2025 remains in effect in its entirety.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 21-32 are cancelled.
Claims 1-13 have been examined herein on the merits (claims 1 and 12 independent).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/16/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The Examiner notes only the three listed foreign references have not been considered- all other listed references have been considered.
Claim Interpretation
To promote clarity of the record and in the interest of brevity, the following claim interpretations are set forth in this section as to apply to all claims.
Claims 1-11 are drawn to an apparatus. The preamble “DLC film deposition” is regarded as an intended use of the claimed apparatus and adds no additional structural limitations to the claim. If the prior art would be capable of depositing a DLC film, it meets the preamble limitation. Claims 12-13 are regarded in a similar manner concerning “semiconductor manufacturing”. See MPEP 2111.02(II).
As an evidentiary reference, the Examiner submits Asmussen (US Patent 4,943,345) to demonstrate that it is known in the art to utilize plasma apparatus for deposition and/or etching, as well as for deposition of diamond films (see C5, L16-19 and C2, L42-45, Asmussen).
Additionally, the following claimed features are not construed as structurally limiting of the apparatus: the “DLC film”, “process gas”, “plasma”, “first process gas”, “second process gas”, and “silicon film”. These features are present only when the claimed apparatus is performing a function, and are thusly construed as an intended use of the apparatus. If the prior art would be capable of providing the above features, it meets the limitations. Claims 12-13 are regarded in a similar manner concerning “DLC film deposition”, “substrate processing”, and “removal module”. See MPEP 2114(II).
Finally, the “mounted substrate” is merely a material or article worked upon by the apparatus, and adds no additional patentability to the claim. See MPEP 2115.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to due to the following informalities: the penultimate clause (“while the DLC film deposition module is…”) is largely redundant given the limitations of the preceding clause (“a holder in the chamber…”). The penultimate paragraph should be eliminated and any limitations not recited in the “holder” clause be incorporated therein.
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 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US Patent 8,373,086) with various evidentiary references (see specific rejections for the pertinent citations).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a film deposition apparatus (Fig. 1, entirety) comprising: a chamber (Fig. 1, chamber #100); a holder in the chamber (Fig. 1, substrate holder #320), the holder configured to support a mounted substrate while being in contact with part of a second surface of the mounted substrate (col. 6, lines 1-2: supporting an edge of bottom surface of substrate; see also Fig. 1: “S”), wherein the mounted substrate is a substrate placed on the holder and having a first surface facing the top of the chamber and the second surface opposite to the first surface (Fig. 1, substrate S with upper and lower surface); and a generator below the holder, in the chamber (C7, L56-59 and Fig. 1, HF power supply #540 applying power to lower electrode #500), the generator configured to process the second surface of the mounted substrate (C7, L59-63: processes underside of substrate).
Regarding diamond-like carbon (DLC) film deposition, the Kim apparatus is regarded as having this capability as a PHOSITA would know that CVD/PECVD apparatuses are commonly used for etching and deposition processing, including diamond films (see C5, L16-19 and C2, L42-45, Asmussen, as in Claim Interpretation).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches wherein the DLC film generator includes: a first showerhead facing the second surface of the mounted substrate (Fig. 1, lower electrode #500 includes gas supply holes #530, #560 in a showerhead), a first gas supply configured to inject a first process gas into a first space between the mounted substrate and the first showerhead via the first showerhead (Fig. 1, either gas supply part #520 or #550), and a power supply configured to supply power to the first process gas to generate plasma in the first space (Fig. 1, HF power supply #540; C7, L59-63: forms plasma in the claimed region).
Regarding claim 5, the claim is regarded as an intended use of the apparatus and is given patentable weight only to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing the recited function. Despite this, Kim explicitly teaches wherein the first process gas includes a hydrocarbon gas (C7, L66: CHF4).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches a second showerhead above the substrate facing the first surface of the mounted substrate (Fig. 1, upper electrode #200 comprises gas holes #230 formed as a showerhead); and a second gas supply configured to inject a second process gas into a second space between the mounted substrate and the second showerhead via the second showerhead (Fig. 1, via gas supply part #210; C16, L12-22: injects gas in the claimed region).
Regarding claim 7, the claim is regarded as an intended use of the apparatus and is given patentable weight only to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing the recited function. Despite this, Kim explicitly teaches wherein the second process gas includes at least one of nitrogen (N2) and argon (Ar) (C16, L21: nitrogen or inert gas).
Regarding claims 8-9, the claims recite further limitations to the substrate of claim 1- a material or article worked upon by the claimed apparatus. As noted in the Claim Interpretation section herein, these limitations do not impart additional patentability to the claim.
Additionally, the Examiner submits a PHOSITA would know that silicon films such as SiO2 and/or SiN are extremely common in the semiconductor CVD arts. As support for this assertion, the Examiner submits Engle (US Patent 4,223,048, C1, L44-46) as an evidentiary reference. As such, the Examiner regards the Kim apparatus as capable of performing the recited functions.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is regarded as an intended use of the apparatus and is given patentable weight only to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing the recited function. The Examiner submits Massler (US Pub. 2004/0038033, Abstract) as an evidentiary reference that DLC films having a hardness of 10 GPa to 50 GPa were known in the art at the time of filing. As such, the Examiner regards the Kim apparatus as capable of performing the recited function.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is regarded as an intended use of the apparatus and is given patentable weight only to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing the recited function. The Examiner submits Chizik (US Pub. 2010/0129615, Abstract) as an evidentiary reference that DLC films having a thickness of 10 nm to 500 nm were known in the art at the time of filing. As such, the Examiner regards the Kim apparatus as capable of performing the recited function.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang (US Pub. 2011/0272275).
Regarding claim 2, Kang teaches a film deposition apparatus (Fig. 1, entirety) comprising: a chamber ([0036] and Fig. 1, chamber #10); a holder in the chamber ([0039] and Fig. 1, unit #20), the holder configured to support a mounted substrate while being in contact with part of a second surface of the mounted substrate (Fig. 1, mask #22 of unit #20 contacts edge of substrate S and supported by #22 and #21 of #20), wherein the mounted substrate is a substrate placed on the holder and having a first surface facing the top of the chamber and the second surface opposite to the first surface (see Fig. 1); and a film generator below the holder ([0036] and Fig. 1, electrode #30 and related components), in the chamber (see Fig. 1), the film generator configured to deposit a film on the second surface of the mounted substrate ([0040]), wherein the film generator includes: a sputtering target facing the second surface of the mounted substrate ([0036] and Fig. 1, target #31), a sputtering target supporter having an upper surface where the sputtering target is loaded ([0040] and Fig. 1, backing plate #32), a gas supply configured to inject a process gas into a space between the mounted substrate and the sputtering target ([0036] and Fig. 1, gas unit #50 supplying gas in the claimed space), and a power supply configured to supply power to the process gas to generate plasma in the space between the mounted substrate and the sputtering target ([0036] and Fig. 1, PSU #40; [0054] for plasma formation).
Regarding diamond-like carbon (DLC) film deposition, the Kang apparatus is regarded as having this capability as a PHOSITA would know that CVD/PECVD/PVD apparatuses are commonly used for etching and deposition processing, including diamond films (see C5, L16-19 and C2, L42-45, Asmussen, as in Claim Interpretation).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US Pub. 2011/0272275), as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Chen (US Pub. 2006/0196766).
The limitations of claim 2 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 3, Kang does not explicitly teach wherein the sputtering target includes carbon (C).
However, Chen teaches wherein sputtering targets for diamond film formation include carbon (Chen – [0026]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the sputtering target material of Kang to comprise carbon as a necessary substitution to obtain diamond films (Chen – [0026]). The Examiner submits the teachings of Chen are such that substituting one target material for another obtains predictable results- namely the particular chemistry of the deposited film.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Pub. 2021/0102841) in view of Kang (US Pub. 2011/0272275) and Fukasawa (US Pub. 2014/0063680).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches a semiconductor manufacturing system (Fig. 1, entirety) comprising: a first chamber ([0020] and Fig. 1, chamber #20); a film deposition module configured to deposit a film on a substrate ([0021]: chamber #20 can be configured for vapor deposition); and a substrate processing module including a second chamber different from the first chamber ([0021]: chamber #20 can alternatively comprise an etching or photo cleaning chamber).
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the film deposition module is a diamond-like carbon (DLC) film deposition module configured to deposit a DLC film on a second surface of a substrate, the substrate, when disposed in the first chamber, having a first surface facing the top of the first chamber and the second surface opposite to the first surface;
However, Kang teaches a film deposition module (Kang - Fig. 1, entirety) configured to deposit a film on a second surface of a substrate (Kang - [0040], [0054]), the substrate having a first surface facing the top of the chamber and the second surface opposite to the first surface (see Fig. 1), a holder in the chamber (Kang - [0039] and Fig. 1, unit #20) configured to support part of a second surface of the mounted substrate (Kang - Fig. 1, mask #22 of unit #20 contacts edge of substrate S and supported by #22 and #21 of #20) while the film deposition module is depositing the film on the second surface of the substrate (Kang - [0040]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the deposition module of Kang in the Kim system in order to uniformly deposit thin films onto substrates (Kang – [0011]).
Regarding diamond-like carbon (DLC) film deposition, the Kang apparatus is regarded as having this capability as a PHOSITA would know that CVD/PECVD/PVD apparatuses are commonly used for etching and deposition processing, including diamond films (see C5, L16-19 and C2, L42-45, Asmussen, as in Claim Interpretation).
Modified Kim does not explicitly teach a substrate processing module including an electrostatic chuck, the electrostatic chuck configured to support the second surface of the substrate, the substrate processing module configured to process the first surface of the substrate with the DLC film deposited on the second surface; and the electrostatic chuck is configured to fix the substrate such that the DLC film and an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck face each other while the substrate processing module is processing the first surface of the substrate.
However, Fukasawa teaches a substrate processing module (Fig. 1, entirety) including an electrostatic chuck (Fukasawa – [0062] and Fig. 1, fixing device #100; [0059] describes it as an electrostatic chuck), the electrostatic chuck configured to support the second surface of the substrate (Fig. 1, bottom surface of #200), the substrate processing module configured to process the first surface of the substrate ([0064]: via gas supplied through showerhead and RF generator); and the electrostatic chuck is configured to fix the substrate such that the second surface and an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck face each other while the substrate processing module is processing the first surface of the substrate (see Fig. 1, bottom surface on ESC and top surface being processed).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the processing module and electrostatic chuck of Fukasawa with the modified Kim system in order to maintain impedance and temperature of a substrate during processing (Fukasawa – [0059]) as well as processing uniformity (Fukasawa - [0006])
Regarding diamond-like carbon (DLC) film deposition, the Fukasawa apparatus is regarded as having this capability as a PHOSITA would know that CVD/PECVD/PVD apparatuses are commonly used for etching and deposition processing, including diamond films (see C5, L16-19 and C2, L42-45, Asmussen, as in Claim Interpretation).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches a removal module configured to remove the DLC film from the substrate after the processing of the first surface of the substrate by the substrate processing module ([0021]: process chamber #20 can include an etching/photo cleaning module).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sohn (US 2017/0152596) teaches a similar sputtering apparatus (Fig. 1). An (US 2009/0258142) teaches another apparatus with a lower showerhead and similar holding structure (Fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718