Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-14, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsunuma (US 2021/0082713) in view of Yokoyama (JP 2021-077865).
Regarding claim 1, Katsunuma teaches a plasma processing system comprising:
a first processing chamber (PM1) having a first substrate support (13, Fig. 3, [0039]);
a second processing chamber (PM2) that has a second substrate support(13, Fig. 3, [0039]) and is different from the first processing chamber (Fig. 11, pg. 12, [0132-0135];
a transport chamber (TC, fig. 11) that is connected to the first processing chamber (PM1) and the second processing chamber (PM2), and has a transport device (TU2, [0132] Fig. 11);
and a controller (MC, [0138-0151],
wherein the controller is programmed to execute ([0138]):
(a)processing of disposing a substrate (W) including a silicon-containing film (EF [0035]) having a recess portion (RP) and a mask (MK) on the silicon-containing film (EF) on the first substrate support (13) of the first processing chamber (PM1), in which the mask (MK) has an opening that exposes the recess portion (RP),
(b) processing of forming a carbon-containing film (PF) on a side wall (Fig. 5b, 6a, 6b, 7a,) of the silicon-containing film (EF) defining the recess portion (RP) in the first processing chamber (PM1),
(c) processing of transporting the substrate (W) from the first processing chamber (PM1) to the second processing chamber (PM2) via the transport chamber (TC) and disposing the substrate (W) on the second substrate support (13, [0131-0135], and
(d) processing of etching a bottom portion of the recess portion (Fig. 8a) where the carbon containing film (PF) is formed by using a plasma formed from a first processing gas (processing gas [0143]) containing a fluorocarbon gas in the second processing chamber ([PM3, plasma etching [0143]).
Katsunuma does not explicitly teach hydrogen fluoride gas is used.
Yokoyama is directed to plasma etching the bottom of a recess with hydrogen fluoride gas [0123]. It uses a controller 80 to control the gas supply and pressure of the chamber to generate a plasma [0124].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the programmed controller of Katsunuma by providing the controller is programmed to execute step d with a hydrogen fluoride gas, as taught by Yokoyama, because it would inactivate the sidewall of the film protecting it from being etched[0010].
Regarding claim 2, Katsunuma teaches the controller executes processing of repeating a cycle including (a), (b), (c), and (d) a plurality of times [0023].
Regarding claim 3, Katsunuma teaches in (c), the controller controls a pressure in the transport chamber [0060], [0063],
The Examiner takes the position that the following if functional language: so that the pressure in the transport chamber is lower than a pressure in the first processing chamber and a pressure in the second processing chamber. Katsunuma is inherently capable of performing this function because it teaches a controller with the ability to “set the pressure in the chamber to a designated pressure”.
Regarding claim 4, Katsunuma teaches the controller executes processing of forming the recess portion on the silicon-containing film and preparing the substrate including the silicon-containing film having the recess portion by etching using a plasma formed from a second processing gas containing a fluorine-containing gas in the second processing chamber (PM2) or in a third processing chamber (PM3) different from the second processing chamber (PM2) before (a) [0021], [0143].
Claim 4 recites language directed towards the functioning of a controller. Katsunuma teaches its controller is capable of performing the recited functions because its controlling provides etching using a plasma formed from a fluorine containing gas in a desired processing chamber [0119-0120].
No patentable weight given to the recess portion, the silicon containing and fluorine gas because these are materials worked upon by the apparatus. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 5, The Examiner takes the position that the following is functional language: “wherein a temperature of the first substrate support (13, PM1) in the processing of (b) is higher than a temperature of the second substrate support (PM2) in the processing of (c)”.
Katsunuma teaches a first (13, PM1) and second substrate support (13, Pm2) wherein the temperature of the support is controlled using heaters (HT [0044-0046]). Therefore it teaches a substrate support inherently capable of performing the function of claim 5. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 6, Katsunuma teaches the controller executes processing of forming the carbon-containing film with a third processing gas.
Regarding claims 6-8, the Examiner finds that the type of gas used by the apparatus is an intended use of the apparatus. Therefore the type of third processing gas such as “the carbon-containing gas” or the “hydrocarbon gas” or the nitrogen containing gas” doesn’t receive patentable weight.
Regarding claim 9, Katsunuma teaches (b), the controller executes processing including
(b11) a step of supplying a precursor gas to the substrate and adsorbing the precursor gas to the side wall [0089], and
(b12) a step of supplying a reaction gas to the substrate and forming the carbon-containing film by a reaction between the precursor gas and the reaction gas [0091].
No patentable weight is given to “carbon containing film” because it is a material worked upon by the apparatus. See MPEP 2115.
Claim 9 recites functional language directed to the operation of process steps by the controller. While Katsunuma teaches these steps it also teaches the apparatus is inherently capable of performing these steps. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 10, Katsunuma teaches wherein (b) includes
(b1) a step of supplying a first film formation gas containing a first organic compound into the first processing chamber [0089], and
(b2) a step of supplying a second film formation gas containing a second organic compound different from the first organic compound into the first processing chamber [0091].
No patentable weight is given to first organic compound and second organic compound because each is a material worked upon by the apparatus. See MPEP 2115.
Claim 10 recites functional language directed to the operation of process steps by the controller. While Katsunuma teaches these steps it also teaches the apparatus is inherently capable of performing these steps. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 11, Katsunuma teaches the functional language of (b2) forms the carbon-containing film by a reaction including polymerization of the first organic compound and the second organic compound [0065].
Regarding claim 12, Katsunuma teaches the functional language of processing of enlarging a dimension of the portion that is etched in (d) in the recess portion (Fig. 6a, 6b, [0117]).
Regarding claim 13, the Examiner finds that the type of gas used by the apparatus is an intended use of the apparatus.
Regarding claims 13-14, the Examiner finds that the type of gas used by the apparatus is an intended use of the apparatus. Therefore the type of gas, such as “the first processing gas further contains a phosphorus-containing gas” and “the first processing gas further contains at least one gas selected from the group consisting of a carbon-containing gas, a halogen-containing gas, and a metal-containing gas” doesn’t receive patentable weight.
Regarding claim 16, Katsunuma teaches the first processing chamber is coupled to an inductively coupled plasma generator [0134-0135], the second processing chamber is coupled to a capacitively coupled plasma generator [0135],
and in the processing of (b), the controller (MC) executes processing of forming a plasma by the inductively coupled plasma generator [0135] to form the carbon-containing film (PF),
and in the processing of (d), the controller (MC) executes processing of forming a plasma by the capacitively coupled plasma generator to etch (MT, [0033]) the silicon-containing film [0153].
Regarding claim 17, the Examiner finds that the type of gas used by the apparatus is an intended use of the apparatus. Therefore the recitations such as “the silicon-containing film” and “ is a silicon oxide film”, “a silicon nitride film”, “a polycrystalline silicon film”, or “a stacked film including two or more of these” doesn’t receive patentable weight because the film is a material worked upon by the apparatus. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 20, Katsunuma teaches a plasma processing apparatus comprising:
a chamber (10);
a substrate support (13) disposed in the chamber (Fig. 3);
a plasma generator (62, 30 [0054]);
and a controller (MC [0138-0151]), wherein the controller executes
(a) processing of disposing a substrate (W) including a silicon-containing film (EF [0035]) having a recess portion (RP) and a mask (MK), which has an opening exposing the recess portion (RP), on the silicon-containing film (EF) on the substrate support(13), in which the mask (MK) has an opening that exposes the recess portion (RP),
(b) processing of forming a carbon-containing film (PF) on a side wall (Fig. 5b, 6a, 6b, 7a) of the silicon-containing film (EF, [0035]) defining the recess portion in the chamber (PM1),
and (c) processing of etching a bottom portion of the recess portion (Fig. 8a) where the carbon-containing film (PF) is formed, by using a plasma formed from a processing gas (processing gas [0143]) containing a fluorocarbon gas in the chamber (PM3, plasma etching [0143], [0054]).
Katsunuma does not explicitly teach hydrogen fluoride gas is used.
Yokoyama is directed to plasma etching the bottom of a recess with hydrogen fluoride gas [0123]. It uses a controller 80 to control the gas supply and pressure of the chamber to generate a plasma [0124].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the programmed controller of Katsunuma by providing the controller is programmed to execute step d with a hydrogen fluoride gas as taught by Yokoyama, because it would inactivate the sidewall of the film protecting it from being etched [0010].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsunuma and Yokoyama as applied to claim 1 above in view of Sukharev (US 6,365,528).
Regarding claim 15, Katsunuma does not teach the processing of (d) is executed at a temperature of the second substrate support which is 0C or lower.
The Examiner notes claim 15 is directed to a function of the apparatus at a certain step within its function. Only an apparatus of the prior art that teaches a substrate holder meeting the function of claim 15 is required, using said apparatus at step (d) is an intended use of the apparatus and does not receive patentable weight.
Sukharev teaches executing at a temperature of the second substrate support which is 0C or lower (col. 3, ln. 55-60).
Katsunuma is directed to a substrate holder 13 with a flow path 18f supplied with a coolant and connected to a chiller 22 provide outside the chamber [0043]. Katsunuma is directed towards cooling the substrate. Like Katsunuma, Sukharev is also directed to cooling the substrate. Therefore each prior art reference teaches cooling the substrate within a vacuum chamber is operable and desirable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the temperature of the second substrate support of Katsunuma by providing executed at a temperature of the second substrate support which is 0C or lower, as taught by Sukharev, because all 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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsunuma and Yokoyama as applied to claim 1 above in view of Lee (US 2016/0293441).
Regarding claim 18, the Examiner takes the position that the mask is a material worked upon by the apparatus because the mask is a carbon-containing film or a metal-containing film that is part of the substrate for processing the desired pattern on the substrate and not part of the apparatus of claim 18. Therefore claim 18 does not impart patentable weight on the apparatus of its parent claim. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Lee teaches the mask is a carbon-containing film or a metal-containing film and is well known ([0059]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the mask of Katsunuma by providing the mask is a carbon-containing film or a metal-containing film, as taught by Lee, because it would provide a mask for an electronic device manufacture [0005].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is allowed.
Claim 22 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 19, no prior art teaches a controller programmed to execute d) processing of etching a bottom portion of the recess portion where the carbon- containing film is formed in the second processing chamber, and the processing of (d) executes processing of repeating a cycle including (dl) a step of exposing the substrate to a plasma formed from a fourth processing gas containing a hydrogen fluoride gas, (d2) a step of exposing the substrate to a plasma formed from a fifth processing gas containing a fluorocarbon gas and/or a hydrofluorocarbon gas, and (d3) a step of exposing the substrate to a plasma formed from a sixth processing gas containing a hydrogen-containing gas.
Regarding claim 22, no prior art teaches a controller programmed to execute the processing of (d) includes repeating a cycle including (dl) a step of exposing the substrate to a plasma formed from the first processing gas containing the hydrogen fluoride gas, (d2) a step of exposing the substrate to a plasma formed from a fifth processing gas containing a fluorocarbon gas and/or a hydrofluorocarbon gas, whereby a carbon-containing film is formed on a surface of a portion etched in (dl), and (d3) a step of exposing the substrate to a plasma formed from a sixth processing gas containing a hydrogen-containing gas, whereby fluorine atoms contained in the carbon-containing film formed in (d2) are replaced with hydrogen atoms as required by the combination of claims 1 and 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection set out above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
