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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-20, drawn to an apparatus, classified in H01J 37/32009.
II. Claim 21 drawn to a method, classified in H01L 21/3065.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions in group I and group II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus can be used to practice another and different material process such as cleaning a metal substrate.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
These invention have different patentability determinations and classification therefore they require separate search and consideration.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Farhad Shir on 10/20/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 21 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 1-14, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Katsunuma (US 2021/0082713).
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 executes
(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 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) 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
Regarding step (d) Katsunuma is capable a controller executing processing of etching (MT) a film using a plasma from a first processing gas in the second processing chamber (PM2, [0058], [0132-0134]). Therefore it would be inherently capable of performing the function of processing of etching a bottom portion of the recess portion (RP) where the carbon-containing film (PF) is formed by using a plasma formed from a first processing gas containing a hydrogen fluoride gas in the second processing chamber (PM2). See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
No patentable weight is given to the substrate, the silicon film, the carbon film, the side wall, or the recess portion, the bottom portion and the hydrogen fluoride gas because these are materials worked upon by the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 and 2115 for claiming an apparatus. The citations provided above demonstrate Katsunuma teaches film forming and etching capable within its process modules executed by its controller MC. It also teaches a transfer chamber and associated transfer mechanism for moving the substrate between process modules using a controller MC. Therefore the apparatus of Katsunuma is fully capable of performing the functions associated with the controller such a processing, etching, transport and plasma generation as required by claim 1. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
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 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 19, 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, [0132-1035]);
a transport chamber (TC, Fig. 11) that is connected to the first processing chamber (PM1) and the second processing chamber, and has a transport device (TU2, [0132], fig. 11);
and a controller (MC, [0138-0151]), wherein the controller includes
(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 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 of the silicon-containing film defining the recess portion 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, TU2),
and (d) processing of etching a bottom portion of the recess portion (RP) where the carbon-containing film is formed in the second processing chamber (PM2),
and the processing of (d) executes processing of repeating a cycle including (d1) 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 [0054] formed from a fifth processing gas containing a fluorocarbon gas and/or a hydrofluorocarbon gas, and (d3) a step of exposing the substrate (W) to a plasma formed from a sixth processing gas containing a hydrogen-containing gas.
No patentable weight is given to the substrate, the silicon film, the carbon film, the side wall, or the recess portion, the bottom portion and the hydrogen fluoride gas, fluorocarbon gas, hydrofluorocarbon gas and hydrogen gas because these are materials worked upon by the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 and 2115 for claiming an apparatus. The citations provided above demonstrate that the apparatus of Katsunuma is fully capable of performing the functions associated with the controller such a processing, etching, transport and plasma generation.
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, on the silicon-containing film on the substrate support, 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) 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 where the carbon-containing film is formed, by using a plasma formed from a processing gas containing a hydrogen fluoride gas in the chamber [0054]).
No patentable weight is given to the substrate, the silicon film, the carbon film, the side wall, or the recess portion, the bottom portion and the hydrogen fluoride gas because these are materials worked upon by the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 and 2115 for claiming an apparatus. The citations provide above demonstrate that the apparatus of Katsunuma is fully capable of performing the functions associated with the controller such a processing, etching and plasma generation using the controller MC.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsunuma 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 wit 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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsunuma as applied to claim 1 above.
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].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsunuma 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].
Conclusion
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