DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 08/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden on the Examiner to search all the claims as a search of the elected group would also include a search of the non-elected group. The Examiner finds applicant’s argument persuasive in light of the references cited on the IDS; therefore, claims 15-20 are rejoined with claims 1-14 and the restriction requirement previously presented is withdrawn in this present action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-12, 15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moran (US 5986747; IDS, 01/15/2025).
Moran discloses an apparatus and end point detection in non-ionizing gaseous reactor environments. Moran explains that OES has also been used for determining the endpoint of processes such as photoresist stripping. (col.1, 46-57), Moran explains in photoresist stripping, a layer of photoresist on a partially completed semiconductor circuit is removed by chemical reaction with reactive species from a plasma and the chemical reaction produces byproducts that enter the plasma which are excited by interaction with the plasma and produce radiation. (Col.1, 46-57). Moran explains an OES system monitors the radiation for changes that indicate the endpoint of photoresist stripping and this is valuable in processes where the stripping chemistries emit a useable spectra for OES based process monitoring. (Col.1, 46-57). Moran explains such chemistries exist, for example, in a microwave downstream reactor; however, a need exists in the art for a method and apparatus for monitoring semiconductor processes that use chemistries that quench useable spectra and for a method and apparatus suitable for monitoring non-ionizing processes using OES techniques. (Col. 1, 46-57).
Moran discloses those skilled in the art would be readily able to devise a computer program such as a program 300, which is suitable for monitoring and controlling a photoresist stripping process. (Col.4, 49-col.5, 54; Fig.3). Moran discloses the program 300 is described herein with respect to a photoresist stripping process, those skilled in the art will recognize that the method of the present invention can be applied to any wafer process. (Col.4, 49-col.5, 54; Fig.3). Moran discloses the program 300 begins with the introduction of the wafer to the chamber in step 302, where for example the program 300 executes a first set of instructions that cause the robot arm 112 to insert the wafer 110 through the slit valve 114 and place the wafer 110 on the susceptor 106. (Col.4, 49-col.5, 54; Fig.3). These disclosures teach the limitation of claim 15, ‘ A system, comprising: a process chamber configured to receive a wafer and perform a surface treatment on the wafer…the process chamber including an outlet configured to output an exhaust gas of the surface treatment…’
Moran discloses next in step 304, wafer processing begins, where for example, the program 300 executes a third set of instructions that cause the gas panel 117 to introduce a process gas mixture into the main chamber 102. (Col.4, 49-col.5, 54; Fig.3). Moran discloses a fourth set of instructions causes the RF power supply 118 to supply a signal that ignites the plasma 120. (Col.4, 49-col.5, 54; Fig.3). Moran explains for photoresist stripping, a gas mixture comprising gases such as O2, N2, H2O, CF4, and NH3 is typically provided at a pressure of between 100 millitorr and 20 torr and the gas mixture is provided at a flow rate of between 500 to 6000 sccm. (Cool.4, 49-col.5, 54; Fig.3). Moran explains the RF signal typically has a frequency of approximately 2.45 GHz and a power of between 500 and 3000 watts. (Col.4, 49-col.5, 54; Fig.3). These disclosures, the disclosures of Moran as discussed above and the illustrations of Figures 1 and 3 teach the limitation of claim 1, ‘ A method of endpoint detection, the method comprising: performing a surface treatment on a wafer…in a process chamber which includes an outlet configured to output an exhaust gas of the surface treatment…’
Moran discloses the process occurring in the main chamber produces gaseous byproducts and in step 306, the byproducts of the process in the main chamber are sampled. (Col.4, 49-col.5, 54; Fig.3). Moran explains the program 300 executes a fifth set of instructions that cause the valve 126 to open so that byproducts can collect in the analysis chamber 122 and a sixth set of instructions causes the supplemental exhaust system 128 to maintain a desired pressure in the analysis chamber 122. (Col.4, 49-col.5, 54; Fig.3). Moran discloses in step 308, an excitation source provides energy that excites the byproducts in the analysis chamber and the excited byproducts de-excite to produce radiation. (Col.4, 49-col.5, 54; Fig.3). Moran discloses a seventh set of instructions causes the discharge source 129 to energize the electrodes 130, thereby producing the discharge 132. (Col.4, 49-col.5, 54; Fig.3). These disclosures and the illustrations of Figures 1 and 3 teach the limitation of claim 15, ‘ A system, comprising: …a plasma coupler configured to receive the exhaust gas and generate an exhaust plasma therefrom…’
Moran discloses in step 310, radiation produced by the excited byproducts is analyzed by an optical analyzer such as the OES 138 receives light 133 from the discharge 132 and the OES 138 produces signals indicative of an energy spectrum of the light 133 produced by the discharge 132. (Col.4, 49-col.5, 54; Fig.3). This disclosure and the illustrations of Figures 1 and 3 teach the limitation of claim 15, ‘ A system, comprising: … and a detector configured to receive and analyze the exhaust plasma.’ Moreover, this disclosure and the illustrations of Figures 1 and 3 teach the limitation of claim 17. Moran explains an eighth set of instructions converts these signals to a computer readable form corresponding to the energy content of a particular wavelength of radiation, which range from the visible to the ultraviolet with the particular wavelengths monitored depend on the stripping chemistry. (Col.4, 49-col.5, 54; Fig.3). Moran discloses a ninth set of instructions causes the processor 142 to store and compare the converted signals so that a change in the signals over time due to an endpoint of the photoresist stripping process triggers an endpoint detection signal. (Col.4, 49-col.5, 54; Fig.3). These disclosures and the illustrations of Figure 3 teach the limitation of claim 1, ‘ A method of endpoint detection, the method comprising: …generating an exhaust plasma from the exhaust gas in a plasma coupler; and analyzing the exhaust plasma to determine an endpoint of the surface treatment.’ Moreover these disclosures teach the limitation of claims 3 and 12-14. Moran discloses once the endpoint is detected, the program terminates the process occurring in the main chamber at step 312, wherein the program 300 causes the processor 142 to execute a tenth set of instructions that shut off power from the RF power supply 118, shut off the flow of process gas from the gas panel 117, change the pressure in the main chamber 102, or change a temperature of the wafer 110. (Col.4, 49-col.5, 54; Fig.3). This disclosure and the illustrations of Figures 1 and 3 teach the limitation of claim 19.
Moran also discloses the present invention allows for endpoint detection of non-ionizing photoresist stripping processes. (Col.6, 13-37). Moran discloses that in addition to photoresist stripping or other emissive processes, the invention can be applied to non-emitting processes such as chemical downstream etching or light etching of oxides.(Col.6, 13-37). Moran explains such processes chemically etch wafers with gas reactants activated by a downstream microwave discharge source and the microwave discharge and its attendant glow are physically separated from the etch process. (Col.6, 13-37). Moran discloses the present invention can be used to monitor light emitting processes such as etching of aluminum and silicon and it can be applied to any process normally monitored by OES. (Col.6, 13-37). Moran discloses non-ionizing process steps can be monitored since the excitation does not require a plasma in the main chamber; therefore, monitoring of a greater variety of processes than in prior art systems can occur. (Col.6, 13-37). These disclosures and the disclosures of Moran as discussed above teach the limitation of claim 1, ‘A method of endpoint detection, the method comprising: … without plasma…’ and the limitation of claims 2, 11, 18 and 20.
Therefore, the recitations of claims 1-3, 11-12, 15, 17-20 are anticipated by the disclosures and illustrations of Moran.
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(s) 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran as applied to claims 1-3, 11-12, 15, 17-20 in paragraph 4 above, and further in view of Peter (US 2022/0344136; IDS, 01/15/2025).
The disclosures and illustrations of Moran as disused in paragraph 4 above fail to explicitly teach and/or suggest the limitation of claim 4, ‘ The method of claim 1, further comprising: providing a recipe for the surface treatment, the recipe including gas species in a process gas; and introducing the process gas into the process chamber initially at an overall flow rate that is 1.5 to 100 times of an overall flow rate of the recipe while keeping flow rate ratios of the gas species the same as the recipe.’ However, the disclosures and illustrations of Moran further in view of the disclosures of Peter provide such teachings.
Peter discloses dry chamber cleaning of photoresist films. Peter discloses this applicable for EUV resists which are metal containing resist films. (Para, 0080). Peter discloses the dry clean may be optimized for low etch selectivity or high etch rate of resist material deposited in the process chamber so that unwanted resist material may be quickly and efficiently removed. (Para, 0093). Peter explains low etch selectivity may be achieved for non-selective removal of photoresist material and metal oxide materials (e.g., tin oxide) and low etch selectivity may be achieved for non-selective removal of exposed EUV resist material and unexposed EUV resist material. (Para, 0093). Peter explains in some embodiments, higher temperatures and/or higher pressures may result in lower etch selectivity of the etch gas. (Para, 0093).
Peter discloses during exposure to the etch gas, the metal-containing resist material on the one or more surfaces may be subjected to an elevated temperature, which may be between about 20C and about 140C, between about 40C and about 120C, or between about 80C and about 120C. (Para, 0093). Peter discloses, during exposure to the etch gas, the pressure in the process chamber may be high such as between about 0.01 Torr and atmosphere, between about 0.1 Torr and 100 Torr, or between about 0.1 Torr and about 6 Torr. (Para, 0093). Peter also discloses in some embodiments, the chamber pressure is cycled between high and low pressures during exposure to the etch gas. (Para, 0093). Moreover, Peter discloses a pressure control for process station 1300 may be provided by a butterfly valve 1318. (Para, 0133). Peter explains, a butterfly valve 1318 throttles a vacuum provided by a downstream vacuum pump (not shown). However, in some embodiments, pressure control of process station 1300 may also be adjusted by varying a flow rate of one or more gases introduced to the process station 1300. (Para, 0133). The disclosures of Moran as discussed above further in view of these disclosures of Peter teach and/or suggest the limitation of claims 5-6.
Peter also discloses etch gas flow rate may also be tuned to control etch selectivity, and in some embodiments an etch gas flow rate is between about 50 sccm and about 10000 sccm, between about 100 sccm and about 10000 sccm, or between about 100 sccm and about 2000 sccm. (Para, 0093). Peter explains that instructions for a controller 1350 may be provided via input/output control (IOC) sequencing instructions where instructions for setting conditions for a process phase may be included in a corresponding recipe phase of a process recipe. (Para, 0136). Peter explains in some cases, process recipe phases may be sequentially arranged, so that all instructions for a process phase are executed concurrently with that process phase and instructions for setting one or more reactor parameters may be included in a recipe phase. (Para, 0136). Peter discloses a recipe phase may include instructions for setting a flow rate of clean chemistry reactant gas (e.g., HCl, HBr, HI, and BCl3) and time delay instructions for the recipe phase. (Para, 0136). The disclosures of Moran as discussed above further in view of these disclosures of Peter teach and/or suggest the limitation of claims 4 and 8-10.
Peter also discloses airlocks 1642 and 1646, also known as a loadlocks or transfer modules, interface with the VTM 1638 and a patterning module 1640. (Para, 0176). Peter explains this tool architecture allows for work pieces, such as semiconductor substrates or wafers, to be transferred under vacuum so as not to react before exposure. (Para, 0176). The disclosures and illustrations of Moran further in view of these disclosures of Peter teach and/or suggest the limitation of claim 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the present application by Applicant to modify the disclosures of Moran as discussed above further in view of the disclosures of Peter because both are directed to analogous methods of etching and/or removing metal containing photoresist layers from a wafer and Peter discloses an apparatus that controls the etching and/or removal process in a precise manner without the need for a plasma.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran as applied to claims 1-3, 11-12, 15, 17-20 in paragraph 4 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US 2022/0044919; IDS, 01/15/2025).
The disclosures and illustrations of Moran as discussed in paragraph 4 above fail to explicitly teach and/or suggest the limitation of claim 16, ‘ The system of claim 15, further comprising: a turbo molecular pump configured to transfer the exhaust gas out of the outlet of the process chamber.’ However, the disclosures and illustrations of Moran further in view of the disclosures of and illustrations of Takahashi provide such teachings.
Takahashi discloses a gas analyzer, which has a longer working life and can accurately analyze sample gases, including those containing corrosive gases, over a long period of time. (Para, 0004). Takahashi discloses the gas analyzer apparatus 1 according to the present embodiment is a mass spectrometer and the analyzer unit 21 includes a filter unit (in the present embodiment, the quadrupole portion) 20 that filters the ionized sample gas (sample gas ions) 8 generated as the plasma 18 by the plasma generation apparatus 10 according to the mass-to-charge ratio, a focus electrode 25 that draws some of the plasma 18 as an ion flow 8, a detector unit 30 that detects the ions that have been filtered, and a vacuum vessel (housing) 40 that houses the analyzer unit 21. (Para, 0031). Takahashi discloses the gas analyzer apparatus 1 includes an exhaust system 60 that keeps the inside of the housing 40 under an appropriate negative pressure condition (vacuum condition). (Para, 0031). Takahashi discloses the exhaust system 60 according to the present embodiment includes a turbo molecular pump (TMP) 61 and a Roots pump 62 and the exhaust system 60 also controls the internal pressure of the sample chamber 11 of the plasma generation apparatus 10. (Para, 0031). The disclosures and illustrations of Moran further in view of these disclosures and illustrations of Takahashi teach and/or suggest the limitation of claim 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the present application by Applicant to modify the disclosures of Moran in view of the disclosures of Takahashi because both are directed to apparatuses for analyzing plasma gas samples and Takahashi discloses a gas analyzer which has an improved working.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEEN O SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6569. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/CALEEN O SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights