DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1-4, the terms “first” and “second” (and “third”) are merely considered designations without implied distinction and/or differentiation unless actual structure is imparted (i.e. first and second layers, the first and second sense materials in claims 5 & 16, the first and second portions in claim 18), wherein the only time a first and second element are differentiated is within claims 5 and 16. Therefore, a first sense material and a second sense material could be the same sense material and a first etch material and a second etch material could be the same etch material without added distinction and/or differentiation.
Furthermore, the term “distinct” is interpreted to mean a separation or discreteness, but not necessarily a differentiation. As applied to the first and second sense materials being “distinct” in claim 5, it is interpreted to mean that the sense materials are individual and separate/discrete (while they may be contacting or not), wherein the term “different” is interpreted to mean that the sense materials would be of a different type in at least some regard (i.e. copper-based vs tungsten-based OR copper-based vs. differing type of copper-base).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 18, the term “sense material” is confusing and vague without additional context. While it is remarked that the sense material(s) is/are “responsive to the second layer being etched during an etch process” such that the sense material(s) is/are “detected at the surface of the device” and due to the scope of the terms “responsive” and “detected” also being confusing and vague without additional context, such that the additional description does not entirely fix the nebulousness of the terms as set forth.
The addition of the subject matter of claims 2, 13, and 19 with a narrower/clarified/replaced version of the term “responsive” would likely entirely fix the indefiniteness issue(s).
As of the first term, any “sense material” would be considered met upon being detectable via any means (i.e. electrical, optical, physical, etc.) such that it can be measured, calibrated, or is otherwise responsive to a first layer that is etchable, with a focus being placed on during etching processes, which is considered an intended use/adapted to type limitation, which is explained below.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, it has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute an absolute limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138.
Essentially so while functional limitations can control certain material aspects of the claimed article, unless it explicitly affects/limits the structural/compositional qualities of the article, the article will be considered met unless otherwise stated.
Further regarding claim 18, it unclear whether a “test coupon” is a distinct layer from the device layer or just a designated area. Without additional language providing a structural and/or functional component to the “test coupon” the term will be interpreted rather broadly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 8-14, & 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Usui et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0043383 A1) (hereinafter “Usui”), or alternatively, claims 1-3, 5-7, 8-14, & 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui, wherein claims 18-19 are optionally in view of Grimbergen (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0176149 A1) (hereinafter “Grimbergen”).
Regarding claims 1-3, 8-14, and 16, Usui teaches a semiconductor device, wherein a third embodiment comprises a wafer/substrate having a (depicted as non-patterned) interconnect/wiring layer (Fig. 13 [62]) disposed/deposited over the the entirety of the surface (as depicted), wherein the wiring layer comprises a (first and second) Cu (copper-based) film sense material on at least two portions of the entire wafer surface and having an (first and second) organic film (Fig. 13 [60]) disposed/deposited thereon, wherein the film thickness/etching depth is measured in-situ (in real time) during an etching process [0098] and the process endpoint is determined and controlled via the optical detection and measurement of the emitted light reflected off the wiring layer defining an optical signature thereof at the surface of the device.
Alternatively, further regarding claims 1-3, 5, 8-14 and 16 and regarding claims 5 and 18-19 the interconnect/wiring layer is patterned over the entirety of the surface to form one or more circuit tracks, as that is a well-known feature to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, wherein distinct copper-based material pattern portions would be present in regions/portions over the surface of the device.
Further regarding claims 18-19, Grimbergen teaches a reflection interferometry detectable test for endpoint detection pattern (coupon), wherein the pattern is part of the wiring surface [0079], wherein test patterns are provided at least in the periphery but may be provided in a central region as well (any region) [0079-0083, 0104], which increases process accuracy [0091] and allows for improved endpoint detection [0104].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide test pattens/coupons in one or more regions of the substrate/wafer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivate to increase process accuracy and improve endpoint detection.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 17, Usui teaches a patterned mask layer (Fig. 13 [61]) for altering one or more of the underlying layers [0098], wherein the mask layer can be a photoresist or nitride film [0098], wherein are usually considered hard masks.
Claims 4, 15, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui, as applied to claims 2 and 13 above, optionally in view of Grimbergen as applied to claim 19 above, (further) in view of Marsh et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,143,667) (hereinafter “Marsh”).
Regarding claims 4, 15 and 20, an (first and second) optical signature(s) corresponding to a (first and second) wavelength(s) of a (first and second) plurality/pluralities of photons emitted by a (first and second) plasma(s).
Marsh teaches a method for optical detection comprising photoemission to determine the end point of an etching depth/thickness uniformity during the course of the process (col. 5, lines 11-15), wherein comprising a first and second stacked layers, wherein at least one of the layers is an insulating (organic film), such as silicon dioxide or polyimides (organic film) (col. 4, lines 52-54) and the other comprises a semiconductive or conductive material, such as silicon or metals (col. 4, lines 39-47), wherein the semiconductive or conductive film is located under the film such that the insulating layer at a full thickness prevents or substantially reduces an optical signature and at a second at least partially reduced thickness allows the detection of at least a part of the optical signature that corresponds to a wavelength of a photon energy (plurality of photons) emitted by a plasma semiconductive/conductive material (col. 6, line 58 – col. 7, line 46), wherein the photodetection method is improved over in-situ methods of measuring, such as measuring changes in concentrations of reactive chemical species, measuring changes in voltage/electrical potential, and measuring optical interference/reflectaometry due to its fur superior sensitivity allow for formation and measurement of very thin layers, is not affected by the surface morphology of the layer being etched, and provides localized measurements (col. 1, line 56 – col. 3, line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the conductive copper and organic film insulating layers as the sense material and etchable material layer, respectively, such that the thickness/depth of the organic film would be measured and controlled in situ by providing the optical signature of the detectable sense material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an improved in-situ measurement method over measuring chemical species concentrations, voltage measurement, and interferometric optical measurement due to its fur superior sensitivity allow for formation and measurement of very thin layers, is not affected by the surface morphology of the layer being etched, and provides localized measurements [Marsh].
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-13, & 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turovets et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0226680 A1) (hereinafter “Turovets”) in view of Usui et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0043383 A1) (hereinafter “Usui”), or vice-versa,
wherein claims 3 & 14 are optionally further in view and claims 10-11 are further in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0157387 A1) (hereinafter “Chen”) OR Grimbergen (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0176149 A1) (hereinafter “Grimbergen”),
wherein claim 8 is optionally further in view of Tedeschi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0057356 A1) (hereinafter “Tedeschi”), and
wherein claims 5 & 16 are optionally further in view of Tedeschi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0057356 A1) (hereinafter “Tedeschi”) AND/OR Okamoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0096723 A1) (hereinafter “Okamoto”)
Regarding claims 1-3, 8-9, 13, 15, and 18-20, Turovets teaches a semiconductor wafer (device) having techniques and systems for in-situ measurement and control of patterned structures being processed/manufactured, specifically for determining an endpoint during etch depth or material removal [0001-0003, 0005, 0022, 0041], wherein monitoring is achieved by having a plurality of different stacks of layers, i.e. two or more different stacks of at least first and second layers, in different regions (a portion of or over the entirety of) of the wafer/device [0012, 0030, 0034, 0058], wherein the method of measurement is optical detection, such as reflection spectra, wherein each region comprises an optical signature [0055, 0058, 0061], wherein the parameter used for optical detection is the thickness of at least one layer of the stack [0022], wherein U.S. Pat. No. 6,764,379, incorporated by reference [0057], teaches an etch depth measurement for forming a damascene structure, which is only a single layer in relation to the substrate [‘379; col. 9, line 59 – col. 10, line 4].
However, the multiple different stacks comprising the (second) layer of a corresponding etch material being above a (first) layer of a corresponding sense material is not clearly taught.
Usui teaches a semiconductor device, wherein etching depth embodiment can comprise forming a damascene structure [0118], a gate electrode [0103, 0112], or an etched groove comprising a wafer/substrate having a (depicted as non-patterned) interconnect/wiring layer (Fig. 13 [62]) disposed/deposited over the entirety of the surface, wherein the wiring layer comprises a (first and second) Cu (copper-based) film sense material on at least two portions of the entire wafer surface and having an (first and second) organic film (Fig. 13 [60]) disposed/deposited thereon, wherein the film thickness/etching depth is measured in-situ (in real time) during an etching process [0098] and the process endpoint is determined and controlled via the optical detection and measurement of the emitted light reflected off the wiring layer defining an optical signature thereof at the surface of the device, wherein the groove among other features in underlying layers is imparted via a patterned mask layer (Fig. 13 [61]) [0098], wherein the mask layer can be a photoresist or nitride film [0098], wherein are usually considered hard masks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art for examples of reflectance spectra for performing and measuring etching depth/film thickness via optical detection of an underlying layer of copper-based film. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a means of measuring the thickness of an organic film during an etching process via an underlying interconnect/wiring layer [Usui; 0098-0099] in addition to forming damascene structures.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide different stacks as comprising a first interconnect layer and a second organic film layer at different locations for purposes of testing/obtaining measurement data from multiple regions of the wafer for in-situ control and monitoring of the process such that global and localized corrections can be made improving overall uniformity [Turovets; 0054-0055, 0058, 0061].
Further regarding claims 3 and 14 and regarding claims 10-11, in the event that a third sense material as claimed is not taught and particular wafer locations for the first, second, and third sense materials are not taught:
Chen teaches providing detection of endpoints from multiple locations on a surface of a wafer, including multiple locations adjacent an outer diameter of a device (All Figs. [312a/312b/312c/312d]) and a central location (inner diameter) (All Figs. [310]), wherein the zones are laid out in symmetric positions [0033] to accurately assess non-uniform etching conditions [0015] such as slowing down a third zone and/or speeding up first and second zones [0038, 0053, 0058].
OR
Grimbergen teaches a reflection interferometry detectable test for endpoint detection pattern (coupon), wherein the pattern is part of the wiring surface [0079], wherein test patterns are provided at least in the periphery but may be provided in a central region as well (any region) [0079-0083, 0104], which increases process accuracy [0091] and allows for improved endpoint detection [0104].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide different stacks in multiple (first and second) zones at an outer diameter and at least one (third) zone at an inner diameter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a known configuration for obtaining etching process data for determining the regions for and number of the different stacks.
Regarding claim 8, in the event that a first layer (comprising first and second different sense materials) covering the entirety of a surface is not taught:
Tedeschi teaches a sensor layer, wherein multiple micro-sensors at one or more locations, which can be used for end-point detection ad uniformity of fabrication processes [0043, 0066, 0073] are used to determine the amount of overlying/etched material that is removed via voltage and/or optical detection [0007, 0031-0032, 0066, 0104, 0113] and formed of materials that will that can be formed by discrete or separated first and second sensing materials (Figs. 6 & 8) or may be formed adjacent to one another in a continuous side-by-side configuration [0080, 0087, Fig. 7], the sensor layer(s) having an insulating covering comprises a monolithic overlayer [0088], or may comprise different insulating coverings not susceptible to etching by the same etchant for different exposure levels at different times in wafer processing [0008-0009, 0083-0084], wherein capacitance/voltage and optical sensing may also be used to detect particles as well as thickness [0047, 0113], and the sensor may comprise a material identical to material being removed to provide a simulated measurement of a removal rate [0086, 0112] and may trigger different operations in wafer fabrication/processing [0125], wherein the capacitive embodiment comprises a conductor formed a conductive material such as tungsten or polysilicon [0095].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide different stacks such that the first layer is in a side-by-side type configuration over the entire surface of the device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a known configuration change from a limited number of choices, one of which would have allowed for a continuous overlying second layer of the same or different materials.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, in the event that the first and second sense materials are not distinct materials as recited above:
Tedeschi teaches a sensor layer, wherein multiple micro-sensors at one or more locations, which can be used for end-point detection ad uniformity of fabrication processes [0043, 0066, 0073] are used to determine the amount of overlying/etched material that is removed via voltage and/or optical detection [0007, 0031-0032, 0066, 0104, 0113] and formed of materials that will that can be formed by discrete or separated first and second sensing materials (Figs. 6 & 8) or may be formed adjacent to one another in a continuous side-by-side configuration [0080, 0087, Fig. 7], the sensor layer(s) having an insulating covering comprises a monolithic overlayer [0088], or may comprise different insulating coverings not susceptible to etching by the same etchant for different exposure levels at different times in wafer processing [0008-0009, 0083-0084], wherein capacitance/voltage and optical sensing may also be used to detect particles as well as thickness [0047, 0113], and the sensor may comprise a material identical to material being removed to provide a simulated measurement of a removal rate [0086, 0112] and may trigger different operations in wafer fabrication/processing [0125], wherein the capacitive embodiment comprises a conductor formed a conductive material such as tungsten or polysilicon [0095].
OR
Okomoto teaches semiconductor device plasma processing method using optical detection of interference/reflection for determining an endpoint for a gate electrode used in next-gen flash memory including an insulating film, such as silicon dioxide, and tungsten which provide their specific properties as beneficial for to provide the selectivity required to form the structure having the desired great differences in lateral etching [0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide different stacks with different/distinct types of conductive materials. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide for alternative uses, such as capacitive detection of particles [Tedeschi] OR to provide a new type of structure alongside conventional copper wiring that also requires an endpoint.
Claims 4 & 15, & 20 are optionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turovets in view of Usui, as applied to claims 2, 13, and 19 above, further in view of Marsh et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,143,667) (hereinafter “Marsh”).
Regarding claims 4, 15 and 20, an (first and second) optical signature(s) corresponding to a (first and second) wavelength(s) of a (first and second) plurality/pluralities of photons emitted by a (first and second) plasma(s).
Marsh teaches a method for optical detection comprising photoemission to determine the end point of an etching depth/thickness uniformity during the course of the process (col. 5, lines 11-15), wherein comprising a first and second stacked layers, wherein at least one of the layers is an insulating (organic film), such as silicon dioxide or polyimides (organic film) (col. 4, lines 52-54) and the other comprises a semiconductive or conductive material, such as silicon or metals (col. 4, lines 39-47), wherein the semiconductive or conductive film is located under the film such that the insulating layer at a full thickness prevents or substantially reduces an optical signature and at a second at least partially reduced thickness allows the detection of at least a part of the optical signature that corresponds to a wavelength of a photon energy (plurality of photons) emitted by a plasma semiconductive/conductive material (col. 6, line 58 – col. 7, line 46), wherein the photodetection method is improved over in-situ methods of measuring, such as measuring changes in concentrations of reactive chemical species, measuring changes in voltage/electrical potential, and measuring optical interference/reflectaometry due to its fur superior sensitivity allow for formation and measurement of very thin layers, is not affected by the surface morphology of the layer being etched, and provides localized measurements (col. 1, line 56 – col. 3, line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the conductive copper and organic film insulating layers as the sense material and etchable material layer, respectively, such that the thickness/depth of the organic film would be measured and controlled in situ by providing the optical signature of the detectable sense material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an improved in-situ measurement method over measuring chemical species concentrations, voltage measurement, and interferometric optical measurement due to its fur superior sensitivity allow for formation and measurement of very thin layers, is not affected by the surface morphology of the layer being etched, and provides localized measurements [Marsh].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 May 15th, 2026
Prosecution Insights