DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 13-14, and 17-18 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This action is final.
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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have avoided invoking 112(f) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action. As a result, all 112(f) interpretations have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding 35 USC § 103 rejections with respect to amended claims have been fully considered but in moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant amended independent claims to further specify:
causing initiation of a first process recipe in a first slot of a multi-slot processing chamber and a second process recipe in a second slot of the multi-slot processing chamber responsive to a first substrate being disposed in the first slot and a second substrate being disposed in the second slot; and
responsive to determining a fault event associated with the first slot, causing interruption of one or more first components of the first slot during running of the first process recipe while continuing operation of one or more second components of the first slot during the running of the first process recipe to remove the first substrate in an unfinished state from the multi-slot processing chamber subsequent to completion of the second process recipe.
KOIZUMI JP 2011243812 A is introduced in response to amended claims. The teachings of Wanka, Zhao, Anwar, Omori, Povolny and MUKAI as disclosed in the previous office action are hereby incorporated by references to the extent applicable to the amended claims.
Another iteration of claim analysis has been made. Referring to the corresponding sections of the claim analysis below for details.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-10, 12, 14, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanka US 20050279455 A1 in view of Zhao US 20040020601 A1, Anwar US 20080132080 A11 and KOIZUMI JP 2011243812 A.
Regarding claim 1, Wanka teaches a method comprising:
causing initiation of a first process recipe in a first slot of a multi-slot processing chamber and a second process recipe in a second slot of the multi-slot processing chamber (Fig. 1 [0041] [0014] - [0015] processing chamber has several plasma zones i.e. “multi-slot processing chamber” with plasma source isolated for independent etching and deposition process, the etching and other plasma zones are processing at the same time continuously i.e. “initiation of a first process recipe in a first slot” and “a second process recipe in a second slot”).
Wanka does not explicitly further teach:
the initiation of the recipes is responsive to a first substrate being disposed in the first slot and a second substrate being disposed in the second slot; and
responsive to determining a fault event associated with the first slot, causing interruption of one or more first components of the first slot during running of the first process recipe while continuing operation of one or more second components of the first slot during the running of the first process recipe to remove the first substrate in an unfinished state from the multi-slot processing chamber subsequent to completion of the second process recipe.
Zhao explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the initiation of the recipes is responsive to a first substrate being disposed in the first slot and a second substrate being disposed in the second slot (Fig. 2A [0064] [0065] [0182] after wafers placed in the processing regions 618 and 620, a capping layer is deposited using the recipe);
Anwar explicitly teaches in an analogous art that responsive to determining a fault event associated with the first slot, causing interruption of one or more first components of the first slot during running of the first process recipe while continuing operation of one or more second components of the first slot during the running of the first process recipe (Fig. 10 [0040] when an arc in the plasma of a plasma zone is detected i.e. “responsive to determining a fault event associated with the first slot”, the power applied to produce the plasma is ramped down or shut down i.e. “causing interruption of one or more first components of the first slot during running of the first process recipe”, while the flow of non-silicon containing gas continues i.e. “while continuing operation of one or more second components of the first slot during the running of the first process recipe”); and
KOIZUMI explicitly teaches in an analogous art to remove the first substrate in an unfinished state from the multi-slot processing chamber subsequent to completion of the second process recipe (page 3 paragraphs 7-9 and Fig. 14 page 10 last two paragraphs, when failure occurs in one of the processing unit, the NG substrate is transferred to an alternative unit that the process in that alternative unit is completed before the NG substrate arrives, i.e. “remove the first substrate in an unfinished state from the multi-slot processing chamber subsequent to completion of the second process recipe”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wanka to incorporate the teachings of Zhao, Anwar and KOIZUMI, because they all directed to substrate process control, to make the method wherein the initiation of the recipes is responsive to a first substrate being disposed in the first slot and a second substrate being disposed in the second slot; and responsive to determining a fault event associated with the first slot, causing interruption of one or more first components of the first slot during running of the first process recipe while continuing operation of one or more second components of the first slot during the running of the first process recipe to remove the first substrate in an unfinished state from the multi-slot processing chamber subsequent to completion of the second process recipe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to deposit the layer on wafers in the slots, as Zhao teaches in [0065], to recover from the plasma fault, as Anwar teaches in [0040], and to recover the NG substrate, as KOIZUMI teaches in page 10 paragraph 2 from the bottom.
Regarding claim 2, Wanka further teaches continuing running of the second process recipe in the second slot during the causing of the interruption of the one or more first components of the first slot ([0014] – [0015] the other plasma zones continue processing the substrates with other plasma sources while the specific plasma zone is undergoing specific process).
Regarding claim 4, Wanka further teaches the one or more first components of the first slot are independently controlled from corresponding components of the second slot (Fig. 1 [0041] [0014] – [0017] the plasma sources in each plasma zone are individually controlled to achieve etching or required plasma treatment rates).
Regarding claim 6, Wanka in view of Zhao further teaches causing a substrate in the first slot to be returned to a substrate enclosure system subsequent to the running of the first process recipe (Fig. 2A [0064] [0065] after the substrate has been deposited with a capping layer in one of the two process region of process chamber 130, the substrate is transferred to the cooling compartment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wanka incorporate the teachings of Zhao, because they all directed to plasma process control, to make the method wherein causing a substrate in the first slot to be returned to a substrate enclosure system subsequent to the running of the first process recipe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to let the process chamber to process subsequent wafers, as Zhao teaches in [0065].
Regarding claim 9, it is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing instruction of carrying out the method with similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. Since Wanka, Zhao, Anwar and KOIZUMI teach the claimed method, they teach the instructions for implementing the method steps.
In addition, Wanka in view of Zhao further teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing instruction which, when executed cause a processing device to perform operations ([0180] computer program stored on hard disk drive of a computer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wanka to incorporate the teachings of Zhao, because they all directed to plasma process control, to make the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed cause a processing device to perform operations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to simultaneously process wafers in multiple zones, as Zhao teaches in [0048].
Claims 10, 12 and 14, recites similar limitations to that of claims 2, 4 and 6, respectively, therefore are rejected on the same basis respectively.
Regarding claim 17, it is directed to a system of carrying out a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing instruction with similar limitations as set forth in claim 9. Since Wanka, Zhao, Anwar and KOIZUMI teach the claimed non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing the instructions, they teach the system for implementing the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium.
Regarding claims 18 and 20, they are directed to a system of carrying out a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing instruction with similar limitations as set forth in claims 10 and 12, respectively. Since Wanka, Zhao, Anwar and KOIZUMI teach the claimed non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing the instructions, they teach the system for implementing the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium.
Claims 3, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanka in view of Zhao, Anwar and KOIZUMI as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-10, 12, 14, 17-18 and 20 above, further in view of Omori US 8790743 B12.
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, Wanka in view of Anwar further teaches the one or more first components comprise one or more RF generators of the first slot (Fig. 1 [0039] [0040] the plasma source with RF power of a plasma zone).
The combination of Wanka, Zhao, Anwar and KOIZUMI does not explicitly further teach the fault event comprises radio frequency (RF) amount associated with the first slot not meeting a threshold amount.
Omori explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the fault event comprises radio frequency (RF) amount associated with the first slot not meeting a threshold amount (column 8 line 42 to column 9 line 5, the plasma luminescence intensity lower than a threshold i.e. “RF amount associated with the first slot not meeting a threshold amount”, an error is counted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wanka, Zhao, Anwar and KOIZUMI to incorporate the teachings of Anwar and Omori, because they all directed to plasma process control, to make the method wherein the fault event comprises radio frequency (RF) amount associated with the first slot not meeting a threshold amount; and the one or more first components comprise one or more RF generators of the first slot. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to detect plasma fault, as Omori teaches in column 8 line 42 to column 9 line 5.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanka in view of Zhao, Anwar and KOIZUMI as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-10, 12, 14, 17-18 and 20 above, further in view of Povolny US 20130014371 A13.
Regarding claim 5, Wanka in view of Anwar further teaches causing one or more RF generators of the first slot to be turned off during a subset of operations of the first process recipe (when an arc in the plasma of a plasma zone is detected, the power applied to produce the plasma is shut down).
The combination of Wanka, Zhao, Anwar and KOIZUMI does not explicitly further teach causing the one or more RF generators of the first slot to be turned on during a dechucking operation of the first process recipe to dechuck a substrate in the first slot for automated removal of the substrate from the first slot.
Povolny explicitly teaches in an analogous art that causing the one or more RF generators of the first slot to be turned on during a dechucking operation of the first process recipe to dechuck a substrate in the first slot for automated removal of the substrate from the first slot (Fig. 1 [0005] – [0007] after the plasma is turned off, a low energy plasma is turned on to assist wafer dechucking for wafer removal by a robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wanka, Zhao, Anwar and KOIZUMI to incorporate the teachings of Anwar and Povolny, because they all directed to plasma process control, to make the method wherein the fault event comprises radio frequency (RF) amount associated with the first slot not meeting a threshold amount; and the one or more first components comprise one or more RF generators of the first slot. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to allow charges on the wafer to dissipate, as Povolny teaches in [0006].
Claims 7-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanka in view of Zhao, Anwar and KOIZUMI as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-10, 12, 14, 17-18 and 20 above, further in view of MUKAI CN 116741609 A4.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the combination of Wanka, Zhao, Anwar and KOIZUMI does not explicitly further teach identifying historical sensor data and historical performance data; and training a machine learning model using data input comprising the historical sensor data and target output comprising the historical performance data to generate a trained machine learning model, wherein the trained machine learning model is configured to provide output associated with the determining of the fault event.
MUKAI explicitly teaches in an analogous art that identifying historical sensor data and historical performance data; and training a machine learning model using data input comprising the historical sensor data and target output comprising the historical performance data to generate a trained machine learning model, wherein the trained machine learning model is configured to provide output associated with the determining of the fault event (Fig. 4 page 4 paragraph 5 from the bottom, page 5 paragraphs 4-5 from the bottom, classifies the image obtained from photographing data 70 into abnormal discharge or no abnormal discharge i.e. “identifying historical sensor data and historical performance data” and is used to train a determination model 74 for determining abnormal discharge).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wanka, Zhao, Anwar and KOIZUMI to incorporate the teachings of MUKAI, because they all directed to plasma process control, to make the method wherein identifying historical sensor data and historical performance data; and training a machine learning model using data input comprising the historical sensor data and target output comprising the historical performance data to generate a trained machine learning model, wherein the trained machine learning model is configured to provide output associated with the determining of the fault event. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to detect abnormal plasma, as MUKAI teaches in page 6 paragraph 6.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Wanka in view of MUKAI further teaches identifying sensor data; providing the sensor data as input to a trained machine learning model; and obtaining, from the trained machine learning model, output associated with predictive data, wherein the determining of the fault event is based on the predictive data (Fig. 11 page 6 paragraph 6, after the determination model 74 is trained, new image of photographing data is used as input, and the characteristic quantities generated based on the input is feed into the trained determination model 74 to generate an output, and determines whether there is an abnormal discharge based on the output from the trained determination model 74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wanka, Zhao, Anwar and KOIZUMI to incorporate the teachings of MUKAI, because they all directed to plasma process control, to make the method wherein identifying sensor data; providing the sensor data as input to a trained machine learning model; and obtaining, from the trained machine learning model, output associated with predictive data, wherein the determining of the fault event is based on the predictive data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to detect abnormal plasma, as MUKAI teaches in page 6 paragraph 6.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on (571)272-2279. 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.
/M.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Wanka, Zhao and Anwar are the prior arts of record
2 Omori is the prior art of record
3 Povolny is the prior art of record
4 Povolny is the prior art of record
Prosecution Insights