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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
"processing device" in claims 9 and 17-18.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanka US 20050279455 A1 in view of Anwar US 20080132080 A1.
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:
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.
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”).
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 Anwar, because they all directed to plasma process control, to make the method wherein 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to recover from the plasma fault, as Anwar teaches in [0040].
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).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanka in view of Anwar as applied to claims 1-2 and 4 above, further in view of Omori US 8790743 B1.
Regarding claim 3, 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).
Neither Wanka nor Anwar explicitly further teaches 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 and Anwar 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanka in view of Anwar as applied to claims 1-2 and 4 above, further in view of Povolny US 20130014371 A1.
Regarding claim 5, 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).
Neither Wanka nor Anwar explicitly further teaches 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 and Anwar 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].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanka in view of Anwar as applied to claims 1-2 and 4 above, further in view of Zhao US 20040020601 A1.
Regarding claim 6, neither Wanka nor Anwar explicitly 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.
Zhao explicitly teaches in an analogous art that 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 and Anwar to 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].
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanka in view of Anwar as applied to claims 1-2 and 4 above, further in view of MUKAI CN 116741609 A.
Regarding claim 7, neither Wanka nor Anwar explicitly further teaches 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 and Anwar 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 claim 8, 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 and Anwar 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.
Claims 9-10, 12, 14 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanka in view of Anwar and Zhao.
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 and Anwar teach the claimed method, they teach the instructions for implementing the method steps.
Neither Wanka nor Anwar explicitly further teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed cause a processing device to perform operations.
Zhao explicitly teaches in an analogous art that 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, Anwar and Zhao 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, Anwar and Zhao 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 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanka in view of Anwar and Zhao as applied to claims 9-10, 12, 14 17-18 and 20 above, further in view of Omori.
Claims 11 and 19 recite similar limitations to that of claim 3 therefore are rejected on the same basis.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanka in view of Anwar and Zhao as applied to claims 9-10, 12, 14 17-18 and 20 above, further in view of Povolny.
Claim 13 recites similar limitations to that of claim 5 therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanka in view of Anwar and Zhao as applied to claims 9-10, 12, 14 17-18 and 20 above, further in view of MUKAI.
Claims 15-16 recite similar limitations to that of claims 7-8, respectively, therefore are rejected on the same basis, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hanawa US 20060238953 A1 teaches turning on plasma to dechuck substrate.
Mihaylov US 20170140905 A1 teaches using machine learning for determining plasma arcing.
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