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/Restriction
The applicant elects invention I with traverse, stating that “a search for Groups I or II would yield references applicable to Groups I and II. As such, there is no serious search burden imposed on the Examiner.” Response p. 7. The examiner finds that the inventions are significantly non-overlapping, and thus the searches for each group would not reasonably be able to be done in a single application. The restriction requirement is made final. Non-elected claims 5-8 and 15-17 are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
The amended title overcomes the objection.
The applicant states on pages 10 and 11 of the response that “Applicant acknowledges that Aubuchon discloses multiple remote plasma sources and that Hirochi generally demonstrates the use of multiple plasma generators within a processing apparatus. However, neither reference cures the deficiencies of Wang, Jackson, and Arai. Aubuchon does not disclose conditioning a treatment radical generator with a halogen-containing conditioning plasma while separately providing a second radical generator for generation of an activated cleaning gas. Rather, Aubuchon addresses processing and cleaning functions through the provision of separate plasma sources.” Aubuchon is not relied on for the conditioning plasma; the primary reference Wang discloses that. Aubuchon is not needed for this feature, so this argument is not apropos.
The applicant argues on page 11 that “the cited references collectively fail to provide a sufficient rationale that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the presently claimed invention. The Office Action effectively reconstructs the claimed architecture by selecting isolated features from five separate references and combining them using Applicant's disclosure as a roadmap. Even assuming that Aubuchon demonstrates that multiple remote plasma sources were known, the rejection still does not explain why a skilled artisan would have modified Wang’s conditioned treatment plasma source to arrive at a system in which a first radical generator is specifically configured to generate the activated treatment gas while a separate second radical generator is specifically configured to generate the activated cleaning gas.”
Wang discloses all the features of claim 1 except for the cleaning plasma generated in a plasma generator separate from the conditioning plasma generator. Cleaning plasma generators were well-known and sold by companies like MKS Instruments. It would have been obvious to buy and install such a device. Furthermore, Aubuchon shows it was known to have these as separate plasma generators. This is not a non-obvious feature.
In response to the applicant’s assertion about the number of references, some references are to show elements that are very common, but not illustrated in a previous references, e.g. a lid, for which Hirochi is cited. The different references are there in an abundance of caution to make explicit that various claimed elements were known in the art. One can not point to the number of references to deprecate the rejection.
On pages 11 and 12 the applicant argues that “the presently claimed invention requires more than the mere presence of multiple plasma generators. The claims require a specific functional relationship among those generators and the recited processing sequence. The first radical generator generates the activated treatment gas used during substrate processing, while the second radical generator generates the activated cleaning gas used for chamber-cleaning operations. None of Wang, Jackson, Arai, Aubuchon, or Hirochi teaches or suggests this coordinated arrangement.” What is the “specific functional relationship among those generators and the recited processing sequence” to which the applicant refers? All that is recited is “before or after (a), conditioning the first radical generator” (meaning, at any time besides (a), when the substrate is introduced into the chamber), and cleaning with an activated gas at an unspecified time. There is no specific sequence claimed. Whatever generic relationship is recited is disclosed by Aubuchon.
See the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, US 2018/0174901 A1, in view of Aubuchon, US 2018/0294144 A1.
Claim 1: Wang discloses
a processing chamber (218), comprising a chamber lid assembly (top of 218), one or more chamber sidewalls (sides of 218), and a chamber base (bottom of 218) that collectively define a processing volume;
a gas delivery system (202-214) fluidly coupled to the processing chamber, the gas delivery system comprising a first radical generator (206); and
a non-transitory computer readable medium (399) having instructions stored thereon for performing a method of processing a plurality of substrates when executed by a processor ([0074]), the method comprising:
(a) receiving a substrate (397) into the processing volume ([0066]-[0071]);
(b) exposing the substrate to an activated treatment gas, the activated treatment gas comprising an effluent of a treatment plasma formed in the first radical generator ([0034]);
(c) exposing the substrate to a first tungsten-containing precursor and a first reducing agent ([0061]) to deposit a tungsten gapfill material (bulk tungsten 110, [0030]);
(d) transferring the substrate out of the processing volume ([0066]-[0071]);
(e) before or after (a), conditioning the first radical generator, comprising:
i. flowing a conditioning gas ([0033], [0046]) into the first radical generator (206), the conditioning gas comprising a halogen-based component ([0033], [0046]); and
ii. igniting and maintaining a conditioning plasma of the conditioning gas for a first period of time ([0046]); and
the period of time is however long there is a conditioning plasma.
(f) repeating (a)-(e) when a number of sequentially processed substrates is less than or equal to a threshold value.
The process is clearly intended to process multiple substrates; see e.g. [0056].
PNG
media_image1.png
658
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang discloses delivering a plasma conditioned process gas: “Gases (e.g., a nitrogen-based gas, a fluorine-containing gas, inert gases such as argon, helium, etc.) are supplied to the remote plasma generator 206 as a process gas from one or more sources 202, which may be one or more storage tanks.” Wang also discloses cleaning of the substrate, which was a ubiquitous function: “the system controller may … enable cleaning operations” [0077]. Wang does not disclose delivering a conditioning plasma and a cleaning plasma through different plasma generators. However, this was known in the art. See Aubuchon, which discloses:
a first radical generator (105) configured to generate an activated treatment gas comprising an effluent of a treatment plasma ([0025]-[0027], [0030]); and
second radical generator (114) configured to generate an activated cleaning gas for cleaning chamber surfaces in the processing volume ([0022]-[0023]); and
(g) exposing the chamber surfaces in the processing volume to the activated cleaning gas generated in the second radical generator ([0022]-[0023]).
PNG
media_image2.png
380
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
404
442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The only difference between Wang and the present invention is the use of a stand-alone cleaning plasma generator separate from the processing gas plasma generator. Cleaning plasma generators were well-known and sold by companies like MKS Instruments. It would have been obvious to buy and install such a device. Such generators were well-known in the art, and it would be improper to grant a patent that would cover purchasing and installing a such a commonly available plasma cleaning units to use in a device such as that of Wang. Furthermore, Aubuchon shows it was known to have these as separate plasma generators. This is not a non-obvious feature.
Claim 11: Wang discloses
(a) receiving the substrate (397) into a processing volume of a processing system ([0066]-[0071]), the processing system comprising:
a processing chamber (218) comprising a chamber lid assembly (top of 218), one or more chamber sidewalls (sides of 218), and a chamber base (bottom of 218) that collectively define the processing volume; and
a gas delivery (202-214) system fluidly coupled to the processing chamber, the gas delivery system comprising a first radical generator (206) configured to generate an activated treatment gas;
(b) exposing the substrate to the activated treatment gas ([0034]);
(c) exposing the substrate to a first tungsten-containing precursor and a first reducing agent ([0061]);
(d) transferring the substrate out of the processing volume ([0066]-[0071]); and
(e) before or after (a), conditioning the first radical generator, comprising:
i. flowing a conditioning gas into the first radical generator, the conditioning gas comprising a halogen-based component ([0033], [0046]); and
ii. igniting and maintaining a conditioning plasma of the conditioning gas for a first period of time ([0046]); and
(f) repeating (a)-(e) when a number of sequentially processed substrates is less than or equal to a threshold value.
The process is clearly intended to process multiple substrates; see e.g. [0056].
Wang discloses delivering a plasma conditioned process gas: “Gases (e.g., a nitrogen-based gas, a fluorine-containing gas, inert gases such as argon, helium, etc.) are supplied to the remote plasma generator 206 as a process gas from one or more sources 202, which may be one or more storage tanks.” Wang also discloses cleaning of the substrate, which was a ubiquitous function: “the system controller may … enable cleaning operations” [0077]. Wang does not disclose delivering a conditioning plasma and a cleaning plasma through different plasma generators. However, this was known in the art. See Aubuchon, which discloses:
a first radical generator (105) configured to generate an activated treatment gas comprising an effluent of a treatment plasma ([0025]-[0027], [0030]); and
second radical generator (114) configured to generate an activated cleaning gas for cleaning chamber surfaces in the processing volume ([0022]-[0023]); and
(g) exposing the chamber surfaces in the processing volume to the activated cleaning gas generated in the second radical generator ([0022]-[0023]).
PNG
media_image2.png
380
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
404
442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The only difference between Wang and the present invention is the use of a stand-alone cleaning plasma generator separate from the processing gas plasma generator. Cleaning plasma generators were well-known and sold by companies like MKS Instruments. It would have been obvious to buy and install such a device. Such generators were well-known in the art, and it would be improper to grant a patent that would cover purchasing and installing a such a commonly available plasma cleaning units to use in a device such as that of Wang. Furthermore, Aubuchon shows it was known to have these as separate plasma generators. This is not a non-obvious feature.
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Aubuchon, Jackson, US 2012/0237693 A1, and Arai, US 2003/0170402 A1.
Claims 2 and 12: Wang discloses at [0077] that “the system controller may be defined [to] … enable cleaning operations … and the like.” Thus cleaning is clearly contemplated, but the process is not set forth. Jackson discloses depositing metal layers such as tungsten (304) and afterwards cleaning the substrate.
Jackson discloses
(g) exposing chamber surfaces in the processing volume to an activated cleaning gas ([0042]) when the number of sequentially processed substrates is greater than or equal to the threshold value;
“the in-situ cleaning process may be performed in the processing chamber after performing deposition process after over or every one hundred and twenty five substrates” [0043].
and (h) repeating (a)-(g). Note that cleaning “every one hundred and twenty five substrates” means processing substrates, then cleaning, then processing more substrates, etc.
PNG
media_image4.png
437
454
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Jackson does not disclose that the cleaning gas comprises an effluent of a cleaning plasma that is formed in the second radical generator. However, this is disclosed by Arai, which discloses moving a cleaning gas from source 15 to a radical generator 13 and then into processing chamber 2 to clean the chamber [0048]). It would have been obvious to use such a cleaning radical generator as a known alternative to form a plasma cleaning gas to use a plasma to clean a processing chamber as Jackson discloses.
Claims 3 and 13: the treatment plasma is formed of a halogen free nitrogen-containing gas (“the nitrogen-based plasma is halogen-free. In many embodiments, a nitrogen-based plasma is formed from a N2 gas, although other although other nitrogen gases such as forming gas, NH3, or N2H2 may be used.” Wang [0044]).
Wang does not disclose the ratio of the ratio of halogen radicals generated during (e) to nitrogen radicals generated in the first radical generator during (b). However, this would have been a parameter that would have been adjusted during the ordinary course of the method, in order to effectively deposit the tungsten. Thus this would be a matter of ordinary design choice, and not a source of patentable distinction.
Claims 4 and 14: the flow rate of the halogen-based component would have been a matter of ordinary design choice based on ordinary considerations such as the optimal processing speed, and would not be a source of patentable distinction absent unexpected results.
Claims 9, 10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Jackson, Arai, Aubuchon and Hirochi, US 2020/0087785 A1.
Claim 9: Aubuchon discloses
a first valve (121) fluidly coupled between the first radical generator (114) and the processing chamber (102, FIG. 2); and
a second valve (129) fluidly coupled between the second radical generator (105) and the processing chamber.
PNG
media_image2.png
380
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note that Aubuchon discloses 121 and 129 as “outlets”; it was known that such outlets often contain valves. See Hirochi FIG. 3, plasma generator 265 connected by valve 266 to the chamber 202 ([0027], [0041]).
PNG
media_image3.png
404
442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This would have been seen as obvious as often included in such gas outlets.
The cleaning process (Aubuchon [0022]-[0023]) and the plasma processing steps (e.g. [0025]-[0027]) are presented as different processing steps, and those in the art would understand that the respective plasma generators would only be open for their own respective steps. Thus exposing the chamber surfaces to the activated cleaning gas (during the cleaning step) would comprise fluidly isolating the first radical generator from the effluent of the cleaning plasma by use of the first valve (as the first valve would be closed at the time).
Claim 10: In Wang in view of Aubuchon, exposing the substrate to the activated treatment gas would comprise fluidly isolating the second radical generator from the effluent of the treatment plasma by use of the second valve, as the second valve would be closed when the first radical generator is in use.
Claim 18: See the combination of references as explained above with respect to claim 9. Aubuchon discloses
a first valve (121) fluidly coupled between the first radical generator (114) and the processing chamber (102); and
a second valve (129) fluidly coupled between the second radical generator (105) and the processing chamber.
Aubuchon discloses that the processing and cleaning steps are separate, and those in the art would understand that the valve for each would be open during its respective process, and closed otherwise. Thus Wang in view of Aubuchon would entail:
exposing the chamber surfaces to the activated cleaning gas comprises fluidly isolating the first radical generator from the effluent of the cleaning plasma by use of the first valve, and
exposing the substrate to the activated treatment gas comprises fluidly isolating the second radical generator from the effluent of the treatment plasma by use of the second valve.
Claim 19: Aubuchon discloses a lid plate 106 with radical generators connected to the lid plate (FIG. 1), but not the showerhead. However, these were very common. See Hirochi, the lid assembly comprises a lid plate (231) and a showerhead (230) coupled to the lid plate, and the radical generator is in fluid communication with the processing volume through a gas inlet (B in FIG. 1) formed through the lid plate.
PNG
media_image5.png
436
618
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This would have been obvious as a common arrangement, and it would have been obvious to have the radical generators of Aubuchon in communication with the chamber through the gas inlet in the plate as known in the art.
Claim 20 recites that the effluent of the treatment plasma travels a first distance from the first radical generator to the processing volume and the effluent of the cleaning plasma travels a second distance from the second radical generator to the processing volume, and the first distance is less than the second distance. It would have been within ordinary skill in the art to determine the appropriate location for each plasma source in such a system, thus determining the distance traveled by effluent of each. This would have been an ordinary design choice, not a source of patentable distinction absent unexpected results.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1596. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469.295.9060. 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.
/PETER BRADFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights