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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments that Yang et al. fails to disclose separating the plasma from the hydrocarbons and the inert gas has been considered but is found to be unpersuasive.
Yang et al. discloses a processing chamber (100) divided by a grid filter (104) into an upper region (100a) and a lower region (100b) (Fig. 1). To maximize radical dissociation and plasma density, the reference teaches controlling gas species and flow ratios via upper and lower injectors (130, 134). For example, injecting inert gases like Ar or He through the upper injector (130) promotes electrode bombardment and increases local plasma density ( Fig. 1 & ¶631).
PNG
media_image1.png
800
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
800
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Yang teaches a spatial gas separation strategy to prevent carbon film deposition on the top electrode. By injecting inert purge gas into the upper region (100a) and carbon source gases into the lower region (100b), the system minimizes back diffusion(¶812). This arrangement also provides electrical isolation: while the upper region maintains high electron density, the grid filter ensures that accelerated secondary beam electrons create a "cold plasma" above the substrate (111) in the lower region (¶1023)..
Because Yang et al. clearly teaches the distinct spatial delivery of an inert gas into the upper portion of the chamber and carbon source gases into the lower portion of the chamber to minimize back diffusion, alongside a physical grid filter engineered to electrically isolate the chamber regions and separate the distinct plasma zones, the reference fully satisfies the structure functionality and procedural boundaries argued by the Applicant. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 20190057862 A1).
CLAIM 1. Yang teaches a method of depositing an amorphous or crystalline carbon film on a substrate (Yang ¶[0007-8, 19, 34-35 & 53]), the method comprising:
flowing one or more carbon-containing precursors into a reaction chamber(Yang ¶[0056 & 81) toward a substrate in the reaction chamber (Yang ¶[0056 & 79-81]),each of the carbon-containing precursors having at least one of: one or more C-C bonds or one or more C-H bonds (Yang ¶[0057, 89 & 103] – Note: ¶57 discloses using hydrocarbon compounds which contain these bonds.);
generating, from a source gas, radicals of the source gas in a remote plasma source (RPS 197) that is positioned upstream of the one or more carbon-containing precursors (Yang ¶[038, 43-45, 63, 88, 95, 102]); and
introducing the radicals of the source gas into the reaction chamber toward the substrate (Yang ¶[0030, 45]), wherein the radicals are in an energy state sufficient to activate C-C bonds and/or C-H bonds and form activated carbon radical-containing precursors in an environment adjacent to the substrate (Yang ¶[0102-103]), wherein the activated carbon radical-containing precursors deposit to form an amorphous or crystalline carbon film on the substrate (Yang ¶[0007, 76 & 102-103]).
CLAIM 2. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the source gas comprises hydrogen gas and the radicals of the source gas are radicals of hydrogen (Yang ¶[0043 & 60]).
CLAIM 3. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 2, wherein the radicals of hydrogen are radicals of hydrogen in a ground state in an environment adjacent to the substrate (Yang ¶[0043-44] – Describes these as radicals generated remotely to avoid high energy ion bombardment at the substrate.).
CLAIM 4. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises a non-metal layer of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon, or carbon, and the amorphous or crystalline carbon film being deposited on the non-metal layer (Yang ¶[0055]).
CLAIM 15. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 1, wherein an amount of sp3 carbon bonding in the amorphous or crystalline carbon film is equal to or greater than about 25% (Yang ¶[0117] – discloses “diamond like carbon” or high hardness” films, which are chemically defined by sp3 content.).
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.
Claim(s) 5-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20190057862 A1) in view of Ramaswamy et al. (US 20070032082 A1).
CLAIM 5. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises a metal layer, and the amorphous or crystalline carbon film being deposited on the metal layer (Yang ¶[0021]). Yang is silent upon specific metal layers such as the recited of copper, cobalt, molybdenum, tungsten, or ruthenium. Such recited metals, were however conventional at the time of the invention, as supported by Ramaswamy paragraphs 146-156 disclosing an analogous carbon mask formed by a analogous hydrogen radical remote plasma deposition formed on copper. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to of copper, cobalt, molybdenum, tungsten, or ruthenium, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 6. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the one or more carbon-containing precursors comprise at least one of a linear alkene, linear alkyne, branched alkene, branched alkyne, cyclic alkene, or cyclic alkyne group (Yang ¶[0057 & 89]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a known carbon containing precursor, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 7. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the one or more carbon-containing precursors comprise a branched alkane group or cyclic alkane group (Yang ¶[0057 & 89]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a known carbon containing precursor, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 8. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the one or more carbon-containing precursors comprise a halo-substituted alkane, halo-substituted alkene, or halo-substituted alkyne group (Yang ¶[0057 & 89]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a known carbon containing precursor, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 9. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the one or more carbon-containing precursors comprise a haloalkyl-substituted alkane, haloalkyl- substituted alkene, haloalkyl- substituted alkyne, carboxyl-substituted alkane, carboxyl-substituted alkene, carboxyl-substituted alkyne, cyano-substituted alkane, cyano-substituted alkene, cyano-substituted alkyne, carbonyl- substituted alkane, carbonyl-substituted alkene, carbonyl-substituted alkyne, sulfonyl-substituted alkane, sulfonyl-substituted alkene, sulfonyl-substituted alkyne, nitro-substituted alkane, nitro- substituted alkene, nitro-substituted alkyne, sulfonyl halide-substituted alkene, sulfonyl halide- substituted alkene, sulfonyl halide-substituted alkyne, sulfonamide-substituted alkane, sulfonamide-substituted alkene, or sulfonamide-substituted alkyne group (Yang ¶[0057 & 89]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a known carbon containing precursor, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 10. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the one or more carbon-containing precursors comprise an alcohol-substituted alkane, alcohol-substituted alkene, alcohol-substituted alkyne, ether-substituted alkane, ether-substituted alkene, ether-substituted alkyne, ether-substituted alkane, ether-substituted alkene, ether-substituted alkyne, 0-acyl-substituted alkane, 0-acyl- substituted alkene, 0-acyl-substituted alkyne, amine-substituted alkane, amine-substituted alkene, amine-substituted alkyne, N-acyl-substituted alkane, N-acyl-substituted alkene, or N- acyl-substituted alkyne group (Yang ¶[0057 & 89]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a known carbon containing precursor, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 11. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the amorphous or crystalline carbon film is an amorphous carbon film having a adjustable hydrogen content (Yang ¶[0060, 102]) however may be silent upon the specific range between about 20 atomic % and about 70 atomic %.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the ratio through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the ratio is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
CLAIM 12. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 11, however may be silent upon wherein the substrate has one or more recessed features, the amorphous or crystalline carbon film being deposited in the one or more recessed features and having a step coverage equal to or greater than about 90%.
It is noted, paragraph 76 of Yang et al. discloses that such disclosed carbon hardmask deposition is often used in “high aspect ration etch applications”. This would be understood to infer deposition in high aspect ratio recesses, which are are known to require high step coverage in order to properly deposit in high aspect ratio recesses. Further, Ramaswamy paragraphs 8-10, 70 & 144 and figures 11A-12 disclose the conventional understanding of desired high step coverage when depositing carbon in recesses using the analogous deposition process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the ratio through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the ratio is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
CLAIM 13. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 11, wherein the amorphous carbon film has a refractive index between about 1.5 and about 2.5 and a density between about 1.1 g/cm3 and about 3.5 g/cm3 (This limitation is not understood to provide any further manipulative distinction. A film formed of the analogous process is expected to achieve analogous results.).
CLAIM 14. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 11, wherein the amorphous carbon film is deposited at a deposition rate equal to or greater than about 4 A per minute at a deposition temperature between about 500C and about 5500C (Yang ¶[0060 & 74] – Note: deposition rate is a known optimizable parameter based on gas flow, power/frequency, pressure and temperature. It would be understood the rate would be expected to be greater than 4A/min.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the rate through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the rate is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
CLAIM 16. Yang et al. teaches a method of depositing an amorphous hydrogenated carbon film on a substrate, the method comprising: flowing one or more carbon-containing precursors into a reaction chamber toward a substrate in the reaction chamber, each of the carbon-containing precursors having at least one of: one or more C-C bonds or one or more C-H bonds (Yang ¶[0056-57, 79, 89]);
generating, from a hydrogen source gas, radicals of hydrogen in a remote plasma source that is positioned upstream of the one or more carbon-containing precursors (Yang ¶[0043, 88]); and
introducing the radicals of hydrogen into the reaction chamber and toward the substrate, wherein the radicals are in an energy state sufficient to activate the one or more C-C bonds and/or the one or more C-H bonds and form activated carbon-containing precursors in an environment adjacent to the substrate (Yang ¶[0102]), wherein the activated carbon-containing precursors deposit to form an amorphous hydrogenated carbon film on the substrate, a hydrogen content between about 20 atomic % and about 70 atomic % (Yang ¶[0007. 76, 102]);.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the ratio through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the ratio is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
CLAIM 17. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 16, wherein the amorphous hydrogenated carbon film has a density between about 1.1 g/cm3 and about 3.5 g/cm3 (This limitation is not understood to provide any further manipulative distinction. A film formed of the analogous process is expected to achieve analogous results.).
CLAIM 18. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 16, wherein the one or more carbon-containing precursors comprise at least one of a linear alkene, linear alkyne, branched alkene, branched alkyne, cyclic alkene group, or cyclic alkyne group (Yang ¶[0057 & 89]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a known carbon containing precursor, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 19. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 16, wherein the one or more carbon-containing precursors comprise a branched alkane group and/or cyclic alkane group (Yang ¶[0057 & 89]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a known carbon containing precursor, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 20. Yang et al. teaches a method of claim 16, , however may be silent upon wherein the substrate has one or more recessed features, the amorphous or crystalline carbon film being deposited in the one or more recessed features and having a step coverage equal to or greater than about 90%.
It is noted, paragraph 76 of Yang et al. discloses that such disclosed carbon hardmask deposition is often used in “high aspect ration etch applications”. This would be understood to infer deposition in high aspect ratio recesses, which are are known to require high step coverage in order to properly deposit in high aspect ratio recesses. Further, Ramaswamy paragraphs 8-10, 70 & 144 and figures 11A-12 disclose the conventional understanding of desired high step coverage when depositing carbon in recesses using the analogous deposition process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the ratio through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the ratio is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
5/18/2026
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
1 Yang - [0063] In one example, adjustable flow ratio and species may be controlled and supplied from different locations, such as upper or lower gas injectors 130, 134, and the electrode to the processing chamber 100 to maximize radical dissociation and plasma density below or above the grid filter 104. For example, if a higher plasma density is desired in the upper chamber region 100a to increase beam electron flux, an inert gas, such as Ar or He, may be supplied through the upper gas injector 130, which may promote electrode bombardment and reduce molecule gas density near the electrode 108 to increase local plasma density and beam electron flux. In contrast, when dissociation of hydrogen molecules is desired (e.g., increasing resultant film purity), a hydrogen-containing gas may be supplied through the upper gas injector 130 so as to lower local plasma density but promote hydrogen radical formation to drive out impurities in the processing chamber as well as in the resultant transparent carbon layer 404.
2 Yang – [0081] In another implementation, the PVD and CVD processes are performed simultaneously. In this implementation, the CVD film could deposit on the carbon target surface on the top electrode as well, thus hindering the sputtering process. In some implementations, an inert purge gas flows either through the top electrode or is peripherally injected into the upper portion of the chamber (e.g., upper chamber region 100a), and carbon source gases are injected into the lower portion of the chamber (lower chamber region 100b). In doing so, the back diffusion of carbon source gases to the top electrode is minimized, thus reducing carbon film deposition on the top electrode surface.
3 Yang - [0102] As discussed above, the electron beam plasma and the secondary electron beam provided from the electrode 108 are accelerated by electrode sheath, thus acquiring further energy when entering the bulk plasma. These accelerated electrons provide sufficient high energy to efficiently dissociate hydrogen from the molecules, producing enough hydrogen radicals to extract hydrogen impurities from the carbon films, such as the carbon film 604 formed on the substrate 111, thus forming the carbon film 604 with high purity. The accelerated secondary beam electrons create low temperature plasma, so called cold plasma, above the substrate 111 (at the lower chamber region 100b under the grid filter 104). Low electron temperature often has low electron energy less than 1 eV, such as less than 0.5 eV. Thus, low energy electron from the cold plasma is generated sufficiently to efficiently dissociate hydrogen molecules in vibrational states and produce hydrogen radicals, to increase the hydrogen radical flux onto the substrate surface.
Prosecution Insights