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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Concerning Applicant’s duty of disclosure, it is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information should be eliminated. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to Applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff ’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974).
The information disclosure statement (hereinafter, “IDS”) filed 01/10/25 is 53 pages long and represents thousands of pages of highly technical disclosure. Thus, the IDS is a “long list.” Moreover, a number of the references do not appear to be material to the patentability of the claimed invention.
Therefore, the references cited in the IDS will not be considered until an underlining of the most relevant references is provided and the references that are not material to the patentability of the claimed invention are deleted from the IDS. Do not highlight the most relevant references, since the IDS will be scanned and the highlighted references will not be visible. Instead, underline the most relevant references listed in the IDS.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the wafer”; however, the limitation “a wafer” is not recited and it is unclear whether the limitation “the wafer” refers to “a wafer” or another wafer-related structural limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
The remaining claims (2-36) are rejected for at least the reason of their direct and/or indirect dependency from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 16, 20, 24, and 26-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda et al. (US 2015/0270148)
With regard to claim 1, Shinoda teaches in a first embodiment an apparatus (FIG. 1) comprising: a processing chamber (21); a pedestal (14) located within the processing chamber (21) and having a wafer support surface (uppermost surface of 14) configured to support a wafer (13) during dry development processing of the wafer (“etching apparatus”, cl. 1) within the processing chamber (21); a pedestal cooling system (33/34) configured to cool at least the wafer support surface (uppermost surface of 14) of the pedestal (14) (“During the reaction, the wafer 13 is cooled using the circulator 33 and the cooling line 34, and the temperature thereof is maintained”, para. [0045]); one or more light sources (42) positioned so as to direct light at a location within the processing chamber (21) and on or above the pedestal (14); and a gas distribution system (45) with one or more inlets (single inlet via 45).
Shinoda does not teach in the first embodiment a plurality of outlets, the gas distribution system configured to direct gas flowed therethrough out of the outlets into a region above the wafer support surface of the pedestal. However, Shinoda teaches in a second embodiment (FIG. 2) the aforementioned limitation(s), namely: plurality of outlets in 51 of FIG. 2 in which gas flows from multiple ga sources 15 via outlets in 51 above the wafer support surface (uppermost surface) of pedestal 14 in FIG. 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the first embodiment of Shinda, to include a plurality of outlets, the gas distribution system configured to direct gas flowed therethrough out of the outlets into a region above the wafer support surface of the pedestal, as suggested and taught by Shinoda in the second embodiment, for the purpose of providing enhanced etched processing of a wafer product (Shinoda, para. [0021]).
PNG
media_image1.png
585
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 16, Shinoda teaches the gas distribution system includes a showerhead (54, FIG. 2) that extends over, and is vertically offset from, the wafer support surface (upper surface of 14), and at least some of the outlets are distributed across, and extend through, a first portion of a faceplate of the showerhead having a first surface that faces towards the wafer support surface (“Gas supplied from some of the gas cylinders 15 is introduced into the inner periphery of the plasma generation chamber 52 from a donut-shaped gas rectifier 54 via the valves 16 … The radical thus generated is dispersed in the plasma generation chamber 52, and is supplied to the processing chamber 21 after passing through a plurality of holes of the perforated.”, para. [0069]).
With regard to claim 20, Shinoda teaches the showerhead (54, FIG. 2) is interposed between the wafer support surface (upper surface of 14) and at least some of the one or more light sources (55), and the secondary citation is cited herein as detailed above regarding the teachings related to the claimed wavelengths of a wavelength or wavelengths in a range or ranges between 400 nm to 490 nm, between 800 nm to 1300 nm, or between 400 nm to 490 nm and between 800 nm to 1300 nm (“An LED source, that can be pulsed or continuous, to dissociate process gases. This source could be monochromatic with wavelengths between 100 nm and 2000 nm or it could consist of multiple wavelengths.”, para. [0045]).
With regard to claim 24, Shinoda inherently teaches a controller (“The etching apparatus that performs etching using the adsorption/desorption system has high selectivity and high controllability.”, para. [0060]), and with regard to the limitation of a controller configured to: a) determine that a wafer within the processing chamber is to be prepared for a dry development process, b) cause the pedestal cooling system to cool the wafer to a temperature in a first temperature range while the wafer is supported by the wafer support surface, c) cause the gas distribution system to flow a first set of one or more processing gases through the plurality of outlets and across the wafer while the temperature of the wafer is in the first temperature range to perform the dry development process, and d) cause the one or more light sources to illuminate the wafer after (c) to heat the wafer to a temperature in a second temperature range with a lower limit higher than an upper limit of the first temperature range, it is submitted that as the claim is directed toward an apparatus, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 26, Shinoda inherently teaches a controller (“The etching apparatus that performs etching using the adsorption/desorption system has high selectivity and high controllability.”, para. [0060]), and with regard to the limitation of the controller is further configured to: (e) cause an inert gas to flow through the gas distribution system and the outlets thereof after (c), and perform (d) after or during (e), it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 27, Shinoda teaches the inert gas comprises argon, nitrogen, xenon, helium, krypton, or combinations of any two or more thereof (“The present embodiment is directed to performing etching using ultraviolet light in an etching apparatus that etches away a silicon oxynitride (SiON) film on a silicon (Si) wafer using a radical including nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) gas and ammonia (NH3) gas, to improve the performance of the etching apparatus”, para. [0021]).
With regard to claim 28, Shinoda teaches an exhaust system connected with the processing chamber (“Gas or dust within the processing chamber 21 is exhausted using a vacuum pump 20 connected to the vessel 10 via a variable conductance valve 19.”, para. [0023]), and with regard to the limitation of the controller is further configured to: cause the exhaust system to evacuate gas from the processing chamber during at least part of (e), and perform (d) after a residual molar density of the first set of one or more process gases within the processing chamber is reduced to 10% or less of the molar density of the first set of one or more processes gases within the processing chamber during steady-state gas flow occurring during (c), it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 29, Shinoda inherently teaches a controller (“The etching apparatus that performs etching using the adsorption/desorption system has high selectivity and high controllability.”, para. [0060]), and with regard to the limitation of the controller is configured to cause the one or more light sources to illuminate the wafer prior to (b) to heat the wafer to a temperature within a third temperature range, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 30, Shinoda teaches a lift pin mechanism having a plurality of lift pins (“The circulator 33 and the cooling line 34 can control the temperature of the wafer stage 14 to 20° C. even when the etching apparatus is operated. Further, the wafer stage 14 includes a lift pin (not illustrated) for raising and lowering the wafer.”, para. [0026]), and with regard to the limitation of the lift pin mechanism is configured such that the lift pins are controllably movable between a first position and a second position relative to the pedestal, each lift pin, in the first position, does not extend upward past the wafer support surface, each lift pin, in the second position, extends upward past the wafer support surface, and wherein the controller is configured to cause the lift pins of the lift pin mechanism to be in the first position during at least part of both (b) and (c), it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 31, with regard to the limitation of the controller is configured to cause the lift pins of the lift pin mechanism to be in the second position during at least part of (d), it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 32, it is submitted that the cited prior art teaches the claimed controller, light sources and wafer pin as detailed herein; furthermore, with regard to the limitation of the controller is configured to: cause the one or more light sources to illuminate the wafer prior to (b) to heat the wafer to a temperature within a third temperature range, and cause the lift pins of the lift pin mechanism to be in the second position during at least part of the illumination of the wafer prior to (b), it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 33, it is submitted that the prior art teaches the claimed controller, processing chamber and workpiece (wafer) as detailed herein; further, with regard to the limitation of the controller is configured to: receive a command to perform a chamber cleaning operation; cause a cleaning wafer to be placed within the processing chamber, wherein the cleaning wafer has a reflective, high-diffusivity coating on a surface thereof, cause the one or more light sources to illuminate the surface of the cleaning wafer with the reflective, high-diffusivity finish for a first period of time; and remove the cleaning wafer from the processing chamber after the first period of time, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 34, it is submitted that as the limitation of the reflective, high-diffusivity coating is made of tin, tellurium, or hafnium relates to a coating placed on the wafer, in which the wafer is a workpiece of the subject apparatus and/or relates to an intended use of the structure of the subject device, no patentable weight is being provided to the wafer (see MPEP 2114)
With regard to claim 35, it is submitted that as the limitation of the surface with the reflective, high-diffusivity coating has a surface roughness with a magnitude equivalent to one to two wavelengths of the light from the one or more light sources that illuminates the wafer, in which the wafer is a workpiece of the subject apparatus and/or relates to an intended use of the structure of the subject device, no patentable weight is being provided to the wafer (see MPEP 2114)
With regard to claim 36, it is submitted that with regard to the limitation of further comprising the cleaning wafer, in which the wafer is a workpiece of the subject apparatus and/or relates to an intended use of the structure of the subject device, no patentable weight is being provided to the wafer (see MPEP 2114).
Claims 2-14, 17-19, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda et al. (US 2015/0270148) in view of Deskmukh et al. (US 20150096683).
With regard to claim 2, Shinoda teaches in a first embodiment an apparatus (FIG. 1) comprising: a processing chamber (21); a pedestal (14) located within the processing chamber (21) and having a wafer support surface (uppermost surface of 14) configured to support a wafer (13) during dry development processing of the wafer (“etching apparatus”, cl. 1) within the processing chamber (21); a pedestal cooling system (33/34) configured to cool at least the wafer support surface (uppermost surface of 14) of the pedestal (14) (“During the reaction, the wafer 13 is cooled using the circulator 33 and the cooling line 34, and the temperature thereof is maintained”, para. [0045]); one or more light sources (42) positioned so as to direct light at a location within the processing chamber (21) and on or above the pedestal (14); and a gas distribution system (45) with one or more inlets (single inlet via 45).
Shinoda does not teach in the first embodiment a plurality of outlets, the gas distribution system configured to direct gas flowed therethrough out of the outlets into a region above the wafer support surface of the pedestal. However, Shinoda teaches in a second embodiment (FIG. 2) the aforementioned limitation(s), namely: plurality of outlets in 51 of FIG. 2 in which gas flows from multiple ga sources 15 via outlets in 51 above the wafer support surface (uppermost surface) of pedestal 14 in FIG. 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the first embodiment of Shinoda, to include a plurality of outlets, the gas distribution system configured to direct gas flowed therethrough out of the outlets into a region above the wafer support surface of the pedestal, as suggested and taught by Shinoda in the second embodiment, for the purpose of providing enhanced etched processing of a wafer product (Shinoda, para. [0021]).
PNG
media_image1.png
585
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shinoda does not teach at least one of the one or more light sources is configured to emit light predominantly in the blue spectrum of wavelengths between 400 nm to 490 nm, light predominantly in the infrared spectrum of wavelengths between 800 nm to 1300 nm, or light predominantly in the blue and infrared spectrums of wavelengths between 400 nm to 490 nm and 800 nm to 1300 nm, respectively; however, Deshmukh from the same field of endeavor directed toward a LED based optical source coupled with plasma source teaches the aforementioned limitation: “The plurality of LEDs may be of myriad configurations. In some embodiments, wavelengths may be in the UV, DUV, or EUV range. Other embodiments may have different wavelengths. In one embodiment the target wavelength may be 455 nm, so a range of 60 nm-500 nm may be used. For embodiments that are employed to etch copper, power densities in the range of 100 to 1,000,000 W/m2 may be used. In some embodiments, wavelengths of 365 nm and a mercury arc lamp may be used. In further embodiments, power densities of 100,000 W/m2 or more may be used. In some embodiments, to control the power of the LEDs, the input current and/or voltage may be monitored. In other embodiments a separate remote power sensor may be used.”, para. [0021].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Shinoda reference, to such that at least one of the one or more light sources is configured to emit light predominantly in the blue spectrum of wavelengths between 400 nm to 490 nm, light predominantly in the infrared spectrum of wavelengths between 800 nm to 1300 nm, or light predominantly in the blue and infrared spectrums of wavelengths between 400 nm to 490 nm and 800 nm to 1300 nm, respectively, as suggested and taught by Deshmukh, for the purpose of providing a predetermined energy level in view of type and/or weight of the subject workpiece being worked upon (Deshmukh: para. [0021]).
With regard to claim 3, Deshmukh teaches at least one of the one or more light sources is configured to emit light predominantly in the blue spectrum of wavelengths between 400 nm to 490 nm (“The plurality of LEDs may be of myriad configurations. In some embodiments, wavelengths may be in the UV, DUV, or EUV range. Other embodiments may have different wavelengths. In one embodiment the target wavelength may be 455 nm, so a range of 60 nm-500 nm may be used. For embodiments that are employed to etch copper, power densities in the range of 100 to 1,000,000 W/m2 may be used. In some embodiments, wavelengths of 365 nm and a mercury arc lamp may be used. In further embodiments, power densities of 100,000 W/m2 or more may be used. In some embodiments, to control the power of the LEDs, the input current and/or voltage may be monitored. In other embodiments a separate remote power sensor may be used.”, para. [0021]).
With regard to claim 4, Deshmukh teaches at least one of the one or more light sources is configured to emit light predominantly in the infrared spectrum of wavelengths between 800 nm to 1300 nm (“The plurality of LEDs may be of myriad configurations. In some embodiments, wavelengths may be in the UV, DUV, or EUV range. Other embodiments may have different wavelengths. In one embodiment the target wavelength may be 455 nm, so a range of 60 nm-500 nm may be used. For embodiments that are employed to etch copper, power densities in the range of 100 to 1,000,000 W/m2 may be used. In some embodiments, wavelengths of 365 nm and a mercury arc lamp may be used. In further embodiments, power densities of 100,000 W/m2 or more may be used. In some embodiments, to control the power of the LEDs, the input current and/or voltage may be monitored. In other embodiments a separate remote power sensor may be used.”, para. [0021]).
With regard to claim 5, Deshmukh teaches there are a plurality of light sources and at least a majority of the light sources are configured to emit light predominantly in the blue spectrum of wavelengths between 400 nm to 490 nm, light predominantly in the infrared spectrum of wavelengths between 800 nm to 1300 nm, or light predominantly in the blue and infrared spectrums of wavelengths between 400 nm to 490 nm and 800 nm to 1300 nm, respectively (“The plurality of LEDs may be of myriad configurations. In some embodiments, wavelengths may be in the UV, DUV, or EUV range. Other embodiments may have different wavelengths. In one embodiment the target wavelength may be 455 nm, so a range of 60 nm-500 nm may be used. For embodiments that are employed to etch copper, power densities in the range of 100 to 1,000,000 W/m2 may be used. In some embodiments, wavelengths of 365 nm and a mercury arc lamp may be used. In further embodiments, power densities of 100,000 W/m2 or more may be used. In some embodiments, to control the power of the LEDs, the input current and/or voltage may be monitored. In other embodiments a separate remote power sensor may be used.”, para. [0021]).
With regard to claim 6, Deshmukh teaches there are a plurality of light sources and at least a majority of the light sources are configured to emit light predominantly in the blue spectrum of wavelengths between 400 nm to 490 nm (“The plurality of LEDs may be of myriad configurations. In some embodiments, wavelengths may be in the UV, DUV, or EUV range. Other embodiments may have different wavelengths. In one embodiment the target wavelength may be 455 nm, so a range of 60 nm-500 nm may be used. For embodiments that are employed to etch copper, power densities in the range of 100 to 1,000,000 W/m2 may be used. In some embodiments, wavelengths of 365 nm and a mercury arc lamp may be used. In further embodiments, power densities of 100,000 W/m2 or more may be used. In some embodiments, to control the power of the LEDs, the input current and/or voltage may be monitored. In other embodiments a separate remote power sensor may be used.”, para. [0021]).
With regard to claim 7, Deshmukh teaches there are a plurality of light sources and at least a majority of the light sources are configured to emit light predominantly in the infrared spectrum of wavelengths between 800 nm to 1300 nm (“The plurality of LEDs may be of myriad configurations. In some embodiments, wavelengths may be in the UV, DUV, or EUV range. Other embodiments may have different wavelengths. In one embodiment the target wavelength may be 455 nm, so a range of 60 nm-500 nm may be used. For embodiments that are employed to etch copper, power densities in the range of 100 to 1,000,000 W/m2 may be used. In some embodiments, wavelengths of 365 nm and a mercury arc lamp may be used. In further embodiments, power densities of 100,000 W/m2 or more may be used. In some embodiments, to control the power of the LEDs, the input current and/or voltage may be monitored. In other embodiments a separate remote power sensor may be used.”, para. [0021]).
With regard to claim 8, Deshmukh teaches each of the one or more light sources is configured to emit light predominantly in the blue spectrum of wavelengths between 400 nm to 490 nm, light predominantly in the infrared spectrum of wavelengths between 800 nm to 1300 nm, or light predominantly in the blue and infrared spectrums of wavelengths between 400 nm to 490 nm and 800 nm to 1300 nm, respectively (“The plurality of LEDs may be of myriad configurations. In some embodiments, wavelengths may be in the UV, DUV, or EUV range. Other embodiments may have different wavelengths. In one embodiment the target wavelength may be 455 nm, so a range of 60 nm-500 nm may be used. For embodiments that are employed to etch copper, power densities in the range of 100 to 1,000,000 W/m2 may be used. In some embodiments, wavelengths of 365 nm and a mercury arc lamp may be used. In further embodiments, power densities of 100,000 W/m2 or more may be used. In some embodiments, to control the power of the LEDs, the input current and/or voltage may be monitored. In other embodiments a separate remote power sensor may be used.”, para. [0021]).
With regard to claim 9, Deshmukh teaches each of the one or more light sources is configured to emit light predominantly in the blue spectrum of wavelengths between 400 nm to 490 nm (“The plurality of LEDs may be of myriad configurations. In some embodiments, wavelengths may be in the UV, DUV, or EUV range. Other embodiments may have different wavelengths. In one embodiment the target wavelength may be 455 nm, so a range of 60 nm-500 nm may be used. For embodiments that are employed to etch copper, power densities in the range of 100 to 1,000,000 W/m2 may be used. In some embodiments, wavelengths of 365 nm and a mercury arc lamp may be used. In further embodiments, power densities of 100,000 W/m2 or more may be used. In some embodiments, to control the power of the LEDs, the input current and/or voltage may be monitored. In other embodiments a separate remote power sensor may be used.”, para. [0021]).
With regard to claim 10, Deshmukh teaches each of the one or more light sources is configured to emit light predominantly in the infrared spectrum of wavelengths between 800 nm to 1300 nm (“The plurality of LEDs may be of myriad configurations. In some embodiments, wavelengths may be in the UV, DUV, or EUV range. Other embodiments may have different wavelengths. In one embodiment the target wavelength may be 455 nm, so a range of 60 nm-500 nm may be used. For embodiments that are employed to etch copper, power densities in the range of 100 to 1,000,000 W/m2 may be used. In some embodiments, wavelengths of 365 nm and a mercury arc lamp may be used. In further embodiments, power densities of 100,000 W/m2 or more may be used. In some embodiments, to control the power of the LEDs, the input current and/or voltage may be monitored. In other embodiments a separate remote power sensor may be used.”, para. [0021]).
With regard to claim 11, Deshmukh teaches each of the one or more light sources is configured to emit light predominantly in the blue spectrum of wavelengths between 400 nm to 490 nm, light predominantly in the infrared spectrum of wavelengths between 800 nm to 1300 nm, or light predominantly in the blue and infrared spectrums of wavelengths between 400 nm to 490 nm and 800 nm to 1300 nm, respectively (“The plurality of LEDs may be of myriad configurations. In some embodiments, wavelengths may be in the UV, DUV, or EUV range. Other embodiments may have different wavelengths. In one embodiment the target wavelength may be 455 nm, so a range of 60 nm-500 nm may be used. For embodiments that are employed to etch copper, power densities in the range of 100 to 1,000,000 W/m2 may be used. In some embodiments, wavelengths of 365 nm and a mercury arc lamp may be used. In further embodiments, power densities of 100,000 W/m2 or more may be used. In some embodiments, to control the power of the LEDs, the input current and/or voltage may be monitored. In other embodiments a separate remote power sensor may be used.”, para. [0021]).
With regard to claim 12, Deshmukh teaches at least one of the one or more light sources is an incandescent infrared lamp, an infrared light emitting diode, or a blue light emitting diode (“A plasma treatment transforms a metal on the substrate into metal byproducts that deposit on the wafer as well as the interior surfaces of the etch process chamber. Light emitting diodes are used to desorb the metal byproducts at a relatively low temperature so they can be removed from the substrate and the etch process chamber.”, para. [0004]; “The plurality of LEDs may be of myriad configurations. In some embodiments, wavelengths may be in the UV, DUV, or EUV range. Other embodiments may have different wavelengths. In one embodiment the target wavelength may be 455 nm, so a range of 60 nm-500 nm may be used. For embodiments that are employed to etch copper, power densities in the range of 100 to 1,000,000 W/m2 may be used. In some embodiments, wavelengths of 365 nm and a mercury arc lamp may be used. In further embodiments, power densities of 100,000 W/m2 or more may be used. In some embodiments, to control the power of the LEDs, the input current and/or voltage may be monitored. In other embodiments a separate remote power sensor may be used.”, para. [0021]).
With regard to claim 13, although Deshmukh teaches the one or more light sources include a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) as detailed above (i.e., “The plurality of LEDs may be of myriad configurations. In some embodiments, wavelengths may be in the UV, DUV, or EUV range. Other embodiments may have different wavelengths. In one embodiment the target wavelength may be 455 nm, so a range of 60 nm-500 nm may be used. For embodiments that are employed to etch copper, power densities in the range of 100 to 1,000,000 W/m2 may be used. In some embodiments, wavelengths of 365 nm and a mercury arc lamp may be used. In further embodiments, power densities of 100,000 W/m2 or more may be used. In some embodiments, to control the power of the LEDs, the input current and/or voltage may be monitored. In other embodiments a separate remote power sensor may be used.”, para. [0021]), the citation does not explicitly teach that the LEDs are distributed throughout a circular or annular area. However, it is submitted that such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the LEDs of Deskmukh as claimed as a matter of routine experimentation and/or as an obvious rearrangement of parts to achieve a desired processing operation with a predetermined workpiece since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
With regard to claim 14, Deshmukh teaches one or more windows, each window interposed between one of the one or more light sources and the wafer support surface (“In some embodiments one or more light pipes may be disposed at least partially between the LEDs and the window. The light pipes may be used to direct the light energy from the LEDs to the window.”, para. [0022], see FIG. 1 below), wherein: the one or more windows each have a region that is optically transmissive to light at least having a wavelength or wavelengths in a range or ranges between 400 nm to 490 nm, between 800 nm to 1300 nm, or between 400 nm to 490 nm and between 800 nm to 1300 nm (“An LED source, that can be pulsed or continuous, to dissociate process gases. This source could be monochromatic with wavelengths between 100 nm and 2000 nm or it could consist of multiple wavelengths.”, para. [0045]).
PNG
media_image2.png
526
715
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 17, Deshmukh teaches the one or more light sources (LEDS of 135, FIG. 1) include a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LEDs), and the LEDs in the plurality of LEDs are distributed across a second portion of the faceplate (135) (“A plurality of LEDs 135 are positioned outside the substrate processing chamber and configured to emit radiation into the substrate processing chamber through window 112. “, para. [0012], FIG. 1).
With regard to claim 18, Deshmukh teaches the LEDs in the plurality of LEDs (LEDS of 135, FIG. 1) are interspersed between the outlets located within the second portion of the faceplate (135) (“A plurality of LEDs 135 are positioned outside the substrate processing chamber and configured to emit radiation into the substrate processing chamber through window 112. “, para. [0012], FIG. 1).
With regard to claim 19, with regard to the limitation of the first portion and the second portion are both circular, annular, or radially symmetric in shape and are centered on one another, it is submitted that Deshmukh teaches the plurality of LEDs as detailed above however, the citation does not explicitly teach the claimed circular, annular or radially symmetric in shape; however, it is submitted that such an adaptation to Deshmuk would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious change of shape as no criticality is afforded to the claimed list of shapes as a variety of different shapes would work equally well (see MPEP 2144.04: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.) (see MPEP 2144.04 - Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale - IV.B. – Change in Shape).
With regard to claim 22, Dashmukh teaches one or more windows (112, FIG. 1), each window interposed between one of the one or more light sources (135) and the wafer support surface (wafer 120 situated on 115), wherein: the one or more windows (112) seal a corresponding one or more apertures of the processing chamber (see FIG. 1 in which window along outer perimeter of enclosure), and the one or more light sources (135) are located outside of the processing chamber (110) and are positioned to emit light through the one or more windows(112) and into the processing chamber (110, FIG. 1).
With regard to claim 23, with regard to the limitation of or more windows, each window interposed between one of the one or more light sources and the wafer support surface, wherein the one or more light sources are light emitting diodes located within the processing chamber and at least some of the one or more windows are located within the processing chamber as well, Dashmukh teaches the light sources are LED (“led source 135”, FIG. 1); however, the citation does not teach that the LEDs and windows are located within the processing chamber; however, it is submitted that this limitation is not critical to the operation of the subject device as claim 22 recites that the LED is outside of the chamber, and furthermore, it is submitted that such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation and/or as an obvious rearrangement of parts since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda et al. (US 2015/0270148) and Deskmukh et al. (US 20150096683) as detailed above, and further in view of Tan et al. (WO 2020264158).
With regard to claim 15, Shinoda and Deskmukh teach the invention as detailed above; however, the citations do not teach the one or more windows comprise aluminum oxide or silicon oxide. However, Tan from the same field of endeavor directed toward photoresist development with halide chemistries teaches a process window which is available for a focus range may be fabricated from “quartz or other dielectric material” (para. [0148).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Shinoda reference, such that the one or more windows comprise aluminum oxide or silicon oxide, as suggested and taught by Tan, for the purpose of providing enhanced transmissivity.
With regard to claim 21, Deshmuk teaches the showerhead (135, FIG. 1) includes a faceplate having the outlets distributed thereacross, and Tan is cited herein as described above regarding at least the faceplate of the showerhead is made of a material comprising silicon oxide or aluminum oxide (“The window 1411 may be fabricated from quartz or other dielectric material.”, para. [0148]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda et al. (US 2015/0270148) in view of Moslehi (US 4,956,538).
With regard to claim 25, Shinoda teaches the invention as detailed above regarding claims 1 and 24 (from which the instant claim depends); however, the citation does not teach a pyrometer configured to obtain temperature measurements of the wafer at least during (d), wherein the controller is further configured to: monitor the temperature of the wafer using the pyrometer, and adjust an intensity level of the one or more light sources based on the temperature of the wafer so as to keep the temperature of the wafer below 200° C. However, Moslehi from the same field of endeavor directed toward real-time wafer temperature measurement using infrared pyrometry in advanced lamp-heated rapid thermal processes teaches the aforementioned limitation(s): a first and second pyrometer (26-28) optically coupled to a light pipe (24) to a wafer (30) in an apparatus (10) in which Wafer emissivity data and pyrometers reading data are evaluated by the computer (74) to determine the true wafer temperature in real-time and to raise or lower the power output from the power supply (80) to adjust the wafer temperature within the apparatus (10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Shinoda reference, to include the claimed pyrometer, as suggested and taught by Moslehi, for the purpose of providing a predetermined wafer temperature during a processing operation (Moslehi: Abstract). Furthermore, with regard to the limitation of to obtain temperature measurements of the wafer at least during (d), wherein the controller is further configured to: monitor the temperature of the wafer using the pyrometer, and adjust an intensity level of the one or more light sources based on the temperature of the wafer so as to keep the temperature of the wafer below 200° C, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights