DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claims 1, 4-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Chen et al (US 2023/0377895 A1).
As to claim 1, Chen discloses a substrate processing method [0005], comprising:
placing a substrate 102 in a substrate processing apparatus (step 402, Fig. 4, [0090]);
applying source power (“SP”) to the substrate processing apparatus (step 404A, [0092], [0032]); and
applying bias power (“HBP”) to the substrate processing apparatus [0092], [0032],
wherein applying the source power to the substrate processing apparatus includes:
providing the substrate processing apparatus with a first radio-frequency (RF) power (“first SP level” [0092]) with a first pulse having a first period (as depicted in Fig. 1, phase 106a); and
providing the substrate processing apparatus with a second RF power (“second SP level” at step 404B, [0093]; or in an alternative interpretation, “third SP level” at step 404C [0094]) with a second pulse having a second period (as depicted in Fig. 1, phase 106b or phase 106c),
wherein the first period is longer than the second period (cycle time for phase 106a may be, e.g. 50% [0046], which necessarily makes the first period longer than the combination of periods for phases 106b, 106c, and also therefore necessarily longer than the second period),
wherein applying the first RF power continues for a first time duration “t1” (Fig. 1, [0045]),
wherein applying the second RF power continues for a second time duration “t2” (Fig. 1, [0045]), and
wherein the second time duration is longer than the second period (“pulses having a duration that is less than a phase duration” [0047]).
As to claim 4, Chen discloses that applying the bias power to the substrate processing apparatus includes providing the substrate processing apparatus with the bias power LBP (“lower-frequency RF BP” [0033]) with a third pulse having a third period (phase 106b, as depicted in Fig. 1), wherein the third period is the same as the second period (as depicted in Fig. 1).
As to claim 5, Chen discloses that a portion of applying the bias power is performed simultaneously with applying the second RF power (phase 106b, Fig. 1).
As to claim 6, Chen discloses that the bias power is a sinusoidal wave (see Figure 1).
As to claim 7, Chen discloses that applying the bias power LBP and the applying the first RF power do not overlap each other in terms of time (see Fig.1, where the first RF power during phase 106a does not overlap with the wafer bias power during phase 106b).
As to claim 8, Chen discloses that applying the first time duration t1 is the same as the first period (as depicted in Fig.1, during phase 106a).
As to claim 10, Chen discloses that applying the first RF power and applying the second RF power are alternately and repeatedly performed (Fig. 2).
As to claim 11, Chen discloses that the method may comprise providing no source power (zero power level, [0044]) to the substrate processing apparatus.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2-3, 9, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2023/0377895 A1).
As to claims 2 and 3, Chen discloses that the first RF power is a relatively high power level Ps1 [0056]. Chen discloses that the second RF power level Ps2 might or might not be the same as the first RF power level [0058]. However, Chen fails to disclose whether the second RF power is greater than or less than the first RF power. Chen also teaches that the RF power is a plasma parameter that can be changed in order to obtain a desired plasma [0054]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first RF power either greater than or less than the second RF power in order to set the plasma to achieve desired results.
As to claim 9, Chen discloses that there are time periods, but fails to disclose the length of time in milliseconds or seconds. Rather, Chen discloses that the cycle time tcycle may range from milliseconds to seconds [0045]. Chen also teaches that the duration is a parameter that can be varied in order to set the desired plasma [0054] and that pulses may have a duration that is less than a phase duration [0047]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited times in the method of Chen in order to optimize and set the plasma to achieve desired properties because Chen recognizes milliseconds and seconds which are in the cited range, and Chen recognizes that the duration and periods can be varied to obtain desired results.
As to claim 12, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply no source power to the substrate processing apparatus after stopping the second RF power stops and before applying the first RF power begins again in the method of Chen in order to optimize the process for best results of the presence of deposition and etching species to achieve desired results of deposition.
As to claim 13, see the rejection of claims 1-2. Chen discloses that the second RF power and low bias power LBP is applied during the deposition process 106b [0033] (deposition of passivation layer), and the first RF power is applied during the etching process 106a [0032] as cited (Fig. 1).
As to claim 14, Chen discloses performing the deposition process on the substrate and performing the etching process on the substrate alternately and repeatedly (Fig. 2).
As to claim 15, Chen discloses that the method may comprise providing no source power (zero power level, [0044]) to the substrate processing apparatus. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply no power as cited in the method of Chen in order to optimize the process for best results of the presence of deposition and etching species to achieve desired results of deposition.
As to claim 16, Chen discloses that the process parameters may be changed for best results [0054]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second period be shorter than the first period in the method of Chen in order to optimize the process for best results of the duration of deposition and etching species to achieve desired results of deposition.
As to claim 17, Chen discloses that the substrate processing apparatus 300 includes:
a process chamber that includes a process space (necessarily as part of forming the plasma, Fig. 3, [0086], [0088]);
a chuck 378 [0086] in the process chamber; an upper electrode overlapping and spaced apart from the chuck (CCP plasma tool, [0088]); and
a lower electrode LEL in the chuck [0086],
wherein the chuck includes:
a chuck body that supports the substrate (see Fig. 3); and
a chuck electrode in the chuck body [0086].
Further, apparatus limitations are given little patentable weight in method claims. Apparatus limitations, unless they affect the process in a manipulative sense, may have little weight in process claims. In re Tarczy-Hornoch 158 USPQ 141, 150 (CCPA 1968); In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387 (CCPA 1961); Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA 1959); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193 (PO BdPatApp 1957); In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA 1940); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 CCPA 1947).
As to claims 18 and 19, the method of Chen that is capacitively coupled includes applied power to an upper electrode and bias to a lower electrode 384 (see rejection of claim 17, Fig. 3).
As to claim 20, Chen discloses
performing the deposition process on the substrate continues for a first time duration t2 (as shown in Figure 1),
performing the etching process on the substrate continues for a second time duration t1 (as shown in Figure 1), and
the first period is the same as the first time duration (Fig.1).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed July 9, 2026, with respect to the rejection over Yasar have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection over Yasar of the claims has been withdrawn.
The claims are newly rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1), 103 over Chen et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ANITA K ALANKO whose telephone number is (571)270-0297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ANITA K ALANKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights