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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 09/01/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim 8 is withdrawn from consideration
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SHIINA et al. 20170092468.
PNG
media_image1.png
487
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, figs. 1 and 9 of Shiina discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising:
a plasma processing chamber 101;
a substrate stage 103 disposed within the plasma processing chamber and configured to support a substrate 102;
a microwave power supply 106 coupled to the plasma processing chamber and configured to generate a microwave signal (par [0033]);
a RF bias power supply 109 coupled to the substrate stage and configured to generate an RF bias signal; and
a control unit 114 configured to control the microwave power supply and the RF bias power supply;
PNG
media_image2.png
601
1001
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the control unit causes:
the microwave power supply to output, in a first time period (fig. 9 (a) STEP 1,2), a first microwave pulse having a first power and a first duty ratio (.5 – see ON for .5) to produce a plasma that achieves a plasma density distribution criterion in the plasma processing chamber;
the microwave power supply to output, in a second time period (fig. 9 (b) step 3) subsequent to the first time period, a second microwave pulse having a second power (see power at low period of step 3) which is less than the first power and a second duty ratio (1 – see ON for 1) which is greater than the first duty ratio;
the RF bias power supply to apply, in the second time period, a wafer bias voltage with respect to the substrate stage (see fig. 9 (b) STEP 3); and
the microwave power supply and the RF bias power supply to cease output of the second microwave pulse (see fig. 9 (C) step 4 showing a constant which is not a pulse) and the wafer bias voltage for a third time period subsequent to the second time period.
Regarding claim 2, fig. 9 of Shiina discloses wherein output of the second microwave pulse is delayed with respect to output of the first microwave pulse by a second microwave pulse delay equal to the first duty ratio (see fig. 9 showing OFF period of 0.5ms).
Regarding claim 3, fig. 9 of Shiina discloses wherein output of the wafer bias voltage is delayed with respect to output of the first microwave pulse by a wafer bias delay that is greater than or equal to the second microwave pulse delay (see .6ms is greater than 0.5ms).
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiina in view of Zhang et al. 20240096713.
Regarding claim 4, Shiina discloses claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a plasma distribution sensor configured to monitor a plasma density distribution of the plasma in the plasma processing chamber, wherein the control unit is configured to cause the microwave power supply and the RF bias power supply to cease output of the second microwave pulse and the wafer bias voltage in response to detecting that the plasma density distribution of the plasma in the plasma processing chamber detected by the plasma distribution sensor fails to achieve the plasma density distribution criterion.
However, par [0069] and fig. 1 of Zhang disclose Fabrication tool 100 includes one or more in-situ metrology devices. The metrology device(s) may include, as examples, a spectral reflectometer device 200 and sensors 136. Sensors 136 may include, as examples, one or more voltage and/or current sensors (e.g., VI probes), one or more optical emission spectroscopy sensors (OES), one or more sensors for measuring absorption spectra of plasma and/or gases present in chamber 104, one or more sensors for measuring plasma density, one or more sensors for measuring process gas, byproduct, and/or other gas concentrations in chamber 104, and other suitable sensors for monitoring process conditions and/or various indicia of wafer properties.
As such it would have been obvious to form an apparatus of Shina further comprising a plasma distribution sensor configured to monitor a plasma density distribution of the plasma in the plasma processing chamber for monitoring process conditions and/or various indicia of wafer properties.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to form an apparatus comprising wherein the control unit is configured to cause the microwave power supply and the RF bias power supply to cease output of the second microwave pulse and the wafer bias voltage in response to detecting that the plasma density distribution of the plasma in the plasma processing chamber detected by the plasma distribution sensor fails to achieve the plasma density distribution criterion for monitoring process conditions and/or various indicia of wafer properties.
Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to form an apparatus wherein the plasma density distribution of the plasma in the plasma processing chamber is determined to fail the plasma density distribution criterion in a case that an ion density ratio of the first microwave pulse with respect to the second microwave pulse is greater than 1.48×10.sup.17 to 0.95×10.sup.17 ions per cubic meter for monitoring process conditions and/or various indicia of wafer properties.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiina.
Regarding claims 6-7, Shiina claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the second duty ratio is three times the first duty ratio; wherein the first power is five times the second power.
However, it would have been obvious to form an apparatus comprising wherein the second duty ratio is three times the first duty ratio; wherein the first power is five times the second power in order to obtain a desired etching result as per the applicant specification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6PM 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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. 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.
/VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights