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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 11/4/25 is acknowledged. Claims 12-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/4/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 3-6, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citla (US 20200090946) in view of Howald (US 20050036268).
Regarding claim 1. Citla teaches in the drawings a remote plasma apparatus (processing chamber 100 [20] using remote plasma mechanism via RPS 104 [21]), comprising: a reaction chamber (processing chamber body 102 [21]) comprising a processing space (processing region 151 [21] fig. 1) in which a semiconductor substrate is processed (fig. 1, [51 52] a silicon substrate 301 [42] in 151 is exposed to excited gas for plasma deposition processing); a remote plasma source (RPS/104 [21]) fluidly coupled to and upstream of the reaction chamber (fig. 1, 104 is above/upstream of 102 and fluidly connected to it via gas passage 108); an RF power supply (a remote RF source power/supply to the RPS [21, 54]) configured to power plasma in the remote plasma source (fig. 1, [54] it supplies the RF power to 104 to generate plasma in 104); a showerhead (showerhead 118 [22]) fluidly coupled to the reaction chamber (fig. 118 fluidly coupled to the flow spaces 110, 151 in 102 via its gas passages 126 124 [23], fig. 1) for delivery of plasma- activated species from the remote plasma source to the reaction chamber (fig. 1, 118’s 124 allow passage of the activate plasma from 104 to flow down from above into 151 of 102, fig. 1 [23]); and a substrate pedestal (wafer support assembly 132 [24], commensurate to applicant’s 306, 406) in the reaction chamber (fig. 1, [24] it is at least partially inside 102’s 130, also commensurate w/ applicant’s fig. 3, 4),
wherein the substrate pedestal comprises an electrostatic chuck (132 has an ES chuck 152 [26], commensurate to applicant’s integrated ES chuck/flat support platen 406, applicant’s spec [54-55], fig. 4) comprising a platen (152 has a flat plate-like/platen structure fig. 1) made of ceramic material (152 made of aluminum nitride, which is a ceramic [26]) and having an upper surface configured to support the semiconductor substrate (fig. 1, the top of 152 supports the wafer 301), wherein the electrostatic chuck further comprises one or more electrodes (152 includes RF biasing electrode 163 [30]), but does not teach the electrode is an electrostatic clamping electrode. However, Howald teaches in fig. 2 [28-36] the electrostatic chuck 30 further comprises one or more DC powered electrostatic clamping electrodes 36 [33-40], which is also RF biased [34]. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify Citla in order to be able to perform both RF plasma biasing and ES chucking using the same electrode, which improves economy, to fully chuck larger workpieces [41] which allows for more applications/usefulness of the reactor and to perform reverse polarity to facilitate dechucking of intermediate workpieces [71-74].
Regarding claim 3. Citla in view of Howald teaches the remote plasma apparatus of claim 1, wherein the substrate pedestal further comprises one or more heating elements (heating elements 162 [28]) configured to heat the semiconductor substrate to a temperature between about 300C and about 750C (it is noted that this does further structurally limit the apparatus but relates to an intended operation, MPEP 2114; the apparatus is capable having the wafer heated to 300C by the heater, for instance, turning off the cooling, increasing plasma processing length/heating by energetic bombardment and then providing additional heating from the heater).
Regarding claim 4. Citla in view of Howald teaches the remote plasma apparatus of claim 1, wherein the RF power supply is configured to supply RF power between about 2 kW and about 10 kW to the remote plasma source for generating plasma (the RF source power supplies power at 2kW-4kW to 104 [54]).
Regarding claim 5. Citla in view of Howald teaches the remote plasma apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a first gas line (the gas line connecting gas source 106 [21] to 104, fig. 1) fluidly coupled to the remote plasma source (as discussed) configured to supply a reactant gas to the remote plasma source (as discussed, [21], process gas supplied from 106 to 104); and a second gas line (the gas line connected from 119, fig. 1 [51]) fluidly coupled to the reaction chamber (fig. 1, goes into 102) configured to supply a silicon-containing precursor in a vapor phase ([51], 119 sends Si-containing gases) to the semiconductor substrate without mixing with the reactant gas in the remote plasma source (flow from 119 enters 151 [51] where the wafer 301, fig. 1, is via holes 126 [23 51] and enter from the chamber sidewall without flowing into 104 or mixing w/ gas in 104; it is noted the chemical or specific type of gas supplied does not structurally the apparatus structure, and is an intended use that can be exchanged according to process requirements, MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 6. Citla in view of Howald teaches the remote plasma apparatus of claim 5 further comprising a controller (controller 170 [32]) configured with instructions to perform the following operations (includes software instructions to control entire operation of the apparatus 100 [32]): introduce a first dose of the silicon-containing precursor in the vapor phase to adsorb on the semiconductor substrate (eg step 304 [46-51], supplying at least the Si containing gas from 119 to 151 where the wafer is exposed after being loaded into the chamber in step 302; since the Si wafer [42] is exposed to the Si-containing gas, there would be some adsorption due to Si chemical affinity between like chemicals, which are also the same materials used by the applicant, such as Si wafer pgpub [27] and also molecular collisions); and expose the semiconductor substrate to plasma-activated species of the reactant gas generated in the remote plasma source (step 306 [52-54] when 104 applies plasma inside 151, it provides plasma active species, i.e. from 106, to mix with gases from the side 119, to react to form a Si film 406 [46] on 301), wherein the plasma-activated species reacts with the silicon-containing precursor to form a silicon-containing film (as discussed, [46-54]).
Regarding claim 9. Citla in view of Howald teaches the remote plasma apparatus of claim 5, wherein the silicon-containing precursor comprises a silane (SiH4 [47]; as prev discussed, the chemical or specific type of gas supplied does not structurally the apparatus structure, and is an intended use that can be exchanged according to process requirements, MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 10. Citla in view of Howald teaches the remote plasma apparatus of claim 1, wherein the ceramic material comprises an aluminum-containing material (as disc, AlN is the platen ceramic material), and wherein the one or more electrostatic clamping electrodes are embedded in the platen (as discussed, the 163 embedded in 152; similarly Howald 36 embedded in platen 30/44).
Claim(s) 2, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citla (US 20200090946) in view of Howald (US 20050036268) and Wu (US 20120083134).
Regarding claim 2. Citla in view of Howald, teaches the remote plasma apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the showerhead comprises an ion filter. However, Wu teaches in [28] wherein the showerhead comprises an ion filter. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Citla to filter out ions such that only radicals reach the wafer substrate surface to reduce damage to an ultra-low-k dielectric [28].
Regarding claim 7. Citla in view of Howald teaches the remote plasma apparatus of claim 6, but does not teach wherein the controller is further configured with instructions to perform the following operations: set a chamber pressure in the reaction chamber to between about 1 Torr and about 30Torr: and set a substrate temperature to an elevated temperature between about 500'C and about 700'C. However, Wu teaches in a process in [21] where a thermal ALD process includes to set a chamber pressure in the reaction chamber to between about 1 Torr and about 30Torr (0.01-200 Torr which encompasses the claimed range, a prima facia case of obviousness, MPEP 2144.05): and set a substrate temperature to an elevated temperature between about 500'C and about 700'C (200-550C which overlaps the claimed range, MPEP 2144.05). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Citla in order to perform processes that deposit a protective layer [20-21]. As previously discussed, all operations on the apparatus are carried out via software implemented in the controller.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citla (US 20200090946) in view of Howald (US 20050036268) and Sheng (US 20100254063).
Regarding claim 8. Citla in view of Howald, teaches the remote plasma apparatus of claim 6, wherein the controller is further configured with instructions to perform the following operations (as part of modified Citla, now applying the Howald based reverse polarity ESC system and operation to achieve effects disc in claim 1): apply a first voltage to the electrostatic chuck of the substrate pedestal for clamping the semiconductor substrate in the reaction chamber (Howald [70] applied the clamping force to the ESC 30 from a DC voltage 38 to clamp the wafer on said pedestal in said chamber, the ‘first’ voltage being considered as a ‘DC’ voltage); reverse a polarity of the first voltage applied to the electrostatic chuck (Howald [71-89], eg. The reverse polarity/direction of the DC voltage fig. 5 to dechuck the wafer of about the same magnitude 800V); but does not teach applying a second voltage to the electrostatic chuck that is less than the first voltage.
However, Sheng teaches in fig. 4 [36-41] applying at least second voltage to the electrostatic chuck that is less than the first voltage (fig. 4, successive weaker/less voltages after the first voltage to the ES chuck); It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Citla to allow gradual escape of gas from below the wafer so that it does not get pushed off [33]; Regarding reverse a polarity of the second voltage applied to the electrostatic chuck; and remove the semiconductor substrate from the electrostatic chuck, it would further be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to repeat said polarity reverse step for at least the last of the successive smaller voltage applications from Sheng in order to fully dechuck the wafer from the ES chuck and remove any residual charges as discussed in Howald [71-77].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citla (US 20200090946) in view of Howald (US 20050036268) and Parimi (US 20210202218).
Regarding claim 11. Citla in view of Howald teaches the remote plasma apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach further comprising: an annular-shaped thermal shield under the substrate pedestal to reduce radiative heat loss from the substrate pedestal. However, Parimi teaches an annular-shaped thermal shield (330, 505 550 [33-401] annular radiation shields fig. 5ab) under the substrate pedestal (fig. 3 below pedestal 320) to reduce radiative heat loss from the substrate pedestal ([37-40, ie controlled heat loss from the pedestal]). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Citla to protect against the thermal variation from radiative heat losses [37], which improves processing uniformity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUECHUAN YU whose telephone number is (571)272-7190. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/YUECHUAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718