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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. [0051], [0058], [0070], [0075],[0077],[0086],[0096],[0110]: "first RF power source 14a" should read as "first RF power source 10a" since none of the figures show a reference numeral 14a and it appears the reference numeral 10a in Fig. 2 refers to a RF power source; "second RF power source 14b" should read as "second RF power source 10b" since none of the figures show a reference numeral 14b and it appears the reference numeral 10b in Fig. 2 refers to a RF power source.
Para. [0052]: "gas supply pipe 130" should read as "gas supply pipe 30" since Fig. 2 does not have reference numeral 130 and it appears that reference numeral 30 in Fig. 2 refers to a gas supply pipe.
Para. [0054]: "elevating mechanism 64" should read as "elevating mechanism 164" since the rest of the paragraph refers to elevating mechanism with the reference numeral "164"
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "elevating mechanism" (claim 1, 5, 14) and "heat transfer gas supplier" (claim 28, 29).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For the purpose of examination, "heat transfer gas supplier" (claim 28, 29) shall be interpreted in light of para. [0052],[0124], [0137], Fig. 2 and 10 as comprising a gas supply pipe and equivalents thereof. "Elevating mechanism" (claim 1, 5, 14) has no corresponding structure, which raises rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) as further discussed below. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets "elevating mechanism" as comprising a pneumatic device or motor and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 5, 15 (and dependent claims 2-34) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 15, all recitations of “elevating mechanism” in the Specification refers to “elevating mechanism” without further specifying a specific structure to perform the function of “elevating.” Without any disclosure of any structure, materials, or acts for performing the functions or any link of structure to the functions, one cannot conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
In light of the above, dependent claims 2-34 are also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claim 1.
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.
Claim 1, 5, 15 (and dependent claims 2-34) 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 limitation “elevation mechanism” (claims 1, 5, 15) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. All recitations of “elevating mechanism” in the Specification refers to “elevating mechanism” without further specifying a specific structure to perform the function of “elevating.” Additionally, the figures show only a box when referring to elevating mechanism 164. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of limitation “elevating mechanism.” For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets "elevating mechanism" as comprising any device capable of elevating including a pneumatic device, lifter, elevator, or motor and equivalents thereof.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In light of the above, dependent claims 2-34 are also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claim 1.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 8, 9, 10, 11, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koshimizu (US 2021/0272782 A1 published 2 September 2021 with different inventor(s) than the instant application).
Applicant has provided evidence in this file showing that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as Tokyo Electron Limited not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement in effect not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, although reference Koshimizu (US 2021/0272782 A1) has been excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is still applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Regarding independent claim 1, Koshimzu teaches a plasma processing apparatus (plasma processing apparatus 1a, Fig. 2, para [0029]), comprising:
a stage (comprising substrate support/stage 11, Fig. 2, para. [0030]) having a first placement surface (comprising 11a, Fig. 4, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B; para. [0032]) on which a substrate (comprising substrate W, Fig. 2, para. [0032]) is placed, and a second placement surface (comprising 11b, Fig. 4, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, para. [0032]) on which a ring member (comprising edge ring 113, Fig. 2, 4, 5A, 5B) surrounding an outer periphery of the first placement surface (comprising 112a, Fig. 4) is placed (para. [0032]);
an elevating mechanism (comprising second lifter pin 51b and second actuator 52b, Fig. 2, 4, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B) configured to raise and lower the ring member with respect to the second placement surface (para. [0043]);
a radio-frequency power source (comprising RF power supply 30 including RF generator 31a and 31b, Fig. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B) connected to the stage (comprising 11, Fig. 2 and 4)(para. [0035]); and
a controller (comprising controller 1b, Fig. 2, para. [0045]-[0053]), wherein the controller (comprising 1b, Fig. 2) is configured to execute a cleaning process that includes:
a separation operation (step S32, Fig. 3) of separating the second placement surface (comprising 11b, Fig. 4, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B) and the ring member (comprising 113, Fig. 2, 4, 5A, 5B) from each other by the elevating mechanism (comprising 51b and 52b, Fig. 2, 4, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B) (para.[0047]); and
subsequently, a removal operation (step S33, Fig. 3) of removing deposits accumulated on the stage (comprising 11, Fig. 2 and 4) and the ring member (comprising 113, Fig. 2 and 4) by supplying radio-frequency power from the radio-frequency power source (comprising 30, Fig. 2 and 4) to the stage (comprising 11, Fig. 2 and 4) to generate plasma (para. [0049], [0052]), and wherein in the separation operation,
a separation distance between the second placement surface and the ring member is set such that a first density of the plasma generated in a first region between an outer edge of the first placement surface and an inner edge of a lower surface of the ring member is higher than a second density of the plasma generated in a second region (para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 8, Koshimizu further teaches wherein the stage includes an electrode (comprising 112c, Fig. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B) configured to electrostatically attract the ring member (comprising 113, Fig. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B) (para. [0072],[0078]).
Regarding claim 9, Koshimizu further teaches wherein the cleaning process is executed in a state in which the substrate is not placed on the first placement surface (comprising 11a, Fig. 2)(Fig. 3, 4, 5B, para. [0046]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 10, Koshimizu further teaches another embodiment wherein the cleaning process is executed in a state in which a dummy substrate is placed on the first placement surface (comprising 11a, Fig. 2, 4, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B) (para. [0056]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 11, Koshimizu teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above and further teaches wherein a diameter of the dummy substrate is smaller than an inner diameter of the ring member (comprising 113, Fig. 2, 4, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B).
Regarding claim 34, Koshimizu further teaches wherein the ring member is an edge ring (comprising edge ring 113, Fig. 2, 4, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, para. [0031]).
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) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshimizu (US 2021/0272782 A1 published 2 September 2021 with different inventor(s) than the instant application) in view of Tanikawa (US 2019/0348315 A1).
Applicant has provided evidence in this file showing that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as Tokyo Electron Limited not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement in effect not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, although reference Koshimizu (US 2021/0272782 A1) has been excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is still applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Applicant may overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore, not prior art as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Regarding claim 2, 3, 4, Koshimizu teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above but does not explicitly teach wherein in the separation operation a height of the lower surface of the ring member with respect to the first placement surface is
Regarding claim 2: 1.4 mm or more and 4.4 mm or less (i.e. between 1.4 mm and 4.4 mm).
Regarding claim 3: 1.6 mm or more and 3.4 mm or less (i.e. between 1.6 and 3.4 mm)
Regarding claim 4: 2.0 mm or more and 2.8 mm or less (i.e. between 2.0 mm and 2.8 mm).
However, Koshimizu already teaches that the ring member has height which is adjustable with respect to the first placement surface (as understood from Fig. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B). and further teaches the height of the lower surface of the ring member (comprising 113, Fig. 4, 5B, 6B) with respect to the second placement surface (comprising 11b, Fig. 4, 4B, 6B) is between 1 mm to 20 mm (para. [0048]). Examiner explains that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that adjusting the height of the lower surface of the ring member would affect the height of the ring member with respect to both the first placement surface and the second placement surface.
Additionally, Tanikawa teaches a plasma processing apparatus (comprising 5, Fig. 1, para. [0016]) including a ring member (comprising 38m, Fig. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 3C) that is configured to be elevated to different height positions with respect to the stage (comprising 12 and 36, Fig. 2, 3A, 3B, 3C) which affects the plasma sheath and intensity of electric field and enables removal of particles from the bottom of the ring member and neighboring parts (para. [0049], [0059]). In other words, Tanikawa teaches/suggests that the height of the ring member is a result-effective variable which affects the plasma sheath and intensity of electric field which ultimately affects plasma processing such as cleaning.
Regarding claim 2, 3, 4, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine optimization, the height of the lower surface of the ring member with respect to the first placement surface because Koshimizu already teaches the ring member has a height of the ring member which is adjustable with respect to the first placement surface and because Tanikawa further teaches/suggests that the height of the ring member is a result-effective variable which affects the plasma sheath and intensity of electric field wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the height of the lower surface of the ring member to optimize plasma processing.
Furthermore, the courts have ruled where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP § 2144.05 II. A.
Regarding claim 5, Koshimizu teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to further execute: an additional separation operation of further separating the second placement surface and the ring member from each other by the elevating mechanism after executing the cleaning process including the separation operation and the removal operation; and subsequently, an additional removal operation of further removing the deposits accumulated on the stage and the ring member by supplying the radio-frequency power from the radio-frequency power source to the stage to generate the plasma.
However, Tanikawa teaches a plasma processing apparatus (comprising 5, Fig. 1, para. [0016]) including controller (comprising control unit 74, Fig. 1, para. [0028]) configured to execute a step of separating the second placement surface and the ring member from each other by the elevating mechanism at various separation heights during cleaning to enhance cleaning of the ring member and the substrate support/stage (para. [0049], [0058]-[0059], [0077]). Tanikawa additionally teaches that the height of the ring member affects the plasma sheath and intensity of the electric field to enable removing particles from the bottom surface of the ring member and its neighboring parts (para. [0049],[0059]).
Additionally, Koshimizu already teaches the removal operation removing the deposits accumulated on the stage and the ring member by supplying the radio-frequency power from the radio-frequency power source to the stage to generate the plasma as discussed in detail in claim 1 rejection.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to execute an additional separation operation of further separating the second placement surface and the ring member from each other by the elevating mechanism after executing the cleaning process including the separation operation and the removal operation; and subsequently, an additional removal operation of further removing the deposits accumulated on the stage and the ring member by supplying the radio-frequency power from the radio-frequency power source to the stage to generate the plasma because Tanikawa teaches/suggests vertically moving the ring member at various heights during a cleaning process to enable removing particles from the bottom surface of the ring member and its neighboring parts and because Koshimizu already teaches the removal operation removing the deposits accumulated on the stage and the ring member by supplying the radio-frequency power from the radio-frequency power source to the stage to generate the plasma.
Regarding claim(s) 6 and 7, Koshimizu in view of Tanikawa teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein in the additional separation operation, a height of the lower surface of the ring member with respect to the first placement surface is:
Regarding claim 6: 6.4 mm or more and 32.4 mm or less. (i.e. between 6.4 mm and 32.4 mm)
Regarding claim 7: 12.4 mm or more and 32.4 mm or less (i.e. between 12.4 mm and 32.4 mm).
However, Koshimizu already teaches that the ring member has height which is adjustable with respect to the first placement surface (as understood from Fig. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B). and further teaches the height of the lower surface of the ring member (comprising 113, Fig. 4, 5B, 6B) with respect to the second placement surface (comprising 11b, Fig. 4, 4B, 6B) is between 1 mm to 20 mm (para. [0048]). Examiner explains that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that adjusting the height of the lower surface of the ring member would affect the height of the ring member with respect to both the first placement surface and the second placement surface.
Additionally, Tanikawa teaches a plasma processing apparatus (comprising 5, Fig. 1, para. [0016]) including a ring member (comprising 38m, Fig. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 3C) that is configured to be elevated to different height positions with respect to the stage (comprising 12 and 36, Fig. 2, 3A, 3B, 3C) which affects the plasma sheath and intensity of electric field and enables removal of particles from the bottom of the ring member and neighboring parts (para. [0049], [0059]). In other words, Tanikawa teaches/suggests that the height of the ring member is a result-effective variable which affects the plasma sheath and intensity of electric field which ultimately affects plasma processing such as cleaning.
Regarding claim 6 and 7, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine optimization, the height of the lower surface of the ring member with respect to the first placement surface because Koshimizu already teaches the ring member has a height of the ring member which is adjustable with respect to the first placement surface and because Tanikawa further teaches/suggests that the height of the ring member is a result-effective variable which affects the plasma sheath and intensity of electric field and removal of particles on the bottom surface of the ring member and adjacent/neighboring parts wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the height of the lower surface of the ring member to optimize plasma processing/removal operation.
Furthermore, the courts have ruled where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP § 2144.05 II. A.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 14, 16-2, 25-27, 31, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshimizu (US 2021/0272782 A1 published 2 September 2021 with different inventor(s) than the instant application) in view of Tanikawa (US 2019/0348315 A1) and Belau et al. (US 2019/0157051 A1 hereinafter “Belau”) and further substantiated by Harada (US 2014/0373867 A1).
Applicant has provided evidence in this file showing that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as Tokyo Electron Limited not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement in effect not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, although reference Koshimizu (US 2021/0272782 A1) has been excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is still applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Applicant may overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore, not prior art as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Regarding claim 12, Koshimizu teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above but does not explicitly teach wherein, when the cleaning process including the separation operation and the removal operation is a second cleaning process, before the second cleaning process, the controller is configured to further execute a first cleaning process on an interior of a processing container accommodating the stage by supplying the radio-frequency power from the radio-frequency power source to the stage to generate the plasma. (i.e. a chamber /processing container cleaning occurs first before the execution of lifting/elevating the ring member and cleaning/removing of deposits on the ring member and stage)
However, Tanikawa teaches a plasma processing apparatus (comprising 5, Fig. 1, para. [0016]) including a controller (comprising control unit 74, Fig. 1, para. [0028]) configured to execute a step of performing a waferless dry clean before the separation operation and the removal operation (i.e. before raising the ring member and cleaning/removing deposits from the ring member) (para. [0073]).
Examiner notes that Harada substantiates that waferless dry clean is a cleaning process on an interior of a processing container accommodating the stage (Harada: para. [0006]-[0007]).
Additionally, Belau teaches a plasma processing apparatus (comprising plasma processing chamber 200, Fig. 2) comprising a controller (comprising 235, Fig. 2, para. [0014]) configured to execute a cleaning process on an interior of a processing container (comprising etch chamber 249 including chamber wall 252, Fig. 2, para. [0014]) accommodating the stage (comprising ESC 208, Fig. 2, para. [0014]) by supplying the radio-frequency power from the radio-frequency power source (comprising RF source 230, Fig. 2) to the stage (comprising 208, Fig. 2) to generate the plasma (para. [0014], [0019]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to execute: when the cleaning process including the separation operation and the removal operation is a second cleaning process, before the second cleaning process, the controller is configured to further execute a first cleaning process on an interior of a processing container accommodating the stage by supplying the radio-frequency power from the radio-frequency power source to the stage to generate the plasma because Tanikawa (as substantiated by Harada) teaches/suggests executing a step of cleaning/removing deposits from an interior of the processing container before elevating/separating the ring member from the stage and cleaning/removing deposits from the stage and ring member as a known suitable alternative controller configuration which would enable cleaning/removing deposits from the chamber/container and because Belau teaches/suggests supplying the radio-frequency power from the radio-frequency power source to the stage to generate the plasma as a known controller configuration to enable plasma cleaning of the interior of the processing container.
Regarding claim 13, Koshimizu in view of Tanikawa and Belau (and further substantiated by Harada) teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the first cleaning process is executed in a state in which a dummy substrate is placed on the first placement surface.
However, Belau further teaches the controller (comprising 235, Fig. 2, para. [0014]) is configured to execute a first cleaning process (comprising step 120, Fig. 1) in a state in which a dummy substrate (i.e. "cleaning wafer") is placed on the first placement surface (i.e. surface of ESC 208, Fig. 2) (para. [0019], [0024]). Belau teaches that such a configuration enables providing a greater ion energy of plasma and higher concentration of cleaning gas compared to a step without a wafer/substrate on the first placement surface (i.e. exposed cleaning step)(para. [0024]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to execute a first cleaning process is executed in a state in which a dummy substrate is placed on the first placement surface because Belau teaches/suggests that such a configuration enables protecting the first placement surface and providing a greater ion energy of plasma and higher concentration of cleaning gas compared to a step without a wafer/substrate on the first placement surface (i.e. exposed cleaning step)(para. [0024]).
Regarding claim 14, Koshimizu in view of Tanikawa and Belau (and further substantiated by Harada) teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as applied above and Koshimizu further teaches an additional elevating mechanism (comprising first actuator 52a, first lifter pine 51a, Fig. 2) configured to raise and lower the substrate or a dummy substrate with respect to the first placement surface (comprising 11a, Fig. 2) (para. [0042]).
Koshimizu in view of Tanikawa and Belau (and further substantiated by Harada) as applied above does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to further execute a third cleaning process on the interior of the processing container between the first cleaning process and the second cleaning process by supplying the radio-frequency power from the radio-frequency power source to the stage to generate the plasma in a state in which the dummy substrate is held at a position spaced apart from the first placement surface using the additional elevating mechanism, and wherein the second cleaning process is executed after the dummy substrate is unloaded from the processing container.
However, Belau further teaches the controller (comprising 235, Fig. 2, para. [0014]) is configured to execute a first cleaning process (comprising step 120, Fig. 1) in a state in which a dummy substrate (i.e. "cleaning wafer") is placed on the first placement surface (i.e. surface of ESC 208, Fig. 2) (para. [0019], [0024]) followed by a third cleaning process (comprising step 124, Fig. 1) on the interior of the processing container (comprising chamber 249, Fig. 2), wherein the third cleaning process (comprising step 124, Fig. 1) includes supplying the radio-frequency power from the radio-frequency power source (comprising RF source 230, Fig. 2) to the stage (comprising 208, Fig. 2) to generate the plasma (para. [0013],[0014], [0019]) in a state in which the dummy substrate (comprising cleaning substrate 503, Fig. 5) is held at a position spaced apart from the first placement surface (comprising upper surface of 208, Fig. 5) using the additional elevating mechanism (comprising lifting pins 508, Fig. 5) (para. [0019]-[0020]). Belau teaches that such a configuration enables an exposed cleaning step that can have different processing parameters than the first cleaning process and enable sufficiently cleaning residue (comprising 512, Fig. 5)(para.[0020], [0024]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to further execute a third cleaning process on the interior of the processing container between the first cleaning process and the second cleaning process by supplying the radio-frequency power from the radio-frequency power source to the stage to generate the plasma in a state in which the dummy substrate is held at a position spaced apart from the first placement surface using the additional elevating mechanism because Belau teaches that such a configuration enables providing an exposed cleaning step/process that can have different processing parameters than the first cleaning process and enable sufficiently cleaning residue (Belau: para. [0020],[0024]).
Regarding limitation "wherein the second cleaning process (i.e. cleaning of the ring member) is executed after the dummy substrate is unloaded from the processing container," it would be obvious to try a controller configuration wherein the second cleaning process is executed after the dummy substrate is unloaded from the processing container considering the limited number of options of processing (i.e. processing while the dummy substrate is loaded, processing during the unloading of the dummy substrate, and processing after the dummy substrate is unloaded from the processing container) with a reasonable expectation of success (i.e. suitable processing/cleaning) and wherein such a configuration would obviously enable an exposed waferless cleaning step of the ring member for suitable cleaning of the ring member and/or stage.
Regarding claim 16, Koshimizu in view of Tanikawa and Belau (and further substantiated by Harada) teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as applied above and Koshimizu further teaches wherein the second cleaning process (i.e. cleaning of the ring member) is executed in a state in which a dummy substrate is placed on the first placement surface (Koshimizu: para. [0056]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 17, Koshimizu in view of Tanikawa and Belau (and further substantiated by Harada) teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as applied above and Koshimizu further teaches wherein the stage is configured such that the ring member(comprising 113, Fig. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B) is electrostatically attracted to the second placement surface (comprising 11b, Fig. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B) (para. [0072],[0078]).
Koshimizu in view of Tanikawa and Belau (and further substantiated by Harada) as applied above does not explicitly teach wherein the first cleaning process is executed in a state in which the substrate is not placed on the first placement surface, wherein the controller is configured to execute an operation of placing and electrostatically attracting the dummy substrate on the first placement surface after the first cleaning process, and wherein the electrostatic attraction of the ring member to the second placement surface is released in parallel with the electrostatic attraction of the dummy substrate to the first placement surface.
However, Tanikawa teaches a plasma processing apparatus (comprising 5, Fig. 1, para. [0016]) including a controller (comprising control unit 74, Fig. 1, para. [0028]) configured to execute a step of performing the first cleaning process in a state in which the substrate is not placed on the first placement step (waferless dry clean) (para. [0073]).
Examiner notes that Harada substantiates that waferless dry clean is a cleaning process on an interior of a processing container accommodating the stage (Harada: para. [0006]-[0007]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to execute the first cleaning process in a state in which the substrate is not placed on the first placement surface because Tanikawa teaches/suggests such a configuration is a known suitable alternative configuration of a controller to enable a first cleaning process of a process container.
Regarding limitation “wherein the controller is configured to execute an operation of electrostatically attracting the dummy substrate on the first placement surface after the first cleaning process”:
Koshimizu further teaches the controller is configured to electrostatically attract a dummy substrate on the first placement surface (i.e. “transferred along the same procedure as that when the product wafer is transferred into the chamber”) before the second cleaning process (i.e. cleaning of the ring member) (para. [0056]-[0057], [0063], [0073]). Koshimizu teaches that such a configuration enables cleaning of the ring member (comprising 113, Fig. 2, 5A, 5B) and the second placement surface (comprising 11b, Fig. 2, 5A, 5B) while protecting the first placement surface (comprising 11a, Fig. 2, 5A, 5B) from damage caused by the cleaning (para. [0056]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to execute an operation of electrostatically attracting the dummy substrate on the first placement surface after the first cleaning process because Koshimizu teaches that placing a dummy substrate on the first placement surface before the second cleaning process enables protecting the first placement surface during the second cleaning process (i.e. cleaning of the second placement surface and the ring member).
Regarding limitation “wherein the electrostatic attraction of the ring member to the second placement surface is released in parallel with the electrostatic attraction of the dummy substrate to the first placement surface”:
Since the combination as applied above already teaches that the stage is configured to electrostatically attract both the ring member and the dummy substrate, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to execute in parallel (i.e. at the same time) the releasing of the electrostatic attraction of the ring member to the second placement surface and the electrostatic attraction of the dummy substrate to the first placement surface because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that performing two operations at the same time would reduce the overall processing/cleaning time.
Regarding claim 18, Koshimizu in view of Tanikawa and Belau (and further substantiated by Harada) teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein processing conditions for the second cleaning process (i.e. cleaning of the ring member) are set by changing at least one parameter from processing conditions of the first cleaning process.
However, Koshimizu further teaches that more power is supplied during cleaning than during etching (para. [0087]) and that the pressure is higher during a cleaning process than during a substrate process (para. [0096]).
Additionally, Belau teaches that different cleaning steps can have different parameters (para. [0019]-[0024]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention configure the controller to optimize/adjust/control/change process parameters depending on the cleaning process (i.e.” processing conditions for the second cleaning process (i.e. cleaning of the ring member) are set by changing at least one parameter from processing conditions of the first cleaning process”) because Koshimizu teaches/suggests different parameters such as pressure and power depending on the processing and because Belau additionally teaches adjusting/changing the parameters of a cleaning depending on the process step wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would adjust/change/optimize the parameters for optimal processing/cleaning.
Regarding claim 19, Koshimizu in view of Tanikawa and Belau (and further substantiated by Harada) teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as applied above.
Koshimizu further teaches the second cleaning process (i.e. ring member cleaning process) includes parameters such as gas type, pressure, plasma generation power (para. [0046]-[0053], [0087], [0096]).
Belau teaches the first cleaning process (i.e. process container cleaning process) include parameters such as gas type, gas flow rate, bias power, plasma generation power, temperature of the stage and a cleaning time (para. [0019]-[0021]).
Thus, the combination would meet claim 19 limitations.
Regarding claim 20, Koshimizu in view of Tanikawa and Belau (and further substantiated by Harada) teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the plasma generation power supplied in the second cleaning process is greater than the plasma generation power supplied in the first cleaning process.
However, Koshimizu further teaches that the plasma generation power supplied during the ring member cleaning process is greater than the plasma generation power supplied during etching (para. [0087]). Koshimizu further teaches that higher plasma generation power enables generating a local plasma between the lower surface of the ring member (comprising 113, Fig. 4) and the second placement surface (comprising 11b, Fig. 4) (para. [0087]), wherein the plasma generated is a high density plasma (para. [0054]).
Additionally, Belau teaches/suggest providing different plasma generation power for different cleaning processes (para. [0019]-[0020]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to adjust the plasma generation power of different cleaning steps (i.e. first cleaning process and second cleaning process) because Koshimizu teaches/suggests providing a plasma generation power supplied during the removing/cleaning process to be higher than other plasma processing steps to form a high density local plasma and because Belau teaches/suggests adjusting plasma generation power for different cleaning processes to obtain a suitable cleaning process.
Regarding claim 21, Koshimizu in view of Tanikawa and Belau (and further substantiated by Harada) teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the second cleaning process is executed at a higher pressure than the first cleaning process.
However, Koshimizu teaches/suggests that providing a higher pressure at the second cleaning process compared to a substrate processing enables preventing the plasma from diffusing in the space between the ring member (comprising 113, Fig. 4) and the second placement surface (comprising 11b, Fig. 4) which enables high density local plasma generation (para. [0054]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to execute the second cleaning process (i.e. cleaning of the ring member) at a higher pressure than the first cleaning process because Koshimizu teaches/suggests providing a higher/high pressure enables preventing the plasma from diffusing in the space between the ring member and the second placement surface which enables high density local plasma generation.
Regarding claim 22, Koshimizu in view of Tanikawa and Belau (and further substantiated by Harada) teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the second cleaning process is executed with a higher bias power than the first cleaning process.
However, Belau teaches that the bias power is a result-effective variable which affects the ion energy of the plasma (para. [0024]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the bias power of the first and second cleaning process and to configure the controller to apply an optimized bias power of the first and second cleaning processes because Belau teaches/suggest the bias power is a result-effective variable which affects the ion energy of the plasma wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the bias power of each the first and second cleaning process to optimize the ion energy of the plasma for optimal plasma processing.
Regarding claim 23, Koshimizu in view of Tanikawa and Belau (and further substantiated by Harada) teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein a temperature of the stage in the second cleaning process is higher than a temperature of the stage in the first cleaning process.
However, Koshimizu teaches that the stage has a temperature control module configured to adjust the temperature of the stage (comprising electrostatic chuck 112, Fig. 2) and the substrate (comprising W, Fig. 2) to a target/desired temperature (para. [0031]).
Additionally, Belau teaches/suggests that different temperatures of the stage (comprising ESC 208, Fig. 2) affect the cleaning process (para. [0021]). In other words, Belau teaches that temperature is a result-effective variable which affects the cleaning process.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the temperature of the stage in the first and second cleaning processes because Koshimizu already teaches/suggests adjusting the temperature of the stage to a target/desired temperature and because Belau teaches/suggest temperature of the stage is a result-effective variable which can be optimized to for optimal cleaning.
Regarding claim 24, Koshimizu in view of Tanikawa and Belau (and further substantiated by Harada) teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein a cleaning time in the second cleaning process is longer than a cleaning time in the first cleaning process.
However, Koshimizu further teaches the controller is configured to determine the end of the cleaning process based on an elapsed preset time and/or based on sensor data (para. [0053]). In other words, Koshimizu teaches/suggests that the cleaning time as a result-effective variable which can be adjusted to affect the cleaning process.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to optimize the cleaning time of the first and second cleaning process because Koshimizu already teaches/suggests adjusting/checking the cleaning time to affect the cleaning process wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the cleaning time of the process to ensure optimal cleaning of the chamber and the ring member.
Regarding claim 25, Koshimizu in view of Tanikawa and Belau (and further substantiated by Harada) teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as applied above.
Koshimizu further teaches wherein in the second cleaning process (i.e. ring member cleaning process), the plasma is generated from a cleaning gas including O2, H2, N2 (para. [0050]).
Belau further teaches wherein in the first cleaning process, the plasma is generated from a cleaning gas including O2 and CO2, (para. [0019]-[0020], [0023]).
Thus, the combination meets claim 25 limitations.
Regarding claim 26, Koshimizu in view of Tanikawa and Belau (and further substantiated by Harada) teaches all of the limitations of claim 25 as applied above.
Koshimizu further teaches wherein in the second cleaning process, a halogen-containing gas is further supplied into the processing container (para. [0050]).
Regarding claim 27, Koshimizu in view of Tanikawa and Belau (and further substantiated by Harada) teaches all of the limitations of claim 26 as applied above.
Koshimizu further teaches wherein the halogen-containing gas is NF3 (para. [0050]).
Regarding claim 31, Koshimizu in view of Tanikawa and Belau (and further substantiated by Harada) teaches all of the limitations of claim 26 as applied above, but does not explicitly teach wherein in the first cleaning process, the halogen-containing gas is further supplied into the processing container, and wherein a flow rate of the halogen-containing gas supplied into the processing container in the second cleaning process is higher than a flow rate of the halogen-containing gas supplied into the processing container in the first cleaning process.
However, Belau further teaches wherein in the first cleaning process the halogen-containing gas (NF3, CF4, C2F6, SF6) is supplied into the processing container to enable a cleaning of the processing container/chamber (para. [0019], [0020], [0023]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to supply a halogen-containing gas into the processing container during the first cleaning process because Belau teaches/suggests this is a known suitable controller configuration to enable cleaning of the processing container.
Regarding limitation “wherein a flow rate of the halogen-containing gas supplied into the processing container in the second cleaning process is higher than a flow rate of the halogen-containing gas supplied into the processing container in the first cleaning process”:
Tanikawa further teaches that the flow rate of the cleaning gas during the second cleaning process (i.e. cleaning of the ring member) can be high to increase convection to enable removal of adhered particles (para. [0072]). In other words, Tanikawa teaches that the flow rate of the cleaning gas is a result-effective variable which affects removal of particles (i.e. cleaning).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the flow rate of the halogen-containing gas (i.e. cleaning gas) in each of the first and the second cleaning processes and configure the controller to apply the optimized flow rate during each of the first and second cleaning processes because Tanikawa teaches/suggests that the flow rate of a cleaning gas is a result-effective variable which can be optimized to affect or optimize particle removal (i.e. cleaning).
Regarding claim 32, Koshimizu teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above but does not explicitly teach wherein, when the cleaning process including the separation operation and the removal operation is a second cleaning process, before the second cleaning process, the controller is configured to further execute a first cleaning process on an interior of a processing container accommodating the stage by supplying radio-frequency power from the radio-frequency power source to the stage to generate the plasma in a state in which a dummy substrate is placed on the first placement surface.
However, Tanikawa teaches a plasma processing apparatus (comprising 5, Fig. 1, para. [0016]) including a controller (comprising control unit 74, Fig. 1, para. [0028]) configured to execute a step of performing a waferless dry clean before the separation operation and the removal operation (i.e. before raising the ring member and cleaning/removing deposits from the ring member) (para. [0073]).
Examiner notes that Harada substantiates that waferless dry clean is a cleaning process on an interior of a processing container accommodating the stage (Harada: para. [0006]-[0007]).
Additionally, Belau teaches a plasma processing apparatus (comprising plasma processing chamber 200, Fig. 2) comprising a controller (comprising 235, Fig. 2, para. [0014]) configured to execute a cleaning process on an interior of a processing container (comprising etch chamber 249 including chamber wall 252, Fig. 2, para. [0014]) accommodating the stage (comprising ESC 208, Fig. 2, para. [0014]) by supplying the radio-frequency power from the radio-frequency power source (comprising RF source 230, Fig. 2) to the stage (comprising 208, Fig. 2) to generate the plasma (para. [0014], [0019]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to execute: when the cleaning process including the separation operation and the removal operation is a second cleaning process, before the second cleaning process, the controller is configured to further execute a first cleaning process on an interior of a processing container accommodating the stage by supplying the radio-frequency power from the radio-frequency power source to the stage to generate the plasma because Tanikawa (as substantiated by Harada) teaches/suggests executing a step of cleaning/removing deposits from an interior of the processing container before elevating/separating the ring member from the stage and cleaning/removing deposits from the stage and ring member as a known suitable alternative controller configuration which would enable cleaning/removing deposits from the chamber/container and because Belau teaches/suggests supplying the radio-frequency power from the radio-frequency power source to the stage to generate the plasma as a known controller configuration to enable plasma cleaning of the interior of the processing container.
Regarding limitation "in a state in which a dummy substrate is placed on the first placement surface,":
Belau further teaches the controller (comprising 235, Fig. 2, para. [0014]) is configured to execute a first cleaning process (comprising step 120 which is a cleaning of the chamber interior, Fig. 1) in a state in which a dummy substrate (i.e. "cleaning wafer") is placed on the first placement surface (i.e. surface of ESC 208, Fig. 2) (para. [0019], [0024]). Belau teaches that such a configuration enables protecting the first placement surface and providing a greater ion energy of plasma and higher concentration of cleaning gas compared to a step without a wafer/substrate on the first placement surface (i.e. exposed cleaning step)(para. [0024]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to execute the first cleaning process in a state in which a dummy substrate is placed on the first placement surface because Belau teaches/suggests that such a configuration enables protecting the first placement surface and providing a greater ion energy of plasma and higher concentration of cleaning gas compared to a step without a wafer/substrate on the first placement surface (i.e. exposed cleaning step)(para. [0024]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshimizu (US 2021/0272782 A1 published 2 September 2021 with different inventor(s) than the instant application) in view of Tanikawa (US 2019/0348315 A1) and Belau et al. (US 2019/0157051 A1 hereinafter “Belau”) and further substantiated by Harada (US 2014/0373867 A1) as applied to claims 12, 13, 14, 16-2, 25-27, 31, 32 above and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2020/0194242 A1 hereinafter “Zhou”).
Applicant has provided evidence in this file showing that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as Tokyo Electron Limited not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement in effect not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, although reference Koshimizu (US 2021/0272782 A1) has been excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is still applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Applicant may overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore, not prior art as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Regarding claim 15, Koshimizu in view of Tanikawa and Belau (and further substantiated by Harada){hereinafter “modified Koshimizu”} teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 12 as applied above.
Koshimizu further teaches wherein the stage is configured such that the ring member(comprising 113, Fig. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B) is electrostatically attracted to the second placement surface (comprising 11b, Fig. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B) (para. [0072],[0078]).
Modified Koshimizu as applied above does not explicitly teach wherein the first cleaning process is executed in a state in which the substrate is not placed on the first placement surface, and wherein the electrostatic attraction of the ring member to the second placement surface is released in parallel with the first cleaning process.
However, Belau further teaches a controller (comprising controller 235, Fig. 3, para. [0015]) configured to execute a cleaning process (comprising exposed clean step 124, Fig. 1) without the substrate placed on the first placement surface (para. [0020], [0025]). Belau teaches that such a configuration enables exposing the first placement surface during cleaning (para. [0020]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to execute the first cleaning process in a state in which the substrate is not placed on the first placement surface because Belau teaches that such a configuration is a known alternative and suitable configuration of a controller which would enable exposing the first placement surface during cleaning.
Modified Koshimizu as applied above does not explicitly teach wherein the electrostatic attraction of the ring member to the second placement surface is released in parallel with the first cleaning process.
However, Zhou teaches/suggests dechucking/releasing the electrostatic attraction of an object held on the stage to be in parallel (i.e. at the same time) with a first cleaning process (comprising oxygen flush and dechuck step 232, Fig. 2B) enable decreasing overall processing time (para. [0038]-[0040], [0087]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to execute the step of releasing the electrostatic attraction of the ring member (i.e. dechucking the ring member) to the second placement surface in parallel with the first cleaning step because Zhou teaches/suggest releasing/dechucking an object in parallel (i.e. at the same time) as a cleaning process enables decreasing overall process time (Zhou: para. [0040], [0087]).
Claim(s) 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshimizu (US 2021/0272782 A1 published 2 September 2021 with different inventor(s) than the instant application) in view of Tanikawa (US 2019/0348315 A1) and Belau et al. (US 2019/0157051 A1 hereinafter “Belau”) and further substantiated by Harada (US 2014/0373867 A1) as applied to claims 12, 13, 14, 16-2, 25-27, 31, 32 above and further in view of Hubacek(US 6475336 B1) and Suuronen et al. (US 2006/0124155A1 hereinafter "Suuronen").
Applicant has provided evidence in this file showing that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as Tokyo Electron Limited not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement in effect not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, although reference Koshimizu (US 2021/0272782 A1) has been excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is still applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Applicant may overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore, not prior art as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Regarding claim 28, Koshimizu in view of Tanikawa and Belau (and further substantiated by Harada) {hereinafter “modified Koshimizu”} teaches all of the limitations of claim 25 as applied above but does not explicitly teach a heat transfer gas supplier configured to supply a heat transfer gas to a gap between the second placement surface and the ring member, wherein in the removal operation, the cleaning gas is supplied from the heat transfer gas supplier into the processing container instead of the heat transfer gas.
However, Koshimizu teaches the stage (comprising 11, Fig. 2) includes a heat transfer gas flow path (not shown) (para. [0031]).
Additionally, Hubacek teaches a heat transfer gas supplier (comprising gas passage 32, Fig. 2 and 3) configured to supply a heat transfer gas to a gap between the second placement surface (comprising interface between edge ring chuck 17 and edge ring 18, Fig. 2; comprising interface between edge ring 30 and edge ring chuck 34, Fig. 3) and the ring member (comprising edge ring 18, Fig. 2; comprising edge ring 30, Fig. 3)(col 4 line 33-52). Hubacek teaches that such a configuration enables better temperature control of the ring member and allowing for improved processing and reduced ring erosion (col 5 line 34-line 62).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide a heat transfer gas supplier (i.e. gas supply line) configured to supply a heat transfer gas to a gap between the second placement surface and the ring member because Koshimizu already teaches/suggests the stage includes a heat transfer gas flow path and because Hubacek teaches that such a heat transfer gas supplier enables better temperature control of the ring member for improved processing and reduced ring member erosion.
Regarding limitation "wherein in the removal operation, the cleaning gas is supplied from the heat transfer gas supplier into the processing container instead of the heat transfer gas”:
Koshimizu further teaches supplying the cleaning gas to the gap between the second placement surface and the ring member (para. [0070]).
Additionally, Suuronen teaches/suggests using an existing cooling delivery system (i.e. heat transfer gas supplier) to deliver a cleaning gas to the stage (comprising platen 404, Fig. 4) (para. [0050]-[0055]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the apparatus/controller to execute the removal operation such that the cleaning gas is supplied from the heat transfer gas supplier into the processing container instead of the heat transfer gas because Koshimizu teaches/suggests supplying cleaning gas to the gap between the second placement surface and the ring member and because Suuronen teaches/suggests using an existing coolant/heat transfer gas path to deliver a cleaning gas to enable cleaning of the stage.
Regarding claim 29, modified Koshimizu teaches all of the limitations of claim 28 as applied above and Koshimizu further teaches wherein in the removal operation a halogen gas is further supplied (para. [0050]). Thus, the combination would meet claim 29 limitation "wherein in the removal operation, a halogen-containing gas is further supplied from the heat transfer gas supplier into the processing container.
Regarding claim 30, modified Koshimizu teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 29 above and Koshimizu further teaches wherein the halogen-containing gas is NF3 (para. [0050]).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshimizu (US 2021/0272782 A1 published 2 September 2021 with different inventor(s) than the instant application) in view of Yanase (US 2002/0117473 A1).
Applicant has provided evidence in this file showing that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as Tokyo Electron Limited not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement in effect not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, although reference Koshimizu (US 2021/0272782 A1) has been excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is still applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Applicant may overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore, not prior art as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Regarding claim 33, Koshimizu teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above but does not explicitly teach wherein, the controller is configured to execute the cleaning process further including placing a dummy substrate on the first placement surface after the separation operation, and wherein the removal operation is executed after the placing.
However, Koshimizu teaches using a dummy substrate on the first placement surface(comprising 11a, Fig. 4, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B; para. [0032]) to suppress damage to the first placement surface (comprising 11a, Fig. 4, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B; para. [0032]) from the cleaning (para. [0056]).
Additionally, Yanase teaches placing a dummy substrate on the first placement surface immediately before the removal operation/cleaning step to protect the first placement surface of the stage (para. [0110]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to execute placing a dummy substrate on the first placement surface after the separation operation, and wherein the removal operation is executed after the placing (i.e. placing a dummy substrate immediately before a cleaning/removal operation) because Koshimizu already teaches/suggests using a dummy substrate on the first placement surface to protect the first placement surface and because Yanase teaches/suggests placing a dummy substrate on the first placement surface immediately before the removal operation/cleaning step to protect the first placement surface of the stage (para. [0110]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kudo et al. (US 2018/0211824 A1) teaches a chamber clean using dummy wafer in a first step and without a dummy wafer in the next step (para. [0075]-[0077]); teaches parallel operations during a clean step to reduce processing time (para. [0012]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM 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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights