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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 7/14/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the controller required in the apparatus claims in Group II performs the same claimed method of Group I, which would not be able to perform a materially different method such as substrate etching. This is not found persuasive because although the applicant’s apparatus comprises a controller loaded with a program to perform the same method, the scope of apparatus claims are broader than just performing the claimed method and can be used to perform a materially different process loaded onto the controller, wherein the precursor source can be used to etch from a surface rather providing a pre-coat.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 8 and 21 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.
Claim 8 recites “ceases…prior to…thickness is greater than…thickness value” however it is unclear where such support is found in applicant’s disclosure. Clarification is requested.
Claim 21 recites “determining the…thickness comprises calculating the…thickness based on the…parameter and a deposition rate associated with the precoat thickness parameter” however it is unclear where such support is found in applicant’s disclosure. Clarification is requested.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda [US 20210074517].
Claim 1: Ikeda teaches a system for semiconducting processing [abstract, 0016], the system comprising a precursor source (gas source) [0034], a chamber arrangement including a substrate support (stage, 26) arranged within an interior of the chamber arrangement [Fig. 1] connected to the precursor source [Fig. 1], an exhaust source (22) connected to the chamber arrangement [Fig. 1, 0021], and a controller (100) operatively connected to the chamber arrangement [Fig. 1; 0035]; receiving at the controller, a process recipe [0035], which the controller can perform a predetermined control according to process sequence and recipe [0035]; and a precoat thickness is determined to yield an expected precoat thickness (calculates the thickness of the pre-coating film deposited on the upper electrode) [0064], where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the act of calculating the expected precoat thickness, a precoat thickness parameter based upon the process recipe would be included. Ikeda also teaches a process sequence of the plasma apparatus and process recipe are stored as a control parameter [0035], wherein the plasma state (e.g. plasma density, plasma temperature, thickness of the film deposited, and etc.) are calculated based on measurement results [0043]. Additionally, Ikeda teaches the system calculating the expected pre-coat thickness based upon plasma detection result [0064], which the limitation, precoat thickness parameter, is met by the teachings of prior art given its broadest and reasonable interpretation in light of applicant’s disclosure. Ikeda further teaches using the controller to compare the expected precoat thickness to a predetermined precoat thickness value (determining if the thickness of the precoat film is equal or layer than a predetermined film thickness) [0064]; and precoating using the controller, the substrate support with a precoat material layer using the process recipe when the expected thickness is less than the predetermined thickness value (when it is determined of the thickness of the precoating film is less than the predetermined thickness, the controller determines the formation of the precoat is not completed and returns to process to step s11) [0064]; and providing a user output to a user display operatively associated with the controller when the expected precoat thickness is greater than the predetermined recoat thickness value (when it is determined that the thickness of the pre-cat film is equal or larger than the predetermined thickness, the controller determines the formation of the pre-coat is complete [0064], where the controller has a touch panel and display such that an input and result when performing a predetermined control according the process sequence and recipe can be displayed [0035]. Since Ikeda teaches the controller allows for inputs and displaying alerts to the operator, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to display to the operator when the expected thickness is equal or larger than the predetermined thickness using the touch display.
Claim 3: Ikeda teaches the apparatus parameters can include internal pressure of the chamber [0086], where although the prior art does explicitly the claimed pressure range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the pressure as result effective variable through routine experimentation to achieve the desired film result.
Claim 9: Ikeda teaches etching the substrate support prior to precoating the substrate support with the precoat material layer, so that a legacy precoat deposited on the support is removed [0031; 0068].
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koshi [US 20240003005].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the precoat mass flow rate range and that the precoat precursor is a silicon containing material, in addition to other explicit details of the pre-coat process.
Claim 2: Koshi teaches a pre-coating method where the precoat can be a silicon nitride film [0120] and the pre-coat process is controlled by MFC to be at predetermined flow rates [0117], wherein the flow rate can be about 10-2000sccm [0121]. Although the prior art does not appear to teach the exact claimed mass flow rate range, it would have been obvious to one of one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the mass flow rate of the precoat so as to regulate the content of the silicon in the pre-coating [0121] as a result effective variable through routine experimentation.
Claim 4: Koshi teaches the pre-coat temperature can be 600-850 degrees [0122], where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim 10: Ikeda teaches loading a substrate onto a precoat material layer [Fig. 3]; whereas Koshi teaches depositing a silicon containing material onto the substrate [0086]; unseating (unloading) the substrate from the support [0094], and etching the substrate support where the precoat material is removed from the support (cleaning) [0097, 0104], wherein the precoat is deposited to a thickness that can be between 10-100nm for example [0122]. Although Koshi does not explicitly teach the claimed thickness range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the precoat through routine optimization in order to determine how frequent the cleaning should be performed, and the precoat layer is deposited using a precoat precursor (first processing gas) [0120-0121] and the silicon containing substrate material is deposited on the substrate also using the precoat precursor (first processing gas) [0081; 0141]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the specifics of Koshi to Ikeda since Ikeda omits any further details of the pre-coating process and Koshi provides known and operable details of forming pre-coats onto semiconductor components.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morisawa [US 20150040828].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the precoat deposition interval claim range. Morisawa is provided.
Claim 5: Morisawa teaches the interval of the pre-coating can be determined based on the desired frequency of the cleaning [0190]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the interval or time period of precoat deposition as a result effective variable through routine experimentation so as to control the number of cleanings.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimizu [US 20240030014].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach determine whether a substrate is seated on the substrate support.
Claim 6: Ikeda teaches the precoating is performed without a substrate on the substrate support [Fig. 3], and Shimizu teaches a seasoning method [abstract] where the controller can remove the substrate on the support and determine whether to continue the seasoning method [0132]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine and remove the substrate with the controller during the precoating process for automation since Shimizu teaches this is well known and operable for performing precoating methods and Ikeda also teaches performing the precoat method without the presence of a substrate.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shanbhag [US 20190185999].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach associating precoat thickness to the lift pins of the substrate support to prevent damage. Shanbhag is provided.
Claim 7: Shanbhag teaches surface/components that frequently receive incomplete undercoat coverage include lift pin, lift pin holder/retainer [0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine an adequate coating relating to the thickness of precoat to ensure sufficient protection of the component that would be exposed to damaging processes since Shanbhag recognizes that these semiconductor processing components typically have inadequate coverage of the precoat.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Khaja [US 20190393072].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach limit bridging during deposition of substrate. Khaja is provided.
Claim 11: Khaja teaches seasoning layer can be deposited onto the substrate support to protect the backside layers of the substrate from irregularities found on the substrate supporting features [0025] wherein the thickness of the seasoning layer improves the substrate support surface from detect forming events and damage [0027, 0029]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to tune the thickness of the seasoning layer or precoat on the substrate in order to prevent undesirable defect or damage events during deposition processing. Although Khaja does not explicitly teach prevent bridging it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the occurrence of bridging between substrate and support would also be a defect occurring event that can be prevent by adjusting the seasoning layer on the support.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang [US 20220352006] or alternatively in view of Su [US 20230116427].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach limit bridging during deposition of substrate. Huang is provided.
Claim 11: Huang teaches bridging may be developed between the substrate and the support [0004], and a precoat may be deposited on a susceptor ledge [0034, 0046; 0128], wherein the ledge surface affects the substrate deposition [abstract; 0016]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to better control the edge deposition on the substrate and prevent bridging [0150].
Alternatively, Su teaches determining a precoat thickness may limit bridging between substrate and susceptor [0065; 0080]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to tune the precoat thickness since Su teaches by doing so, one can avoid bridging between substrate and support.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiba [US 20170062209].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach stopping the deposition prior to hitting a target thickness. Shiba is provided.
Claim 8: Shiba teaches that a termination of deposition is performed before a thickness exceeds a target value [claim 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to terminate the deposition prior to meeting or exceeding a target thickness since Shiba teaches such technique is already known in the deposition art so as to avoid excessive thicknesses.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mukherjee [US 20200216959].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the expected precoat thickness comprises calculating the expected precoat thickness based on the precoat thickness parameter and a deposition rate associated with the precoat thickness parameter. Mukherjee is provided.
Claim 21: Mukherjee teaches deposition rate is known the deposition can be stopped according to duration of the timer, which is determined based on the target thickness and known deposition rate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the expected thickness based upon a thickness parameter such as time and a deposition rate since Mukherjee teaches such calculation is already known in the deposition art.
Response to Arguments
Claim 8 has been amended; therefore, new prior art has been provided.
Claim 21 has been introduced; therefore, new prior art has been provided.
Claim 11 has been cancelled; therefore, prior art Khaja [US 20190393072] has been dropped for claim 11.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments of Ikeda failing to teach “a process recipe including precoat thickness parameter” and “determining, using the controller, an expected precoat thickness using the precoat thickness parameter” it is rebutted that the scope of the claim is not limited to the argued interpretation by the applicant. Applicant argues that claim 1 requires the controller to predictively determine an expected precoat thickness from a precoat thickness parameter included in the process recipe, wherein the word “expected” denotes a predicted or anticipated thickness rather than a measured actual thickness, which Ikeda teaches the later using an in-situ measurement. It is argued by the examiner that Ikeda does teaches an “expected” precoat thickness from a precoat thickness parameter since calculation of a thickness is estimated and in theory not one hundred percent precise; hence, the thickness calculated is “predicted”. Furthermore, Ikeda teaches the variables of the plasma apparatus (such as thickness) and process recipe are considered as a control parameter [0035; 0043] and the controller calculates the thickness of the film deposited using variables measured by the plasma detector [0057]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the recipe along with other plasma variables or parameters such as thickness would be included in the calculation of the expected precoat thickness.
Applicant also argue that Ikeda fails to teach “providing, using the controller, a user output to a user display operatively associated with the controller when the expected precoat thickness is greater than the predetermined precoat thickness value,” where Ikeda does not provide a user output to a display for a user. The examiner argues that Ikeda teaches that the controller’s has a screen device that allows for input and results from performing a predetermined control according to the plasma sequence and process recipe to be displayed [0035]. Since Ikeda teaches the results from the plasma process would be displayed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the determination whether the expected thickness is greater or less than the predetermined thickness value would also be displayed to the user. Applicant’s arguments that Ikeda is reversed compared to claim 1, where claim 1 requires the concept of alerting the user when the expected precoat thickness is greater than the target thickness, it is argued that because Ikeda does teaches displaying results from the plasma deposition process and a calculation is performed for determining whether the thickness of the film is equal or larger [0064], does meet the limitation of alerting the user of when the precoat thickness is greater than the target thickness.
Applicant argues Koshi of claim 2 teaches a volumetric flow rate rather than mass flow rates; hence, no obviousness has been established between the variable of mass flow rate to a result, it is argued by the examiner that although Koshi teaches volumetric flow rate, the mass flow is closely related to the volumetric flow rates and can be converted using the gas density. Therefore, since Koshi teaches volumetric flow rate affects film content, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to expect the mass flow rate would affect film content as well. ‘
Regarding applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to teach the limitations of claim 3, specifically the apparatus parameter is corrected based on plasma state not precoat thickness parameter as part of the process recipe, but since Ikeda teaches the plasma state may also include thickness of the film [0042], Ikeda teaches such limitation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
