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 Acknowledgement
During a telephone conversation with Gary Fedorochko on 02/25/2026 a provisional election was made to prosecute the invention of Group I, claim 1-11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 12-20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-11, drawn to method of deposition, classified in class C23C16/45.
II. Claims 12-20, drawn to apparatus of deposition, classified in class C23C16/52.
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus can be performed using a materially different process for example, the apparatus can be used to etch a substrate.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reason(s) apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or a grouping of patentably indistinct species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
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 8-9 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], which it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an expected precoat thickness would involve a desired precoat thickness parameter according to the desired process recipe. 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 8: Ikeda teaches the controller ceases execution of the process recipe when the expected precoat thickness is greater than the predetermined thickness value [0064].
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 are 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights