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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 3-4, 15-16 is/are cancelled; claim(s) 13-14, 17-23 was/were withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 24 is/are amended; claim(s) 26-35 is/are newly added.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by Buchberger in addition to previously relied on references below.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 06/09/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 12,097,295 was reviewed and accepted 06/15/2026. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded, and the corresponding double patenting rejection is hereby withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-12, 24-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170084432 to Valcore, JR in view of US 20060278521 to Stowell.
Claims 1, 24, 6, 7, 26, 28-32, 34: Valcore, JR discloses a substrate processing system comprising: a generator (configured to supply radio frequency (RF) power at a first frequency less than 2 MhZ (para. [0070]) to an electrode (146 [electrostatic chuck], Fig. 2) arranged in a processing chamber (112 [plasma chamber]) and including: a first RF source (“x MHz RF generator”) supplying at least part of the RF power at a first frequency (para. [0070]); a second RF source (“y MHz RF generator”) supplying at least part of the RF power at a second frequency that is greater than the first frequency (para. [0070]); and a matching network (112 [impedance matching network]) including an input connected to the first RF source (“x MHz RF generator”) and the second RF source (“y MHz RF generator”) and an output connected to the electrode (146, Fig. 2);
a sensor (152 and/or 186 [voltage and current probe]) configured to sense a parameter of the RF power at the first frequency (para. [0094-0095]); and a controller (180 [host system]) configured to compensate variations (interpreted as adjusting) in one of a deposition rate and an etching rate of an etch or deposition process of a substrate (119 [work piece]) arranged on a substrate support (146, para. [0070]) by:
causing the sensor (152/186) to sense the parameter at the first frequency and not at a frequency greater than 2Mhz (para. [0070]) at least one of prior to processing the substrate and after a predetermined period (interpreted as any period) after the processing of the substrate begins (para. [0106]); and adjusting the RF power for the substrate during the processing of the substrate based on the parameter sensed for the substrate (at least para. [0126], [0136]) (claim 28) wherein the controller is configured to adjust the RF voltage (para. [0026]).
However Valcore, JR does not explicitly disclose to enable compensation of variations in bulk resistivity of a substrate arranged on a substrate support (claim 26) wherein the parameter sensed by the sensor is a same parameter adjusted to compensate for variations in a rate of an etch or deposition process due to variations in the bulk resistivity of the substrate; (claim 28) to compensate for the variations in the bulk resistivity; (claim 29) wherein the parameter is sensed during a first processing operation and the RF power is adjusted during a second processing operation that is a different type of operation than the first processing operation; (claim 30) wherein: the parameter is sensed during an oxidation or non-deposition step; and the RF power is adjusted during a deposition step based on the parameter; (claim 31) wherein: the parameter is sensed during a non-etch step; and the RF power is adjusted during an etch step based on the parameter; (claim 32) wherein the RF power is adjusted based on a target deposition rate and a relationship between the parameter and a current deposition rate; (claim 34) wherein the sensor senses the RF power at the first frequency and not at the second frequency. Yet Valcore, JR teaches the sensor sensing the measured RF voltage, to determine an ion energy, which is a function of RF voltage and DC bias potential (para. [0106]).
Stowell teaches a link between ion energy (EV) and film quality (bulk resistance), in that when ion energy is low, the film quality can be lower indicating that bulk resistance is high (para. [0061]) which is controlled also through the frequency, and Stowell also teaches controlling ion energy via two options: adjusting frequency or adjusting RF power (para. [0070-0076]); for the purpose of controlling film quality through controlling the ion energy during processing (para. [0061]).
Additionally, it is noted that some limitations above are drawn to intended use of the apparatus. The courts have held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Stowell with motivation to control film quality through controlling the ion energy during processing.
Claims 2, 25, 27: The apparatus of Valcore, JR in view of Stowell discloses (claims 2, 25) wherein the parameter is selected from a group consisting of an RF voltage, an RF current and an RF phase angle at the first frequency (para. [0094-0095], Valcore, JR); (claim 27) wherein the parameter sensed is a RF voltage of the RF power (para. [0022]).
Claim 3: The apparatus of Valcore, JR in view of Stowell discloses wherein the parameter comprises an RF voltage at a first frequency (para. [0094-0095], Valcore, JR).
Claim 4: The apparatus of Valcore, JR in view of Stowell discloses wherein the first frequency is less than or equal 2 MHz (where any values between the provided range are considered, para. [0070], Valcore, JR).
Claim 5: The apparatus of Valcore, JR in view of Stowell discloses wherein the first frequency is in a range from 300 kHz to 500 kHz (where any values between the provided range are considered, para. [0070], Valcore, JR).
Claim 8: The apparatus of Valcore, JR in view of Stowell discloses wherein the second frequency is in a range of 2 MHz to 120 MHz (where any values between the provided range are considered, para. [0070], Valcore, JR).
Claim 9: The apparatus of Valcore, JR in view of Stowell discloses wherein the second frequency is 13.56 MHz (where any values between the provided range are considered, para. [0070], Valcore, JR).
Claim 11: The apparatus of Valcore, JR in view of Stowell discloses wherein the processing of the substrate comprises one of: deposition of film on the substrate and the rate comprises a deposition rate (at least para. [0022-0023], [0145-0147]); and etching of film on the substrate and the rate comprises an etching rate (at least para. [0022-0023], [0145-0147]). It is noted that the limitations are drawn to intended use of the apparatus. The courts have held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
Claim 12: The apparatus of Valcore, JR in view of Stowell discloses wherein the processing of the substrate comprises bevel deposition in a bevel etcher (para. [0342]). It is noted that the limitations are drawn to intended use of the apparatus. The courts have held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
Claim 33: The apparatus of Valcore, JR in view of Stowell discloses wherein: the controller is configured to adjust the RF power during the deposition process; the RF power is adjusted from an original RF power to a new RF power; the controller sets the new RF power equal to a difference between i) the original RF power, and ii) a change in RF power; and the change in RF power is based on a RF voltage at the first frequency and a target deposition rate (para. [0016-0021], [0066], [0135],).
Claim 35: The apparatus of Valcore, JR in view of Stowell discloses wherein the sensor (152/186, Fig. 2, Valcore, JR) is disposed outside of the processing chamber (114, Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valcore, JR in view of Stowell as applied to claims 1-9, 11-12, 24-35 above, and further in view of US 20160372307 to Yang.
Claim 10: The apparatus of Valcore, JR in view of Stowell does not disclose wherein the sensor is connected between the matching network and the electrode.
Yang discloses wherein the sensor (181 [sensor device], Fig. 1) is connected between the matching network (151/152 [matching network]) and the electrode (136/154, para. [0028]) for the purpose of monitoring RF energy from one or both RF power sources to tune the plasma (para. [0029]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensor arrangement as taught by Yang with motivation to monitor RF energy from one or both RF power sources to tune the plasma.
Claims 13-23: (Withdrawn).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20160372307 discloses a first and second RF power source (142, 178, Fig. 1) and may additionally include a controller (148), and a sensor device (181) that is in communication with the controller (148) and both of the first RF power source (142) and the second RF power source (178).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights