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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, line 11, “acquire a temperature measurement acquired using . . .” should be replaced with “acquire a temperature measurement using . . .; in claim 4, line 2, “controller” should be replaced by “controller to”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation “the interior surface portion of the substrate” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not previously recite “an interior surface portion of the substrate”. For purposes of examination, “the interior surface portion of the substrate” is being construed as “an interior surface portion of the substrate”.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aderhold et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0025368 A1) in view of Aderhold (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0021451 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Aderhold ‘368 discloses a semiconductor processing system (FIG. 1, [0003] of Aderhold ‘368, RTP tool #100 including thermal processing chamber #102), comprising: a chamber body (FIG. 1, [0024] of Aderhold ‘368, RTP tool #100 including thermal processing chamber #102); a substrate support arranged within an interior of the chamber body and supported for rotation about a rotation axis (FIG. 1, [0024] of Aderhold ‘368, RTP tool #100 includes rotation assembly #106 adapted to support substrate #110); a pyrometer supported above the chamber body, radially offset from the rotation axis, and optically coupled to the interior of the chamber body (FIG. 1, [0025] of Aderhold ‘368, RTP tool #100 includes a plurality of pyrometers radially spaced along axis of rotational assembly #106 and supported above the bottom of chamber body #102); and a controller operably connected to the substrate support and disposed in communication with the pyrometer (FIG. 1, [0026] of Aderhold ‘368, RTP tool #100 includes a temperature controller #116 and/or temperature measurement controller #120 coupled to pyrometers and rotation assembly #106), the controller configured to: acquire a temperature measurement acquired using electromagnetic radiation emitted by the substrate ([0030] of Aderhold ‘368, temperature controller directs the lamp head #114 to heat the substrate #110 and monitors the temperature of the substrate); and determine decentering of the substrate relative to the rotation axis using the electromagnetic radiation received at the pyrometer ([0092] of Aderhold ‘368, controller #120 can be used to detect substrate placement by determining the temperature profile at the edges of the substrate; [0094] of Aderhold ‘368, controller #120 can use temperature information to determine a corrective offset for a robot used to position the substrate within the chamber).
Aderhold ‘368 does not specifically disclose that the controller is configured to seat a substrate on the substrate support. Moreover, Aderhold ‘368 discloses positioning the substrate in the chamber using a robot ([0093] of Aderhold ‘368) but does not specifically disclose using the controller to control the robot during positioning of the substrate. Aderhold ‘451, however, discloses a controller for a substrate processing chamber wherein the controller controls the displacement of the robot arm ([0003] of Aderhold ‘451). Aderhold ‘368 also does not specifically disclose that the controller is responsive to instructions recorded on a non-transitory machine-readable memory. Aderhold ‘451, however, discloses a controller for a substrate processing chamber wherein the controller comprises a computer with memory implementing various instruction sets ([0055]-[0057] of Aderhold ‘451). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to seat the substrate on the support wherein the controller is responsive to instructions recorded on a non-transitory machine-readable memory since Aderhold ‘368 establishes that such controllers for substrate processing chambers were known. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 3, Aderhold ‘368 does not specifically disclose that the substrate has a radially outer bevel surface portion and a radially outer peripheral surface portion, wherein the rotation axis intersects the interior surface portion of the substrate, wherein the peripheral surface portion extends about the interior surface portion of the substrate, and wherein the bevel surface portion extends circumferentially about the peripheral surface portion of the substrate. Claim 3 is directed to a semiconductor processing system (i.e., an apparatus) and recites limitations directed to the substrate to be processed using the apparatus (i.e., the material to be worked upon). As set forth in the MPEP, however, a claim is only limited by positively recited elements (MPEP § 2115). Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). (MPEP §2115).
Regarding claim 4, Aderhold ‘368 discloses that the instructions cause the controller: rotate the substrate support about the rotation axis; acquire a first temperature measurement using the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the substrate at a first rotary position; acquire a second temperature measurement using electromagnetic radiation emitted by the substrate at a second rotary position; calculate a difference between the first temperature measurement and the second temperature measurement; and compare the calculated difference to a predetermined temperature difference value ([0005] of Aderhold ‘368, temperature of substrate measured at plurality of radial locations as the substrate rotates; [0092] of Aderhold ‘368, edge temperature variations used to determine corrective offset for substrate handler; [0094] of Aderhold, edge temperature measurements compared to database of edge temperature values to determine appropriate amount of adjustments).
Regarding claim 5, Aderhold ‘368 discloses that the instructions cause the controller to: acquire a plurality of temperature measurements using the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the substrate during rotation about the rotation axis; calculate a standard deviation of the plurality of temperature measurements; and compare the calculated standard deviation to a predetermined temperature standard deviation value ([0005] of Aderhold ‘368, temperature of substrate measured at plurality of radial locations as the substrate rotates; [0092] of Aderhold ‘368, edge temperature variations used to determine corrective offset for substrate handler; [0079]-[0081] of Aderhold ‘368, calculated values include standard deviation).
Regarding claim 7, Aderhold ‘368 discloses that the pyrometer is a first pyrometer and the semiconductor processing system further comprises one or more second pyrometer, the one or more second pyrometer supported above the chamber body and radially inward of the first pyrometer (FIG. 1, [0025] of Aderhold ‘368, tool #100 includes a plurality of pyrometers #112A-#112G positioned radially along the substrate above the bottom of chamber #102).
Regarding claim 8, Aderhold ‘368 discloses that the instructions further cause the controller to: acquire a plurality of first temperature measurements from the first pyrometer during rotation of the substrate about the rotation axis; and acquire a plurality of second temperature measurements from the one or more second pyrometer during rotation of the substrate about the rotation axis (FIG. 1, [0026] of Aderhold ‘368, controller receives temperature information from pyrometers #112A-#112G).
Regarding claim 20, Aderhold ‘368 discloses a controller (FIG. 1 of Aderhold, temperature measurement controller #120) configured to: acquire a temperature measurement with a pyrometer disposed in communication with the controller (FIG. 1 of Aderhold, pyrometers #112A-G), the pyrometer supported above a chamber body using electromagnetic radiation emitted by the substrate (FIG. 1 of Aderhold, pyrometers #112A-G supported above bottom of chamber #102), the pyrometer radially offset from the rotation axis and optically coupled to the interior of the chamber body (FIG. 1, [0025] of Aderhold ‘368, RTP tool #100 includes a plurality of pyrometers #112A-G radially spaced along axis of rotational assembly #106 and supported above the bottom of chamber body #102); and determine decentering of the substrate relative to the rotation axis using the electromagnetic radiation received by the pyrometer ([0092] of Aderhold ‘368, controller #120 can be used to detect substrate placement by determining the temperature profile at the edges of the substrate; [0094] of Aderhold ‘368, controller #120 can use temperature information to determine a corrective offset for a robot used to position the substrate within the chamber).
Aderhold ‘368 also does not specifically disclose the controller configured to seat a substrate on a substrate support operably associated with the controller, the substrate support arranged within an interior of a chamber body and supported for rotation about a rotation axis. Moreover, Aderhold ‘368 discloses positioning the substrate in the chamber using a robot ([0093] of Aderhold ‘368) but does not specifically disclose using the controller to control the robot during positioning of the substrate. Aderhold ‘451, however, discloses a controller for a substrate processing chamber wherein the controller controls the displacement of the robot arm for inserting the substrates into the chamber ([0003] of Aderhold ‘451). Aderhold ‘368 also does not specifically disclose a computer program product, comprising: a non-transitory machine-readable medium having a plurality of program modules recorded on the medium that, when read by the controller, cause the controller to carry out the operations. Aderhold ‘451, however, discloses a controller for a substrate processing chamber wherein the controller comprises a computer with memory implementing various instruction sets (FIG. 5, [0055]-[0057] of Aderhold ‘451). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to seat the substrate on the support and to provide instructions recorded on a non-transitory machine-readable memory to carry out the operations of the controller since Aderhold ‘368 establishes that such controllers for substrate processing chambers and instructions for such controllers were known. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aderhold ‘368 in view of Aderhold ‘451 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Gees et al. (International Patent Publication No. WO 2022/180047 A1, equivalent U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0068099 A1 provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 2, Aderhold ‘368 does not specifically disclose that the pyrometer is radially offset from the rotation axis by between about 135 millimeters and about 150 millimeters. Aderhold ‘368, however, discloses using the pyrometer to determine the temperature profile at the edge of the substrate ([0092] of Aderhold ‘368). Aderhold also discloses that the chamber can be a chamber for 300 mm wafers ([0023] of Aderhold ‘368). Aderhold ‘368 therefore suggest processing 300 mm wafers and radially offsetting the pyrometer about 150 mm in order to detect the edge of the wafer. Aderhold ‘368 also does not disclose that the pyrometer has a field of view with a width that is between about 2 millimeter and about 10 millimeters. Gees, however, discloses a substrate processing apparatus for measuring the temperature of a moving substrate comprising a pyrometer (Abstract of Gees) wherein the spot size of the pyrometer is 20 mm or less ([0090] of Gees). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pyrometer having a spot size of 20 mm or less in the modified system since Gees establishes that it was known to use such pyrometers to measure substrate temperatures in such systems. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Gees clearly teaches a pyrometer spot size or field of vision range (i.e., < 20 mm) that overlaps with that recited in claim 2 (i.e., 2 to 10 mm) which would render the claimed range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aderhold ’368 in view of Aderhold ‘451 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Nguyen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0173647 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Aderhold ‘368 discloses the semiconductor processing system wherein the instructions cause the controller to: acquire a plurality of temperature measurements using the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the substrate during rotation about the rotation axis ([0005] of Aderhold ‘368, temperature of substrate measured at plurality of radial locations as the substrate rotates); determine amplitude of temperature measurement oscillation; and compare the determined amplitude of temperature measurement oscillation to a predetermined temperature measurement oscillation value ([0092] of Aderhold ‘368, edge temperature variations used to determine corrective offset for substrate handler).
Aderhold ‘368 does not specifically disclose determining amplitude of temperature measurement oscillation at a frequency twice a rotational speed of the substrate support. Moreover, Aderhold ‘368 discloses rotating the substrate at a speed of up to 10 Hz ([0036] of Aderhold ‘368) and sampling the temperature at a rate of about 100 Hz ([0030] of Aderhold ‘368) but also discloses that other sampling rates may be used (0030] of Aderhold ‘368). Nguyen discloses that the sampling rate for measuring temperature with a pyrometer can be 100 Hz but that much slower sampling rates can be used if a lower resolution for the temperature profile is acceptable ([0016] of Nguyen). Nguyen therefore establishes that temperature sampling rate is a variable which achieves a recognized result (i.e., obtaining a desired degree of resolution) ([0016] of Nguyen). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the sampling rate in the modified method, including providing a sampling rate as recited in claim 15. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, once a parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2144.05 II B).
Claims 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aderhold’368 in view of Brenninger et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,217,212 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Aderhold ‘368 discloses a method (Abstract of Aderhold, method of measuring substrate uniformity) comprising: at a semiconductor processing system including a chamber body, a substrate support arranged within an interior of the chamber body and supported for rotation about a rotation axis (FIG. 1, [0024] of Aderhold ‘368, RTP tool #100 includes chamber body #102 and a rotation assembly #106 within the interior of the chamber adapted to support substrate #110), a pyrometer supported above the chamber body that is radially offset from the rotation axis and optically coupled to the interior of the chamber body (FIG. 1, [0025] of Aderhold ‘368, RTP tool #100 includes a plurality of pyrometers radially spaced along axis of rotational assembly #106 and supported above the bottom of chamber body #102), and a controller operably connected to the substrate support and disposed in communication with the pyrometer (FIG. 1, [0026] of Aderhold ‘368, RTP tool #100 includes a temperature controller #116 and/or temperature measurement controller #120 coupled to pyrometers and rotation assembly #106), seating a substrate on the substrate support ([0093] of Aderhold ‘368, substrate positioned on the support in the chamber using a robot); acquiring a temperature measurement acquired using electromagnetic radiation emitted by the substrate ([0030] of Aderhold ‘368, temperature controller directs the lamp head #114 to heat the substrate #110 and monitors the temperature of the substrate; pyrometers necessarily measure emitted electromagnetic radiation); and determining decentering of the substrate relative to the rotation axis using the electromagnetic radiation received at the pyrometer ([0092] of Aderhold ‘368, controller #120 can be used to detect substrate placement by determining the temperature profile at the edges of the substrate; [0094] of Aderhold ‘368, controller #120 can use temperature information to determine a corrective offset for a robot used to position the substrate within the chamber).
Aderhold ‘368 does not specifically disclose that the method is a material layer deposition method. Brenninger, however, discloses that thermal processing chambers for semiconductor wafers include chambers used for depositing material on the wafer (1:21-25 of Brenninger) and that the incorrect positioning of the wafer in such chambers can result in non-uniform material deposition and crystal defects in the wafer (1:29-40 of Brenninger). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Aderhold ‘368 in a material layer deposition method. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure correct positioning of the wafer in the chambers to provide uniform material deposition and reduce crystal defects in the wafer as taught by Brenninger (1:29-40 of Brenninger).
Regarding claim 13, Aderhold ‘368 discloses the material layer deposition method further comprising: rotating the substrate support about the rotation axis; acquiring a first temperature measurement using the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the substrate at a first rotary position; acquiring a second temperature measurement using electromagnetic radiation emitted by the substrate at a second rotary position ([0005] of Aderhold ‘368, temperature of substrate measured at plurality of radial locations as the substrate rotates); wherein determining decentering comprises (a) calculating a difference between the first temperature measurement and a second temperature measurement, and (b) comparing the calculated difference to a predetermined temperature difference value ([0093] of Aderhold ‘368, edge temperature variations used to determine corrective offset for substrate handler; [0094] of Aderhold, edge temperature measurements compared to database of edge temperature values to determine appropriate amount of adjustments).
Regarding claim 14, Aderhold ‘368 discloses the material layer deposition method further comprising: acquiring a plurality of temperature measurements using electromagnetic radiation emitted by the substrate during rotation about the rotation axis ([0005] of Aderhold ‘368, temperature of substrate measured at plurality of radial locations as the substrate rotates); and wherein determining decentering comprises (a) calculating a standard deviation of the plurality of temperature measurements ([0079]-[0081] of Aderhold ‘368, calculated values include standard deviation), and (b) comparing the calculated standard deviation to a predetermined temperature standard deviation value ([0093] of Aderhold ‘368, edge temperature variations used to determine corrective offset for substrate handler; [0094] of Aderhold, edge temperature measurements compared to database of edge temperature values to determine appropriate amount of adjustments).
Regarding claim 16, Aderhold ‘368 discloses that the pyrometer is a first pyrometer and the semiconductor processing system further comprises a second pyrometer radially offset from the first pyrometer, the material layer deposition method further comprising: acquiring a plurality of first temperature measurements from the first pyrometer during rotation of the substrate about the rotation axis; and acquiring a plurality of second temperature measurements from the second pyrometer during rotation of the substrate about the rotation axis (FIG. 1, [0026] of Aderhold ‘368, controller receives temperature information from a plurality of pyrometers #112A-#112G).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aderhold ’368 in view of Brenninger as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Nguyen.
Regarding claim 15, Aderhold ‘368 discloses the material layer deposition method further comprising: acquiring a plurality of temperature measurements using electromagnetic radiation emitted by the substrate during rotation about the rotation axis ([0005] of Aderhold ‘368, temperature of substrate measured at plurality of radial locations as the substrate rotates); and wherein determining decentering comprises (a) determining amplitude of temperature measurement oscillation, and (b) comparing the determined amplitude of temperature measurement oscillation to a predetermined temperature measurement oscillation value ([0092] of Aderhold ‘368, edge temperature variations used to determine corrective offset for substrate handler).
Aderhold ‘368 does not specifically disclose determining amplitude of temperature measurement oscillation at a frequency twice a rotational speed of the substrate support. Moreover, Aderhold ‘368 discloses rotating the substrate at a speed of up to 10 Hz ([0036] of Aderhold ‘368) and sampling the temperature at a rate of about 100 Hz ([0030] of Aderhold ‘368) but also discloses that other sampling rates may be used (0030] of Aderhold ‘368). Nguyen discloses that the sampling rate for measuring temperature with a pyrometer can be 100 Hz but that much slower sampling rates can be used if a lower resolution for the temperature profile is acceptable ([0016] of Nguyen). Nguyen therefore establishes that temperature sampling rate is a variable which achieves a recognized result (i.e., obtaining a desired degree of resolution) ([0016] of Nguyen). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the sampling rate in the modified method, including providing a sampling rate as recited in claim 15. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, once a parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2144.05 II B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claims 9-11, the closest prior art is to Aderhold ‘368. Aderhold ‘368 discloses a semiconductor processing system (FIG. 1, [0003] of Aderhold ‘368, RTP tool #100 including thermal processing chamber #102), comprising: a chamber body (FIG. 1, [0024] of Aderhold ‘368, RTP tool #100 including thermal processing chamber #102); a substrate support arranged within an interior of the chamber body and supported for rotation about a rotation axis (FIG. 1, [0024] of Aderhold ‘368, RTP tool #100 includes rotation assembly #106 adapted to support substrate #110); a pyrometer supported above the chamber body, radially offset from the rotation axis, and optically coupled to the interior of the chamber body (FIG. 1, [0025] of Aderhold ‘368, RTP tool #100 includes a plurality of pyrometers radially spaced along axis of rotational assembly #106 and supported above the bottom of chamber body #102); and a controller operably connected to the substrate support and disposed in communication with the pyrometer (FIG. 1, [0026] of Aderhold ‘368, RTP tool #100 includes a temperature controller #116 and/or temperature measurement controller #120 coupled to pyrometers and rotation assembly #106), the controller configured to: acquire a temperature measurement acquired using electromagnetic radiation emitted by the substrate ([0030] of Aderhold ‘368, temperature controller directs the lamp head #114 to heat the substrate #110 and monitors the temperature of the substrate); and determine decentering of the substrate relative to the rotation axis using the electromagnetic radiation received at the pyrometer ([0092] of Aderhold ‘368, controller #120 can be used to detect substrate placement by determining the temperature profile at the edges of the substrate; [0094] of Aderhold ‘368, controller #120 can use temperature information to determine a corrective offset for a robot used to position the substrate within the chamber). While Aderhold ‘451 provide motivation to configure the controller to seat a substrate on the substrate support ([0003] of Aderhold ‘451) wherein the controller is responsive to instructions recorded on a non-transitory machine-readable memory ([0055]-[0057] of Aderhold ‘451), neither Aderhold ‘368 nor Aderhold ‘368 teach or reasonably suggest a semiconductor processing system as recited in claim 9, wherein the instructions further cause the controller to: calculate a first temperature average using the plurality of first temperature measurements; calculate a second temperature average using the plurality of second temperature measurements; determine an inter-pyrometer average temperature difference between the first temperature average and the second temperature average; and compare the determined inter-pyrometer average temperature difference to a predetermined inter-pyrometer average temperature differential value; a semiconductor processing system as recited in claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the controller to: calculate a first temperature standard deviation using the plurality of first temperature measurements; calculate a second temperature standard deviation using the plurality of second temperature measurements; determine a standard deviation difference between the first temperature standard deviation and the second temperature standard deviation; and compare the determined standard deviation difference to a predetermined inter-pyrometer standard deviation differential value; or a semiconductor processing system as recited in claim 11, wherein the instructions further cause the controller to: calculate a first amplitude of temperature measurement oscillation at a frequency twice a rotational speed of the substrate support using the plurality of first temperature measurements; calculate a second amplitude of temperature measurement oscillation at a frequency twice the rotational speed of the substrate support using a plurality of second temperature measurements; determine an inter-pyrometer temperature oscillation difference between the first amplitude of temperature measurement oscillation and the second amplitude of temperature measurement oscillation; and compare the determined inter-pyrometer temperature oscillation difference to a predetermined inter-pyrometer temperature oscillation differential value.
Regarding claims 17-19, the closest prior art is also to Aderhold ‘368. Aderhold ‘368 discloses a method (Abstract of Aderhold, method of measuring substrate uniformity) comprising: at a semiconductor processing system including a chamber body, a substrate support arranged within an interior of the chamber body and supported for rotation about a rotation axis (FIG. 1, [0024] of Aderhold ‘368, RTP tool #100 includes chamber body #102 and a rotation assembly #106 within the interior of the chamber adapted to support substrate #110), a pyrometer supported above the chamber body that is radially offset from the rotation axis and optically coupled to the interior of the chamber body (FIG. 1, [0025] of Aderhold ‘368, RTP tool #100 includes a plurality of pyrometers radially spaced along axis of rotational assembly #106 and supported above the bottom of chamber body #102), and a controller operably connected to the substrate support and disposed in communication with the pyrometer (FIG. 1, [0026] of Aderhold ‘368, RTP tool #100 includes a temperature controller #116 and/or temperature measurement controller #120 coupled to pyrometers and rotation assembly #106), seating a substrate on the substrate support ([0093] of Aderhold ‘368, substrate positioned on the support in the chamber using a robot); acquiring a temperature measurement acquired using electromagnetic radiation emitted by the substrate ([0030] of Aderhold ‘368, temperature controller directs the lamp head #114 to heat the substrate #110 and monitors the temperature of the substrate; pyrometers necessarily measure emitted electromagnetic radiation); and determining decentering of the substrate relative to the rotation axis using the electromagnetic radiation received at the pyrometer ([0092] of Aderhold ‘368, controller #120 can be used to detect substrate placement by determining the temperature profile at the edges of the substrate; [0094] of Aderhold ‘368, controller #120 can use temperature information to determine a corrective offset for a robot used to position the substrate within the chamber). While Brenninger provides motivation to use the method of Aderhold ‘368 in a material layer deposition method (1:21-25 and 1:29-40 of Brenninger), neither Aderhold ‘368, Brenninger nor any of the other prior art references of record teach or reasonably suggest: a material layer deposition method as recited in claim 17 wherein determining decentering comprises: calculating a first temperature average using the plurality of first temperature measurements; calculating a second temperature average using the plurality of second temperature measurements; determining an inter-pyrometer average temperature difference between the first temperature average and the second temperature average; and comparing the determined inter-pyrometer average temperature difference to a predetermined inter-pyrometer average temperature differential value; a material layer deposition method as recited in claim 18, wherein determining decentering comprises: calculating a first temperature standard deviation using the plurality of first temperature measurements; calculating a second temperature standard deviation using the plurality of second temperature measurements; determining a standard deviation difference between the first temperature standard deviation and the second temperature standard deviation; and comparing the determined standard deviation difference to a predetermined inter-pyrometer standard deviation differential value; or a material layer deposition method as recited in claim 19, wherein determining decentering comprises: calculating a first amplitude of temperature measurement oscillation at a frequency twice a rotational speed of the substrate support using the plurality of first temperature measurements; calculating a second amplitude of temperature measurement oscillation at a frequency twice the rotational speed of the substrate support using the plurality of second temperature measurements; determining an inter-pyrometer temperature oscillation difference between the first amplitude of temperature measurement oscillation and the second amplitude of temperature measurement oscillation; and comparing the determined inter-pyrometer temperature oscillation difference to a predetermined inter-pyrometer temperature oscillation differential value.
The prior art as a whole therefore fails to teach or reasonably suggest the totality of the invention as defined by claims 9-11 and 17-19. In the absence of further prior art guidance, it would not have been obvious to arrive at the invention of claims 9-11 and 17-19 without impermissible hindsight. For the foregoing reasons, the invention of claims 9-11 and 17-19 is deemed non-obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights