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 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.
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.
REJECTIONS OF CLAIMS 1-10:
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,871,658) in view of Balasubramhanya (U.S. Pat. 6,368,975).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Tao et al. teach a plasma etching system (Fig. 3), comprising: a main controller (Plasma controller 36); a plasma etcher comprising: a plasma beam generator configured to generate a plasma beam (Fig. 3); a stage configured to hold a substrate (Platen 26); and a flow rate controller (inherent to the control of flow rates at Column 7 line 37) coupled to the plasma etcher (Column 7 lines 33-40); a light detector system coupled to the plasma etcher (Column 7 lines 22-27); and a main controller (36) configured to: set the flow rate controller, via the main controller, to generate one or more flow rates of an etching gas of the plasma etcher to generate one or more corresponding plasma beams (Column 7 lines 33-40); direct the plasma etcher, via the main controller, to generate the one or more plasma beams to the substrate on the stage of a dry etching chamber (Column 7 lines 8-40); receive by the light detector system, via the main controller, emitted light from plasma discharge of the plasma beams (Column 7 lines 8-40; Fig. 3).
The difference between Tao et al. and claim 1 is that an analyzer module coupled to the main controller is not discussed (Claim 1) and calibrating the flow rate controller based on the one or more flow rates and an emitted light from plasma discharge of a corresponding plasma beam is not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding an analyzer module coupled to the main controller (Claim 1), Balasubramhanya teaches an analyzer module (222) coupled to a main controller (208). (See Fig. 2)
Regarding calibrating the flow rate controller based on the one or more flow rates and an emitted light from plasma discharge of a corresponding plasma beam (Claim 1), Balasubramhanya calibrating (Column 4 line 4) the flow rate controller (Column 6 lines 43-46) based on the one or more flow rates (Column 4 lines 15-23, lines 41-45) and an emitted light from plasma discharge (Column 4 lines 15-23) of a corresponding plasma beam.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the light detector system is configured to detect the emitted light from the plasma discharge at a characteristic wavelength of the etching gas.
Regarding claim 2, Tao et al. teach a spectrometer which detect the emitted light from the plasma discharge at a characteristic wavelength of the etching gas. (Column 7 line 23)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising: a high voltage source coupled to the plasma etcher and configured to generate the plasma beam.
Regarding claim 4, Tao et al. teach a high voltage source coupled to the plasma etcher and configured to generate the plasma beam. (Column 7 lines 8-10)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising an etch gas supply.
Regarding claim 5, Tao et al. teach an etch gas supply. (Column 7 lines 41-67)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Balasubramhanya is that it allows for increasing process yield and throughput. (Column 2 lines 44-45)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Tao et al. by utilizing the features of Balasubramhanya because it allows for increasing process yield and throughput.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al. in view of Balasubramhanya as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5 above, and further in view of Saito (U.S. Pat. 5,888,337).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the light detector system comprises an optical grating configured to diffract the emitted light at an angle corresponding to the characteristic wavelength of the etching gas.
Regarding claim 3:
Balasubramhanya already teach utilizing a diffraction grating for the light detector system. (Column 8 lines 3-10)
Saito teaches wherein the light detector system comprises an optical grating configured to diffract the emitted light at an angle corresponding to the characteristic wavelength of the etching gas. (Fig. 1; Column 4 lines 57-67; Column 5 lines 1-41)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Saito is that it allows for detecting etching. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Saito because it detects etching.
Claim(s) 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al. in view of Balasubramhanya as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5 above, and further in view of Nakagomi et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2018/0366337 A1).
At the outset it should be noted that Balasubramhanya already teach adjusting the flow rate controller as discussed above.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the flow rate controller is coupled between the etch gas supply and the plasma etcher.
Regarding claim 6, Nakagomi et al. teach wherein a flow rate controller is coupled between an etch gas supply and a plasma etcher. (Fig. 3; Paragraphs 0036-0038)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the flow rate controller is configured to adjust a flow rate of the etching gas that enters the plasma etcher.
Regarding claim 7, Nakagomi et al. teach wherein a flow rate controller is configured to adjust a flow rate of the etching gas that enters the plasma etcher. (Fig. 3; Paragraphs 0036-0038)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising: an etch gas supply, wherein the flow rate controller is coupled between the etch gas supply and the plasma etcher.
Regarding claim 8, Nakagomi et al. teach an etch gas supply, wherein the flow rate controller is coupled between the etch gas supply and the plasma etcher. (Fig. 3; Paragraphs 0036-0038)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the analyzer module is configured to control etching a semiconductor substrate using a calibrated one or more plasma beams.
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above Balasubramhanya teach an analyzer module configured to control etching a semiconductor substrate using a calibrated one or more plasma beams. (See Balasubramhanya discussed above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the analyzer module is configured to control etching of a via in the semiconductor substrate.
Regarding claim 10, Balasubramhanya teach an analyzer module configured to control etching of a via in the semiconductor substrate. (Fig. 5B)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Nakagomi et al. is that it allows for fabricating electronic devices with controlled gas flows. (Paragraph 0003)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Nakagomi et al. because it allows for fabricating electronic devices with controlled gas flows.
REJECTIONS OF CLAIMS 11-16:
Claim(s) 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramhanya (U.S. Pat. 6,368,975) in view of Saito (U.S. Pat. 5,888,337) and Jerde et al. (U.S. Pat. 4,491,499).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
Regarding claim 11, Balasubramhanya teach a plasma etching system (Column 2 lines 57-60; Fig. 2), a plasma etcher comprising: a plasma beam generator configured to generate one or more plasma beams (Fig. 2); and a flow rate controller coupled to the plasma etcher (Column 6 lines 43-44); a light detector system coupled to the plasma etcher (Column 6 lines 47-66); and
a processor configured (Column 7 lines 29-43 - 232 person or remote computer) to:
control setting of the flow rate controller of the plasma etcher to generate one or more flow rates of an etching gas corresponding to the one or more plasma beams of the plasma etcher (Column 7 lines 29-43 specifically line 41 – gas flow rates; Column 6 lines 43-44 – mass flow controllers); control monitoring of emitted light generated by plasma discharge corresponding to the one or more plasma beams of the plasma etcher (Column 8 lines 44-47 – remote computer system via control bus 236); control transmitting of the emitted light through an optical grating to diffract at least a portion of the emitted light to generate a beam of light corresponding to a characteristic wavelength of the etching gas (Column 7 lines 58-67; Column 8 lines 1-47);
and control the flow rate controller (Column 6 lines 43-46) based on the one or more flow rates (Column 4 lines 15-23, lines 41-45) and an emitted light from plasma discharge (Column 4 lines 15-23) of a corresponding plasma beam.
The difference between Balasubramhanya an claim 11 is that generating a beam of light at an angle corresponding to a characteristic wavelength of the etching gas is not discussed (Claim 11) and control detecting of an intensity of the beam of light at the angle, wherein the intensity of the beam of light is an intensity of the emitted light from the plasma discharge at the characteristic wavelength of the etching gas versus a background signal related to a characteristic wavelength of a metal element is not discussed (Claim 11).
Regarding generating a beam of light at an angle corresponding to a characteristic wavelength of the etching gas is not discussed (Claim 11), Saito et al. teach generating a beam of light at an angle corresponding to a characteristic wavelength of the etching gas. (Fig. 1; Column 4 lines 57-67; Column 5 lines 1-41)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Saito is that it allows for detecting etching. (See Abstract)
Regarding control detecting of an intensity of the beam of light at the angle, wherein the intensity of the beam of light is an intensity of the emitted light from the plasma discharge at the characteristic wavelength of the etching gas versus a background signal related to a characteristic wavelength of a metal element is not discussed (Claim 11), Jerde et al. teach control detecting of an intensity of the beam of light at the angle, wherein the intensity of the beam of light is an intensity of the emitted light from the plasma discharge at the characteristic wavelength of the etching gas versus a background signal related to a characteristic wavelength of a metal element. (Abstract; Claims 1, 2, 5; Column 5 line 22 – Aluminum)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Jerde et al. is that it allows for determination when the etching should be terminated. (Column 1 line 58)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Balasubramhanya by utilizing the features of Saito and Jerde et al. because it allows for detecting etching and endpoint of etching.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the processor is configured to: control operating of the plasma etcher with the adjusted flow rate controller; and control plasma etching, with an accuracy of at least 1%, a structure of a semiconductor substrate with a critical dimension of 3 nm at a location of the semiconductor substrate.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of references teaches the same structural features of the claims therefore this process limitation would be achievable.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the processor is configured to: control receiving the emitted light from the plasma discharge; and control detecting the intensity of the emitted light from the plasma discharge at the characteristic wavelength of the etching gas.
Regarding claim 13, as discussed above Jerde et al. teach this limitation.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the processor is configured to: control selecting of two or more flow rates of the etching gas between 2.4 standard cubic centimeters per minute (sccm) and 3.6 sccm.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of references teaches the same structural features of the claims therefore this process limitation would be achievable.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the two or more flow rates span at least 90 percent of an entire range of the flow rate controller.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of references teaches the same structural features of the claims therefore this process limitation would be achievable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Balasubramhanya by utilizing the features of Saito and Jerde et al. because it allows for detecting etching and end of etching.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramhanya in view of Saito and Jerde et al. as applied to claims 11-15 above, and further in view of O’Donnell et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,069,035).
The combination of references already teach etching aluminum and determining endpoints.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the metal element is nickel (Ni).
O’Donnell et al. teach etching nickel and determining the etching endpoint. (See Abstract; Figs. 3A, 3B)
The motivation for utilizing the features of O’Donnell et al. is that it allows for using nickel in place of aluminum for producing for other devices. (Column 1 line 10)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the features of O’Donnell et al. because it allows for using nickel in place of aluminum for producing other devices.
REJECTIONS OF CLAIMS 17-20:
Claim(s) 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramhanya (U.S. Pat. 6,368,975) in view of Saito (U.S. Pat. 5,888,337) and Jerde et al. (U.S. Pat. 4,491,499).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
Regarding claim 17, Balasubramhanya teach a plasma etching system(Column 2 lines 57-60; Fig. 2), comprising: a plasma etcher (Fig. 2) comprising: a plasma beam generator configured to generate a plasma beam (Fig. 2); and a flow rate controller coupled to the plasma etcher (Column 6 lines 43-44); a light detector system coupled to the plasma etcher (Column 6 lines 47-66); and a processor (Column 7 lines 29-43 - 232 person or remote computer) configured to:
control determining of at least one etching gas flow rate of an etching gas to provide plasma to a substrate (Column 7 lines 29-43 specifically line 41 – gas flow rates; Column 6 lines 43-44 – mass flow controllers);
control detection of emitted light generated by plasma discharge (Column 8 lines 44-47 – remote computer system via control bus 236);
control sending of the emitted light through an optical grating to diffract at least a portion of the emitted light to generate a beam of light corresponding to a characteristic wavelength of the etching gas (Column 7 lines 58-67; Column 8 lines 1-47);
control calibration of the flow rate controller based on the at least one etching gas flow rate and a corresponding detected emitted light generated by the plasma discharge (Fig. 1A – calibration; Column 6 lines 43-46; Column 4 lines 15-23, lines 41-45; Column 4 lines 15-23); and
control etching the substrate using a calibrated one or more beams of plasma (Fig. 1B – process).
The difference between Balasubramhanya and claim 17 is that generating a beam of light at an angle corresponding to a characteristic wavelength of the etching gas is not discussed (Claim 17) and control detecting of an intensity of the beam of light at the angle, wherein the intensity of the beam of light is an intensity of the emitted light from the plasma discharge at the characteristic wavelength of the etching gas versus a background signal related to a characteristic wavelength of a metal element is not discussed (Claim 17).
Regarding generating a beam of light at an angle corresponding to a characteristic wavelength of the etching gas is not discussed (Claim 17), Saito et al. teach generating a beam of light at an angle corresponding to a characteristic wavelength of the etching gas. (Fig. 1; Column 4 lines 57-67; Column 5 lines 1-41)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Saito is that it allows for detecting etching. (See Abstract)
Regarding control detecting of an intensity of the beam of light at the angle, wherein the intensity of the beam of light is an intensity of the emitted light from the plasma discharge at the characteristic wavelength of the etching gas versus a background signal related to a characteristic wavelength of a metal element is not discussed (Claim 17), Jerde et al. teach control detecting of an intensity of the beam of light at the angle, wherein the intensity of the beam of light is an intensity of the emitted light from the plasma discharge at the characteristic wavelength of the etching gas versus a background signal related to a characteristic wavelength of a metal element. (Abstract; Claims 1, 2, 5; Column 5 line 22 – Aluminum)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Jerde et al. is that it allows for determination when the etching should be terminated. (Column 1 line 58)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the processor is configured to process the substrate by etching a via in the substrate using the calibrated one or more beams of plasma.
Regarding claim 19, Balasubramhanya teach wherein the processor is configured to process the substrate by etching a via in the substrate using the calibrated one or more beams of plasma. (Figs. 1A, 1B)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the processor is configured to control the detection of the emitted light generated by the plasma discharge with optical emission spectroscopy (OES).
Regarding claim 20, Balasubramhanya teach wherein the processor is configured to control the detection of the emitted light generated by the plasma discharge with optical emission spectroscopy (OES). (Column 7 lines 58-68; Column 8 lines 1-47)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Balasubramhanya by utilizing the features of Saito and Jerde et al. because it allows for detecting etching and end of etching.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramhanya in view of Saito and Jerde et al. as applied to claims 17, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of O’Donnell et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,069,035).
The combination of references already teach etching aluminum and determining endpoints.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the metal element is nickel (Ni).
O’Donnell et al. teach etching nickel and determining the etching endpoint. (See Abstract; Figs. 3A, 3B)
The motivation for utilizing the features of O’Donnell et al. is that it allows for using nickel in place of aluminum for producing for other devices. (Column 1 line 10)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the features of O’Donnell et al. because it allows for using nickel in place of aluminum for producing other devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
October 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights