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.
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) 1-3, 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090050272 to Rosenberg, in view of US 20080196661 to West, and further in view of US 20130168020 to Hashiguchi.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9: Rosenberg discloses (claim 1) a substrate processing method, comprising: a cover ring (300 [cover ring], Fig. 5B) includes a first surface (top or bottom surface) and a second surface (top or bottom surface) opposite the first surface,
a deposition ring (100 [deposition ring]) having a first surface (top or bottom surface of 100) facing the cover ring (300) and a second surface (top or bottom surface of 100) opposite the first surface, wherein the first surface of the cover ring (300) has a first roughness, and the first surface of the deposition ring (top of 100) has a second roughness (para. [0032]); (claim 5) the first roughness of the cover ring (300) is obtained by applying a coating layer (170 [coating], Fig. 4) having the first roughness on the cover ring (para. [0033-0034]).
However Rosenberg does not explicitly disclose (claim 1) wherein the first roughness is different from the second roughness; (claim 2) wherein the cover ring includes a lip on the first surface thereof and only the lip has the first roughness; (claim 3) wherein portions of the cover ring other than the lip have a third roughness that is different than the first roughness; (claim 6) wherein the coating layer has a roughness of less than 600 micro-inches; (claim 9) wherein the first roughness is less than 600 micro-inches.
Yet Rosenberg teaches that without or with coatings, the average surface roughness of the rings are 90-150 micro-inches (para. [0032]) or 600-900 micro-inches (para. [0033]) respectively which are workable measurements, for the purpose of increasing the volume of attachment sites for entrapping and retaining particles and films of the deposition species in the chamber (para. [0033]). This intrinsically provides differences in the roughness as long as the roughness is near or under 600 micro-inches, as taught in Applicant’s own specification (para. [0040, PGPub), which explicitly teaches that “a surface having a roughness Ra of less than around 600 micro-inches is considered a smooth, even surface”… “a coating layer 173 is deposited on the entire portion 501 so that the portion 501 of the cover ring 170 has a relatively smooth, even surface.” This bolsters Rosenberg’s teaching of workable measurements, as any portion of the two rings (coating or no coating) necessarily has different roughness in the ranges taught above.
Additionally, the courts have held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II (A). Emphasis is placed on “workable ranges (measurements) by routine experimentation,” experimentation which Applicant has not provided anywhere in their disclosure, but nonetheless is focusing on para. [0040]-- where the only requirement is to have an average roughness of any of the surfaces of less than around 600 micro-inches.
Further, regarding the 600-900 micro-inches taught by Rosenberg, Applicant’s specification has not established any criticality to choosing the claimed range (testing or other evidence) of “less than around 600 micro-inches,” and 600 meets the end point of the claimed range; thus, the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, Rosenberg reads on the claim limitations.
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 workable measurements which lead to differences in average roughness of the surfaces as taught by Rosenberg with motivation to increase the volume of attachment sites for entrapping and retaining particles and films of the deposition species in the chamber.
Rosenburg does not explicitly disclose introducing a gas into a processing chamber, the processing chamber including: a target having a first surface and a second surface that is opposite the first surface, an RF power supply coupled to the target, a DC power supply coupled to the target, a substrate support having a substrate receiving surface for securing a substrate for processing, a ground shield, a cover ring positioned on the ground shield, wherein the cover ring includes a first surface facing the substrate support and a deposition ring disposed on the substrate support;
lowering the substrate support; loading the substrate onto the substrate support; raising the substrate support; forming a plasma in the processing chamber; sputtering a target material from the target by colliding ions in the plasma with the target; and depositing the target material on the substrate.
West introducing a gas into a processing chamber (100 [chamber], Fig. 1, para. [0016]), the processing chamber (100) including: a target (142 [target]) having a first surface and a second surface that is opposite the first surface (Fig. 1), an RF power supply (156 [RF power supply]) coupled to the target (142, para. [0017]), a DC power supply (14 or 148 [DC power source]) coupled to the target (142, para. [0017]), a substrate support (152 [pedestal]) having a substrate (154 [substrate]) receiving surface for securing a substrate for processing (para. [0016]), a ground shield (180 [bottom shield]), the cover ring (102 [cover ring]) positioned on the ground shield (180), wherein the cover ring (102) includes a first surface facing the substrate support (152, Fig. 1) and the deposition ring (128 [deposition ring]) disposed on the substrate support (152, Fig. 2);
lowering the substrate support (para. [0016]); loading the substrate onto the substrate support (152, para. [0021]); raising the substrate support (para. [0036]); forming a plasma in the processing chamber (para. [0036]); sputtering a target material from the target by colliding ions in the plasma with the target (142, para. [0037]); and depositing the target material on the substrate (para. [0037]). West discloses the above limitations for the purpose of being adapted to provide a more directional sputtering of material onto a substrate (para. [0019]), sputter depositing material on a substrate (para. [0013]).
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 chamber components listed above as taught by West with motivation to be adapted to provide a more directional sputtering of material onto a substrate, sputter deposit material on a substrate.
Rosenberg does not explicitly disclose (claim 1) and only the lip is covered with a coating having a first roughness.
Hashiguchi discloses where only a portion (lip/ledge part 231) of a ring (23 [focus ring], Fig. 2) is covered with a coating (50 [protective film], para. [0047]) having a first roughness (para. [0042]), for the purpose of reducing plasma attack (para. [0042]) and/or reducing the usage of the amount of the coating which can be a rare-earth element, thus realizing resource conservation and low cost can be realized (para. [0047]).
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 coating only on a portion of the ring as taught by Hashiguchi with motivation to reduce plasma attack and/or reduce the usage of the amount of the coating which can be a rare-earth element, thus realizing resource conservation and low cost can be realized.
Claim 7: The method of Rosenberg in view of West, Hashiguchi wherein the first roughness of the cover ring limits dislodging of deposition material that is deposited on the deposition ring (para. [0032-0033], Rosenberg).
Claim 8: The method of Rosenberg in view of West, Hashiguchi wherein the second roughness of the deposition ring limits deposition of deposition material on the deposition ring (para. [0032-0033], Rosenberg).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg in view of West, Hashiguchi as applied to claims 1-3, 5-9, above, and further in view of US 20130334038 to Riker.
Claim 4: The method of Rosenberg in view of West, Hashiguchi does not disclose further comprising sputtering the target material from the target to form a layer of aluminum oxide on the substrate.
Riker teaches further comprising sputtering the target material from the target to form a layer of aluminum oxide on the substrate (para. [0030]) for the purpose of promoting greater process uniformity and repeatability along with longer chamber component service life (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 limitation as taught by Riker with motivation to promote greater process uniformity and repeatability along with longer chamber component service life.
Claim(s) 10-11, 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090050272 to Rosenberg, in view of US 20080196661 to West.
Claims 10-11, 13-17: Rosenberg discloses (claim 10) a cover ring (300 [cover ring], Fig. 4), and the first surface (bottom surface) of the cover ring has a first roughness (para. [0032-0034]), wherein the deposition ring includes a first surface (top of 100, Fig. 2) and a second surface (bottom of 100) opposite the first surface, the first surface of the deposition ring has a second roughness (para. [0032-0034]) and faces the first surface of the cover ring (Fig. 5), (claim 11) wherein the first surface of the cover ring includes a lip (160 [cover lip], Fig. 4);
However Rosenberg does not explicitly disclose (claim 10) and the first roughness of the first surface of the cover ring is different than the second roughness of the first surface of the deposition ring; (claim 11) and only the lip has the first roughness; (claim 13) wherein the first roughness is less than the second roughness; (claim 14) wherein the first roughness is less than 600 micro-inches; (claim 15) wherein a coating layer having the second roughness is disposed on the first surface of the deposition ring; (claim 16) wherein the second roughness is less than the first roughness; (claim 17) wherein the second roughness is less than 600 micro-inches.
Yet Rosenberg teaches that without or with coatings, the average surface roughness of the rings are 90-150 micro-inches (para. [0032]) or 600-900 micro-inches (para. [0033]) respectively which are workable measurements, for the purpose of increasing the volume of attachment sites for entrapping and retaining particles and films of the deposition species in the chamber (para. [0033]). This intrinsically provides differences in the roughness as long as the roughness is near or under 600 micro-inches, as taught in Applicant’s own specification (para. [0040, PGPub), which explicitly teaches that “a surface having a roughness Ra of less than around 600 micro-inches is considered a smooth, even surface”… “a coating layer 173 is deposited on the entire portion 501 so that the portion 501 of the cover ring 170 has a relatively smooth, even surface.” This bolsters Rosenberg’s teaching of workable measurements, as any portion of the two rings (coating or no coating) necessarily has different roughness in the ranges taught above.
Additionally, the courts have held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II (A). Emphasis is placed on “workable ranges (measurements) by routine experimentation,” experimentation which Applicant has not provided anywhere in their disclosure, but nonetheless is focusing on para. [0040]-- where the only requirement is to have an average roughness of any of the surfaces of less than around 600 micro-inches.
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 workable measurements which lead to differences in average roughness of the surfaces as taught by Rosenberg with motivation to increase the volume of attachment sites for entrapping and retaining particles and films of the deposition species in the chamber.
Rosenberg does not disclose introducing a gas into a plasma processing chamber, the processing chamber including: a substrate support having a substrate thereon, a sputtering target disposed above the substrate, a ground shield around a space between the substrate and the sputtering target, the ground shield including a first end proximal to the sputtering target and a second end proximal to the substrate, the cover ring positioned on the second end of the ground shield, the deposition ring disposed on the substrate support; forming a plasma in the processing chamber to sputter a target material from the sputtering target; and depositing the target material on the substrate.
West discloses (claim 10) a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising: introducing a gas into a plasma processing chamber (100 [chamber], Fig. 1, para. [0016]), the processing chamber (100) including: a substrate support (152 [pedestal]) having a substrate (154 [substrate]) thereon, a sputtering target (142 [target]) disposed above the substrate (154), a ground shield (180 [bottom shield]) around a space between the substrate (154) and the sputtering target (142), the ground shield (180) including a first end proximal to the sputtering target and a second end proximal to the substrate (Fig. 1),
the cover ring (102 [cover ring], Fig. 1) positioned on the second end of the ground shield (180), wherein the cover ring (102) includes a first surface facing the substrate support (152) and a second surface facing the sputtering target (142), and the deposition ring (128 [deposition ring]) disposed on the substrate support (152); forming a plasma in the processing chamber to sputter a target material from the sputtering target (142, para. [0037]); and depositing the target material on the substrate (para. [0037]). West discloses the above limitations for the purpose of being adapted to provide a more directional sputtering of material onto a substrate (para. [0019]), sputter depositing material on a substrate (para. [0013]).
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 chamber components listed above as taught by West with motivation to be adapted to provide a more directional sputtering of material onto a substrate, sputter deposit material on a substrate.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg in view of West as applied to claims 10-11, 13-17 above, and further in view of US 20130168020 to Hashiguchi.
Claim 12: The method of Rosenberg in view of West does not disclose wherein a coating layer having the first roughness is disposed on and confined to the lip of the cover ring.
Hashiguchi discloses where only a portion (lip/ledge part 231) of a ring (23 [focus ring], Fig. 2) is covered with a coating (50 [protective film], para. [0047]) having a first roughness (para. [0042]), for the purpose of reducing plasma attack (para. [0042]) and/or reducing the usage of the amount of the coating which can be a rare-earth element, thus realizing resource conservation and low cost can be realized (para. [0047]).
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 coating only on a portion of the ring as taught by Hashiguchi with motivation to reduce plasma attack and/or reduce the usage of the amount of the coating which can be a rare-earth element, thus realizing resource conservation and low cost can be realized.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090050272 to Rosenberg, in view of US 20080196661 to West.
Claims 18-20: Rosenberg discloses (claim 18) a cover ring (300 [cover ring], Fig. 4), and the first surface (bottom surface) of the cover ring has a first roughness (para. [0032-0034]), wherein the deposition ring includes a first surface (top of 100, Fig. 2) and a second surface (bottom of 100) opposite the first surface, the first surface of the deposition ring has a second roughness (para. [0032-0034]) and faces the first surface of the cover ring (Fig. 5), the inner circumferential end of the cover ring has a first roughness, and a surface of the deposition ring facing the inner circumferential end of the cover ring has a second roughness; (claim 19) wherein the cover ring (300) further comprises an outer circumferential end surrounding an outer circumferential end of the deposition ring (100, Fig. 5); (claim 20) wherein the inner circumferential end of the cover ring comprises a lip (160 [cover lip], Fig. 4) facing the deposition ring (100).
However Rosenberg does not explicitly disclose (claim 18) and the first roughness is different from the second roughness; (claim 20) only the lip has the first roughness.
Yet Rosenberg teaches that without or with coatings, the average surface roughness of the rings are 90-150 micro-inches (para. [0032]) or 600-900 micro-inches (para. [0033]) respectively which are workable measurements, for the purpose of increasing the volume of attachment sites for entrapping and retaining particles and films of the deposition species in the chamber (para. [0033]). This intrinsically provides differences in the roughness as long as the roughness is near or under 600 micro-inches, as taught in Applicant’s own specification (para. [0040, PGPub), which explicitly teaches that “a surface having a roughness Ra of less than around 600 micro-inches is considered a smooth, even surface”… “a coating layer 173 is deposited on the entire portion 501 so that the portion 501 of the cover ring 170 has a relatively smooth, even surface.” This bolsters Rosenberg’s teaching of workable measurements, as any portion of the two rings (coating or no coating) necessarily has different roughness in the ranges taught above.
Additionally, the courts have held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II (A). Emphasis is placed on “workable ranges (measurements) by routine experimentation,” experimentation which Applicant has not provided anywhere in their disclosure, but nonetheless is focusing on para. [0040]-- where the only requirement is to have an average roughness of any of the surfaces of less than around 600 micro-inches.
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 workable measurements which lead to differences in average roughness of the surfaces as taught by Rosenberg with motivation to increase the volume of attachment sites for entrapping and retaining particles and films of the deposition species in the chamber.
However Rosenberg does not explicitly disclose a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising: introducing a gas into a plasma processing chamber, the processing chamber including: a substrate support having a substrate and deposition ring thereon, wherein a diameter of the deposition ring is greater than a diameter of the substrate, a sputtering target facing the substrate and the deposition ring, a ground shield including a first end proximal to the sputtering target and a second end proximal to the substrate support, and
the cover ring positioned on the second end of the ground shield, wherein the cover ring comprises an inner circumferential end disposed between the deposition ring and the sputtering target, forming a plasma in the processing chamber; sputtering a target material from the sputtering target; and depositing the target material on the substrate.
West discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising: introducing a gas into a plasma processing chamber (100 [chamber], Fig. 1, para. [0016]), the processing chamber (100) including: a substrate support (152 [pedestal]) having a substrate (154 [substrate]) and deposition ring (128 [deposition ring]) thereon, wherein a diameter of the deposition ring (128) is greater than a diameter of the substrate (154), a sputtering target (142 [target]) facing the substrate (154) and the deposition ring (128), a ground shield (180 [bottom shield]) including a first end proximal to the sputtering target and a second end proximal to the substrate support (Fig. 1), and
the cover ring (102 [cover ring], Fig. 1) positioned on the second end of the ground shield (180), wherein the cover ring (102) comprises an inner circumferential end disposed between the deposition ring (128) and the sputtering target (142), forming a plasma in the processing chamber (142, para. [0037]); sputtering a target material from the sputtering target (para. [0037]); and depositing the target material on the substrate (para. [0037]). West discloses the above limitations for the purpose of being adapted to provide a more directional sputtering of material onto a substrate (para. [0019]), sputter depositing material on a substrate (para. [0013]).
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 chamber components listed above as taught by West with motivation to be adapted to provide a more directional sputtering of material onto a substrate, sputter deposit material on a substrate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6623597 discloses a focus ring (208, Fig. 6) whose upper surface 208b is surface-hardened and roughened to increase the surface area thereof. Therefore, the particulate contaminants attach more securely to the upper surface (208b) and are thus less likely to fall towards the wafer (c. 4, l. 28-36). US 20070173059 discloses the annular band (216, Fig. 4) of the deposition ring (208) comprises an exposed surface (217) that is bead blasted to achieve a predefined level of surface roughness while adjacent surfaces are masked off to prevent accidental bead blasting of these surfaces (para. [0031]).
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