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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 7/26/2024, 9/5/2025, and 2/26/2026 have
been acknowledged and signed copies of the PTO-1449 are attached herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 19 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.
In regards to claims 1 and 19, “a spacing…different from a spacing.” The singular articles presuppose a single uniform spacing within each plurality, whereas the specification and dependent claims 2, 7, and 8 expressly assert plural non-uniform spacings within one plurality, including positions from which columns have been removed. Which spacing must differ is undefined.
In regards to claim 8, The term “consistent/inconsistent” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “consistent/inconsistent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Both terms are relative and undefined. The corresponding disclosure describes columns being absent (removed) between two or more of a discontinuous set (170), i.e. spacings at integer multiples of a base pitch; the claim term “inconsistent” additionally reads on arbitrary spacing. It is also unclear whether claim 8 further limits claim 7, which already requires the two portions’ spacings to differ.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 11-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2007/0045103 A1, hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Richards et al. (USPN 6258217 B1, hereinafter “Richards”)
In regards to claim 1, Lee discloses (See, for example, Fig. 1) an apparatus for manufacturing a semiconductor device, the apparatus comprising:
a chamber (12);
a chuck (“chuck may be used to hold the wafer 24 to the pedestal 24”, See Par [0003]) provided in the chamber (12);
a biased power supply (34, biasing electrode 36 ) physically connected with the chuck (“chuck may be used to hold the wafer 24 to the pedestal 24”, See Par [0003]);
a target (28) component provided over the chuck (“chuck may be used to hold the wafer 24 to the pedestal 24”, See Par [0003]) and the biased power supply (34, biasing electrode 36); and
a magnetron assembly (50) provided over the target component (28).
However, Lee does not teach that wherein the magnetron assembly includes a plurality of outer magnetrons and a plurality of inner magnetrons; a spacing between adjacent magnetrons of the plurality of outer magnetrons is different from a spacing between adjacent magnetrons of the plurality of inner magnetrons.
Richard while disclosing a sputtering system teaches (See, for example, Figs. 1-2) wherein the magnetron assembly (100) includes a plurality of outer magnetrons (106) and a plurality of inner magnetrons (108).
Furthermore, Richards discloses outer rows 106, 107 and inner rings 108, 110 on rotatable plate 101, the inner rings arranged inside the lobes and separated from the outer rows by about 15-30 mm, See, Col. 4 lines 50-52. The magnets of array 100 are all of the same magnetic field strength, each rectangular and about 1 inch by 0.5 inches, 47 total, See Col. 8 line 59 thru Col. 9 line 10. An inner ring nested inside an outer row exhibits a shorter closed path identical magnets distributed along two paths of different length necessarily yield a different adjacent magnet spacing in the two rows.
Richards further teaches that magnet separation controls flux-line shape and field strength at the target, that optimal separation depends on the magnet material and size and on the sputtering geometry, and that the erosion pattern follows the measured filed strength, see for example, Col. 4 lines 40-52.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee by Richards because this would help a dual lobe rotating array that achieves a substantially uniform erosion track over the surface of the target and yields a higher deposition rate and greater yield than the conventional magnetic design.
In regards to claim 11, Lee discloses (See, for example, Fig. 1) an apparatus for manufacturing a semiconductor device, the apparatus comprising:
a chamber (12);
a chuck (“chuck may be used to hold the wafer 24 to the pedestal 24”, See Par [0003]) provided in the chamber (12);
a biased power supply (34, biasing electrode 36 ) physically connected with the chuck (“chuck may be used to hold the wafer 24 to the pedestal 24”, See Par [0003]);
a target (28) component provided over the chuck (“chuck may be used to hold the wafer 24 to the pedestal 24”, See Par [0003]) and the biased power supply (34, biasing electrode 36 ); and
a magnetron assembly (50) provided over the target (28) component.
However, Lee does not teach that wherein the magnetron assembly includes one or more first magnetic columns of a first type and one or more second magnetic columns of a second type.
Richards teaches the polarity of outer rows 106, 107 is North and the inner rings 108, 110 is South, see Col. 4 lines 6-15; Lee also teaches similarly constructed but oppositely oriented cylindrical magnets beneath poles 82, 88. Magnets of opposite polarity toward the target are not interchangeable, see, for example, Par [0009], flux from one row to the other forms the tunnel in which the plasma forms.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee by Richards because this would help a dual lobe rotating array that achieves a substantially uniform erosion track over the surface of the target and yields a higher deposition rate and greater yield than the conventional magnetic design.
In regards to claim 19, Lee discloses (See, Fig. 1) an apparatus for manufacturing a semiconductor device, the apparatus (10) comprising:
a chamber (12);
a chuck (“chuck may be used to hold the wafer 24 to the pedestal 24”, See Par [0003]) provided in the chamber (12);
a biased power supply (34, biasing electrode 36 ) physically connected with the chuck (“chuck may be used to hold the wafer 24 to the pedestal 24”, See Par [0003]);
a target (28) component provided over the chuck (“chuck may be used to hold the wafer 24 to the pedestal 24”, See Par [0003]) and the biased power supply (34, biasing electrode 36); and
a magnetron assembly (50) provided over the target (28) component.
Lee does not explicitly teach
wherein the magnetron assembly includes:
an upper magnetron comprising a first set of magnetic columns, and
a lower magnetron comprising a second set of magnetic columns.
wherein a spacing between adjacent magnetic columns of the upper magnetron is different from a spacing between adjacent magnetic columns of the lower magnetron.
Richard teaches (See, for example, Figs. 1 and 2) wherein the magnetron assembly (100) includes:
an upper magnetron (above B-AXIS or C-AXIS) comprising a first set of magnetic columns, and
a lower magnetron (below B-AXIS or C-AXIS) comprising a second set of magnetic columns.
Richards claim 1 recites a first row of magnets having a double lobe structure, and second and third rows arranged as rings inside the lobes.
Furthermore, Richards discloses outer rows 106, 107 and inner rings 108, 110 on rotatable plate 101, the inner rings arranged inside the lobes and separated from the outer rows by about 15-30 mm, See, Col. 4 lines 50-52. The magnets of array 100 are all of the same magnetic field strength, each rectangular and about 1 inch by 0.5 inches, 47 total, See Col. 8 line 59 thru Col. 9 line 10. An inner ring nested inside an outer row exhibits a shorter closed path identical magnets distributed along two paths of different length necessarily yield a different adjacent magnet spacing in the two rows.
Richards additionally teaches that magnet separation controls flux-line shape and field strength at the target, that optimal separation depends on the magnet material and size and on the sputtering geometry, and that the erosion pattern follows the measured filed strength, see for example, Col. 4 lines 40-52.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee by Richards because this would help a dual lobe rotating array that achieves a substantially uniform erosion track over the surface of the target and yields a higher deposition rate and greater yield than the conventional magnetic design.
In regards to claim 5, Lee as modified above discloses (See, for example, Figs. 1-3, Lee) wherein the biased power supply is to provide a direct current power in a range from approximately twenty kilowatts to approximately sixty kilowatts (“A DC power supply 32 electrically biases the target 28 negatively with respect to the shield 28”, See Par [0004]; “ in conjunction with relatively high levels of DC power applied to the target 32”, See Par [0034])) and an alternating current in a range from approximately one-hundred Watts to approximately one-thousand, two-hundred Watts (“the substrate bias should be high, for example, ranging between 1 and 700 W for a 200 mm circular wafer, preferably ranging between 100 and 500 W, more preferably between 250 and 300 W.”, See Par [0018]).
As to the numerical values of direct current power in a range from approximately 20 KW to approximately 60 KW, Lee also teaches that high target power combined with a small magnetron yields the high ionization fraction on which Lee’s self-ionized plasma sputtering depends (see, Par [0009]). Determining the optimum DC power for a given target size, wafer size, and deposition rate is accordingly well within the skill of the art. MPEP 2144.05(II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have direct current power in a range from approximately 20 KW to approximately 60 KW since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 6, Lee as modified above discloses (See, for example, Figs. 1-3, Lee) that wherein the biased power supply is to provide an alternating current biased power with a frequency in a range from approximately two megahertz to approximately eight-one megahertz ( “an RF power source 34, for example operating at 13.56 MHz although other RF frequencies may be used, biases an electrode 36 in the pedestal 22 through a capacitive coupling circuit 38.”, See Par [0004]).
In regards to claim 12, Lee as modified above discloses (See, Figs. 1-3, Lee) wherein the one or more first magnetic columns provide greater magnetic flux than the one or more second magnetic columns (See Par [0010], “the magnetic flux integrated over the area of the outer pole 82, is substantially greater than that of the inner pole 78, for example by a factor of at least 150% and preferably 200% or 300%”).
In regards to claim 13, Lee as modified above discloses wherein the one or more first magnetic columns provide a greater aluminum and argon ion density than the one or more second magnetic columns
Lee supplies both species: “For aluminum sputtering, at least the front face of the target 28 facing the wafer 24 is composed of aluminum or an aluminum alloy having no more than 10 at % of one or more alloying elements in addition to elemental aluminum. The target 28 is vacuum sealed to the chamber 12 through an isolator 30.” See par [0003]; “the argon sputter working gas to discharge into a plasma such that the positively charged argon ions are attracted to the negatively biased target 28 and sputter material from it.”, See Par [0004]. Furthermore,
Lee supplies the differential: “the total magnetic intensity of the outer pole 82, that is, the magnetic flux integrated over the area of the outer pole 82, is substantially greater than that of the inner pole 78, for example by a factor of at least 150% and preferably 200% or 300%.”, See Par [0010].
Lee further supplies the casual link to ion density: the field between neighboring poles traps electrons, thereby increasing the plasma density, and the increased plasma density greatly increases sputtering of the adjacent region of the target. Greater trapped electron density over the stronger pole produces greater ionization of both the argon working gas and the sputtered aluminum in that region. (See Pars [0070], [0034]).
In regards to claim 14, Lee as modified above discloses (See, Fig. 1-3, Lee) that wherein the magnetron assembly includes an upper magnetron and a lower magnetron (the two portions of the asymmetric rotating array on either side of axis of rotation 14 (rotational center 14 within outer pole 82; apex 86 close to the rotational center).
In regards to claim 15, Lee as modified above discloses (See, Fig. 1-3, Lee) that wherein the upper magnetron includes the one or more first magnetic columns and the lower magnetron includes the one or more second magnetic columns (the oppositely oriented cylindrical magnets are segregated by pole, one orientation beneath each of the two pole pieces, so the two portions carry columns if the two respective types, 52, 54; 72, 74; 82, 88).
In regards to claim 16, Lee as modified above discloses (See, Fig. 1-3, Lee) that wherein the magnetron assembly includes a set of outer magnetic columns and a set of inner magnetic columns (the plurality of permanent magnets underlying outer pole 72 and inner pole 74 of magnetron 70, separated by nearly constant gap 76; equivalently the magnets beneath outer pole 82 and inner pole 88 of magnetron 80, separated by nearly constant gap 90, See Pars [0008]-[0010]).
In regards to claim 20, Lee as modified above discloses (See, Fig. 1-3, Lee) that wherein the first set of magnetic columns includes magnetic columns of a different type than the second set of magnetic columns (similarly constructed but oppositely oriented permanent cylindrical magnets beneath the two pole pieces; rings of opposed cylindrical permanent magnets forming poles 52, 54. See Par [0007])
Claims 2, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Richards as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chetcuti et al. (US 2013/0146444 A1, hereinafter “Chectcuti”).
In regards to claim 2, Lee as modified above discloses all limitations of claim 1 except that wherein the plurality of outer magnetrons includes a first portion and a second portion, wherein a spacing between adjacent magnetrons of the first portion is different from a spacing between adjacent magnetrons of the second portion.
Chetcuti while disclosing a magnetron teaches (See, for example, Fig. 3A) the plurality of outer magnetrons (300) includes a first portion (packed tightly portion of 102) and a second portion (the outer magnets 102 are arranged to define a plurality of gaps 302, each gap between adjacent magnets, which may be empty or filled with non-magnetic spacers or shims, See claim 4), wherein a spacing between adjacent magnetrons of the first portion (packed tightly portion of 102) is different from a spacing between adjacent magnetrons of the second portion (the outer magnets 102 are arranged to define a plurality of gaps 302).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee by Chetcuti because this would help arrange the magnetron assembly with the graded spacing in order to obtain more uniform target erosion and improved deposition uniformity that follows from it.
In regards to claim 9, Lee as modified above discloses wherein the magnetron assembly comprises: a plurality of magnetic columns (“the two pole pieces acting as the inner and outer poles 82, 88 a different number of similarly constructed but oppositely oriented permanent cylindrical magnets, for example, of NdBFe.”, See Lee Par [0010]; “the magnetic poles 52, 54 are formed by respective rings of opposed cylindrical permanent magnets,” See Par [0007]).
Furthermore, Chetcuti discloses magnet size as a deliberately selected design variable: array 350 includes outer magnets 102 comprising magnets of varying widths 352a, 352b, 352c, the thinner magnets closest to the turnaround and wider magnets closer to the other outer magnets (see also Claim 5: “the at least one region of weaker magnetic field strength comprise magnets of different widths arranged with width increasing away from the adjacent turnaround.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee by Chetcuti because this would help arrange the magnetron assembly with the graded spacing in order to obtain more uniform target erosion and improved deposition uniformity that follows from it.
However, Lee further fails to explicitly teach a portion of the plurality of magnetic columns include column diameters in a range from approximately fifteen millimeters to approximately eighteen millimeters and column lengths in a range from approximately thirty millimeters to approximately thirty-five millimeters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a particular cylindrical magnet diameters and lengths in Lee’s assembly to obtain the desired flux at the target is therefore routine optimization of recognized result-effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05(II); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 17, Lee as modified above discloses all limitations of claim 16 except that wherein the set of outer magnetic columns includes: a subset of the one or more first magnetic columns, and a subset of the one or more second magnetic columns.
Chetcuti discloses (see, for example, Fig. 3A) wherein the set of outer magnetic columns includes: a subset of the one or more first magnetic columns, and a subset of the one or more second magnetic columns (“The outer magnets 102 may include a plurality of weaker magnets 402a and 402b in the long sides where electrons would exit the turnaround. These weaker magnets 402a and 402b may vary in strength such as increasing in strength further from the turnaround. For example, magnets 402b may be stronger than magnets 402a but not as strong as the other outer magnets 102”, See Par [0025]; “magnets of varying width 352a, 352b, 352c”, See par [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee by Chetcuti because this would help arrange the magnetron assembly with the graded spacing in order to obtain more uniform target erosion and improved deposition uniformity that follows from it.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Richards as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizuno et al. (US 2013/0081938 A1, hereinafter “Mizuno”).
In regards to claim 3, Lee as modified above discloses all limitations of claim 1except that wherein the chuck is spaced from the target component in a range from approximately sixty millimeters to approximately eighty millimeters.
Mizuno while disclosing a magnetron apparatus teaches wherein the chuck is spaced from the target component in a range from approximately sixty millimeters to approximately eighty millimeters (“the distance between the target 13 and the substrate is set to be large, e.g., about 50 mm to 100 mm.” See Par [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee by Mizuno because this would help avoid transferring the target erosion profile onto the substrate and thereby preserve deposition rate uniformity.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Richards as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Al-Shaikh et al. (USPN 6221221 B1, hereinafter “Al-Shaikh”).
In regards to claim 4, Lee as modified above discloses all limitations of claim 1 except that comprising: a cover ring coupled with an edge of the chuck, wherein the cover ring includes a first leg portion shorter than a second leg portion.
Al-Shaikh while disclosing an apparatus for processing a semiconductor wafer teaches (See, for example, Fig. 1) comprising: a cover ring (122) coupled with an edge of the chuck (107/130), wherein the cover ring (122) includes a first leg portion shorter than a second leg portion (See, the two legs of 122 in Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee by Al-Shaikh because this would help confine sputtered material to the substrate and keep it off the pedestal sides and surrounding chamber surfaces.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Richards as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harra et al. (USPN 5417833 A, hereinafter “Harra”).
In regards to claim 10, Lee as modified above discloses all limitations of claim 1 except that wherein at least one of the plurality of outer magnetrons (60) or the plurality of inner magnetrons (55) has a heart-like shape.
Harra while disclosing a sputtering apparatus teaches (See, for example, Fig. 4) wherein at least one of the plurality of outer magnetrons or the plurality of inner magnetrons has a heart-like shape (See, for example, Col. 15 lines 54-56; Col. 18 line 3; See also Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee by Harra because this would help obtain good via filling and film thickness uniformity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8 and 18 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5350. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm E.S.T..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley can be reached on 571-270-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights