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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 16-17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US20170342561A1, hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses an apparatus comprising:
a plasma module comprising:
a chamber comprising a plasma generation region and a process region (Fig. 1A chamber body 106 comprises plasma generating device 112 and susceptor region 104 in which a wafer is processed, see par. 26), the plasma module being configured to generate a plasma in the plasma generation region (Par. 27 teaches that “the plasma generating device 112 includes a plurality of sectors that generate and provide plasma”);
a chuck in the process region, the chuck being configured to hold a wafer (Fig. 1A susceptor 104 is in the susceptor region and par. 26 teaches that “[t]he susceptor 104 may be operable to move (e.g., rotate) the target substrate”); and
a plasma grid assembly over the chuck and interposed between the plasma generation region and the process region (Fig. 2B illustrates plasma generating device 112 of fig. 1A in greater detail),
wherein the plasma grid assembly is configured to modulate a flux of the plasma passing through the plasma grid assembly (Par. 30 teaches that “each sector 114 has a plurality of holes or apertures 116 from which the excited gas is provided from the sector 114 to the adjacent target substrate disposed on the susceptor 104”), and
wherein the plasma grid assembly comprises a coarse mesh region (Fig. 2B gas supply region 204) and a fine mesh region (Fig. 2B sector 114).
Regarding claim 3, Lin discloses the apparatus of claim 2,
wherein each of the coarse mesh region and the fine mesh region has a shape of a circular sector (Fig. 2B both gas supply region 204 and sector 114 have the shapes of circular sectors).
Regarding claim 4, Lin discloses the apparatus of claim 2,
wherein the coarse mesh region comprises first openings, the first openings having a first diameter (Fig. 2B gas supply region 204 has first openings with a first diameter).
Regarding claim 5, Lin discloses the apparatus of claim 4,
wherein the fine mesh region comprises second openings, the second openings having a second diameter less than the first diameter (Fig. 2B sector 114 has second openings with a second diameter. Fig. 2B would reasonably disclose and suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art the holes 116 being a smaller diameter than the diameter of openings in the gas supply region 204, see MPEP 2125.I).
Regarding claim 7, Lin discloses the apparatus of claim 2,
wherein the plasma grid assembly is configured to rotate by a desired angle (Par. 26 teaches that “[t]he susceptor 104 may be operable to move (e.g., rotate) the target substrate”).
Regarding claim 8, Lin discloses the apparatus of claim 2,
wherein the coarse mesh region is a single continuous region extending from a center of the plasma grid assembly to an outer edge of the plasma grid assembly (Fig. 2B gas supply region 204 extends outwards from the center of chamber body 106 to an outer edge and is a single continuous region).
Regarding claim 9, Lin discloses an apparatus comprising:
a plasma module comprising:
a chamber comprising a plasma generation region and a process region (Fig. 1A chamber body 106 comprises plasma generating device 112 and susceptor region 104 in which a wafer is processed, see par. 26), the plasma module being configured to generate a plasma in the plasma generation region (Par. 27 teaches that “the plasma generating device 112 includes a plurality of sectors that generate and provide plasma”);
a chuck in the process region, the chuck being configured to hold a wafer (Fig. 1A susceptor 104 is in the susceptor region and par. 26 teaches that “[t]he susceptor 104 may be operable to move (e.g., rotate) the target substrate”); and
a plasma grid assembly over the chuck and interposed between the plasma generation region and the process region (Fig. 2B illustrates plasma generating device 112 of fig. 1A in greater detail),
the plasma grid assembly comprises a coarse mesh region (Fig. 2B gas supply region 204) and a fine mesh region (Fig. 2B sector 114).
wherein the coarse mesh region extends from a center of the plasma grid assembly to a first point on an outer edge of the plasma grid assembly, the coarse mesh region being a single continuous region (Fig. 2B gas supply region 204 extends outwards from the center of chamber body 106 to an outer edge and is a single continuous region),
wherein the fine mesh region extends from the center of the plasma grid assembly to a second point on the outer edge of the plasma grid assembly, the fine mesh region being a single continuous region (Fig. 2B sector 114 extends outwards from the center of chamber body 106 to an outer edge and is a single continuous region),
wherein the coarse mesh region has a first uniform pattern of first openings (Fig. 2B gas supply region 204 has a first uniform pattern of first openings),
wherein the fine mesh region has a second uniform pattern of second openings (Fig. 2B sector 114 has a second uniform pattern of second openings).
Regarding claim 10, Lin discloses the apparatus of claim 9,
wherein a diameter of the second openings are less than a diameter of the first openings (Fig. 2B would reasonably disclose and suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art the holes 116 being a smaller diameter than the diameter of openings in the gas supply region 204, see MPEP 2125.I).
Regarding claim 12, Lin discloses the apparatus of claim 9,
wherein each of the coarse mesh region and the fine mesh region has a shape of a circular sector (Fig. 2B both gas supply region 204 and sector 114 have the shapes of circular sectors).
Regarding claim 14, Lin discloses the apparatus of claim 9,
wherein the coarse mesh region is a first coarse mesh region of a four separate of coarse mesh regions (Fig. 4 illustrates there being 8 separate regions and as sector 114 and gas supply region 204 alternate as shown in fig. 2B, there would be four separate gas supply regions 204 and the right gas supply region 204 is a first).
Regarding claim 16, Lin discloses an apparatus comprising:
a plasma module comprising:
a chamber comprising a plasma generation region and a process region (Fig. 1A chamber body 106 comprises plasma generating device 112 and susceptor region 104 in which a wafer is processed, see par. 26), the plasma module being configured to generate a plasma in the plasma generation region (Par. 27 teaches that “the plasma generating device 112 includes a plurality of sectors that generate and provide plasma”);
a chuck in the process region, the chuck being configured to hold a wafer (Fig. 1A susceptor 104 is in the susceptor region and par. 26 teaches that “[t]he susceptor 104 may be operable to move (e.g., rotate) the target substrate”); and
a plasma grid assembly over the chuck and interposed between the plasma generation region and the process region (Fig. 2B illustrates plasma generating device 112 of fig. 1A in greater detail),
the plasma grid assembly comprising a coarse mesh region (Fig. 2B gas supply region 204) and a fine mesh region (Fig. 2B sector 114),
the coarse mesh region being a single continuous region (Fig. 2B gas supply region 204 extends outwards from the center of chamber body 106 to an outer edge and is a single continuous region),
the fine mesh region being a single continuous region (Fig. 2B sector 114 extends outwards from the center of chamber body 106 to an outer edge and is a single continuous region),
wherein the coarse mesh region has a first uniform pattern of first openings (Fig. 2B gas supply region 204 has a first uniform pattern of first openings),
wherein the fine mesh region has a second uniform pattern of second openings (Fig. 2B sector 114 has a second uniform pattern of second openings),
wherein the first openings are larger than the second openings (Fig. 2B would reasonably disclose and suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art the holes 116 being a smaller diameter than the diameter of openings in the gas supply region 204, see MPEP 2125.I).
Regarding claim 17, Lin discloses the apparatus of claim 16,
wherein the coarse mesh region is a first coarse mesh region of a plurality of coarse mesh regions (Fig. 4 illustrates there being 8 separate regions and as sector 114 and gas supply region 204 alternate as shown in fig. 2B, there would be four separate gas supply regions 204 and the right gas supply region 204 is a first).
Regarding claim 19, Lin discloses the apparatus of claim 17,
wherein each of the coarse mesh regions of the plurality of coarse mesh regions extend from a center of the plasma grid assembly to an outer edge of the plasma grid assembly (Fig. 2B gas supply region 204 extends outwards from the center of chamber body 106 to an outer edge and is a single continuous region).
Regarding claim 21, Lin discloses the apparatus of claim 16,
wherein the coarse mesh region has fewer openings than the fine mesh region (Fig. 2B would reasonably disclose and suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art fewer openings in gas supply region 206 than in sector 114).
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 6, 11, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US20170342561A1).
Regarding claim 6, Lin teaches the apparatus of claim 2,
wherein the coarse mesh region provides a greater plasma flux than the fine mesh region (In par. 60, Lin teaches that “[d]ifferent diameter hole[s] 710 in a portion of the hole region 708 controls plasma density at that local portion” and so “different quantit[ies] of excited molecules are provided to the target substrate underlying the portion with different hole diameter[s].” Par. 42 additionally teaches that the “[t]he size (e.g., diameter), shape, quantity, location, and/or density of these holes may be determined to provide suitable plasma delivery” in a specific region. So while Lin is silent as to the specific relative flux in their sectors 114 and gas supply region 204, they do teach the size, shape, and distribution of holes affects the plasma flux delivery to the target wafer. Therefore, it is a result effective variable that may be optimized by a person of ordinary skill, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
Regarding claim 11, Lin teaches the apparatus of claim 9,
wherein the fine mesh region corresponds to a low- activation region, wherein the coarse mesh region corresponds to a high-activation region (In par. 60, Lin teaches that “[d]ifferent diameter hole[s] 710 in a portion of the hole region 708 controls plasma density at that local portion” and so “different quantit[ies] of excited molecules are provided to the target substrate underlying the portion with different hole diameter[s].” Par. 42 additionally teaches that the “[t]he size (e.g., diameter), shape, quantity, location, and/or density of these holes may be determined to provide suitable plasma delivery” in a specific region. So while Lin is silent as to the specific relative flux in their sectors 114 and gas supply region 204, they do teach the size, shape, and distribution of holes affects the plasma flux delivery to the target wafer. Therefore, it is a result effective variable that may be optimized by a person of ordinary skill, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
Regarding claim 13, Lin teaches he apparatus of claim 9,
wherein the coarse mesh region provides a greater plasma flux than the fine mesh region (In par. 60, Lin teaches that “[d]ifferent diameter hole[s] 710 in a portion of the hole region 708 controls plasma density at that local portion” and so “different quantit[ies] of excited molecules are provided to the target substrate underlying the portion with different hole diameter[s].” Par. 42 additionally teaches that the “[t]he size (e.g., diameter), shape, quantity, location, and/or density of these holes may be determined to provide suitable plasma delivery” in a specific region. So while Lin is silent as to the specific relative flux in their sectors 114 and gas supply region 204, they do teach the size, shape, and distribution of holes affects the plasma flux delivery to the target wafer. Therefore, it is a result effective variable that may be optimized by a person of ordinary skill, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
Regarding claim 20, Lin teaches the apparatus of claim 16,
wherein the fine mesh region corresponds to a low- activation region, wherein the coarse mesh region corresponds to a high-activation region (In par. 60, Lin teaches that “[d]ifferent diameter hole[s] 710 in a portion of the hole region 708 controls plasma density at that local portion” and so “different quantit[ies] of excited molecules are provided to the target substrate underlying the portion with different hole diameter[s].” Par. 42 additionally teaches that the “[t]he size (e.g., diameter), shape, quantity, location, and/or density of these holes may be determined to provide suitable plasma delivery” in a specific region. So while Lin is silent as to the specific relative flux in their sectors 114 and gas supply region 204, they do teach the size, shape, and distribution of holes affects the plasma flux delivery to the target wafer. Therefore, it is a result effective variable that may be optimized by a person of ordinary skill, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US20170342561A1) in view of Liou et al. (US20070049034A1, hereinafter Liou).
Regarding claim 15, Lin teaches the apparatus of claim 9.
Lin does not appear to teach the apparatus
further comprising magnets,
wherein the plasma grid assembly is positioned closer to the chuck than the magnets.
Liou teaches teach the apparatus
further comprising magnets (Par. 31 “Magnetic coils 52 are provided around the chamber 32”),
wherein the plasma grid assembly is positioned closer to the chuck than the magnets (Fig. 8 illustrates the plasma generation region 46 being closer to the chuck 40 than the magnets 52 are to the chuck 40).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin with the teachings of Liou because the magnetic coils “produce a magnetic field line 90 that directs a plasma 46 produced in the chamber 32” which allows for better control of the plasma.
Regarding claim 18, Lin teaches the apparatus of claim 17.
Lin does not appear to teach the apparatus
further comprising magnets,
wherein the plasma grid assembly is positioned closer to the chuck than the magnets.
Liou teaches teach the apparatus
further comprising magnets (Par. 31 “Magnetic coils 52 are provided around the chamber 32”),
wherein the plasma grid assembly is positioned closer to the chuck than the magnets (Fig. 8 illustrates the plasma generation region 46 being closer to the chuck 40 than the magnets 52 are to the chuck 40).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin with the teachings of Liou because the magnetic coils “produce a magnetic field line 90 that directs a plasma 46 produced in the chamber 32” which allows for better control of the plasma.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLE LEON LINDSEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/COLE LEON LINDSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 /CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights