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 § 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 7 and 13 are 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 7 recites “an ultrashort-pulse laser” which is indefinite because ultrashort lacks a basis for comparison. The Examiner has considered paragraph [0026] as a definition of “ultra-short” however it recites “for example” which renders the intended definition unclear.
Claim 13 recites “skin depth” of the plasma. The Examiner cannot determine the depth of the skin of the plasma as recited by the specification because the value of e is not known or defined by the specification. See paragraph [0025] of the specification as filed.
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 1, 2, 6 –8, 10- 13, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Liao (US 2022/0115211).
Regarding claim 1, Liao teaches a plasma treatment chamber in a plasma treatment tool, comprising:
a wafer support pedestal (3)having a wafer support surface (32) and configured to support a substrate (S);
and an optical module comprising a laser (10) whose light path passes through the plasma treatment chamber above the wafer support pedestal (Fig. 1, pg. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Liao teaches an upper electrode (2) above the wafer support pedestal (3);
a dielectric window (1, [0042]) separating the upper electrode (2) from the plasma treatment chamber (100); and a lower electrode ([0046] below the wafer support surface (32).
Regarding claim 6, Liao teaches the plasma treatment chamber is configured to operate at a pressure of about 10 millitorr or lower (Fig. 5, Ex 1, 3-8).
Regarding claim 7, Liao teaches the laser is an ultrashort-pulse laser, a high-power laser, or a short wavelength laser because it teaches a laser with a visible light and ultraviolet light wavelengths [0049]. The terms high power and short wavelength are defined in the specification as filed at paragraph [0026].
Regarding claim 8, Liao teaches the laser is an excimer laser, a solid state laser, a semiconductor laser, or a fiber laser [0049].
Regarding claim 10, Liano teaches a plasma treatment tool, comprising:
a housing containing a plasma treatment chamber (100, fig. 1);
a gas inlet for introducing one or more process gases into the plasma treatment chamber [0056];
an optical module comprising a laser (10) whose light path passes through the plasma treatment chamber (Fig. 1, pg. 3);
a wafer support pedestal (3) having a wafer support surface (32) and configured to support a substrate (S) within the plasma treatment chamber (100);
an upper electrode (2) above the wafer support pedestal (3);
a dielectric window (1, [0042]) separating the upper electrode (2) from the plasma treatment chamber; and a lower electrode [0046] below the wafer support surface (32, fig. 1; 4b).
Regarding claim 11, Liao teaches the laser is an ultrashort-pulse laser, a high-power laser, or a short wavelength laser [0049].
Regarding claim 12, Liao teaches the laser is an excimer laser, a solid state laser, a semiconductor laser, or a fiber laser [0049].
Regarding claim 13, Liao teaches the laser (10) is configured so that the light path passes between the dielectric window and a skin depth of an electrical field generated between the upper electrode and the lower electrode. (Fig. 1, 4b, [0074-0076])
Regarding claim 16, Liao teaches a plasma treatment tool, comprising:
a housing containing a plasma treatment chamber (100, fig. 1);
a wafer support pedestal (3) having a wafer support surface (32) and configured to support a substrate (S) within the plasma treatment chamber;
a plurality of electrodes configured to produce an electrical field above the wafer support pedestal [0046], [0058-0059], [0074-0076];
and an optical module comprising a laser (10) whose light path will pass through the electrical field (pg. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Liao teaches a controller (20) configured to synchronize the laser (10) with electrical triggering signals to the plurality of electrodes ([0046],[0058]).
Regarding claim 19, Liao teaches the laser is an ultrashort-pulse laser, a high-power laser, or a short wavelength laser because it teaches the laser has a wavelength in the ultraviolet light region [0049], [0078-0079].
Regarding claim 20, Liao teaches a gas inlet for introducing one or more process gases into the plasma treatment chamber [0056].
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.
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 3, 9, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao as applied to claim 1, 10 and 16 above in view of Lammers (US 20120086929).
Regarding claim 3, Liao teaches the laser (10) is configured to emit optical pulses [0049] but does not teach the pulses have a duration of about one picosecond or less.
Lammers teach the pulses have a duration of about one picosecond or less because it teaches a laser operating at 1 femtosecond [0041]. Accordingly Lammers teaches that it is well known in the plasma arts to use a laser with pulses having a duration of about one picosecond or less. Because Lammers teaches that such lasers are operable it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used a picosecond laser as the laser of Liao with a reasonable expectation of success. 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. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the laser of Liao by providing the laser pulses have a duration of about one picosecond or less, as taught by Lammers, because 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. A.
Regarding claims 9 and 15, Liao does not teach the optical module further comprises a beam expander or a beam flattener.
Lammers teach the optical module further comprises a beam expander [0027]. Because Lammers teaches that such lasers with beam expanders are operable it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used a picosecond laser as the laser of Liao with a reasonable expectation of success. 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. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the optical module of Liao by providing the optical module further comprises a beam expander, as taught by Lammers, because 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. A.
Regarding claim 18, Liao teaches the laser operates at a wavelength of about 400 nm or lower because it teaches a wavelength of the laser within the ultraviolet light region [0049].
Liao does not teach the laser emits optical pulses with an energy of about 20 millijoules (50 mJ) to about 1 joule.
Lammers teaches the laser emits optical pulses with an energy of about 20 millijoules (50 mJ) to about 1 joule because it teaches a laser emits pulses with an energy per pulse of about 0.1 Joule and about 2 Joule [0041]. Accordingly Lammers teaches that it is well known in the plasma arts to use a laser with energy pulses with an energy of about 20 millijoules to 1 joule. Because Lammers teaches that such lasers are operable it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used a laser with the required laser energy of Lammers as the laser of Liao with a reasonable expectation of success. 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. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the laser of Liao by providing the laser emits optical pulses with an energy of about 20 millijoules (50 mJ) to about 1 joule, as taught by Lammers, because 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. A.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawashita (JP 2011-071335).
Regarding claim 4, Liao does not teach the laser configured to emit optical pulses at a frequency of about 0.1 KHz to about 100 MHz.
Kawashita teach a 10 MHz signal synchronized without a delay time was sent from the pulse generator to the ICP coil power source and YAG laser 23 to generate a plasma [0046], [0096]. Therefore Kawashita teaches a laser configured to emit optical pulses at a frequency of about 0.1 KHz to about 100 MHz [0096].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the laser of Liao by providing the laser configured to emit optical pulses at a frequency of about 0.1 KHz to about 100 MHz, as taught by Kawashita, because it would allow the laser to be synchronized with the ICP coil power source and because 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. A.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taylor (US 2005/0100071).
Regarding claim 5, Liao does not teach the laser is configured to have a peak power output of about 1 terawatt.
Taylor teach the laser is configured to have a peak power output of about 1 terawatt [0004].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the electrode of Liao by providing the laser is configured to have a peak power output of about 1 terawatt, as taught by Taylor, because it would rapidly heat and ionize a gas to from a plasma with high thermal pressure and high energy radiation [0004].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 110660635).
Regarding claim 14, Liao does not teach a Faraday shield between the upper electrode and the dielectric window.
Zhang teach a Faraday shield (190) between the upper electrode (182) and the dielectric window (181, fig. 1, pg. 7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the electrode of Liao by providing a Faraday shield between the upper electrode and the dielectric window, as taught by Zhang, because it would eliminate capacitive coupling between the coil and plasma increasing the service life of the coil (pg. 7 of translation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights