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 statement filed 09/18/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. No copy of TW 202108812 was filed.
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.
Claims 9-17 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.
In claim 9, line 8 recites “a supported by the grid support and positioned between the one or more fluid inlets and the target support and including a plurality of first apertures configured to decrease an energy of the plasma particles before contacting the target” this limitation is unclear because there is no structure recited that is supported by the grid support, positioned as claimed, and including the plurality of apertures as claimed. It is unclear if the claim should recite “a grid supported…”, “a first grid supported…”, or some other structure. Consistent with the instant specification the claim is examined inclusive of “a first grid supported…”. Applicant is kindly requested to amend the claim for clarity such as by adding “grid” or “first grid” to line 8 of the claim (note “first grid” is preferred to fix the issue with claim 16 explained below).
Claim 16 recites “the first grid” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because there is no prior recitation of “first grid”. For purpose of examination on the merits, the claim will be interpreted inclusive of referring to a “first grid” that should have been included in line 8 of claim 9 above. As explained above, amending claim 9 to recite “a first grid supported…” in line 8 of the claim will provide antecedent basis for the term in claim 16.
The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2021/0343506 of Xie et al., hereinafter Xie.
Regarding claim 1, Xie teaches a system (Fig 1), comprising: a plasma assisted thin film deposition [0019] chamber (110 Fig 1 [0026]) including a fluid inlet (151 Fig 1) configured to flow a process fluid into the plasma assisted thin film deposition chamber [0028]; a target support (112 Fig 1) within the plasma assisted thin film deposition chamber below the fluid inlet (Fig 1) and configured to support a target within the plasma assisted thin film deposition chamber [0026]; and a first grid (210 or 220 Fig 1) within the plasma assisted thin film deposition chamber between the fluid inlet and the target support (Fig 1) [0030] and including: a first side distal to the target support (Fig 1); a second side proximal to the target support (Fig 1); and a plurality of first apertures extending between the first side and the second side above the target support (Fig 1, 5 [0031]).
Regarding claim 2, Xie teaches a plasma generator (130, 134 Fig 1 [0028]) configured to generate, from the process fluid, a plasma including plasma particles [0028], wherein the first grid is configured to reduce an energy of the plasma particles before the plasma particles interact with a target supported by the target support [0030-0032], [0040-0041], [0049-0050].
Regarding claim 3, Xie teaches a second grid (220 Fig 1 [0030]) within the plasma assisted thin film deposition chamber between the first grid (210 Fig 1) and the target support (Fig 1) and including: a third side distal to the target support; a fourth side proximal to the target support; and a plurality of second apertures extending between the third side and the fourth side above the target support (Fig 1 and [0030]).
Regarding claim 4, Xie teaches the second apertures are laterally offset relative to the first apertures (Fig 1, 5).
Regarding claim 5, Xie teaches the second apertures are laterally offset from the first apertures such that a vertical line passing through any of the first apertures does not pass through any of the second apertures (Fig 1, 5).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 6,761,796 of Srivastava et al., hereinafter Srivastava.
Regarding claim 18, Srivastava teaches a system (Fig 5), comprising: a process chamber (16 Fig 5); a target support within the process chamber (68 Fig 5) and configured to support a target (supporting target wafer 18 Fig 5); a first grid positioned above the target support and including first apertures (54b Fig 5); a second grid positioned above the first grid and including second apertures (54a Fig 5); a fluid inlet above the second grid (51 Fig 5).
Regarding claim 19, Srivastava teaches the first apertures have tapered sidewalls (see tapered sidewalls of apertures in 54b Fig 5, 9, and 10).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of US Patent Application Publication 2007/0286967 of Ide et al., hereinafter Ide.
Regarding claim 6, Xie fails to teach the distance between the first and second grid. In the same field of endeavor of a system with two grids that are offset (Fig 1, 3), Ide teaches the spacing between the two grids is 3-10 mm [0061]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xie to include the spacing taught by Ide because Xie does not limit the spacing and Ide teaches this is a workable range for spacing between two offset grids.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0118799 of Kikuchi et al., hereinafter Kikuchi.
Regarding claim 7, Xie fails to teach the fluid inlet is a showerhead structure, wherein the first grid is separated from the showerhead structure by a distance greater than 1 mm. In the same field of endeavor of a system with a grid (Fig 1), Kikuchi teaches the fluid inlet is a showerhead structure (14 Fig 1) [0024]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xie to include the showerhead of Kikuchi because this is a functional alternative for the same purpose of gas introduction. Regarding the first grid is separated from the showerhead structure by a distance greater than 1 mm, Xie demonstrates a chamber 125 with three coils for plasma formation which would require at least 1 mm distance from the gas introduction to the plates. Further Kikuchi teaches a plasma generation chamber (S1) [0021] between the shower head and the grid, which further support having a gap of at least 1 mm. This represents a mere optimization of the size of the plasma formation chamber to allow for sufficient plasma formation.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Srivastava.
Regarding claim 8, Xie fails to teach the first apertures are wider at the first side than at the second side. Srivastava teaches the first apertures have tapered sidewalls with the first side (distal to the target support) wider than at the second side (proximal to the target support) (see tapered sidewalls of apertures in 54b Fig 5, 9, and 10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first apertures to include the shape taught by Srivastava teaches this allows for formation of a denser plasma (col 7, ln 10-55).
Claim(s) 9-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of US Patent Application Publication 2016/0013020 of Ashtiani et al., hereinafter Ashtiani.
Regarding claim 9, Kikuchi teaches a system (Fig 1), comprising: a thin-film process chamber (chamber 10 Fig 1, [0052]); a target support (13 Fig 1) within the thin-film process chamber and configured to support a target (Fig 1); one or more fluid inlets configured to flow plasma particles into the thin-film process chamber (14A Fig 1); a grid support (11b Fig 1); and a first grid (40 Fig 1) supported by the grid support (Fig 1) and positioned between the one or more fluid inlets and the target support (Fig 1) and including a plurality of first apertures (40a Fig 1). Kikuchi fails to teach the grid is configured to decrease an energy of the plasma particles before contacting the target because Kikuchi teaches operating with a bias power [0041]. Ashtiani teaches a processing chamber with a grid (Fig 2A) may have the grid grounded [0038] to neutralize and reduce the energy of the high energy ions [0044]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Kikuchi is operated with a grounded grid because Ashtiani teaches this arrangement allows for optimizing the charge and control the neutrals and radicals [0044-0046].
Regarding claim 10, Kikuchi teaches a showerhead structure including the one or more fluid inlets (14 Fig 1 [0024]). Ashtiani teaches a showerhead (39 Fig 1) also.
Regarding claim 11, Kikuchi teaches a plasma generation chamber above the showerhead structure (14B Fig 5 and [0027]) and Ashtiani teaches a plasma generation chamber (69 Fig 1) above the showerhead (39 Fig 1).
Regarding claim 12, Kikuchi teaches one or more conductive coils above the showerhead structure and configured to generate plasma particles from a process fluid in the plasma generation chamber (80 Fig 5 [0064]).
Regarding claim 13, Kikuchi teaches one or more fluid sources configured to flow the process fluid into the plasma generation chamber (11p Fig 5 [0026-0027]).
Regarding claim 14, the one or more coils generate the plasma particles (80 Fig 5 [0064]) as part of a process configured to deposit a thin-film on the target [0052]. Kikuchi fails to specifically teach the process is an atomic layer deposition because Kikuchi fails to specify the film formation process. Ashtiani teaches an atomic layer deposition (ALD) [0005] and teaches this is an alternative process to CVD or etching in the same plasma chamber [0058]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kikuchi to be performing an ALD process because Kikuchi does not teach the film formation process and Ashtiani teaches ALD may be used in an apparatus also suitable for etching to perform film formation [0058].
Regarding claim 16, Kikuchi fails to teach a second grid between the target support and the first grid. Ashtiani teaches a second grid (39 and 40 Fig 2A) such that the second grid (40) is between the first grid (39) and the target (38 Fig 2A). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional grid because Ashtiani teaches this allows for introduction of a second gas [0037].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Ashtiani as applied to claim14 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0140924 of Suzuki et al., hereinafter Suzuki.
Regarding claim 15, the combination remains as applied to claim 14 above. Kikuchi fails to teach the target includes carbon nanotubes. Kikuchi teaches a substrate W but fails to teach what is on the substrate. Suzuki teaches the substrate for a deposition process may include carbon nanotubes as an alternative to silicon oxide, integrated circuit, or metal [0080-0081]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kikuchi to include a substrate with carbon nanotubes because Suzuki teaches this is one of many alternative substrates for deposition [0080-0081].
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Ashtiani as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2014/0060740 of Huang et al., hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claim 17, the combination remains as applied to claim 9 above. Kikuchi fails to teach the size of the apertures. Huang teaches the apertures in a grid (Fig 2A) may be 4 mm diameter (Fig 2A). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kikuchi to include the apertures are 4 mm width because Kikuchi does not limit the size and Huang teaches a size that may be used for plasma filtering.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava in view of Kikuchi.
Regarding claim 20, Srivastava fails to teach the first grid and the second gid include a rare earth material. Kikuchi teaches the grid includes yttrium [0040]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grids of Srivastava to include yttrium (rare earth material) because Kikuchi teaches this improves the plasma resistance [0040].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2014/0087092 teaches a grid above the substrate (160 Fig 2A). US 2021/0020405 teaches a grid (350 Fig 7A) above the substrate (Fig 7A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights