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 .
Claims 1-6 pending
Claim 6 is withdrawn
Claims 1-5 are under consideration
The examiner acknowledges receipt of the priority documents and drawings identified by the Applicant, which are of record in the application file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, directed to Claims 1-5, in the reply filed on 08/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 6 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, drawn to an apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/10/2026.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Kulkarni (US 2006/0014394 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kulkarni teaches a method of etching a copper layer formed on a substrate arranged inside a processing chamber of a substrate processing apparatus (Kulkarni teaches dry etching of a copper layer in a plasma system and specifically teaches reactive ion etching, inductively coupled plasma, and electron cyclotron resonance plasma systems; the disclosed process operates under controlled chlorine partial pressure and high-vacuum conditions maintained using a vacuum pump, includes an exhaust stream, and further includes a gas delivery system for supplying controlled chlorine partial pressures, thereby necessarily requiring an enclosed processing chamber in which the copper-containing substrate is processed; paragraphs [0047], [0061]-[0069], [0075], claim 6).
Kulkarni further teaches a first operation of supplying a first processing gas that contains at least a first chlorine-containing gas and does not contain a hydrogen gas into the processing chamber (in Step I, the copper surface is exposed to a chlorine plasma for a given length of time, while the subsequent Step II is separately performed using hydrogen plasma; paragraph [0062]; see also paragraphs [0068]-[0069] and claim 6).
Kulkarni further teaches generating a first product from the copper layer by a first plasma generated from the first processing gas (exposure of the copper surface to chlorine plasma forms CuCl and CuCl2 layers, with CuCl2 corresponding to the claimed first product; paragraphs [0061]-[0062]).
Kulkarni also teaches a second operation of supplying a second processing gas that contains at least the hydrogen gas and does not contain the first chlorine-containing gas and a second chlorine-containing gas into the processing chamber (after formation of the copper chloride layers using chlorine plasma, Kulkarni separately etches the CuCl2 layer using hydrogen plasma; Kulkarni expressly teaches pure hydrogen gas and hydrogen gas plasma as the reducing gas, with chlorine being reintroduced only in the subsequent chlorine-plasma operation; paragraphs [0052], [0068]-[0069], claims 25-26 and 28-29).
Kulkarni continues to teach generating a second product from the first product by a second plasma generated from the second processing gas (the CuCl2 formed during the chlorine-plasma operation is reduced in the hydrogen-containing environment to form volatile copper-containing gaseous products, including Cu3Cl3, together with HCl; paragraphs [0018]-[0019], [0052]-[0054], [0068], Figs. 5-6).
Kulkarni further teaches wherein the first operation and the second operation are alternately executed in a repetitive manner a predetermined number of times (after the hydrogen-plasma operation of Step II, the exposed copper chloride layer is again subjected to chlorine plasma in Step III, and Steps II and III are repeated the desired number of times to obtain the required etch depth, wherein n represents the number of times Steps II and III are repeated; paragraphs [0055], [0068]-[0069], Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 2, Kulkarni further teaches wherein the first chlorine-containing gas is a chlorine gas alone (Kulkarni expressly teaches chlorine gas as the halide gas and chlorine gas plasma as the first plasma-processing gas; Kulkarni further teaches that optional chlorine-containing additives such as CCl4, BCl3, or SiCl4 need not be used, thereby teaching use of chlorine gas alone; paragraph [0065], claims 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 3, Kulkarni further teaches wherein a temperature of the substrate is maintained at 50 degrees C. or lower in the first operation and the second operation (Kulkarni teaches that the disclosed multi-step copper etching method, including the CuCl2 growth operation and subsequent hydrogen etching operation, can be implemented at a low temperature of 25 degrees C.; paragraph [0066]; see also paragraph [0062], teaching exposure of the copper surface to chlorine plasma at 25 degrees C. or lower, and claim 8, teaching the copper at less than about 50 degrees C. when chlorine gas is supplied).
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saito et al. (US 2020/0227236 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the method of Kulkarni teaches all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kulkarni does not expressly teach wherein the substrate processing apparatus includes a stage on which the substrate is placed, a metal window provided to face the stage and composed of a plurality of divided pieces, and an inductively coupled antenna provided to face the stage via the metal window and composed of a plurality of antenna segments, wherein the first plasma and the second plasma are generated by applying an electromagnetic field from the inductively coupled antenna via the metal window to the respective processing gases.
Saito teaches a stage on which the substrate is placed (mounting table 23 mounts substrate G on its mounting surface and is fixed at the bottom of chamber 4; paragraph [0062]).
Saito further teaches a metal window provided to face the stage (metal window 2 is positioned above the chamber and between high-frequency antenna 13 and mounting table 23; the disclosed apparatus expressly provides the metal window facing the mounting table; see paragraphs [0058]-[0062]).
Saito also teaches the metal window composed of a plurality of divided pieces (metal window 2 is divided into a plurality of portions with insulating members 7 interposed between the divided portions 50; paragraph [0058]; see also paragraph [0074], wherein the metal window is divided into first divided portions 201 and second divided portions 202).
Saito teaches an inductively coupled antenna provided to face the stage via the metal window (antenna unit 40 includes high-frequency antenna 13 positioned above and facing metal window 2, while mounting table 23 supporting substrate G is positioned below the metal window and faces high-frequency antenna 13; paragraphs [0060]-[0062]).
Saito further teaches the inductively coupled antenna composed of a plurality of antenna segments (high-frequency antenna 13 includes a plurality of antenna segments having planar portions facing the upper surface of metal window 2, with current independently controllable for the respective antenna segments; paragraph [0170]).
Saito teaches generating plasma by applying an electromagnetic field from the inductively coupled antenna via the metal window to a processing gas (high-frequency power supplied to high-frequency antenna 13 induces a loop current in divided portions 50 of metal window 2, thereby forming an induced electric field inside chamber 4 through the metal window, and the processing gas is converted into inductively coupled plasma by the induced electric field; paragraph [0061]).
Saito further teaches using this arrangement to perform plasma processing on the substrate (high-frequency power applied to high-frequency antenna 13 generates an induced electric field inside chamber 4 through metal window 2, the processing gas is converted into high-density inductively coupled plasma, and the plasma is used for plasma etching substrate G; paragraph [0167]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further Kulkarni to include the stage, divided metal window, and segmented inductively coupled antenna arrangement of Saito, and to generate the first plasma and the second plasma using the electromagnetic field generated through the metal window, because Saito teaches that controlling the induced electric field corresponding to the respective antenna segments improves control of the plasma density distribution and permits more uniform plasma processing, and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III(A).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bailey et al. (US 2005/0087759 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the method of Kulkarni teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
The method of Kulkarni does not expressly teach a third operation of processing the substrate by the second plasma generated from the second processing gas by supplying the second processing gas into the processing chamber before executing the first operation.
Bailey teaches a third operation of processing the substrate by a hydrogen plasma (Bailey teaches exposing a newly exposed copper surface to a hydrogen chemistry to reduce surface oxide, passivate the surface, and activate the copper surface, wherein hydrogen gas may be used to generate the hydrogen plasma; paragraphs [0034]-[0035]).
Bailey further teaches generating the hydrogen plasma from a processing gas supplied into the processing chamber (a hydrogen-containing species is injected into the plasma chamber and a plasma is formed from the hydrogen species; paragraphs [0043]-[0044]).
Bailey further teaches the second processing gas containing hydrogen gas and not containing a chlorine-containing gas (in an exemplary embodiment, about 100 sccm of H2 and about 100 sccm of argon are injected into the plasma etch chamber to generate the hydrogen-species plasma, and the substrate is exposed to the hydrogen plasma to reduce oxides on the substrate surface; paragraph [0046]).
Bailey further teaches performing the hydrogen-plasma treatment before a subsequent plasma etch operation (Bailey teaches placing a substrate in a plasma chamber and performing the passivation process to reduce an oxide layer, and expressly teaches that this embodiment is especially useful when the operation to follow is a plasma etch or deposition operation that can occur within the plasma chamber; paragraph [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Kulkarni to perform the hydrogen-plasma treatment of Bailey before executing Kulkarni’s first chlorine-plasma operation because Bailey teaches that hydrogen-plasma treatment of an exposed copper surface reduces surface copper oxide and activates the copper surface for subsequent processing, and specifically teaches that such treatment is useful when followed by a plasma etch operation. Therefore, applying Bailey’s known hydrogen-plasma surface treatment before Kulkarni’s chlorine-plasma copper etching operation would have predictably provided an activated copper surface having reduced surface oxide for the subsequent plasma etch, and use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III(C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-8176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Joshua L Allen can be reached at (571) 272-3176. 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.
/JONATHAN L CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights