ETAILED 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 (IDS) submitted on August 18, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
In the July 31, 2024 submission, claims 1-20 were presented for consideration and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility.
Claim 1 focuses on a method for real-time compensation control of an etch process, wherein the process relies on a step for comparing predicted process variables to determine a result but fails to provide steps in support of using the comparable results to provide actionable steps/utility to initiate change in controlling the etch process. Claim 2 does offer further support for claim 1, in using the comparison result to direct a laser to the region of the substrate to change a lithophotographic condition of a region.
Claims 1-2 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps and elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps and elements employed in capturing and providing support for the processing of reflected results. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Claim 1 is directed to a method for controlling an etching process which consist of multiple steps and elements used in controlling a laser beam within the etching process. The third limitation of claim 1 focuses on directing one or more wavelengths by a beam conditioning assembly. However, the step fails to provide further details in support of directing the wavelengths. Paragraph 44 of the specification notes the following:
[0044] FIG. 6A is a simplified schematic block diagram illustrating an interferometer endpoint (IEP) apparatus 60 having a beam conditioning assembly disposed in a center region of a ceiling of a process chamber, where the beam conditioning assembly includes a multiple input multiple output (MIMO) orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) device according to an exemplary embodiment. The IEP apparatus 60 is similar to the IEP apparatus 1 QA with the difference that the IEP monitor device 11 is replaced by a beam conditioning assembly that performs the directivity and selectivity of spectral wavelengths of the light source. Referring to FIG. 6A, the IEP apparatus 60 has a beam conditioning assembly 61 disposed above a center region a substrate 14. In an embodiment, the beam conditioning assembly 61 is mounted in a center region of the ceiling 12b of a process chamber 12. The substrate 14 is arranged on a wafer holding device 15, such as a pedestal or an electrostatic chuck (ESC) disposed in the process chamber 12 according to an exemplary embodiment. The beam conditioning assembly 61 includes a light source having spectra of a plurality of wavelengths to illuminate the substrate and a sensor for receiving reflected light from the substrate. In an embodiment, the spectra of the plurality of wavelengths can include one or more of visible, 5 infrared, near infrared, or ultraviolet light. In an embodiment, the beam conditioning assembly 61 includes a multiple input multiple output (MIMO) orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) device coupled to a plurality of antenna elements. The beam conditioning assembly 61 also includes a spectrum meter for measuring spectra data of light reflected from a surface of the substrate.
Claim 9 of the dependent claims provide further support in detailing how the beam conditioning assembly provide beams of different wavelengths, wherein a beam selection process is initiated and antennas are configured to direct and capture the one or more wavelengths. The fifth limitation of claim 1 is further directed to predicting a process variable using a machine learning model but fails to provide further support for the prediction process. With regards to the predictive process, paragraph 31 of the specification presents the following:
[0031] Various embodiments provide an apparatus that performs real time etch process adjustment to improve etch rate uniformity. For example, in some embodiments, the apparatus has a beam conditioning assembly that receives reflection of a plurality of wavelengths 15 from a plurality of regions of a substrate, and a device that creates a model of etch depth prediction based on the reflection of the plurality of wavelengths. In those embodiments, the device can modify process parameters in real time so that a predicted etch depth matches a measured etch depth (e.g., endpoint). In those embodiments, when the predicted etch depth matches the measured etch depth, the process can stop; and when the predicted etch depth does not match the measured etch depth, the apparatus determines whether to modify the process globally or locally. These techniques can overcome problems associated with ex-situ measurement processes that do not have a real-time feedback for the detection and compensation of wafer etch process failure. These and other embodiments of the disclosure, along with many of its advantages and features, are described in more detail below.
Dependent claim 12 appears to provide further support for the predicting process, by denoting the training and validating a model for depth prediction based on phase differences between reflected wavelengths.
Claim 3 presents similar concerns as those addressed in claim 1, wherein the steps fail to provide detailing support for the third limitation (e.g., generating by a beam conditioning assembly) and sixth limitation (e.g., predicting using a machine learning model), whereby dependent claim 9 and claim 12 offer further support. Claim 13 also presents similar issues in failing to provide detailing support for the third limitation (e.g., generating by a beam conditioning assembly) and sixth limitation (e.g., predicting using a machine learning model), wherein dependent claim 18 and claim 20 offers further support.
Examiner notes that during the examination process, claim language is considered in broad terms, whereby careful consideration is taken to view claim language in light of the specification, and not read details of the specification into the submitted claim language (see MPEP 2111).
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)(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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sarfaty, US Patent No. 6,12,867 (patented July 2, 2022, hereinafter SARFATY).
As per claim 1, SARFATY teaches of a method for real-time compensation control of an etch process (see abstract; col. 2, lines 34-67; and col. 5, lines 53-67: real-time processing is employed in quickly identifying film thickness), the method comprising:
providing a substrate having a layer in a process chamber (see abstract and col. 1, lines 16-25: process controls plasma etching operations within a substrate processing chamber);
performing the etch process on the layer (see abstract and col. 2, lines 35-54: process includes etch monitoring, predictive endpoint analysis and based on system resultants, optimizing the plasma etch process);
directing one or more wavelengths to a region of the layer by a beam conditioning
assembly and receiving one or more reflected wavelengths from the region of the layer (see col. 2, lines 19-60: a plurality of wavelengths are transmitted and reflected from the surface of a wafer being etched); and
predicting a process variable by processing the one or more reflected wavelengths
using a machine learning model and comparing the predicted process variable with a predetermined process variable to obtain a comparison result (see col. 1, lines 52-66; col. 2, lines 35-64; system employs an end-point prediction process, wherein etching measurements and etch to depth measurements are used to determine etching states).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SARFATY in view of Wang et al., US Patent No. 6,119,338 (patented September 19, 2000, hereinafter WANG).
As per claim 2, SARFATY focuses on the method of claim 1, further comprising:
directing a laser beam to the region of the substrate to change a lithophotographic condition of the region of the substrate in response to the comparison result (see col. 2, line 35-61, col. 4, lines 59-66 and col. 6, lines 35-66). The system relies on photographic equipment to engage system activity (see col. 9, lines 13-20). However, the claim fails to explicitly teach of an apparatus [of claim 1] relative to lithophotographic conditions.
The cited WANG reference teaches of a method of manufacturing using lithophotographic techniques to print circuits (see col. 2, lines 8-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to employ the use of WANG's method of using conventional lithophotographic system, with SARFATY's method of using photographic tools, to monitor, initiate changes based on comparable results and further control the etching process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While the cited art focus on several techniques used in optimizing etch processing respective of reflected wavelengths, in line with several of the limitations noted in the instant application, the references either singularly or in combination fail to explicitly teach or suggest of a method consistent with the limitations noted in claims 1, 3 and 13, wherein an orthogonal frequency division multiplex (OFDM) device is configured to provide a plurality of beams each having a different wavelength, a beam selector is configured to select the one or more wavelengths; and a multiple input multiple output (MIMO) device comprising a plurality of antenna elements, is configured to direct the selected one or more wavelengths as a beam to scan a surface of the substrate and receive the one or more reflected wavelengths.
Conclusion
The applicant is strongly encouraged to contact the examiner if further clarifications are needed with respect to interpretation of currently presented claims and/or cited prior art.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. BiocraftLabs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELVIN BOOKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7827. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (571) 272-4105. 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.
/Kelvin Booker/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights