DETAILED ACTION
Claims/ordering
As per MPEP 608.01(m):
Many of the difficulties encountered in the prosecution of patent applications after final rejection may be alleviated if each applicant includes, at the time of filing or no later than the first reply, claims varying from the broadest to which he or she believes he or she is entitled to the most detailed that he or she is willing to accept.
It is noted that claim 11 is narrower than claim 1. Applicants and their attorneys are requested to be mindful of the examination process.
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 11, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ranft (6,536,449).
Ranft teaches a plasma reactor for processing wafers comprising:
- a plasma chamber with a dielectric sidewall – see chamber 100 per Fig. 1, the plasma apparatus and dielectric sidewalls described per col 5, lines 31-65 and also has a ceiling, see lid 118 ;
- an induction coil around the sidewalls- see coils 124,
- an RF power generator coupled to the coil through a matching network, see col 6, lines 10-29, to energize the coil as described,
- a gas supply, see 122 (col 6, lines 1-10),
- a process chamber separate from the plasma chamber, see process chamber 106, as per the embodiment of Fig. 3, there is a separation grid between the plasma chamber and the process chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the grid of Fig. 3 in the system of Fig. 1 as the general purpose of the grid is to filter charged particles out in order to control the process, see col 8, lines 21-53, and
- a substrate holder in the process chamber, 104,
- lamps to heat the substrate, see 318 col 8 citation, the windows are understood to surround lamps, even though not specifically named, the windows are depicted.
Regarding claim 12, Ranft teaches a Faraday shield (col 6, lines 49-58).
Regarding claim 16, Ranft teaches a gas injection insert (supply) 122.
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 1-8 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranft (6,536,449) in view of Shinoda (Applied Physics).
Ranft teaches a plasma reactor for processing wafers comprising:
- a plasma chamber with a dielectric sidewall – see chamber 100 per Fig. 1, the plasma apparatus and dielectric sidewalls described per col 5, lines 31-65 and also has a ceiling, see lid 118 ;
- an induction coil around the sidewalls- see coils 124,
- an RF power generator coupled to the coil through a matching network, see col 6, lines 10-29, to energize the coil as described,
- a gas supply, see 122 (col 6, lines 1-10),
- a process chamber separate from the plasma chamber, see process chamber 106, as per the embodiment of Fig. 3, there is a separation grid between the plasma chamber and the process chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the grid of Fig. 3 in the system of Fig. 1 as the general purpose of the grid is to filter charged particles out in order to control the process, see col 8, lines 21-53, and
- a substrate holder in the process chamber, 104,
- lamps to heat the substrate, see 318 col 8 citation, the windows are understood to surround lamps, even though not specifically named, the windows are depicted.
Ranft does not specifically teach a controller, but there is understood to be one controlling the process, but also does not teach the claimed thermal cycles. Shinoda, however, teaches an etch process wherein a substrate is thermally cycled below and above an activation temperature to control the etching process, see particularly page 106201-1 and the first col of -2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the etch process of Shinoda in the system of Ranft as a viable etch process for carrying out in such a system. The cyclic etching process helps further control the etch in a plasma system, see also p10201-3, second column The combined art therefore teaches all elements of the system and controller process as claimed – wherein Shinoda does not explicitly teach a controller, a controller is understood in order to control the temperature and process as described (and claimed). Wherein the combined art teaches controlling temperature and Ranft teaches the lamps for controlling temperature, it would further follow that the lamps are controlled for the combined purpose.
Regarding claim 2, Ranft teaches a Faraday shield (col 6, lines 49-58).
Regarding claim 3, Ranft does not teach rotation of the substrate, but examiner takes Official Notice that making a substrate holder operable to rotate a wafer is well known in the industry and would not have been inventive.
Regarding claim 4, the teachings as per above include lamps – wherein not specifically “linear” lamps, as per MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a known element is obvious wherein the general element is taught. Teaching a lamp generally includes any usable lamp such as a linear lamp, and the claimed lamps are not taught as critical.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Ranft teaches a gas supply 122 as depicted, while not explicitly teaching that it is “removable disposed” the Office initially holds that “removable” is not limited and wherein it is understood that at one point the system was put together, the gas supply is “removable”. Furthermore, per MPEP 2144.04 V. B. and C., making components removable and/or integral is not patentable without a showing of criticality; criticality is not demonstrated herein.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, as per above, the temperature is increased, there are no specific limitations related to “incrementally”.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, as per the combined art, the amount of light from the lamps is understood to be controlled to control heat, while the combined teachings do not explicitly include a temperature measurement of the wafer, Examiner takes Official Notice that implementing temperature measurement of a substrate is pervasive in the art and not patentable over the combined teachings.
Regarding claim 17, the combined art teaches all elements of the claim – see claim 11 above per Ranft and then the combination with Shinoda as per claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the teachings are silent on the heating cycle, however, because it is well settled that "where the principal difference between the claimed process and that taught by the reference is a temperature difference, it is incumbent upon applicant to establish criticality of that temperature difference", see Ex Parte Khusid 174 USPQ 59. This principle clearly is analogous to other process parameters such as the cycle time. Absent evidence showing such criticality, the use of the claimed cycle time would have been prima facie obvious.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranft (6,536,449) and Shinoda (Applied Physics) in view of Blum (4,414,059).
The teachings of Ranft are described above but do not teach the described non-linear etch rate, Shinoda teaches control of the etching of different components. Blum teaches that it is known to etch materials non-linearly, see col 5, lines 33-48. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the non-linear etch rate as the combined art teaches etching and Blum teaches that it is operable to etch non-linearly. It is further understood that an increase would be effected and desired as increased process speeds are desirable.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranft.
Regarding claim 13, Ranft does not teach rotation of the substrate, but examiner takes Official Notice that making a substrate holder operable to rotate a wafer is well known in the industry and would not have been inventive.
Regarding claim 15, the teachings as per above include lamps – wherein not specifically “linear” lamps, as per MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a known element is obvious wherein the general element is taught. Teaching a lamp generally includes any usable lamp such as a linear lamp, and the claimed lamps are not taught as critical.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranft (6,536,449) in view of Chen (2004/0112863).
The teachings of Ranft do not include a spectral filter, but Chen teaches that in a processing system it is useful to include a bandpass (equivalent to a spectral) filter in order to control the light penetrating the window [0032-34]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the filter of Chen to the apparatus of Ranft for controlling the light features.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Doan (2014/0213059) teaches etching carbon- based materials but the combined prior art teachings include addressing SiO2 and SiN films but not the claimed carbon-based film so there is no expectation of success with the same process steps. Toshiba (EP0376252), also of record, teaches a similar cyclical process but teaches in reference to photoresist and not a doped carbon layer.
Belostotskiy (2015/0262834) teaches that in an etch process to remove it is useful to control temperature but teaches both temperatures higher than activation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax 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).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights