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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 4/7/2026 is acknowledged.
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(s) 1, 3-14 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2021/0351024 A1; hereafter Sun) in view of He Yu et al. (2013 Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 22 045012) and/or Chung et al. (US 2019/0035611 A1)
As to claim 1, Sun teaches a method of optimizing thickness of a target material film deposited on a semiconductor substrate in a semiconductor processing chamber, wherein the semiconductor processing chamber includes a magnetic assembly positioned on the semiconductor processing chamber, the magnetic assembly including a plurality of magnetic columns within the magnetic assembly, (abstract) the method comprising: operating the semiconductor processing chamber to deposit a film of target material on a semiconductor substrate positioned within the semiconductor processing chamber (abstract, Fig. 1); measuring an uniformity of the deposited film; adjusting a position of one or more magnetic columns in the magnetic assembly (para 0021, between substrates, a single substrate or batches); and operating the semiconductor processing chamber to deposit the film of the target material after adjusting position of the one or more magnetic columns (para 0020-0022). Sun et al. does not teach the spiral pattern of the columns.
Chung et al. teaches two separate sets of columns arranged in a pattern that approaches a spiral pattern as shown in Fig. 2F. The positions of these sets of columns are modified to affect the uniformity of the magnetic field, which directly effects the deposition uniformity in para 0053, 0057. Similarly, He Yu et al. shows spiral magnet configurations in Figure 4 that are as claimed that further directly effects and whose shape are modified to effect plasma, and thus deposition, uniformity (pp3-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sun et al. to include the configurations of Chung et al. and/or He Yu et al. as these references teach that the spiral shape and modifying the position of the magnets improves deposition uniformity.
As to claim 3, Chung discusses modifying the magnetic field of its magnet assembly during calibration, which is essentially what Sun is doing in between wafers or batches of wafers as above, but also discloses that in the course of such a calibration not only can the magnet displacement be changed as in Sun, but also can include changing a number of the magnetic portions (para 0024) to create a uniform magnetic field (para 0025). As to the exact number of magnetic portions, or columns, removed in Chung, this depends upon the desired result of uniform magnetic field and uniform target erosion or deposition, thus the number of magnets removed during calibration is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to remove 2 or 3 magnets depending on the desired result achieved, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). One of ordinary skill in the art would use the magnet removal of Chung in the method of Sun in order to have another option to modify its magnetic field and film uniformity.
As to claim 4, in Sung para 0021, the positions of the magnet assembly are changed by moving the magnet assembly or changing a tilt angle in between a substrate deposition (therefore stopping deposition in between) or between batches. He Yu et al. also teaches this feature as shown in Fig. 4.
As to claims 5-7, Sun modifies the distance of the magnets from the substrate for uniform deposition in para 0021. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to move the magnet assembly to the claimed distance depending on the desired result achieved, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claims 8-9, in addition to the modifications undertaken above, the erosion of the sputtering target is also considered on p2 of He Yu et al., para 0004, 0016, 0021 of Sun et al. and para 0018-0019 of Chung et al.
As to claims 10-14 and 21-25, these limitations are taught as discussed above.
Claim(s) 2, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2021/0351024 A1; hereafter Sun) in view of He Yu et al. (2013 Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 22 045012) and/or Chung et al. (US 2019/0035611 A1; hereafter Chung) in view of Hou et al. (US 2022/0081756 A1; hereafter Hou)
Sun does not teach measuring the resistivity of the film. Hou teaches resistivity is decreased as the film uniformity increases uses magnet assemblies in paras 0002, 0006-0008 in order to make thinner devices with improved qualities (para 0002). Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Sun to include monitoring the film resistivity and its thickness in order to achieve the result of having thinner devices with improved properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights