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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 6/10/2026 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9-10, 21, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US2015/0318220) in view of Zhao et al. (US2016/0233061A1) and Hamann et al. (US2005/0016954).
Kobayashi et al. teach processing a wafer in a chamber 81 (abstract) comprising treating the wafer with a plasma gas comprising a dopant and further teaches using a first sensor (element 77; Fig. 2), to detect a parameter in the chamber during the processing of the wafer (paragraphs 11, 26, 53 teach measuring by an OES (optical emission spectrometer), a light emission intensity of the dopant existing in the plasma, and further teaches cleaning the window (i.e. sensor; paragraphs 74-75, 80-82), if deposits produced by the plasma generated within the processing chamber adhere to the surface of the window, thereby deteriorating the light emission intensity measured by the OES 40. It is noted that applicant's claimed limitation of "sensor" reads broadly on the "window", as the claim fails to recite any structural limitations of the sensor and the "window" of the prior art measures the light emission intensity, thereby reading broadly on the term "sensor". Paragraphs 80-81 teaches cleaning the window by generating a plasma comprising oxygen or helium.
Kobayashi et al. teach cleaning the sensor by generating a plasma but fails to teach generating a cleaning plasma by a probe, wherein gas is supplied to a passage in the probe and is excited into a plasma by electrical power. Zhao et al. teach a method of generating a plasma in a probe 14 for treating the surface 36 of a component or a batch of components (paragraphs 5, 17), wherein the plasma is generated by electrical power (paragraph 21), using a gas comprising oxygen, nitrogen, air or argon (paragraph 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kobayashi et al. to include a gas supplied to a passage of a probe, as taught by Zhao et al. for delivering plasma by electrical power for treatment of a substrate surface.
Kobayashi et al. in view of Zhao et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of electrodes positioned next to the passage. Hamann et al. teach a method of alternating features of a substrate by treating with a plasma probe Fig. 8A, wherein electrodes are located in the apex 816 of the probe 818. The electrodes generate a plasma to treat a localized site of interest 820 on the substrate surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Kobayashi et al. to include electrodes positioned next to the probe passage, as taught by Hamann et al., for purposes of generating a plasma target to treat a localized site of the substrate surface.
Re claims 3-4, Zhao et al. further teaches a plasma probe which can be used to treat a plurality of components (Fig. 5). In reference to claims 3-4 and in the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Kobayashi et al. to include positioning the probe at different locations towards the substrate (detector/sensor/window) in order to effectively remove contaminants from the substrate surface. Re claim 5, refer to paragraph 43 of Hamann et al. Re claim 9, the limitations are met by Kobayashi et al. since the light emission intensity detected by the sensor (i.e. window) is measured by OES 40 and the control unit 23, wherein the control unit provides instruction to the processing device 50 to perform the cleaning process. Re claim 10, refer to paragraph 80-82, wherein the wafer is removed prior to cleaning and a new wafer is loaded in the processing chamber after cleaning. Re claim 21 differs from claim 1 with respect to the probe mounted to a transferring member to allow movement of the probe from an idle position to a cleaning position. Re claims 23-24 are directed to the positioning of the probe relative to the sensor. Zhao et al. teach a probe mounted to a transferring member 16, 18, 20 (i.e. hose, pipe, tube or conduit; Figs. 1-4), wherein the heated air source may allow for an increase in the probe speed and/or distance between the probe tip and the surface of the component 36 to be treated (paragraphs 29-30). In view of the teachings of Zhao et al., to would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method Kobayashi et al. to include positioning of the plasma probe at the desired location in order to effectively remove contaminants and/or treat the substrate surface.
Claim(s) 2, and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US2015/0318220) in view of Zhao et al. (US2016/0233061A1) and Hamann et al. (US2005/0016954) and further in view of Chen et al. (US2022/0262596A1).
Kobayashi et al., in view of Zhao et al. and Hamann et al. teach air, oxygen, nitrogen, and argon gas for forming a plasma, with the exception of the hydrogen plasma. Chen et al. teach cleaning a detector used in the semiconductor industry (abstract, paragraph 3) comprising generating a plasma to selectively clean contaminants on the surface of the detector (paragraph 39), wherein the gas may include air, hydrogen , nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen (paragraph 50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Kobayashi et al. to include equivalent gases, such as hydrogen gas, as taught by Chen et al., for use in performing the same function of generating a plasma for cleaning a sensor (i.e. detector) of contaminants. Re claims 6-7, in the absence of the structural limitations of the sensor, the examiner takes the position that Kobayashi et al. teach a second sensor (i.e. electrode 76) which measures the voltage during the doping process of the wafer (paragraph 70). In the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the examiner takes the position that the skilled artisan would reasonably expect cleaning the window 77 with the generated plasma during the cleaning process would also clean the second sensor and/or all components present within the chamber. Alternatively, the secondary reference of Chen et al. is relied upon to teach a plurality of sensors (i.e. detector 15), which monitor the parameters in the chamber (paragraph 33) and cleaning both components 15 since Chen et al. teach that the plasma generator may be configured to periodically generate and distribute plasma for selectively cleaning contaminants on the surface of the detectors 15.
In reference to claim 7 and in the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Kobayashi et al. to include a) cleaning a plurality of components (i.e. detectors/sensors) using plasma and b)positioning the probe at different locations towards the substrate (detector/sensor/window) in order to effectively remove contaminants from the substrate surface of each detector.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US2015/0318220) in view of Zhao et al. (US2016/0233061A1) and Hamann et al. (US2005/0016954) and further in view of Bacchetti et al. (US4665315).
Kobayashi et al. in view of Zhao et al. and Hamann et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of carbon contamination. Bacchetti et al. teach a method and apparatus for in-situ cleaning of optical systems, such as lithography systems comprising reacting a plasma with contaminants formed on the optical elements to generate gaseous reactants which are then pumped out of the system (abstract). Col. 7, lines 10-20 teaches that hydrocarbon molecules are common contaminants which build up on the optical elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Kobayashi et al. to include carbon contaminants, such as hydrocarbons, as taught by Bacchetti et al., which commonly build up on optical elements in a lithography system.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US2015/0318220) in view of Zhao et al. (US2016/0233061A1) and Hamann et al. (US2005/0016954) and further in view of Xia et al. (US 11347154B2).
Kobayashi et al. in view of Zhao et al. and further in view of Hamann et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of EUV lithography systems. Xia et al. teach that EUV photolithography is used during semiconductor manufacturing to produce small features in the silicon wafers (col. 1, lines 20-25). Xia et al. further teaches generating a plasma state to remove contaminants from the EUV chamber (col. 1, lines 40-68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Xia et al. to include EUV lithography, as taught by Xia et al., as a commonly known process used during semiconductor manufacturing.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US2015/0318220) in view of Chen et al. (US2022/0262596A1).
Kobayashi et al. teach processing a wafer in a chamber 81 (abstract) comprising treating the wafer with a plasma gas comprising a dopant and further teaches using a first sensor (element 77; Fig. 2), to detect a parameter in the chamber during the processing of the wafer (paragraphs 11, 26, 53 teach measuring by an OES (optical emission spectrometer), a light emission intensity of the dopant existing in the plasma, and further teaches cleaning the window (i.e. sensor; paragraphs 74-75, 80-82), if deposits produced by the plasma generated within the processing chamber adhere to the surface of the window, thereby deteriorating the light emission intensity measured by the OES 40. It is noted that applicant's claimed limitation of "sensor" reads broadly on the "window", as the claim fails to recite any structural limitations of the sensor and the "window" of the prior art measures the light emission intensity, thereby reading broadly on the term "sensor". Paragraphs 80-81 teaches cleaning the window by generating a plasma comprising oxygen or helium by a remote plasma module 55 positioned outside of the chamber and discharging the cleaning plasma from a shower head 67 positioned on an upper wall of the chamber (Fig. 2) towards the sensor 77 to remove contaminants (paragraphs 80-82).
In the absence of the structural limitations of the sensor, the examiner takes the position that Kobayashi et al. teach a second sensor (i.e. electrode 76) which measures the voltage during the doping process of the wafer (paragraph 70). In the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the examiner takes the position that the skilled artisan would reasonably expect cleaning the window 77 with the generated plasma during the cleaning process would also clean the second sensor and/or all components present within the chamber. Alternatively, the secondary reference of Chen et al. is relied upon to teach a plurality of sensors (i.e. detector 15), which monitor the parameters in the chamber (paragraph 33) and cleaning both components 15 since Chen et al. teach that the plasma generator may be configured to periodically generate and distribute plasma for selectively cleaning contaminants on the surface of the detectors 15. Re claim 14, refer to paragraph 80 which teaches applying electrical power by the microwave generator. The limitations of filtering out ions and electrons are met as a result of applying electrical power. Re claim 15, refer to paragraph 81.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 22 and 25 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach the limitations of claims 8, 22 and 25.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mahoney et al. teach a sensor array for measuring plasma characteristics. Roche et al. teach diagnostic plasma sensors. Keil eta l. teach detecting fault conditions of a plasma reactor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc
Prosecution Insights