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 .
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)(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(s) 1,3 and 5-6,14,16-17 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wilson et al (US 2023/0122167).
Regarding claims 1,3 and 5-6, Wilson et al disclose a process comprising forming a carbon-containing pre-coat (step 112) flows a carbon deposition gas comprising 150 sccm fluoromethane (CH.sub.3F) and 150 sccm fluoroform (CHF.sub.3) into a plasma processing chamber [0013],[0015]; A chamber pressure of 100 mTorr is provided; and aforesaid carbon deposition gas comprises hydrocarbons, fluorocarbons or hydrofluorocarbons that contains carbon and hydrogen [0015].
Wilson et al disclose that the pre-coat may be formed on the chamber walls 362, the power window 312, the feed 336, the electrostatic chuck, and liners within the plasma reactor 302 [0038], so the carbon-containing pre-coat (216) is formed on a surface of an electrostatic chuck.
Wilson et al also disclose that after forming the carbon- containing pre-coat layer 216 are formed over the component body 204 forming part of a plasma processing chamber, a substrate is placed in the plasma processing chamber (step 116). The substrate may be a silicon wafer. After the substrate has been placed into the plasma processing chamber, the substrate is processed (step 120). The process may be an etch process. The etch process may etch a dielectric or conductive layer. Such a process may provide an etch gas. The etch gas would be formed into a plasma ([0017] and Figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Wilson et al disclose that forming a pre-coat of silicon -containing layer (212) (resemble as the claimed insulating film) before the carbon-containing pre-coat layer 216 [0016], where the surface component body 204 (resemble as the (electrostatic chuck) may of aluminum alloy (Ceramic ESCs: Dielectric layer is ceramic (Al₂O₃ or AlN)) [0016].
Regarding claim 16-17, Wilson et al disclose above that the silicon -containing pre-coat layer (212) and carbon pre-coat layer 216 are removed [0023]; and the cleaning of the plasma processing chamber (step 128) removes contaminants deposited during substrate processing (step 120) and strips any remaining pre-coat. After, the plasma processing chamber is cleaned (step 128), the process returns (step 132) to the step of providing a pre-coat (step 104), and the cycle is repeated. The foregoing cycle is repeated multiple times as needed or desired [0024].
Regarding claim 21, see the rejection for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 22, Wilson et al disclose a process comprising forming a carbon-containing pre-coat (step 112) flows a carbon deposition gas comprising 150 sccm fluoromethane (CH.sub.3F) and 150 sccm fluoroform (CHF.sub.3) into a plasma processing chamber [0013],[0015]; A chamber pressure of 100 mTorr is provided; and aforesaid carbon deposition gas comprises hydrocarbons, fluorocarbons or hydrofluorocarbons that contains carbon and hydrogen [0015]; and aforesaid process being performed in the plasma processing system ([0034], Figure 3), which system (apparatus) comprises a computer system 400 is suitable for implementing a controller 324 used in embodiments. The computer system may have many physical forms ranging from an integrated circuit, a printed circuit board, and a small handheld device, up to a huge supercomputer ([0035], Figure 4).
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.
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) 2,4,7-11,15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al (US 2023/0122167) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Wilson et al remain silent regarding the surface temperature of the electrostatic chuck to be 10 to 80 degrees C. Wilson et al disclose that a substrate temperature controller 366 is controllably connected to a Peltier heater/cooler 368. A controller 324 controls the plasma power supply 306, the substrate temperature controller 366 [0032].
However, without showing criticality of such, it would have been obvious to optimize processing temperature for predictable result.
Regarding claim 4, Wilson et al disclose that during deposition of silicon pre-coat plasma is generated at a source power of 1000 watts of TCP and carbon deposition gas is transformed into a plasma by providing 1600 watts of transformer coupled plasma (TCP) power at 13.6 MHz [0013],[0015].
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been obvious to optimize the plasma power for predictable result.
Regarding claim 7, Wilson et al disclose that during removing pre-coat argon (inert gas) is used [0023].
Regarding 8-9, Wilson et al disclose above the process condition and similar pre-coating gaseous composition being used to form the carbon-containing film but may not explicitly disclose the deposited film contains the claimed range of the H atoms as of claim 8 and the “ternary diagram” as of claim 9.
However, it would have been obvious to have similar properties of the carbon-containing pre-coat film that is formed using the similar process condition and similar gaseous composition as taught by Wilson et al.
Regarding claims 10-11, Wilson et al disclose that the thickness of the deposited pre-coat layer affects the wafer defects/dechucking during processing [0025]; and a thinner overall pre-coat is required [0026]. So, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the carbon-containing pre-coat thickness maintains in the claimed range for providing improved resistance as also suggested by Wilson et al [0026].
Regarding claim 15, Wilson et al disclose that forming a pre-coat of silicon -containing layer (212) (resemble as the claimed insulating film) before the carbon-containing pre-coat layer 216 [0016], where the surface component body 204 (resemble as the (electrostatic chuck) may of aluminum alloy [0016] and by definition the aluminum alloy is ceramic (Al₂O₃ or AlN). And an electrode 320 provides a chuck for the substrate 301, where the electrode 320 acts as an electrostatic chuck [0032].
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Wilson et al disclose above that the carbon pre-coat layer 216 are removed [0023]; and the cleaning of the plasma processing chamber (step 128) removes contaminants deposited during substrate processing (step 120) and strips any remaining pre-coat. After, the plasma processing chamber is cleaned (step 128), the process returns (step 132) to the step of providing a pre-coat (step 104), and the cycle is repeated. The foregoing cycle is repeated multiple times as needed or desired [0024].
Regarding claim 19, Wilson et al disclose that cleaning/removing the carbon containing pre-coat, the cleaning gas comprises 40-200 sccm oxygen (O.sub.2) [0029].
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al (US 2023/0122167) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maeta et al (US 2013/0265690).
Regarding claim 12, Wilson et al disclose above for the claim 1 but fail to disclose the electrostatic chuck has a plurality of protrusions on the surface.
However, Maeta et al disclose an electrostatic chuck having a plurality of protrusion portions 16 were formed on the electrostatic adsorption surface of the mounting plate 11 so as to produce an uneven surface, the top surfaces of the protrusion portions 16 were used as holding surfaces of a plate-like specimen W, and a cooling gas was allowed to flow through a groove formed between the recess portions and the electrostatically adsorbed plate-like specimen W ([0116], Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Maeta et al's teaching of using an electrostatic chuck having a plurality of protrusions into the teaching of Wilson et al for efficiently electrostatically adsorbing plate-like substrate as suggested by Maeta et al.
Regarding claim 13, the thickness of the carbon containing film would have been optimized for predictable result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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 Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights