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 § 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.
Claims 1-6, 10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chua et al. (US 2022/0254641), and further in view of Itoh et al. (US 2021/0249240).
Regarding Claims 1 and 10: Chua teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a chamber (Fig. 3A, element 378);
a lid (Fig. 3D, element 370) that is configured to seal the chamber, wherein the lid comprises:
a dielectric faceplate (element 360); and
a plurality of dielectric resonators (Fig. 3C, elements 366) coupled to the dielectric faceplate.
Chua does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of dielectric resonators are arranged in a ring-like pattern, and a gas line through the lid, wherein the gas line is within an inner perimeter of the ring-like pattern. However, Itoh teaches a chamber lid comprising a plurality of six evenly distributed microwave inlets arranged in a ring-like pattern and a plurality of gas holes inside each of window parts to be arranged in a ring shape outward of the dielectric windows (Fig. 2, [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chua with the gas line through the lid wherein the gas line is within an inner perimeter of a ring-like pattern to shower the gas within the chamber as taught by Itoh.
Regarding Claims 2-4: Chua and Itoh teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Itoh is cited for teaching the resonator pattern, and further illustrates a shield as a ring or cylinder (elements 61) within the inner perimeter of the resonator pattern and wherein the gas line passes through the cylinder (at elements 60).
Regarding Claim 5: Chua further teaches that the plurality of dielectric resonators pass through the dielectric faceplate (Fig. 3C).
Regarding Claim 6: Chua further teaches that the dielectric resonators are each coupled to different microwave power sources [0005, 0040].
Regarding Claims 18-20: Chua teaches chamber lid, comprising:
a dielectric faceplate (element 360) with a plurality of openings (element 367); and
Chua teaches dielectric resonators within the openings but does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of openings are arranged in a ring-like pattern, and a gas line through the faceplate, wherein the gas line is within an inner perimeter of ring-like shield on a surface of the face plate. However, Itoh teaches a chamber lid comprising a plurality of six evenly distributed microwave inlets arranged in a ring-like pattern and a plurality of gas holes inside each of window parts to be arranged in a ring shape outward of the dielectric windows (Fig. 2, [0030]). Itoh further illustrates a shield as a ring or cylinder (elements 61) within the inner perimeter of the resonator pattern and wherein the gas line passes through the cylinder (at elements 60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chua with the gas line through the lid wherein the gas line is within an inner perimeter of a ring-like pattern to shower the gas within the chamber as taught by Itoh.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chua et al. (US 2022/0254641) and Itoh et al. (US 2021/0249240) as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Hawrylchak et al. (WO 2019/046000).
Regarding Claim 7: Chua and Itoh teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Chua further teaches a pedestal within the chamber (element 376) but does not expressly disclose that the pedestal is configured to rotate. However, this feature is well known in the art. For example, Hawrylchak teaches a system comprising a processing chamber having a rotatable pedestal (element 400) to support a substrate during processing [0062]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chua and Itoh with a rotatable pedestal to allow rotation of the substrate for more efficient processing, as suggested by Hawrylchak.
Claims 8 and 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chua et al. (US 2022/0254641) and Itoh et al. (US 2021/0249240) as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Lin (US 2024/0331989).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9: Chua and Itoh teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above, but do not expressly disclose an optical measurement assembly coupled to an optical port through the lid. However, Lin teaches sensors integrated with the lid of a process chamber to monitor properties of a plasma formed in the chamber above a pedestal, wherein the sensors include a reflectometer or spectrometer for measuring surfaces or plasma with a chamber (Fig. 3; [0019, 0038, 0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chua and Itoh with the optical measurement assembly in order to monitor properties of a plasma in the chamber, as suggested by Lin.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawrylchak (WO 2019/046000) and further in view of Itoh et al. (US 2021/0249240).
Regarding Claims 11, 12, and 14: Hawrylchak teaches a semiconductor processing tool comprising:
a transfer chamber (element 904);
a first chamber (element 902a) coupled to the transfer chamber wherein the first chamber is configured to deposit a layer on a substrate supported by a susceptor [00107];
a second chamber (element 902b) coupled to the transfer chamber configured to perform plasma cleaning [00108].
Hawrylchak does not expressly disclose the second chamber is configured to clean the susceptor with a plasma localized over an outer region of the susceptor. However, Itoh teaches a processing chamber configured to produce a cleaning plasma in a plasma region around a ring-like pattern of resonators (see abstract; Figs. 2 and 3). Itoh teaches the chamber having a lid with the plurality of resonators evenly distributed microwave inlets arranged in a ring-like pattern and a plurality of gas holes inside each of window parts to be arranged in a ring shape outward of the dielectric windows (Fig. 2, [0030]). Itoh further illustrates a shield as a ring or cylinder (elements 61) within the inner perimeter of the resonator pattern and wherein the gas line passes through the cylinder (at elements 60) and the resonators form plasma around the shield. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hawrylchak with a chamber having the resonators to localize plasma and with the gas line through the lid wherein the gas line is within an inner perimeter of a ring-like pattern to shower the gas within the chamber as taught by Itoh.
Regarding Claim 13: Hawrylchak further teaches a susceptor comprises a recess for supporting the substrate (see Fig. 3, element 706). Hawrylchak does not expressly disclose a sidewall surface of the shield is configured to be within 10 mm of an edge of the recess when a susceptor is placed in the second chamber. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art as such in order to accommodate the susceptor for cleaning as necessary.
Regarding Claim 15: Hawrylchak and Itoh teach the elements of Claim 12 as discussed above. Itoh is cited for teaching the resonators and further teaches they are electrically coupled to different microwave power sources [0020].
Regarding Claim 16: Hawrylchak further teaches the chamber is configured to rotate the susceptor [0062].
Regarding Claim 17: Hawrylchak further teaches that the second chamber is configured as an etch chamber, and thus fully capable of removing the layer as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM EST.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights