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 with traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 6/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the office action has not shown that the claimed apparatus can be used to perform another or materially different process and the non-transitory computer readable media would not require a materially different search from the other groups. This is not found persuasive because the apparatus as claimed could be used to perform a deposition process where no power is applied to the PV source and thus the method of “delivering a pulsed-voltage waveform” would not be performed. Alternatively, the apparatus as claimed has a PV source that would be capable of delivering a PV waveform where the amplitudes extend from positive voltage to a negative voltage but the process could be operated such that only a positive voltage and no negative voltage is applied. Regarding the third group, the search of the non-transitory computer readable medium would require the search of different search terms, such as “processor” or “computer”, as well as searching for programming/storing of instructions of applying the positive DC bias and PV waveform and expanding the classes/subclasses searched due to its applicability to CVD or etching chambers.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (JP 2005082887 A) in view of Tang (US 20150357171 A1), Dorf (US 20190350072 A1), and Neumann (US 5846608 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida (JP 2005082887 A) teaches a method comprising delivering a pulsed voltage waveform to a (second) electrode 6 configured to hold a workpiece/substrate in a processing chamber 1 including a positive voltage pulse 21 and negative voltage pulse 23 (amplitudes extend from a positive voltage relative to ground to a negative voltage relative to ground) (para 0008, 0013, 0018-0019; Fig. 1, 2).
Yoshida fails to explicitly teach applying a positive DC bias relative to ground to a first electrode within a processing region of a processing chamber, wherein the positive DC bias configured to alter a plasma potential relative to ground of a plasma formed in the processing region, the second electrode is disposed in a substrate support, and wherein the positive voltage relative to ground is greater than the plasma potential relative to ground.
However, Tang (US 20150357171 A1), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches a deposition system including a collimator 118 (first electrode) between a target 114 and substrate 101 within a processing chamber to control the deposition uniformity on the substrate, and wherein the collimator is applied with a positive DC bias relative to ground and wherein the bias applied to the collimator is configured to control/alter the plasma potential of a sputtering plasma (para 0022-0023, 0025, 0028, 0032, 0044; Fig. 1). Because Tang teaches that such collimators were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a collimator supplied with a positive DC bias in the chamber of Yoshida in order to increase uniformity of deposition and control plasma potential with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Furthermore, Dorf (US 20190350072 A1), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches that a pulsed bias waveform may be applied to an electrode disposed within a substrate holder (para 0025). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the (second) electrode substrate holder of Yoshida with a substrate support including an electrode disposed within the substrate support because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of supporting and applying a bias to a substrate. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Additionally, Neumann (US 5846608 A), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches applying an alternating positive and negative bias pulses to a substrate, where the positive bias pulses cause electrons to be accelerated toward the substrate and the negative bias pulses cause positive ions to be accelerated toward the substrate, wherein the positive bias pulses (relative to ground) may be greater than the potential of the plasma and the ions and electrons are no longer attracted toward the substrate when the bias is not greater than the plasma potential (col 3 line 1-23, col 4 line 11-14, col 5 line 43-67, col 6 line 1-22, col 10 line 6-30; Fig. 2). Yoshida teaches applying alternating positive and negative biases to the substrate electrode to attract electrons and positive ions toward the substrate (para 0032-0035) but is silent to the voltage/potential applied in the bias pulses. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the voltage/potential of the positive and negative pulse biases of Yoshida with the positive and negative pulse bias potentials of Neumann including a positive bias potential that is greater than the potential of the plasma so that the electrons can be accelerated toward the substrate and because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yoshida, Tang, Dorf, and Neumann teaches the voltage source produces positive and negative voltage pulses with pulse levels (amplitudes) between +/- 20 and +/- 2000 V (relative to ground) (Neumann col 7 line 53-67) but fails to explicitly teach the amplitudes of the pulses extend from positive 500 V relative to ground to negative 10 kV relative to ground. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Neumann range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within -2000 V to 2000 V relative to ground as the amplitudes of the voltage pulses, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yoshida, Tang, Dorf, and Neumann teaches the voltage source produces positive voltage pulses with pulse levels between +20 and +2000 V (relative to ground) (Neumann col 7 line 53-67) but fails to explicitly teach the positive voltage relative to ground is greater than 300 V relative to ground. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Neumann range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 20 V to 2000 V relative to ground as the positive voltage, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yoshida, Tang, Dorf, and Neumann teaches the chamber is a sputtering (physical vapor deposition) chamber (Yoshida para 0022).
Regarding claim 5, the previous combination of Yoshida, Tang, Dorf, and Neumann fails to explicitly teach depositing at least one of a metal or a metal alloy on a substrate. However, Neumann teaches that metals or metal alloys may be deposited on a substrate in a system including alternating positive and negative pulse bias applied to the substrate (col 12 line 5-44) and Tang teaches using a metal or metal alloy target for sputtering (para 0049). Yoshida teaches a target made of carbon (para 0023) for forming a carbon-based film while applying a positive and negative alternating bias. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the carbon target of Yoshida with a metal or metal alloy target for forming a metal or metal alloy film on a substrate because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of forming a film on a substrate.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yoshida, Tang, Dorf, and Neumann teaches the first electrode is a collimator 118 having a plurality of apertures 244 (Tang para 0041; Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yoshida, Tang, Dorf, and Neumann teaches the collimator 118 (first electrode) is disposed between a sputtering target 114 and the substrate support 108 (Tang para 0024, 0028; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yoshida, Tang, Dorf, and Neumann teaches the positive and negative voltage pulses may have amplitudes ranging from +/-50 to +/-500 V relative to the plasma potential (Neumann col 4 line 11-14) but fails to explicitly teach the positive voltage is up to 200 V greater than the plasma potential. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Neumann range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 50 to 500 V relative to the plasma potential as the amplitude of the positive voltage pulses, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights