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 .
Claims 1-20 and 30 are pending in this application.
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) 1-8, 10, 13-17, 19, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao et al. U.S. Patent Application 2019/0013250 (hereinafter “Miao”) and further in view of Meng Chinese Patent Document CN 108231654 A (hereinafter “Meng”).
Regarding claim 1, Miao teaches a method (refer to fig.4) of processing a semiconductor substrate (i.e. substrate 302)(fig.3) during fabrication of an electronic device (refer to figs.3 and 4), the method comprising:(a) depositing one or more frontside layers (refer to layers 304, 306, 308, and 310)(fig.3) on the semiconductor substrate (refer to steps 402, 404, 06, and 408)(fig.4) that have a frontside internal stress (refer to [0025]) that, if uncompensated, produces bowing of the semiconductor substrate (refer to [0025]); and (b) depositing one or more backside layers (i.e. stress layer 312)(fig.3) on the semiconductor substrate (refer to step 410)(fig.4) that have a backside internal stress that counteracts the frontside internal stress of the one or more frontside layers (refer to [0026]) and reduces or eliminates the bowing (refer to [0026]); however, Miao does not teach wherein the one or more backside layers have a sheet resistance equal to or less than about 5000 ohm/sq. However, Meng teaches wherein the one or more backside layers have a sheet resistance equal to or less than about 5000 ohm/sq (refer to [0040] and [0043]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Miao to include the sheet resistance of Meng to provide the advantage of allowing the substrate to be better adsorbed to an electrostatic chuck (refer to Meng abstract).
Regarding clam 2, Miao and Meng teach the method of claim 1, further comprising (c) clamping, via an electrostatic chuck, the semiconductor substrate with the one or more backside layers (refer to Meng abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Miao and Meng teach the method of claim 2, further comprising (d) etching the semiconductor substrate while the semiconductor substrate is clamped to the electrostatic chuck (refer to Miao [0038] and [0062]).
Regarding claim 4, Miao and Meng teach the method of claim 2, wherein operations (a), (b), and (c) are each performed in a different chamber (refer to Miao [0062]).
Regarding claim 5, Miao and Meng teach the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more frontside layers comprise a hardmask (refer to Meng [0045]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 6, Miao and Meng teach the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more backside layers have a thickness (refer to Miao [0076]), however they do not teach wherein the thickness is about 1 μm to about 10 μm. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the thickness is about 1 μm to about 10 μm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Miao and Meng to include wherein the thickness is about 1 μm to about 10 μm to provide the advantage of providing a backside layer thick enough to neutralize the wafer bowing caused by the frontside layers.
Regarding claim 7, Miao and Meng teach the method of claim 1; however, they do not teach wherein one of the one or more backside layers has a sheet resistance of about 150 ohms/square to about 300 ohms/square. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein one of the one or more backside layers has a sheet resistance of about 150 ohms/square to about 300 ohms/square, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Miao and Meng to include wherein one of the one or more backside layers has a sheet resistance of about 150 ohms/square to about 300 ohms/square to provide the advantage of providing a suitable resistance to achieve secure adsorption of the semiconductor device to an electrostatic chuck.
Regarding claim 8, Miao and Meng teach the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more backside layers comprises a doped polysilicon (refer to Meng [0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Miao and Meng teach the method of claim 1, wherein the backside internal stress of the one or more backside layers is about -300 MPa to about 300 MPa (refer to Miao [0034] and [0045]).
Regarding claim 13, Miao teaches a semiconductor substrate (i.e. substrate 302)(fig.3) or an electronic device (refer to fig.3) comprising: (a) one or more frontside layers (refer to layers 304, 306, 308, and 310)(fig.3) that have a frontside internal stress (refer to [0025]) that, if uncompensated, produces bowing of the semiconductor substrate or the electronic device (refer to [0025]); and (b) one or more backside layers (i.e. stress layer 312)(fig.3) that have a backside internal stress that counteracts the frontside internal stress of the one or more frontside layers (refer to [0026]) and reduces or eliminates the bowing (refer to [0026]); however, Miao does not teach wherein the one or more backside layers have a sheet resistance equal to or less than about 5000 ohm/sq. However, Meng teaches wherein the one or more backside layers have a sheet resistance equal to or less than about 5000 ohm/sq (refer to [0040] and [0043]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate/device of Miao to include the sheet resistance of Meng to provide the advantage of allowing the substrate to be better adsorbed to an electrostatic chuck (refer to Meng abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Miao and Meng teach the semiconductor substrate or the electronic device of claim 13, wherein the one or more backside layers have a thickness (refer to Miao [0076]), however they do not teach wherein the thickness is about 1 μm to about 10 μm. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the thickness is about 1 μm to about 10 μm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate/device of Miao and Meng to include wherein the thickness is about 1 μm to about 10 μm to provide the advantage of providing a backside layer thick enough to neutralize the wafer bowing caused by the frontside layers.
Regarding claim 15, Miao and Meng teach the semiconductor device or the electronic device of claim 13; however, they do not teach wherein the sheet resistance of the one or more backside layers is about 500 ohms/square. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the sheet resistance of the one or more backside layers is about 500 ohms/square, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate/device of Miao and Meng to include wherein the sheet resistance of the one or more backside layers is about 500 ohms/square to provide the advantage of providing a suitable resistance to achieve secure adsorption of the semiconductor device to an electrostatic chuck.
Regarding claim 16, Miao and Meng teach the semiconductor device or the electronic device of claim 13; however, they do not teach wherein the sheet resistance of the one or more backside layers is about 150 ohms/square to about 300 ohms/square. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the sheet resistance of the one or more backside layers is about 150 ohms/square to about 300 ohms/square, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the semiconductor device or the electronic device of Miao and Meng to include wherein the sheet resistance of the one or more backside layers is about 150 ohms/square to about 300 ohms/square to provide the advantage of providing a suitable resistance to achieve secure adsorption of the semiconductor device to an electrostatic chuck.
Regarding claim 17, Miao and Meng teach the semiconductor device or the electronic device of claim 13, wherein at least one of the one or more backside layers comprises a doped polysilicon (refer to Meng [0028]).
Regarding claim 19, Miao and Meng teach the semiconductor device or the electronic device of claim 13, wherein the backside internal stress of the one or more backside layers is about -300 MPa to about 300 MPa (refer to Miao [0034] and [0045]).
Regarding claim 31, Miao teaches an apparatus (refer to fig.13) comprising: a process chamber (i.e. etch chamber 1300)(fig.13); a substrate support (i.e. chuck 1350)(fig.13); a showerhead (i.e. showerhead 1325)(fig.13); a gas source (refer to gas distribution system 1390)(fig.13) fluidically connected to the showerhead (refer to [0070]); and a controller (refer to [0068]) configured to cause: (a) receiving a semiconductor substrate (i.e. substrate 1302)(fig.13)(refer also to [0062] and figs. 3 and 4) having one or more frontside layers (refer to layers 304, 306, 308, and 310)(fig.3)(refer also to steps 402, 404, 06, and 408)(fig.4) having a frontside internal stress (refer to [0025]) that, if uncompensated, produces bowing of the semiconductor substrate (refer to [0025]); and (b) depositing one or more backside layers (i.e. stress layer 312)(fig.3) on the semiconductor substrate (refer to step 410)(fig.4) that have a backside internal stress that counteracts the frontside internal stress of the one or more frontside layers (refer to [0026]) and reduces or eliminates the bowing (refer to [0026]); however, Miao does not teach wherein the one or more backside layers have a sheet resistance equal to or less than about 5000 ohm/sq. However, Meng teaches wherein the one or more backside layers have a sheet resistance equal to or less than about 5000 ohm/sq (refer to [0040] and [0043]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Miao to include the sheet resistance of Meng to provide the advantage of allowing the substrate to be better adsorbed to an electrostatic chuck (refer to Meng abstract).
Claim(s) 9, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao and Meng as applied to claims 1, 8, or 17 above, and further in view of Bayati et al. U.S. Patent Application 2022/0068636 (hereinafter “Bayati”).
Regarding claim 9, Miao and Meng teach the method of claim 8; however, they do not teach wherein the doped polysilicon is doped with a dopant comprising phosphorus, carbon, boron, tungsten, nitrogen, or any combination of two or more thereof. However, Bayati teaches wherein the doped polysilicon is doped with a dopant comprising phosphorus, carbon, boron, tungsten, nitrogen, or any combination of two or more thereof (refer to [0004]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Miao and Meng to include the dopants of Bayati to provide the advantage of using common dopants for semiconductors.
Regarding claim 12, Miao and Meng teach the method of claim 1; however, the do not teach wherein depositing one or more backside layers on the semiconductor substrate comprises exposing the semiconductor substrate to a process gas comprising a silicon precursor and a dopant precursor, and wherein the method further comprises annealing the semiconductor substrate at a temperature of about 700°C to about 900°C to convert a deposited doped silicon layer to a doped polysilicon layer. However, Bayati teaches wherein depositing one or more backside layers on the semiconductor substrate comprises exposing the semiconductor substrate to a process gas comprising a silicon precursor and a dopant precursor (refer to [0027] and [0046]), and wherein the method further comprises annealing the semiconductor substrate at a temperature of about 700°C to about 900°C (refer to [0027] and [0046]) to convert a deposited doped silicon layer to a doped polysilicon layer (refer to [0027] and [0046]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Miao and Meng to include the deposition of Bayati to provide the advantage of using a common method of forming a doped polysilicon layer.
Regarding claim 18, Miao and Meng teach the semiconductor substrate or electronic device of claim 17; however, they do not teach wherein the doped polysilicon is doped with a dopant comprising phosphorus, carbon, boron, tungsten, nitrogen, or any combination of two or more thereof. However, Bayati teaches wherein the doped polysilicon is doped with a dopant comprising phosphorus, carbon, boron, tungsten, nitrogen, or any combination of two or more thereof (refer to [0004]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the semiconductor substrate or electronic device of Miao and Meng to include the dopants of Bayati to provide the advantage of using common dopants for semiconductors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 20 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 11 is indicated as containing allowable subject matter because prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination all of the limitations of claim 11, especially wherein depositing one or more backside layers comprises depositing a first backside layer and a second backside layer, disposed further toward an outside of the semiconductor substrate than the first backside layer, and wherein the sheet resistance of the first backside layer is lower than the sheet resistance of the second backside layer. Claim 20 is indicated as containing allowable subject matter because prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination all of the limitations of claim 20, especially wherein the one or more backside layers comprise a first backside layer and a second backside layer, disposed further toward an outside of the semiconductor substrate than the first backside layer, and the sheet resistance of the first backside layer is lower than the sheet resistance of the second backside layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J COMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-6133. 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, Thienvu V. Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
/KEVIN J COMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights