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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 is indefinite as tin oxide is an inorganic metal oxide. Since applicant is claiming an organometallic material, the claim should be amended to recite organo tin oxide.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Peter et al. (WO2020/264571A1; corresponding US 2022/0344136A1).
The examiner is relying on the citations in the corresponding US publication for discussion purposes.
Re claim 20, Peter et al. teach a method of providing in a process chamber a semiconductor wafer with a metal-containing resist film on the surface, wherein organometallic material is formed on one or more internal surfaces of the chamber (paragraphs 7-8, 31,38, 44, 49), exposing, without the semiconductor in the chamber (paragraph 91 teaches the wafer being removed and a protective cover over the substrate support during cleaning), to a plasma etch gas (paragraphs 94 and 96), wherein the etch gas can be activated by a remote plasma source to remove the organo metallic material (formation and removal of volatile products, paragraph 92). Re claims 21-23, refer to claim 11. Re claim 24, refer to paragraph 93. Re claim 25, refer to paragraph 109 which teaches a plasma based treatment to remove residual etch gas from the chamber.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-11, 13-15, 18-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ha et al. (WO2021/257368A1).
Re claim 1, Ha et al. teaches a method of providing in a process chamber a semiconductor wafer with a metal-containing resist film on the surface, wherein organometallic material (i.e. organotin; paragraph 31) is formed on one or more internal surfaces of the chamber (abstract, paragraphs 7, 15, 28, 31), exposing, without the semiconductor in the chamber (paragraph 33), to a non-plasma etch gas (step 105 with an oxygen-containing gas in the absence of plasma, paragraph 36), followed by exposing the chamber to a first plasma (step 103; paragraph 37, repeated step), wherein the first plasma comprises a process gas including H2 and a hydrocarbon (paragraph 35). The limitations of claim 1 are met since Fig. 1 teaches the repeating steps of step 103 (plasma), step 105 (etch gas). Specifically performing step 105 followed by repeating steps 103 and 105 read on the limitations of claim 1. In reference to removing first and second organometallic materials, the limitations are met since Ha et al. teach cleaning the chamber by performing the above steps in order to remove tin oxide (paragraph 30) from the interior surfaces of the chamber, wherein paragraph 31 teaches the tin oxide deposited from organometallic precursors such as tetraethyl tin. Paragraph 39 teaches an organometallic tin compound removed from the process chamber. Re claim 2, the limitations are inherently met since Ha et al. teach after the removal of the carbon containing polymer by the etchant gas, a portion of the tin oxide layer remains, such that additional cleaning cycles are needed. Specifically, the cleaning step by the etchant gas may not remove all the residue remaining (i.e. nonvolatile by product), resulting in the need for performing additional cleaning steps. The limitations of the nonvolatile product are broadly interpreted as any portion that remains in the chamber and requires additional cleaning after treating with the etching gas. Re claim 3, refer to paragraph 35 which teaches H2/CH4 plasma. Re claim 7, refer to paragraph 30. Re claim 8, the limitations of the second plasma are met because of the repeating step. Re claim 9, the limitations are met since Ha et al. teach a plasma comprising H2/CH4, as previously discussed. Re claim 10, refer to paragraph 30. Re claim 11, refer to Fig. 4, element 414. Re claim 13, refer to paragraphs 91. Re claim 14, refer to paragraphs 30-31. Re claim 15, refer to paragraph 43. Re claim 18, refer to steps 103 (H2/CH4 plasma) and 105 (oxygen containing etchant) , as previously discussed. Re claim 19, the plasma converts the organo metallic material to a carbon containing polymer (i.e. non volatile by product, paragraph 35). Re claims 20-22, refer to step 103, wherein the plasma comprises H2/CH4. Re claim 23, refer to paragraph 39 which teaches the use of an inert carrier gas Argon. RE claim 24, refer to paragraph 41. Re claim 25, the limitations of a second plasma are met as a result of performing a repeating step.
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) 4-6, 12, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (WO2021/257368A1) in view of Peter et al. (WO2020/264571A1; corresponding US 2022/0344136A1).
The examiner is relying on the citations in the corresponding US publication '136 for discussion purposes.
Re claim 4, Ha et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the first plasma comprising chlorine. Ha et al. teach a first plasma comprising H2/CH4, but fails to teach a chlorine plasma. Paragraph 29 of Ha et al. teach it is well known in the art to use chlorine based cleaning methods to remove tin oxide from processing chambers. Specifically Ha et al. recognizes that it is well known to use chlorine based cleaning methods but fails to teach chlorine plasma. Peter et al. teach the removal of metal containing EUV resist material (organometallics; paragraphs 38, 44, 48, 96) such as organo tin oxides with an etchant gas comprising a halogen gas which can be activated thermally or by a remote plasma source to remove tin oxides. Claim 11 teaches plasma etch gases comprises H2, CH4, Cl2, HCl, HBr. Paragraph It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Ha et al. to use equivalent plasma gases, comprising chlorine, as taught by Peter al., for purposes of performing the same function of removing tin oxides from the processing chamber.
Re claims 5-6, Ha et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of non-plasma etch gases comprising a hydrogen halide, such as HCl, HBr. Ha et al. teach oxygen containing non-plasma etch gases, as discussed previously. Applicant is directed to paragraph 95 which teaches in a non-plasma process, the etch gas comprises a hydrogen halide, such as HCl, HBr in combination with an oxidizing gas such as a O2, O3 for purposes of removing contaminants from the processing chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Ha et al. to include the use of a non-plasma etch gas comprising a halogen halide, such as HCl, HBr, as taught by Peter et al. for purposes of performing the same function of cleaning the processing chamber of contaminants after wafer processing. Re claim 12, refer to paragraph 96 of Peter et al. which teaches that the plasma can occur in-situ or as a remote plasma. Re claim 16, refer to step 106, paragraph 70 of Peter et al. Re claim 17, refer to paragraph 127 of Peter et al.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matsui et al. teach plasma less etching of tin oxide. Lu et al. teach non-plasma and plasma steps for removing copper. Irie teaches bake and dry-develop for photoresist. Shim et al. and Fox et al. teach generating plasma in-situ and remote. Ha et al. teach the removal of tin oxide. Volosskiy et al. is applicant's published application.
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