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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 9-12, 14, 16-18, 21, 24, 26, 27, 29 and 30 are cancelled. Claims 1-8, 13, 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 31 and 32 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims. Claims 1-7 are withdrawn. Claims 8, 13, 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 31 and 32 are currently examined on the merits.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 8, 13, 22, 23, 25 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawrylchak et al (US 20190067006 A1, “Hawrylchak”) in view of Savas et al (US 20190062947 A1, “Savas”) and Dip et al (US 20070042569 A1, “Dip”), and as evidenced by Hashimi et al (US 20100072522 A1, “Hashimi”).
Regarding claim 8, Hawrylchak teaches a system for processing substrates comprising one or more processing chambers configured to conduct an epitaxial deposition operation on a substrate (figs 2, 3, 6, 7-9, 0006-0009 and 0109), an etch operation on the substrate (0109), and a thermal anneal operation on the substrate (0109), the one or more processing chambers including an interior volume bounded by an upper dome/window 728/804, a lower dome/window 714/803 (figs 7 and 8, 0086. 0089-0091, 0095, 0096, 0100, 0103 and 0104); an array (first array) of radiant heating lamps 702/810B disposed below the lower window/dome 714/803 (figs 7 and 8, 0085, 0088-0094, 0099, 0100, 0103, 0104); a gas inlet (gas injection port) disposed between the upper dome/window and the lower dome/window (figs 7 and 8, 0096, 0097, 0108), and configured to deliver one or more deposition gases into the interior volume (figs 7 and 8, 0096, 0097, 0108), an outlet disposed at opposite the gas injection port (figs 7 and 8, 0096, 0097, 0102, 0106, 0108). The embodiments as exemplified in figs 7 and 8 teaches the upper dome and the lower dome as just addressed above, and further teaches a lamp housing (for example housing structure 801) above the upper dome (fig 8, 0098), and a second array of radiant heating lamps (for example 810A) disposed above the upper dome 804 (fig 8), but does not explicitly teach an opening in the upper dome fluidically coupled to a plasma source by a conduit that extends through the lamp housing above the upper dome, and through the second array of radiant heating lamps disposed above the upper dome in the lamp housing, the conduit extending into the interior volume through the opening of the upper dome. However, embodiments as exemplified by figs 2 and 3 teach an opening in an upper lid assembly 214/340 fluidically coupled to a plasma source by a conduit (for example 360/270) (figs 2 and 3, 0025, 0032, 0034, 0039, 0040, 0041, 0043, 0054, 0055, 0120), the conduit extends through the lid assembly (fig 3, 0054-0059), and the plasma source configured to produce a plasma including atomic hydrogen radicals (0031, 0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified the embodiments as exemplified by fig 8 per teachings of the embodiments as exemplified by figs 2 and/or 3 by including the conduit extending through the second array of radiant heating lamps disposed above the upper dome and the opening of the upper lid assembly in order to provide plasma-based cleaning/etching and remove any unwanted contaminants (0025-0026, 0038-0041, 0054 and 0055). Hawrylchak further teaches a port of the conduit located at an upper portion through the upper lid assembly (fig 3, 0025, 0032, 0034, 0039, 0040, 0041, 0043, 0054, 0055, 0120), but does not explicitly teach the conduit extending into the interior volume. However, Savas teaches an apparatus, wherein an elongated injector extended into a volume/chamber for injecting plasma (abstract, figs 3 and 4). Thus, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Hawrylchak per teachings of Savas in order to provide suitable structures for a flow of plasma over wafer surface while decreasing contamination (Savas abstract, 0001). Furthermore, In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (A). Also, the court has held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus is a matter of choice, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant, as per In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Hawrylchak/Savas further teaches controllers (Hawrylchak 0038, 0071, 0077, 0080, 0082 and 0117), the controllers comprising programmed computer and flow controller to control (instructions that, when executed, cause) the one or more processing chambers flow the one or more precursor (deposition) gases through the gas injection port, across the substrate while the substrate is disposed within the interior volume, and through the outlet to selectively grow an epitaxial layer on crystalline surface of a substrate (Hawrylchak 0035 and 0082), it is also well known in the prior art to epitaxially grow the epitaxial layer on crystalline surface of the substrate (Hawrylchak 0003-0004); Thus it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have performed the epitaxial growth on a crystalline surface of the substrate in order to provide better electrical properties of the silicon material as suggested by the prior art described in Hawrylchak (0003-0004).
Hawrylchak/Savas teaches the controllers as addressed above, and further teaches the epitaxial layer comprising silicon (Hawrylchak 0035) and a substrate etching process (Hawrylchak 0109), but does not explicitly teach the one or more crystalline surfaces at least partially defining an epitaxial window, selective growth of the epitaxial layer also forms a plurality of nodules on one or more non- crystalline surfaces outside of the epitaxial window, and etch the substrate to remove the plurality of nodules from one or more non-crystalline surfaces. However, Dip teaches that a controller causes a substrate processing to perform processing steps when executing instructions, wherein one or more surfaces of crystalline substrate 410 at least partially defining an epitaxial window, selective growth of the epitaxial layer also forms a poly-Si film with certain grains size (a plurality of nodules) on one or more non- crystalline surfaces outside of the epitaxial window, and the non-epitaxial poly-Si film/grains is etched away from non-crystalline surfaces of the substrate while the substrate remains within the processing chamber (apparently having the interior volume) (0007, 0008, 0015, 0024, 0025, 0027, 0028, 0030, 0032, 0033). Thus, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Hawrylchak/Savas per teaching of Dip in order to perform the processing steps with a programmed controller and provide a patterned silicon films on a substrate (Dip 0005-0008 and 0024). Hawrylchak/Savas/Dip teaches the controller comprising instructions that, when executed, to selectively grown the epitaxial layer and etch the substrate to remove poly-Si films/grains from one or more non-crystalline surfaces of the substrate as addressed above, similar to the instantly claimed controller; therefore, it is reasonably expected that the controller of Hawrylchak/Savas/Dip is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “removing a plurality of nodules” from one or more non-crystalline surfaces of the substrate. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). MPEP 2115.
Hawrylchak/Savas/Dip further teaches the etching comprising flowing the atomic hydrogen radicals from the plasma source into the interior volume through the opening, and exposing the substrate to the atomic hydrogen radicals (Hawrylchak 0007, 0026, 0034 and 0038), and hydrogen radicals are atomic hydrogen as evidenced by Hashimi (0097-0099); and the processing chamber may be controlled to perform thermally anneal the substrate to an anneal temperature that is 600 degrees Celsius or higher (Hawrylchak 0038, 0047, 0109 and 0120), similar to the instantly claimed controller causing thermal anneal; therefore it is reasonably expected that the controller of Hawrylchak/Savas/Dip/evidenced Hashimi is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of then thermally annealing “the epitaxial layer” of the substrate while the substrate remains within the interior volume.
It should be noted that the instant claim is directing to a system for processing substrates; it is well established that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 13, Hawrylchak/Savas/Dip/evidenced Hashimi teaches the instructions and the selectively growing the epitaxial layer as addressed above, and further teaches the instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processing chambers to pre-clean the substrate to remove one or more contaminants from the one or more crystalline surfaces prior to the selectively growing the epitaxial layer (Hawrylchak fig. 1, 0004, 0005, 0024, 0025, 0032, 0035, 0102, 0118).
Regarding claim 22, Hawrylchak/Savas/Dip/evidenced Hashimi teaches one or more deposition gases comprising one or more of silicon, boron, germanium, or chlorine (Hawrylchak 0024, 0035, 0068, 0080, 0096, 0097, 0102, 0107, 0108). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 23, Hawrylchak/Savas/Dip/evidenced Hashimi teaches the gas injection inlets (port) is disposed below the plasma source for example 224 or 350 (Hawrylchak figs 2 and 3; 0039-0047, 0053-0055).
Regarding claim 25, Hawrylchak/Savas/Dip/evidenced Hashimi teaches that the upper dome and the lower dome are made of quartz (Hawrylchak figs 2, 3, and 6-8; 0053-0055, 0058-0060, 0074, 0098, 0110, 0103, 0104), e.g., the upper and lower windows are made of quartz. Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 31, Hawrylchak/Savas/Dip/evidenced Hashimi Hashimi teaches a plurality of holes for distributing gas sources (gas sources distribution assembly) coupled to the gas injection port, and the gas distribution assembly including infrared lamps 856 configured to heat the one or more deposition gases (Hawrylchak fig 8, 0106-0108).
Claims 15, 19, 20, 28, 29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawrylchak et al (US 20190067006 A1, “Hawrylchak”) in view of Savas et al (US 20190062947 A1, “Savas”) and Dip et al (US 20070042569 A1, “Dip”), and as evidenced by Hashimi et al (US 20100072522 A1, “Hashimi”).
Regarding claim 15, Hawrylchak teaches a system for processing substrates a processing chamber including an interior volume bounded by an upper dome/window 728/804, a lower dome/window 714/803 (figs 7 and 8, 0086. 0089-0091, 0095, 0096, 0100, 0103 and 0104); an array (first array) of radiant heating lamps 702/810B disposed below the lower window/dome 714/803 (figs 7 and 8, 0085, 0088-0094, 0099, 0100, 0103, 0104); an gas inlet (gas injection port) disposed between the upper dome/window and the lower dome/window (figs 7 and 8, 0096, 0097, 0108), and configured to deliver one or more deposition gases into the interior volume (figs 7 and 8, 0096, 0097, 0108), an outlet disposed at opposite the gas injection port (figs 7 and 8, 0096, 0097, 0102, 0106, 0108); and a substrate support disposed in the interior volume (fig 4 and 7; 0064, 0088 0096). The embodiments as exemplified in figs 7 and 8 teaches the upper dome and the lower dome as just addressed above, and further teaches a lamp housing (for example housing structure 801) above the upper dome (fig 8, 0098), and a second array of radiant heating lamps (for example 810A) disposed above the upper dome 804 (fig 8), but does not explicitly teach a plasma source coupled to the processing chamber, and configured to deliver a plasma including atomic hydrogen radicals into the interior volume via a conduit that extends through the lamp housing above the upper dome, and through the second array of radiant heating lamps disposed above the upper dome in the lamp housing, the opening disposed above the substrate support. However, embodiments as exemplified by figs 2 and 3 teach a plasma source 224/350 coupled to the processing chamber configured to deliver a plasma including atomic hydrogen radicals into the interior volume via a conduit (for example 360/270) through an opening in an upper lid assembly 214/340 (figs 2 and 3, 0025, 0032, 0034, 0039, 0040, 0041, 0043, 0054, 0055, 0120), the conduit through the opening in the lid assembly (fig 3, 0054-0059), the opening disposed above the substrate support (figs 2 and 3), and the plasma source configured to produce a plasma including atomic hydrogen radicals (0031, 0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified the embodiments as exemplified by fig 8 per teachings of the embodiments as exemplified by figs 2 and/or 3 by including the conduit extending through the second array of radiant heating lamps disposed above the upper dome and the opening of the upper lid assembly in order to provide plasma-based cleaning/etching and remove any unwanted contaminants (0025-0026, 0038-0041, 0054 and 0055). Hawrylchak further teaches a port of the conduit located at an upper portion through the upper lid assembly (fig 3, 0025, 0032, 0034, 0039, 0040, 0041, 0043, 0054, 0055, 0120), but does not explicitly teach the conduit extending into the interior volume. However, Savas teaches an apparatus, wherein an elongated injector extended into a volume/chamber for injecting plasma (abstract, figs 3 and 4). Thus, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Hawrylchak per teachings of Savas in order to provide suitable structures for a flow of plasma over wafer surface while decreasing contamination (Savas abstract, 0001). Furthermore, In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Also, the court has held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus is a matter of choice, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant, as per In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Hawrylchak/Savas further teaches controllers comprising programmed computer and flow controller to control (instructions that, when executed, cause) the processing chamber to flow the one or more precursor (deposition) gases through the gas injection plenum, across a substrate disposed on the substrate support, and through the outlet to selectively grow an epitaxial layer on crystalline surface of the substrate (Hawrylchak 0035 and 0082), it is also well known in the prior art to epitaxially grow the epitaxial layer on crystalline surface of the substrate (0003-0004); Thus it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have performed the epitaxial growth on a crystalline surface of the substrate in order to provide better electrical properties of the silicon material as suggested by the prior art described in Hawrylchak (0003-0004).
Hawrylchak/Savas further teaches the epitaxial layer comprising silicon (0035) and a substrate etching process (Hawrylchak 0109), but does not explicitly teach the one or more crystalline surfaces at least partially defining an epitaxial window, selective growth of the epitaxial layer also forms a plurality of nodules on one or more non- crystalline surfaces outside of the epitaxial window, and remove the plurality of nodules from one or more non-crystalline surfaces. However, Dip teaches that a controller causes a substrate processing to perform processing steps when executing instructions, wherein one or more surfaces of crystalline substrate 410 at least partially defining an epitaxial window, selective growth of the epitaxial layer also forms a poly-Si film with certain grains size (a plurality of nodules) on one or more non- crystalline surfaces outside of the epitaxial window, and the non-epitaxial poly-Si film/grains is etched away from non-crystalline surfaces of the substrate (0007, 0008, 0015, 0024, 0025, 0027, 0028, 0030, 0032, 0033). Thus, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Hawrylchak/Savas per teaching of Dip in order to perform the processing steps with a programmed controller and provide a patterned silicon films on a substrate (Dip 0005-0008 and 0024). Hawrylchak/Savas/Dip teaches the controller comprising instructions that, when executed, to selectively grown the epitaxial layer and etch the substrate to remove poly-Si films/grains from one or more non-crystalline surfaces of the substrate as addressed above, similar to the instantly claimed controller; therefore, it is reasonably expected that the controller of Hawrylchak/Savas /Dip is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “removing a plurality of nodules” from one or more non-crystalline surfaces of the substrate. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). MPEP 2115.
Hawrylchak/Savas/Dip further teaches the etching comprising generating hydrogen radicals using the plasma source (Hawrylchak 0034), hydrogen radicals are atomic hydrogen as evidenced by Hashimi (0097-0099); flowing the atomic hydrogen radicals through the opening and exposing the substrate to the atomic hydrogen radicals within the interior volume (Hawrylchak 0007, 0026, 0034, 0038 and claim 15); and the processing chamber may be controlled to perform thermally anneal the substrate (Hawrylchak 0038, 0047, 0109 and 0120), similar to the instantly claimed controller causing thermal anneal; therefore it is reasonably expected that the controller of Hawrylchak/Savas/Dip is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of then thermally annealing the epitaxial layer while the substrate remains within the interior volume.
It should be noted that the instant claim is directing to a system for processing substrates; it is well established that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 19, Hawrylchak/Savas/Dip/evidenced Hashimi teaches the gas injection inlets (port) is disposed below the plasma source for example 224 or 350 (Hawrylchak figs 2 and 3; 0039-0047, 0053-0055).
Regarding claim 20, Hawrylchak/Savas/Dip/evidenced Hashimi teaches the plasma source is coupled to a lid assembly (top portion) of the processing chamber (Hawrylchak figs 2 and 3, 0033, 0034, 0038-0041, 0044-0045, 0047, 0053-0058).
Regarding claim 28, Hawrylchak/Savas/Dip/evidenced Hashimi teaches that the upper and lower domes are made of quartz (Hawrylchak figs 2, 3, and 6-8; 0053-0055, 0058-0060, 0074, 0098, 0110, 0103, 0104). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 29, Hawrylchak/Savas/Dip/evidenced Hashimi teaches the conduit as addressed above, and further teaches that that is received through the opening of the upper lid/dome (Hawrylchak figs 2, 3, 7 and 8, 0039, 0041, 0043, 0056).
Regarding claim 32, Hawrylchak/Savas/Dip/evidenced Hashimi teaches a plurality of holes for distributing gas sources (gas sources distribution assembly) coupled to the gas injection port, and the gas distribution assembly including infrared lamps 856 configured to heat the one or more deposition gases (Hawrylchak fig 8, 0106-0108).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because the arguments do not apply to the new ground rejection provided above.
Applicant’s arguments that Hawrylchak, Dip, and Hashimi, alone or in combination, do not teach and/or suggest “an opening in the upper dome fluidically coupled to a plasma source by a conduit that extends through a lamp housing above the upper dome, and through a second array of radiant heating lamps disposed above the upper dome in the lamp housing, the conduit extending into the interior volume through the opening of the upper dome" and "flowing the atomic hydrogen radicals from the plasma source into the interior volume through the opening," as recited in claim 8… and both process chambers 700 and 800 lack "a conduit that extends through a lamp housing above the upper dome, and through a second array of radiant heating lamps disposed above the upper dome in the lamp housing, the conduit extending into the interior volume through the opening of the upper dome” have been considered, but not found persuasive. As addressed above, Hawrylchak (embodiments as exemplified in figs 7 and 8) teaches a lamp housing (for example housing structure 801) above the upper dome (fig 8, 0098), and a second array of radiant heating lamps (for example 810A) disposed above the upper dome 804 (fig 8). The embodiments as exemplified in figs 7 and 8 of Hawrylchak do not explicitly teach an opening in the upper dome fluidically coupled to a plasma source by a conduit that extends through lamp housing above the upper dome, and the conduit extending into the interior volume through the opening of the upper dome. However, embodiments as exemplified by figs 2 and 3 teach an opening in an upper lid assembly 214/340 fluidically coupled to a plasma source by a conduit (for example 360/270) (figs 2 and 3, 0025, 0032, 0034, 0039, 0040, 0041, 0043, 0054, 0055, 0120), the conduit extends through the lid assembly (fig 3, 0054-0059), the conduit through the opening of the upper lid assembly (figs 2 and 3, 0025, 0032, 0034, 0039, 0040, 0041, 0043, 0054, 0055, 0120), and the plasma source configured to produce a plasma including atomic hydrogen radicals through the opening (0031, 0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified the embodiments as exemplified by fig 8 per teachings of the embodiments as exemplified by figs 2 and/or 3 by including the conduit extending through the second array of radiant heating lamps disposed above the upper dome and the conduit through the opening of the upper lid assembly in order to provide plasma-based cleaning/etching and remove any unwanted contaminants (0025-0026, 0038-0041, 0054 and 0055). Also, it is well established that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. Furthermore, it has been held that the mere rearrangement of parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See, e.g., In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); see also MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C). As, “a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
In response to the applicant' s arguments that “Firstly, modifying process chamber 700 with merely central conduit 270 and/or conduit 360 would not provide every element of the claim because process chamber 700 lacks "a second array of radiant heating lamps disposed above the upper dome,” it is well established that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references/embodiments individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references/embodiments. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As addressed above, Hawrylchak explicitly teaches chamber 700 and conduit 270, which is also recognized by applicant. Moreover, the argument concerning "Secondly, modifying process chamber 800 with central conduit 270 would not provide every element of the claim … Thirdly, modifying process chamber 800 with conduit 360 would not provide every element of the claim" represents the counselor’s opinion, which is not supported by factual evidence. Finally, arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim 15 have been considered, but not found persuasive, because the argument is similar to the argument to claim 1, and the response to the arguments with respect to claim 8 above is also applied to the argument to claim 15.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is examiner’s position that a prima facie case of obviousness is well-established per teachings/combination of the instantly cited references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Qi whose telephone number is (571)272-3193. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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.
/HUA QI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714