DETAILED ACTION
This application is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 2/5/2026.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending.
Claims 11-17 are withdrawn.
Claim 9 is cancelled.
Claims 1 and 18 are currently amended.
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.
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 1-7, 10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawrylchak (US Pub. 2019/0066998) in view of Wang (US Pub. 2016/0211351) and Toda (US Pub. 2019/0378724).
Regarding claims 1-5, Hawrylchak teaches a processing system ([0078] and Fig. 6, processing system #600), comprising: a film formation chamber ([0078] and Fig. 6, processing chamber #602a may be a film formation chamber); a transfer chamber ([0078] and Fig. 6, transfer chamber #604) coupled to the film formation chamber (see Fig. 6); an oxide removal chamber ([0079] and Fig. 6, processing chamber #602c can be a cleaning chamber; [0006]: oxide removal) coupled to the transfer chamber (see Fig. 6), the oxide removal chamber having a substrate support ([0036] and Fig. 2A, substrate support #232) and configured to directly receive gases from a first gas source and a second gas source into a processing region of the oxide removal chamber ([0032] and Fig. 2A, first gas source #260 and second gas source #262); and a controller ([0028] and Fig. 2A, controller #202) configured to cause the processing system to: flow a first gas from the first gas source and a second gas from the second gas source into a mixing region of the oxide removal chamber to form a process gas mixture ([0031] and Fig. 2B, mixing chamber #266), flow the process gas mixture into a process region of the oxide removal chamber (Figs. 2A-2B, from #266 to processing region #222) and expose a substrate positioned on the substrate support to the process gas mixture, thereby removing an oxide film from the substrate ([0084] and shown generally in Fig. 1)
Hawrylchak does not teach wherein the process gas mixture includes a fluorine-containing gas and a vapor including an alcohol, wherein a concentration of the fluorine-containing gas is between about 5 wt/wt to about 75% wt/wt of the process gas mixture; nor wherein the oxide film is removed from the substrate without using plasma.
However, Wang teaches wherein the process gas mixture includes a fluorine-containing gas (Wang – [0034]: HF gas) and a vapor including an alcohol (Wang – [0034]: methanol/ethanol), wherein a concentration of the fluorine-containing gas is between about 5 wt/wt to about 75% wt/wt of the process gas mixture (Wang – [0034]: overall process mixture is 30% or less of the total, wherein HF is a component of the 30% and thus very likely overlaps with the claimed range because it is the main component of the mixture; additionally, Wang remarks that the ratio of the respective gases in the HF mixture can be advantageously controlled to control etching speed, time, and exhaust byproduct); wherein the oxide film is removed from the substrate without using plasma (the word “plasma” does not appear in Wang and does not appear to be part of the disclosed procedure).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the process recipe of Wang in the Hawrylchak apparatus to effectively remove an oxide layer in a short time and reduce loss in un-desired regions (Wang – [0034]).
Hawrylchak modified by Wang does not teach wherein the controller is configured to maintain a temperature of the substrate support at about 0 °C or less while exposing the substrate to the process gas mixture.
However, Toda teaches wherein the controller is configured to maintain a temperature of the substrate support at about 0 °C or less while exposing the substrate to the process gas mixture (Toda – [0039]: -20 to 10 °C).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Hawrylchak apparatus with the temperature parameters of Toda as Toda teaches the etching temperature is important for increased selectivity and less chance of substrate damage (Toda – [0039]).
Additionally, the courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Hawrylchak does not explicitly teach the added limitations of the claim (due to reliance on Wang for the process chemistry).
However, Wang teaches wherein the process gas mixture is free of ammonia (the word “ammonia” nor “NH3” appears in Wang and does not appear to be part of the disclosed procedure).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the process recipe of Wang in the Hawrylchak apparatus to effectively remove an oxide layer in a short time and reduce loss in un-desired regions (Wang – [0034]).
Regarding claim 7, Hawrylchak does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Wang teaches wherein a concentration of the vapor is between about 5% wt/wt to about 75% wt/wt of the process gas mixture (Wang – [0034]: overall process mixture is 30% or less of the total, wherein the vapor is a component of the 30% and thus very likely overlaps with the claimed range; additionally, Wang remarks that the ratio of the respective gases in the HF mixture can be advantageously controlled to control etching speed, time, and exhaust byproduct).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the process recipe of Wang in the Hawrylchak apparatus to effectively remove an oxide layer in a short time and reduce loss in un-desired regions (Wang – [0034]).
Additionally, the courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Hawrylchak teaches wherein the controller is configured to form a film on a substrate disposed in the film formation chamber (Hawrylchak – [0054]-[0066] for the apparatus in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Hawrylchak teaches a processing system ([0078] and Fig. 6, processing system #600), comprising: a film formation chamber ([0078] and Fig. 6, processing chamber #602a may be a film formation chamber); a first transfer chamber ([0078] and Fig. 6, first transfer chamber #604) coupled to the film formation chamber (see Fig. 6); a pass-through station coupled to the first transfer chamber ([0079] and Fig. 6, pass-through station #608); a second transfer chamber coupled to the pass-through station ([0079] and Fig. 6, second transfer chamber #610); a first oxide removal chamber coupled to the second transfer chamber ([0080] and Fig. 6, plasma-cleaning chamber #614 coupled to #610), wherein the first oxide removal chamber, the second transfer chamber, the pass-through station, the first transfer chamber, and the film formation chamber are maintained under vacuum or inert environment ([0078]: processing system #600 is a vacuum system), and wherein the first oxide removal chamber comprises a first substrate support ([0036] and Fig. 2A, substrate support #232) and is configured to directly receive gases from a first gas source and a second gas source into a processing region of the oxide removal chamber ([0032] and Fig. 2A, first gas source #260 and second gas source #262); and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of the processing system ([0028] and Fig. 2A, controller #202), cause the system to: flow a first gas from the first gas source and a second gas from the second gas source into a mixing region of the oxide removal chamber to form a process gas mixture ([0031] and Fig. 2B, mixing chamber #266), remove oxide from a first substrate disposed in a processing region of the first oxide removal chamber without using plasma ([0084] and shown generally in Fig. 1) by flowing the process gas mixture into the processing region and exposing the first substrate to the process gas mixture (Figs. 2A-2B, from #266 to processing region #222); transfer the first substrate to the film formation chamber ([0084]); and form a film on the first substrate disposed in the film formation chamber ([0084], and generally shown in Fig. 1); and a load lock chamber coupled to the first oxide removal chamber ([0082] and Fig. 6, load lock chamber #612 coupled to #610/#614).
Hawrylchak does not teach wherein the process gas mixture includes a fluorine-containing gas and a vapor including an alcohol, wherein a concentration of the fluorine-containing gas is between about 5$ wt/wt to about 75% wt/wt of the process gas mixture; nor wherein the oxide film is removed from the substrate without using plasma.
However, Wang teaches wherein the process gas mixture includes a fluorine-containing gas (Wang – [0034]: HF gas) and a vapor including an alcohol (Wang – [0034]: methanol/ethanol), wherein a concentration of the fluorine-containing gas is between about 5 wt/wt to about 75% wt/wt of the process gas mixture (Wang – [0034]: overall process mixture is 30% or less of the total, wherein HF is a component of the 30% and thus very likely overlaps with the claimed range because it is the main component of the mixture; additionally, Wang remarks that the ratio of the respective gases in the HF mixture can be advantageously controlled to control etching speed, time, and exhaust byproduct); wherein the oxide film is removed from the substrate without using plasma (the word “plasma” does not appear in Wang and does not appear to be part of the disclosed procedure).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the process recipe of Wang in the Hawrylchak apparatus to effectively remove an oxide layer in a short time and reduce loss in un-desired regions (Wang – [0034]).
Hawrylchak modified by Wang does not teach maintaining a temperature of the substrate support at about 0 °C or less while exposing the substrate to the process gas mixture.
However, Toda teaches maintaining a temperature of the substrate support at about 0 °C or less while exposing the substrate to the process gas mixture (Toda – [0039]: -20 to 10 °C).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Hawrylchak apparatus with the temperature parameters of Toda as Toda teaches the etching temperature is important for increased selectivity and less chance of substrate damage (Toda – [0039]).
Additionally, the courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Hawrylchak teaches a second oxide removal chamber coupled to the second transfer chamber ([0081]: a second plasma cleaning chamber can be used for stations #606, #608) and maintained under vacuum or inert environment (see abstract), wherein the second oxide removal chamber comprises a second substrate support (see Fig. 3, holder #332), and wherein the instructions stored on the non-transitory computer readable medium further cause the system to: remove oxide from a second substrate disposed in the second oxide removal chamber by exposing the second substrate to the process gas mixture ([0081]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 20, Hawrylchak teaches wherein an internal volume of the processing system is isolated from ambient environment ([0078]: processing system #600 is a vacuum system).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawrylchak (US Pub. 2019/0066998), Wang (US Pub. 2016/0211351), and Toda (US Pub. 2019/0378724), as applied to claims 1-7, 10, and 18-20 above, further in view of Dhindsa (US Patent 8,083,855).
The limitations of claims 1-7, 10, and 18-20 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, modified Hawrylchak does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Dhindsa teaches wherein the substrate support (Dhindsa – C2, L24-32: temperature control module can be applied to substrate support #30; see Fig. 1) comprises two or more independent temperature control zones each having a separate cooling channel (Dhindsa – C5, L11-28 and Fig. 2B, zones #102A,B,C with tubes #110A,B,C).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Hawrylchak apparatus with the plurality of cooling channels of Dhindsa in order to locally adjust and precisely regulate the substrate support temperatures (Dhindsa – C5, L23-27) to enhance processing uniformity (Dhindsa – C2, L51-60).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the §103 rejections have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant primarily argues the previous rejection of claim 9, now cancelled, the limitations of which have been incorporated into claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues that Wang modified by Toda fails to teach the limitation: “maintain a temperature of the substrate support at about 0 °C or less while exposing the substrate to the process gas mixture” as combined by the Examiner due to allegedly conflicting temperatures.
For convenience, par. [0034] of Wang and the first part of par. [0039] of Toda are reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
264
278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
172
284
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In rebuttal, the Examiner notes Wang teaches a temperature of about 23-70°C. The presence of the word “about” would convey to a PHOSITA that this temperature range is not concretely set at/between 23 and 70 °C; that some “wiggle room” is permissible with regards to the specifically recited values.
There is no stated criticality of the temperatures in Wang that would suggest to a PHOSITA that the reaction would “materially change”, as alleged by Applicant (Remarks, pg. 9).
The Examiner respectfully submits that in the absence of a specific mention of the criticality of the disclosed temperature range, a PHOSITA in the chemical arts would reasonably consider variations in the disclosed temperatures of Wang through routine experimentation.
To complete the relevant inquiry, the Examiner respectfully submits a PHOSITA in the CVD arts is a highly educated, highly skilled, highly trained engineer with a breadth of experience in a variety of technical fields.
In fact, Wang seems to explicitly support this assertion- the penultimate sentence of par. [0039] states: “By controlling….the process conditions such as temperature….it is advantageous to control an etching speed, etching time and exhausting of byproduct of the reaction”.
As such, Applicant’s allegation of a “material change” in reaction chemistry appears to be false, as does the argument of “teaching away”- no factual basis can be found to support either argument.
Turning to Toda, the disclosure lists a temperature of “50°C or less” and/or “-20 to 20 °C”. Critically, the Examiner notes that Wang and Toda teach ranges that overlap each other- Toda teaches 50°C to -20°C and Wang teaches about 70°C to 23°C. Both Wang and Toda also both teach silicon oxide etching processes.
The Examiner respectfully submits that because Wang and Toda teach silicon oxide chemical processes occurring in overlapping temperature ranges, a combination of the references is proper.
Having established the above, the Examiner notes Toda provides two specific motivations for why a PHOSITA would consider utilizing the disclosed ranges (“50°C or less” and/or “-20 to 20 °C”): “the lower the temperature, the higher the selectivity of the etching target film” and “the smaller the damage to the semiconductor element” (par. [0039]). The Applicant has not rebutted this motivation in any detail despite being provided by the Examiner in the previous rejection of claim 9 (Non-Final Action, pgs. 10-11).
Finally, Applicant alleges that “[i]mplementing Toda’s low temperatures would require wholesale redesign of the support cooling and chamber thermodynamics” of Hawrylchak (Remarks, pg. 9). This is false, and amounts to mere attorney arguments devoid of rational underpinnings from the prior art references and/or technical knowledge.
As noted by Applicant, Hawrylchak has a stated operation of 100 °C to 5 °C.
Toda teaches a desirable temperature range of 50 °C to -20°C.
The claimed temperature range is 0°C or less.
There is no articulated reason why a “wholesale redesign of the support cooling” of Hawrylchak would be required to lower its temperature capabilities by a mere 5 °C. This would require a minor modification at best.
As an aside, the Examiner notes that it has long been understood that where claimed ranges do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, prima facie obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). As noted by Applicant, Hawrylchak discloses an operating capability down to 5 °C. The claimed range begins at 0°C, giving a 5 °C difference between the two (even before Toda is considered).
The most pertinent case appears to be In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)- the claimed process was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C.
That is, the courts held that a 20-60 °C difference was prima facie obvious. The present situation is a 5 °C difference. As such, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claimed range is prima facie obvious in view of Hawrylchak alone. Toda merely reinforces this argument.
For at least these reasons, the §103 rejection of claim 9 is maintained. Claim 18 is rejected on substantially the same grounds and for substantially the same reasons.
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718