DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed September 22, 2025.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(1) Regarding claim 1, Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0066] of current application that “In other words, the sensitivity may specifically be the growth of the oxide layer per unit time or unit bias power.” However, Applicants did not originally disclose that “forming the oxide layer comprises selecting a pressure in the chamber to control a sensitivity of a thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power, the sensitivity being growth of the oxide layer per unit bias power and adjusting the bias power according to the growth to thereby achieve the preset thickness (emphases added)” as recited on lines 9-12, because (a) Applicants used the word “growth” only once and only in paragraph [0066] of current application, (b) however, Applicants did not originally disclose that the sensitivity adjusts “the bias power according to the growth” as recited in the newly added limitation recited on lines 10-11 of the amended claim 1, which also appears to be ungrammatical, and (c) in addition, Applicants did not originally disclose the phrase “adjusting the bias power according to the growth” for “A method of processing a workpiece” or a single workpiece as recited in the preamble of claim 1 since (i) as discussed above, Applicants originally used the word “growth” only once in a context completely distinct from the phrase “adjusting the bias power according to the growth”, and (ii) Applicants did not originally disclose the step of “adjusting the bias power according to the growth” for “A method of processing a workpiece” or a single workpiece as a single method of processing a single workpiece that Applicants originally disclosed involves using a single bias power rather than adjusted bias power after employing “the bias power.”
(2) Also regarding claim 1, as previously discussed in the Final Office Action mailed November 21, 2025, Applicants did not originally disclose the limitation “forming the oxide layer comprises selecting a pressure in the chamber to control a sensitivity of a thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power … to thereby achieve the preset thickness (emphasis added)” recited on lines 9-12, because (a) Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0008] of current application that “In a specific example of the present disclosure, the sensitivity is a slope value of the thickness of the oxide layer versus at least one parameter of the bias power, the pressure of the mixture, and the time of the flushing process (emphasis added)“, (b) therefore, the claimed sensitivity recited on line 10 of claim 1 is the slope value of the graph illustrated below,
PNG
media_image1.png
256
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) however, the slope value of the graph shown in Fig. 3B of current application can only be determined when a plurality of bias powers were used for a single pressure in the chamber rather than a single bias power, which is recited in claim 1, i.e. “a bias power” recited on line 6 of claim 1, since one cannot determine a slope value of a graph using a single data point in mathematics, (d) however, the limitation “forming the oxide layer comprises selecting a pressure in the chamber to control a sensitivity of a thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power … to thereby achieve the preset thickness (emphasis added)” recited on lines 9-12 implies that the sensitivity of the thickness of the oxide layer is controlled by selecting a single pressure, which Applicants did not originally disclose since under a certain pressure and at a bias power, for example of 100 watts indicated below, there would correspond to an infinite number of sensitivities, or slope values, of the thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power of the single value of 100 watts as an infinite number of sloped lines can pass through the point corresponding to the bias power of 100 watts, two of which are additionally plotted together with a third slope value corresponding to Applicants’ originally disclosed slope value,
PNG
media_image2.png
256
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and (e) therefore, Applicants did not originally disclose the limitation “forming the oxide layer comprises selecting a pressure in the chamber to control a sensitivity of a thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power … to thereby achieve the preset thickness (emphasis added)” recited on lines 9-12 since a single pressure in conjunction with a single bias power would not correspond to any one sensitivity of the thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power unless the claimed method is performed multiple times with multiple bias powers, which is not directed to the claimed method.
(3) Further regarding claim 1, Applicants did not originally disclose “selecting a pressure in the chamber to control a sensitivity of a thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power … to thereby achieve the preset thickness (emphasis added)” recited on lines 9-12, because (a) the step of achieving the preset thickness has nothing to do with the claimed step of controlling the sensitivity of the thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power since as discussed above, determining or controlling the sensitivity of the thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power that Applicants originally disclosed requires a plurality of experiments based on the claimed method since the claimed method is directed to a single method employing a single pressure and a single bias power to form a single oxide layer, (b) therefore, only after the oxide layer having the preset thickness is formed, one would be able to obtain one data point, and then one needs to perform the claimed methods a plurality of times to figure out what the claimed “sensitivity of a thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power” would be rather than “selecting a pressure in the chamber to control a sensitivity of a thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power … to thereby achieve the preset thickness (emphasis added)”, and (c) in other words, the newly added limitation is a process that is opposite to what Applicants originally disclosed.
Claims 3-5, 7, 8, 11 and 12 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 3-5, 7, 8, 11 and 12 also fail to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 11 and 12 are 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.
(1) Regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the claimed invention is, because (a) there is a discrepancy between the preamble of claim 1 and the claim body, (b) in other words, Applicants claim “A method for processing a workpiece (emphasis added)” or a single workpiece in the preamble, but Applicants also claim “forming the oxide layer comprises selecting a pressure in the chamber to control a sensitivity of a thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power, the sensitivity being growth of the oxide layer per unit bias power and adjusting the bias power according to the growth to thereby achieve the preset thickness (emphases added)” as recited on lines 9-12, which appears to be directed to a method where the oxide layer is formed with a plurality of adjusted bias powers since, when there is only one bias power employed for one formation of one oxide layer, there would not be any additional step of “adjusting bias power according to the growth” as recited in the newly added limitation, and (c) therefore, the amended claim 1 appears to be directed two distinct methods, i.e. one method for processing a single workpiece and another method of adjusting bias powers for processing a plurality of workpieces, rather than a single “method for processing a workpiece”, which may fail to comply with the 35 USC 101 requirement since the amended claim 1 is directed to two distinct methods rather than a single method.
(2) Also regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “the sensitivity being growth of the oxide layer per unit bias power” recited on lines 10-11 refers to, because (a) it is not clear what the “growth of the oxide layer” refers to since the word “growth” is an abstract word that may or may not be quantified unambiguously; for example, it is not clear what “growth” of a child would imply since “growth” of a child may suggest an increase in height, an increase in weight, an increase in intellectual capacity, an increase in wisdom, an increase in social relationship, etc., (b) in this case, it is not clear whether the phrase “growth of the oxide layer” refers to an increase in thickness of the oxide layer, an increase in lateral dimensions of the oxide layer, an increase in volume of the oxide layer, an increase in mass of the oxide layer, or simply a phenomenon of the oxide layer growing or enlarging, (c) it is also not clear what the limitation “per unit bias power” refers to since for Applicants to claim “per unit bias power”, Applicants first need to claim what the unit is, and (d) furthermore, it is not clear whether the limitation “per unit bias power” suggests that the bias power is applied in a discrete or incremental manner since a continuously applied bias power would not have any associated “unit bias power”.
(3) Further regarding claim 1, it is not clear whether the limitation “forming the oxide layer comprises selecting a pressure in the chamber to control a sensitivity of a thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power, the sensitivity being growth of the oxide layer per unit bias power and adjusting the bias power according to the growth to thereby achieve the preset thickness (emphases added)” recited on lines 9-12 suggests that a plurality of bias powers are applied, because (a) it appears that Applicants claim that the oxide layer is formed by using “the bias power”, and then “the bias power” is adjusted “according to the growth”, which require at least two bias powers, and (b) however, as discussed above under 35 USC 112(a) rejections, Applicants did not originally disclose such “A method for processing a workpiece” or a single workpiece that employs two or more bias powers.
(4) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what “the growth” recited in the limitation “forming the oxide layer comprises selecting a pressure in the chamber to control a sensitivity of a thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power, the sensitivity being growth of the oxide layer per unit bias power and adjusting the bias power according to the growth to thereby achieve the preset thickness (emphases added)” recited on lines 9-12 suggests, because (a) as discussed above, the word “growth” can be directed to a plurality of phenomena as well as being an abstract concept, and (b) if arguendo Applicants had meant to claim a thickness of the oxide layer with “the growth”, the limitation is logically incorrect since (i) when “the growth” is the final thickness of the oxide layer or the preset thickness of the oxide layer, “growth of the oxide layer per unit bias power” recited on lines 10-11 does not make sense, and (ii) when “the growth” is an intermediate thickness of an intermediate oxide layer for forming the oxide layer, one would not adjust “the bias power according to the growth” or according to the intermediate oxide layer thickness, which Applicants did not originally disclose, either.
(5) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “to control a sensitivity of a thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power” recited on lines 9-10 suggests, because (a) it is not clear what the verb “to control” means since the verb “to control” usually has a connotation of controlling a plurality of parameters, events or circumstances, etc., (b) however, as discussed above under 35 USC 112(a) rejections, Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0008] of current application that “In a specific example of the present disclosure, the sensitivity is a slope value of the thickness of the oxide layer versus at least one parameter of the bias power, the pressure of the mixture, and the time of the flushing process (emphasis added)“, (c) therefore, unless the claimed method is performed a plurality of times with a plurality of bias powers, while the pressure is kept constant, one would not be able to know what the claimed “sensitivity of a thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power” refers to, and (d) in that case, the limitation “to control a sensitivity of a thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power” recited on lines 9-10 should imply that the sensitivity of the thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power is inherently selected or achieved to be a single value when one bias power is applied and the pressure in the chamber is a single pressure since otherwise the amended claim 1 would be further indefinite for one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know what “a sensitivity of a thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power” recited on lines 9-10 refers to for the claimed single method, and how it is controlled in the single method.
Claims 3-5, 7, 8, 11 and 12 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 3-5, 7, 8, 11 and 12 are also indefinite.
(6) Regarding claim 4, it is not clear whether “a slope value” sensitivity of the thickness of the oxide layer can be measured while performing “A method for processing a workpiece” or a single workpiece, because (a) it appears that for one to measure the slope value sensitivity of the thickness of the oxide layer, one needs to perform a method that is distinct from “A method for processing a workpiece” or a single workpiece recited in the preamble of claim 1, and (b) in this case, as discussed above, claim 4 would fail to comply with the 35 USC 101 requirement since what is claimed in claim 4 is not exactly related to “A method of processing a workpiece” or a single workpiece, but rather, claim 4 is directed to a conflation of two distinct methods as discussed above.
(7) Regarding claim 5, it is not clear whether claim limitation of claim 5 is determined while performing “A method for processing a workpiece” or a single workpiece, or whether a plurality of workpieces should be processed for claim limitation of claim 5 for the same reasons stated above. Claim 8 depends on claim 5, and therefore, claim 8 is also indefinite.
(8) Regarding claim 8, it is not clear whether claim 8 is determined while performing “A method for processing a workpiece” or a single workpiece as recited in the preamble of claim 1, because it appears that the process steps recited in claim 8 requires processing a plurality of workpieces for measurement of the claimed first and second sensitivities.
(9) Regarding claim 12, it is not clear how the bias power can be proportional to the preset thickness, and how this relationship can be determined unambiguously, because (a) as discussed above, what Applicants claim is “A method for processing a workpiece” or a single workpiece as recited in the preamble of claim 1, (b) in this case, “a preset thickness” recited on line 7 of claim 1 should refer to a single preset thickness since a plurality of oxide layers having a plurality of thicknesses cannot be formed by “A method for processing a workpiece” or a single workpiece, and (c) when one has only one preset thickness in a single workpiece, one cannot unambiguously determine whether there is any proportional relationship between the bias power and the preset thickness; for example, if the bias power is 100 watts and the preset thickness is 2 nm, is there is proportional relationship between these two values?
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11 and 12, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabe et al. (US 8,389,420)
In the below prior art rejections, the limitations recited on lines 9-12 of the amended claim 1 are not given a patentable weight, because the limitations fail to comply with the written description requirement and are indefinite as discussed above.
Regarding claim 1, Kabe et al. disclose a method for processing a workpiece (60 in Fig. 4A; wafer W in Fig. 1), comprising: placing the workpiece on a workpiece support (2 in Fig. 1; mounting table) in a chamber (1 in Fig. 1; processing chamber), wherein the workpiece comprises a substrate (wafer W), a portion of the substrate is exposed, because the top surface of the wafer W in Fig. 1 is exposed, while the bottom surface of the wafer W in Fig. 1 is in contact with the electrode 42 or the mounting table 2 in Fig. 1; performing a flushing process on the workpiece by exposing the workpiece to a plasma (Oxygen-containing Plasma in Fig. 4A) generated from a processing gas (oxygen-containing gas), because (a) Applicants do not specifically claim what the “flushing” process does, (b) Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0045] of current application that “The flushing process is the last step in an etching process, such as a plasma etching process”, that “In some examples, a plasma of oxygen (O2) or a plasma obtained after mixing oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2) can be used to remove organic polymers such as photoresist that are not completely etched away in the etching step”, (c) therefore, the claimed “flushing” process can be interpreted to be a process including an oxygen plasma or an oxygen and nitrogen plasma that may also involve an unspecified amount of etching and/or cleaning, (d) if Applicants had intended to claim that the “flushing” process removes a photoresist, then claim 1 would be indefinite since Applicants do not claim any process step involving a photoresist, i.e. Applicants do not claim an essential or critical feature to the practice of the claimed invention if the “flushing” process involves removing a photoresist that Applicants do not claim in claim 1 in the first place, and (e) the Oxygen-containing Plasma shown in Fig. 4A of Kabe et al. would remove certain surface atoms, impurities and/or contaminants since the ions and electrons constituting the Oxygen-containing Plasma has a kinetic energy to be able to knock off certain surface atoms, impurities and/or contaminants, not to mention oxidizing the surface of the wafer 60, which can be referred to as a “flushing” process; and applying a bias power (RF Bias) via a bias electrode (42) arranged under the workpiece support during the flushing process, because this limitation is at best directed to an intended use of the bias electrode, to form an oxide layer (70 in Fig. 4B; silicon oxide film) (col. 9, line 32) to a preset thickness (col. 11, lines 1-4) on the portion of the substrate.
Kabe et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the preset thickness is in a range of 20 angstroms to 40 angstroms.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the preset thickness can be in the claimed range, because (a) Kabe et al. disclose a preset thickness range of “2 nm to 15 nm, preferably, 4 nm to 10 nm”, which overlaps with the claimed range of the preset thickness, and (b) the preset thickness should be controlled and selected depending on a semiconductor device manufactured on the oxide layer having the preset thickness to optimize such parameters as a capacitance, a dielectric constant, an insulating characteristic and a diffusion barrier property.
Regarding claims 3-5, Kabe et al. further disclose that the bias power (RF Bias in Fig. 4A) inherently fluences the mixture (mixture of ions and electrons in Oxygen-containing Plasma in Fig. 4A) in the chamber to affect a flow of the mixture in the chamber, because the RF Bias would apply an electric field that controls a flow of the mixture of ions and electrons in the Oxygen-containing Plasma (claim 3), the sensitivity is a slope value of the thickness of the oxide layer versus at least one parameter of the bias power, the pressure of the mixture, and the duration of the flushing process, because (a) this limitation is indefinite as discussed above, and (b) if claim limitation of claim 4 is directed to a single “method for processing a workpiece” or a single workpiece, Kabe et al. would inherently disclose this claimed feature since Kabe et al disclose all the claim limitations of claims 1 and 2 (claim 4), and the pressure inherently affects the sensitivity of the thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power, because (a) this limitation is indefinite as discussed above, and (b) if claim limitation of claim 5 is directed to a single “method for processing a workpiece” or a single workpiece, Kabe et al. would inherently disclose this claimed feature since Kabe et al disclose all the claim limitations of claims 1 and 2 (claim 5).
Regarding claim 7, Kabe et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the pressure is in a range of about 5 mTorr (mt) to about 90 mt.
Kabe et al. further disclose that the pressure is in a range of 1.3 Pa, which is 9.75 mTorr, to 266.6 Pa, which is 1.9995 Torr (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the pressure can be in a range of about 5 mTorr (mt) to about 90 mt, because (a) the claimed pressure overlaps with the pressure range disclosed by Kabe et al., and (b) the pressure should be controlled and optimized to obtain an oxide layer having a high quality and a desired thickness.
Regarding claim 11, Kabe et al. differ from the claimed invention that the bias power is in a range of about 50 watts to about 200 watts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the bias power can be in the claimed range, because the bias power should be controlled and optimized to obtain an oxide layer having a high quality and a desired thickness.
Regarding claim 12, Kabe et al. further disclose that the bias power is proportional to the preset thickness, because (a) this limitation is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, and (b) since there is only one resultant oxide layer thickness in “A method for processing a workpiece” or a single workpiece, the bias power can be said to be proportional to the preset thickness by assuming an arbitrary relationship between the bias power and the preset thickness.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, especially because the amended claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement and is indefinite as discussed above.
Applicants’ arguments on pages 6-7 of the REMARKS traversing the 35 USC 112(b) rejections are not persuasive, because (a) it appears that Applicants do not understand the major issues with claim 1, i.e. while Applicants claim “A method for processing a workpiece” or a single workpiece in the preamble, Applicants argue as if the claimed invention is directed to measuring the claimed sensitivity of the thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power, which requires a plurality of methods for processing a plurality of workpieces, see the illustration below, (b) in other words, Fig. 3B of current application shows four values of bias powers corresponding to four different methods for processing four workpieces with each method involving different values of a bias power, and only when the four different methods are performed, the alleged sensitivity of the thickness of the oxide layer to the bias power may be deduced by a mathematical simulation, (c) if the Examiner may provide an analogy, Applicants’ arguments are akin to arguments that, after many years of research an inventor develops a semiconductor device, and then the inventor claims the semiconductor device based on the many years of research, and if the prior art reference does not teach the many years of research that the inventor has done, even a same semiconductor device disclosed by the prior art reference does not read on the claimed invention, (d) in addition, Applicants do not claim whether all of the plurality of workpieces are processed in exactly the same way except for the bias power, (e) the claimed preset thickness in the claimed range of 20 angstroms to 40 angstroms cannot be sensitive to the bias power since this would suggest that the claimed preset thickness may only be in a thought process that can be changed mentally according to the bias power, and (f) as discussed above under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections, the amended claim 1 basically claims that the oxide layer is formed by using a plurality of bias powers, which Applicants did not originally disclose.
PNG
media_image3.png
258
422
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yan et al. (US 11,387,115)
Collins et al. (US 2016/0276134)
Chen et al. (US 2015/0079797)
Zhang et al. (US 10,950,416)
Li et al. (US 10,170,336)
Kim et al. (US 9,903,020)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached on (571) 270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/J. K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights