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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/16/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi et al. (JP 2016-207789 A; translation attached to Office action mailed on 2/8/2024) in view of Pischtiak et al. (US 2009/0068844 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kawaguchi discloses a method of forming selenium-containing layers within a chamber (see PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED).
Kawaguchi does not disclose a separate selenium removal step.
Pischtiak, in the same field of endeavor, discloses removing deposits that have been built up in deposition apparatuses by reacting, without plasma (“plasma-free”, ¶ 0009), the deposit with a cleaning gas consisting of fluorine and an inert gas wherein the chamber is substantially free of any other gas (“fluorine and one or more inert gases”, ¶ 0008),
wherein the cleaning gas is brought into contact with the deposit under conditions of a temperature of from 350°C to 800°C (¶ 0009).
There was a benefit to such a removal step in that it cleans the interior of the apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the Application was filed to use the cleaning gas of Pischtiak to remove any selenium-containing deposits on the inner surface of the chamber of Kawaguchi for this benefit.
Regarding claim 2, Pischtiak discloses the processing conditions for the removal involve bringing the cleaning gas into contact with the deposits to a pressure within the claimed range (¶ 0022 and 0025).
Regarding claim 4, Pischtiak discloses that the fluorine-containing compound gas is fluorine gas (¶ 0008).
Regarding claim 5, Kawaguchi discloses a film deposition method comprising:
a passivation step of supplying a passivation gas containing a selenium-containing compound gas to a chamber housing a substrate and reacting the substrate with the passivation gas to deposit a passivation film on a surface of the substrate (see PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED).
Kawaguchi does not disclose a separate selenium removal step.
Pischtiak, in the same field of endeavor, discloses removing deposits that have been built up in deposition apparatuses by reacting, without plasma (“plasma-free”, ¶ 0009), the deposit with a cleaning gas consisting of fluorine and an inert gas wherein the chamber is substantially free of any other gas (“fluorine and one or more inert gases”, ¶ 0008),
wherein the cleaning gas is brought into contact with the deposit under conditions of a temperature of from 350°C to 800°C (¶ 0009).
There was a benefit to such a removal step in that it cleans the interior of the apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the Application was filed to use the cleaning gas of Pischtiak to remove any selenium-containing deposits on the inner surface of the chamber of Kawaguchi for this benefit.
Regarding claim 6, Kawaguchi discloses that the selenium-containing compound gas is hydrogen selenide gas (see PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED).
Regarding claim 8, Pischtiak discloses that the fluorine-containing compound gas is fluorine gas (¶ 0008).
Regarding claim 9, Kawaguchi discloses a film deposition method comprising:
a passivation step of supplying a passivation gas containing a selenium-containing compound gas to a chamber housing a substrate and reacting the substrate with the passivation gas to deposit a passivation film on a surface of the substrate (see PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED).
Kawaguchi does not disclose a separate selenium removal step.
Pischtiak, in the same field of endeavor, discloses removing deposits that have been built up in deposition apparatuses by reacting, without plasma (“plasma-free”, ¶ 0009), the deposit with a cleaning gas consisting of fluorine and an inert gas wherein the chamber is substantially free of any other gas (“fluorine and one or more inert gases”, ¶ 0008),
wherein the cleaning gas is brought into contact with the deposit under conditions of a temperature of from 350°C to 800°C (¶ 0009).
There was a benefit to such a removal step in that it cleans the interior of the apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the Application was filed to use the cleaning gas of Pischtiak to remove any selenium-containing deposits on the inner surface of the chamber of Kawaguchi for this benefit.
Pischtiak further discloses the processing conditions for the removal involve bringing the cleaning gas into contact with the deposits to a pressure within the claimed range (¶ 0022 and 0025).
Regarding claim 11, Kawaguchi discloses a film deposition method comprising:
a passivation step of supplying a passivation gas containing a selenium-containing compound gas to a chamber housing a substrate and reacting the substrate with the passivation gas to deposit a passivation film on a surface of the substrate (see PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED).
Kawaguchi does not disclose a separate selenium removal step.
Pischtiak, in the same field of endeavor, discloses removing deposits that have been built up in deposition apparatuses by reacting, without plasma (“plasma-free”, ¶ 0009), the deposit with a cleaning gas consisting of fluorine and an inert gas wherein the chamber is substantially free of any other gas (“fluorine and one or more inert gases”, ¶ 0008),
wherein the cleaning gas is brought into contact with the deposit under conditions of a temperature of from 350°C to 800°C (¶ 0009).
There was a benefit to such a removal step in that it cleans the interior of the apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the Application was filed to use the cleaning gas of Pischtiak to remove any selenium-containing deposits on the inner surface of the chamber of Kawaguchi for this benefit.
Pischtiak further discloses that the fluorine-containing compound gas is fluorine gas (¶ 0008).
Regarding claim 12, Kawaguchi discloses that the selenium-containing compound gas is hydrogen selenide gas (see PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED).
Regarding claim 14, Kawaguchi discloses that the selenium-containing compound gas is hydrogen selenide gas (see PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED).
Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi in view of Pischtiak as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Lai et al. (US 2007/0246062 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Pischtiak differs from the claimed invention by the substitution of a cleaning gas consisting of a fluorine-containing compound gas with a fluorine-containing compound gas combined with an insert gas. However, a cleaning gas consisting of a fluorine-containing compound gas and the corresponding function was known in the art (¶ 0020 of Lai). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have substituted the known cleaning gas consisting of a fluorine-containing compound gas as taught by Lai for cleaning gas of Pischtiak and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 20, Lai further discloses that the cleaning gas consists of fluorine gas (“fluorine” in ¶ 0020).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 10/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8-12, 14, 16, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive as the previously relied upon references did not disclose a plasma-free process. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Pischtiak, as discussed in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 at (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.
/CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights