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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Feb 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 10 Feb 2026.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 1, 12, 15, 21, 23, 24, 31-36 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 15, 21, 24 are amended. Claims 2, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16-20, 22, 25-30 are canceled. Claims 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 are new.
Claim Objections
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a second kinetic energy than the first kinetic energy” should read as “a second kinetic energy higher than the first kinetic energy” to correct for typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required
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.
Claim 28 and 29 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, is/are withdrawn in light of cancellation of the claims in Applicant’s amendments filed 10 Feb 2026.
However, Applicant’s amendments filed 10 Feb 2026 has necessitated new rejections under U.S.C. 112(a) as further discussed below.
Claim 32 and 35 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 claim(s) contains 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 inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 32, limitation “further comprising a second chamber connected to the first chamber, wherein: the wafer holder is a first wafer holder; and the second chamber comprises: a second wafer holder, and a connector configured to connect the first chamber to the second chamber and to transfer the wafer between the first chamber and the second chamber without breaking a vacuum, wherein a width of the connector is narrower than a width of the second wafer holder” does not have sufficient support in the original disclosure filed 21 March 2022. Examiner explains that claim 32 appears to recite features of the embodiment including the connector 336 is disclosed in original Specification para. [0036] and Fig. 3A and 3B. Additionally, claim 32 depends on claim 1 which requires the shower head directly connected to a first gas line, and wherein the first gas line is configured to flow a surface modification gas and a cleaning gas; and a plate configured to generate radicals from the plasma of the cleaning gas. However, the embodiment claimed in claim 1 appears to be referring to Fig. 1 which is a mutually exclusive embodiment from claim 32 and Fig. 3A and 3B embodiments since Fig. 3A and 3B embodiment does not require the shower head directly connected to a first gas line, and wherein the first gas line is configured to flow a surface modification gas and a cleaning gas. Examiner further explains in Fig. 3A and 3B embodiment the shower head 103 is configured to deliver the surface modification gas and a separate gas line with a valve is configured to flow the cleaning gas (see original Specification para. [0036]-[0037]). Additionally, the plate 332 in Fig. 3A and 3B para. [0037] embodiment is not configured to generate radicals from the plasma of the cleaning gas as required in claim 1 limitations. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot conclude the Applicant had possession of a system comprising the limitations of claim 1 and claim 32.
Regarding claim 35, limitation “wherein the plate is connected to a DC power supply configured to hold the plate at a negative bias from about -1 volt to about -9 volts” does not have sufficient support in the original disclose. Examiner explains original Specification para. [0032],[0045], [0049] has support for a range of -1 volt to -500 volt but not for the narrower range of -1 volt to about -9 volts. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot conclude the Applicant had possession of a system claimed in claim 35.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 (and dependent claims 3-8), 3, 5, 9 (and dependent claims 11-12, 15, 27, 29), 21 (and dependent claims 22-25, 30), 27, 28 is/are rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, discussed in the final rejection of 10 Nov 2025 is/are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
However, Applicant’s amendments filed 10 Feb 2026 has necessitated new rejections under U.S.C. 112(b) as further discussed below.
Claim 9 (and dependent claims 11, 23, 15, 35) , 31, (and dependent claims 33, 34) 32, 33 (dependent claim 34) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for limitation “the first chamber” (claim 9 line 10). Additionally, it is unclear if “the first chamber” is the same or different from “a chamber” recited in claim 9 line 2.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets “the first chamber” (claim 9 line 10) as “the chamber.
In light of the above, dependent claims 11, 23, 15, 35 are also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claim 9.
Regarding claim 31, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for limitation “the second radicals” (claim 31 second to last line). Examiner notes that claim 1, on which claim 31 depends, recites “the radicals.”
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the above discussed limitation as “the radicals.”
In light of the above, dependent claim 33 and 34 are also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claim 31.
Regarding claim 32, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for limitation “the first chamber” (claim 32 line 1-2).
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets claim 32 line 1-2 as “wherein the chamber comprises a first chamber and further comprising a second chamber connected to the first chamber, wherein.”
Regarding claim 33, limitation “the metal oxide layer has a depth from about 3Å to about 10Å following the surface modification cycle” is unclear and confusing since it implies that the thickness/depth of the metal oxide layer has changed but the modification step is not understood to change the thickness of the metal oxide layer in the context of the disclosure. It is unclear what would meet this claim limitation.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the above discussed limitation in light of original Specification para. [0046] as “ a depth from 3Å to about 10Å of the metal oxide layer is modified.”
In light of the above, dependent claim 34 is also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claim 33.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 9, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 21, 23, 24, 31, 33, 34, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky (US 2018/0096821 A1 hereinafter “Lubomirsky ‘821”) in view of Treadwell et al. (US 2017/0200586 A1 hereinafter “Treadwell”), and Fischer et al. (US 2019/0157105 A1 hereinafter “Fischer”).
Independent claim rejections:
Regarding independent claim 1, Lubomirsky '821 teaches a system (comprising process chamber system 200, Fig. 2, para. [0035]), comprising:
a wafer holder (comprising chuck 250, Fig. 2) in a chamber (comprising 200 including chamber wall 240, Fig. 2) configured to hold a wafer (comprising 202, Fig. 2);
a shower head (comprising flow distributor or baffle 215, Fig. 2, para. [0039]) on a top surface (i.e. a ceiling surface/surface of 205, Fig. 2) of the chamber(comprising 200, Fig. 2), a first gas line (comprising 224, Fig. 2) connected to the shower head (comprising 215, Fig. 2) and wherein the first gas line is configured to flow a surface modification gas (para. [0041] discloses use of nitrogen fluoride gas) and a cleaning gas (para. [0039] discloses argon and para. [0041] discloses hydrogen);
a plasma generator (comprising 208 and/or 228, Fig. 2) configured to generate a plasma of the gas in the chamber (comprising 200, Fig. 2) (para. [0040]);
a plate (comprising second showerhead 210, Fig. 2, para. [0039]) configured to generate radicals from the plasma of the cleaning gas (para. [0042]); and
a second gas line (comprising gas feed line 223, Fig. 2, para. [0039]) wherein: the second gas line is connected to the chamber and a vapor (comprising a different gas from the gas distribution system 290, Fig. 2, para. [0041]).
Lubomirsky ‘821 does not explicitly teach: the wafer has metal oxide; wherein the shower head is directly connected to a first gas line; the plasma generator is configured to generate a plasma of the surface modification gas or a plasma of the cleaning gas; the second gas line comprises a valve, the second gas line is connected to the chamber and the vapor via the valve; the valve is configured to control a gas flow of the vapor across the wafer for a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide; and the radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction.
However, Treadwell teaches a system for etching a substrate (comprising substrate processing chamber 100, Fig. 1, para. [0033]) including a shower head (comprising gas injector 142, Fig. 1, 4, 5, para. [0039], [0047]) on a top surface of the chamber (comprising 100, Fig. 1), wherein the shower head (comprising 142, Fig. 1, 4, 5) is directly connected to a first gas line (comprising line connecting gas delivery system 150 to showerhead/gas injector 142, Fig. 1; comprising a conduit connected to 342, Fig. 4, 5; para. [0050]). Treadwell teaches that such a configuration enables flowing two or more separate gases through one injector/showerhead(para. [0044]-[0045], [0054]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the shower head (comprising 215, Fig. 2) to be directly connected to a first gas line because Treadwell teaches this is a known suitable alternative gas showerhead configuration that would enable flowing two or more separate gases through one injector/showerhead (para. [0044]-[0045], [0054]).
Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell as applied above does not explicitly teach the wafer has metal oxide; the plasma generator is configured to generate a plasma of the surface modification gas or a plasma of the cleaning gas; the second gas line comprises a valve, the second gas line is connected to the chamber and the vapor via the valve; the valve is configured to control a gas flow of the vapor across the wafer for a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide; and the radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction.
However, Fischer teaches plasma-assisted etching of a wafer having a metal oxide (para. [0045], see Fig. 5, see also para. [0070]-[0092]). Fischer teaches that the etching of the metal oxide comprises flowing/delivering of a surface modification gas (i.e. fluorine containing plasma step 501, Fig. 5, para. [0071]) at a first time, then flowing/delivering of a second/cleaning gas (i.e. hydrogen plasma, see step 505, Fig. 5, para. [0087]) at a second time after the first time (see Fig. 5). Fischer additionally teaches generating a plasma of the surface modification gas and/or plasma of the cleaning gas (see Fig. 5, para. [0071],[0087], claim 13). Fischer further teaches a vaporizer (Fig. 4A-4C) configured to provide a precursor/vapor to the wafer for a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide (Fig. 4A-4C, abstract, para. [0015], [0063], [0067]; see step 503, Fig. 5, para. [0081]) modified by the plasma of the surface modification gas (i.e. fluorine-containing plasma, see step 501 in Fig. 5, para. [0071]), wherein etch selectivity is achievable depending on the pre-cursor utilized (para. [0062]) and wherein the precursor is not turned into plasma (para. [0067]). Fischer teaches that such a process enables plasma-assisted etching of a metal oxide (abstract; para. [0070]-[0092]). Fischer additionally teaches a system controller (comprising 1623, Fig. 16) for controlling the operation of the chamber/apparatus including gas flow (para. [0128]).
Additionally, Treadwell teaches providing a gas line (comprising a gas line connected to 125, Fig. 1, para. [0035]) connected to the chamber (comprising 100 including 102, Fig. 1) (comprising 100 including 102, Fig. 1) and a vapor (i.e. a gas source of the gas delivery system 150, Fig. 1 and 2) via the valve (comprising a corresponding one of valves 232-1 to 232-P or MFCs 234-1 to 234-P, i.e. 232-1 or 234-1, Fig. 2) (para. [0045]). Treadwell teaches that such a configuration enables controlling the gas flow rate and gas mixture of the process gases delivered into the chamber (para. [0044]-[0045], [0054]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a wafer having a metal oxide, provide a vapor (i.e. select a gas/vapor source such as those disclosed in Fischer) for a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide, configuring the plasma generator to generate a plasma of the surface modification gas or a plasma of the cleaning gas; configure the second line to include a valve the second gas line (Lubomirsky '821: comprising 223, Fig. 2) connected to the chamber and the vapor via the valve; configure the valve to control a gas flow of the vapor across the wafer for the ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide {for example, provide an additional valve in view of teachings of Treadwell and configure the system of modified Lubomirsky ‘821 to perform the method/process disclosed in Fischer} because Fischer teaches providing a wafer having a metal oxide, selecting a gas/vapor source for a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide, and generating a plasma of the surface modification gas and/or plasma of the cleaning gas enables the system to perform a method/process such as plasma-assisted etching of a metal oxide on the wafer (Fischer: Fig. 5, abstract, para. [0015], [0062][0063], [0067]) and because Treadwell teaches providing a second gas line connected to the chamber and a vapor via the valve enables controlling the gas flow rate of the process gases delivered into the chamber (Treadwell: para. [0044]-[0045], [0054]).
Regarding limitation "the radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction," since Lubomirsky '821 teaches the plate is configured to generate radicals for the plasma of the cleaning gas (Lubomirsky '821: para. [0039]-[0042] discloses argon or hydrogen; Fischer teaches argon: para. [0070]-[0072]) and the gas disclosed in Lubomirsky '821 is the same gas as disclosed in the instant application (i.e. para. [0048] of instant invention discloses argon or hydrogen) and since the combination of Lubomirksy '821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer as applied above teaches all of the structural limitations and additionally teach ligand exchange reaction, the system of the same is considered capable of meeting or would obviously meet the limitation "the radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction."
Additionally/alternatively, limitation “the radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction” is/are intended use limitations. Since Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer teaches all of the structural limitations of claims 9 as applied above including a plasma generator and additionally teaches argon gas which is the same gas as that disclosed in the instant application [0030], the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use/functional limitations.
Regarding independent claim 9, Lubomirsky '821 teaches a system (comprising process chamber system 200, Fig. 2, para. [0035]), comprising:
a chamber (comprising 200 including chamber wall 240, Fig. 2) comprising:
a wafer holder (comprising chuck 250, Fig. 2) configured to hold a (comprising 202, Fig. 2);
a plasma generator (comprising 208 and/or 228, Fig. 2) configured to generate a plasma of the gas in the chamber (comprising 200, Fig. 2) (para. [0040]); and
a plate (comprising 210, Fig. 2) configured to generate radicals from the plasma (para. [0042]);
a first gas line (comprising 224, Fig. 2) connected to a shower head (comprising flow distributor or baffle 215, Fig. 2, para. [0039]) wherein the shower head (comprising 214, Fig. 2) is disposed on a top surface (i.e. a ceiling surface/surface of 205, Fig. 2) of the chamber (comprising 200 including chamber wall 240, Fig. 2), wherein the first gas line (comprising 224, Fig. 2) is connected to the surface modification gas/a first gas and the cleaning gas/a second gas (para. [0039]-[0041]; (para. [0041] discloses use of nitrogen fluoride gas; para. [0039] discloses argon and para. [0041] discloses hydrogen); and
a second gas line (comprising 223, Fig. 2), wherein:
the second gas line (comprising 223, Fig. 2) is connected to the chamber and a vapor (i.e. a different gas source in gas distribution system 290, Fig. 2) (para. [0039]-[0041]).
Lubomirksky ‘821 does not clearly and explicitly teach the wafer has a metal oxide; the plasma generator is configured to generate a first plasma from a surface modification gas and a second plasma from a cleaning gas, wherein the second plasma comprises first radicals with a first kinetic energy and the plate is configured to generate second radicals from the second plasma, wherein the second radicals comprise a second kinetic energy higher than the first kinetic energy; the first gas line is connected directly to the shower head; the first gas line is connected to the surface modification gas via a first valve and the cleaning gas via a second valve; the second gas line is connected to the chamber via a third valve, the third valve is configured to control a gas flow of the vapor across the wafer for a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide, and the second radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction.
However, Treadwell teaches a system for etching a substrate (comprising substrate processing chamber 100, Fig. 1, para. [0033]) including a shower head (comprising gas injector 142, Fig. 1, 4, 5, para. [0039], [0047]) on a top surface of the chamber (comprising 100, Fig. 1), wherein the shower head (comprising 142, Fig. 1, 4, 5) is directly connected to a first gas line (comprising line connecting gas delivery system 150 to showerhead/gas injector 142, Fig. 1; comprising a conduit connected to 342, Fig. 4, 5; para. [0050]) and the first gas line has a first portion (comprising one of gas channels 208-1 to 208Q, i.e. gas channel 208-1, Fig. 2) connected to a first gas source (comprising one of gas sources 210-1 to 210-N, i.e. 210-1, Fig. 2) via first valve (comprising a corresponding one of valves 212-1 to 212N or one of MFCs 214 to1-214N, i.e. 212-1 or 214-1, Fig. 2 ), and a second portion (comprising a different one of gas channels 208-1 to 208Q, i.e. gas channel 208-N, Fig. 2) of the first gas line is connected to a second gas source (comprising gas sources 230-1 to 230-P, Fig. 2) via a second valve (comprising a corresponding one of valves 232-1 to 232-P or MFCs 234-1 to 234-P, i.e. 232-1 or 234-1 , Fig. 2) (para. [0045]). Treadwell teaches that such a configuration enables controlling the gas flow rate and gas mixture of the process gases delivered into the chamber and enables flowing two or more separate gases through one injector/showerhead (para. [0044]-[0045], [0054]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the showerhead (Lubomirsky '821: comprising 215, Fig. 2) to be directly connected to the first gas line and to provide a first valve, configure the first gas line to be connected to the surface modification gas (i.e. a first gas) via a first valve, to provide a second valve and configure the first gas line to be connected to the cleaning gas (i.e. second gas) via the second valve because Treadwell teaches that such a configuration enables controlling the gas flow rate and gas mixture of the process gases delivered into the chamber and enables flowing two or more separate gases through one injector/showerhead (para. [0044]-[0045], [0054]).
Lubomirsky '821 in view of Treadwell as applied above does not explicitly teach the wafer has a metal oxide; the plasma generator is configured to generate a first plasma from a surface modification gas and a second plasma from a cleaning gas, wherein the second plasma comprises first radicals with a first kinetic energy and the plate is configured to generate second radicals from the second plasma, wherein the second radicals comprise a second kinetic energy higher than the first kinetic energy; the second gas line is connected to the chamber via a third valve, the third valve is configured to control a gas flow of the vapor across the wafer for a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide, and the second radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction.
However, Fischer teaches plasma-assisted etching of a wafer having a metal oxide (para. [0045], see Fig. 5, see also para. [0070]-[0092]). Fischer teaches that the etching of the metal oxide comprises flowing/delivering of a surface modification gas (i.e. fluorine containing plasma step 501, Fig. 5, para. [0071]) at a first time, then flowing/delivering of a second/cleaning gas (i.e. hydrogen plasma, see step 505, Fig. 5, para. [0087]) at a second time after the first time (see Fig. 5). Fischer additionally teaches generating a first plasma of the surface modification gas and a second plasma of the cleaning gas (see Fig. 5, para. [0071],[0087], claim 13). Fischer further teaches a vaporizer (Fig. 4A-4C) configured to provide a precursor/vapor to the wafer for a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide (Fig. 4A-4C, abstract, para. [0015], [0063], [0067]; see step 503, Fig. 5, para. [0081]) modified by the plasma of the surface modification gas (i.e. fluorine-containing plasma, see step 501 in Fig. 5, para. [0071]), wherein etch selectivity is achievable depending on the pre-cursor utilized (para. [0062]) and wherein the precursor is not turned into plasma (para. [0067]). Fischer teaches that such a process enables plasma-assisted etching of a metal oxide (abstract; para. [0070]-[0092]). Fischer additionally teaches a system controller (comprising 1623, Fig. 16) for controlling the operation of the chamber/apparatus including gas flow (para. [0128]).
Additionally, Treadwell further teaches a gas line (comprising a gas line connected to 125, Fig. 1, para. [0035]) connected to the chamber (comprising 100 including 102, Fig. 1) and a vapor (i.e. a gas source of the gas delivery system 150, Fig. 1 and 2) via the valve/third valve (comprising a corresponding one of valves 232-1 to 232-P or MFCs 234-1 to 234-P, i.e. 232-1 or 234-1, Fig. 2) (para. [0045]). Treadwell teaches that such a configuration enables controlling the gas flow rate and gas mixture of the process gases delivered into the chamber (para. [0044]-[0045], [0054]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a wafer having a metal oxide, provide a vapor (i.e. select a gas/vapor source such as those disclosed in Fischer) for a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide, configuring the plasma generator to generate a first plasma of the surface modification gas and a second plasma of the cleaning gas; configure the second line to include a third valve and configure the second gas line (Lubomirsky '821: comprising 223, Fig. 2) to be connected to the chamber and the vapor via the third valve; configure the third valve to control a gas flow of the vapor across the wafer for the ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide because Fischer teaches providing a wafer having a metal oxide, selecting a gas/vapor source for a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide, and generating a plasma of the surface modification gas and plasma of the cleaning gas enables the system to perform a method/process such as plasma-assisted etching of a metal oxide on the wafer (Fischer: Fig. 5, abstract, para. [0015], [0062][0063], [0067]) and because Treadwell teaches providing a second gas line connected to the chamber and a vapor via the third valve enables controlling the gas flow rate of the process gases delivered into the chamber (Treadwell: para. [0044]-[0045], [0054]).
Lubomirsky '821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer as applied above do not clearly and explicitly teach wherein the second plasma comprises first radicals with a first kinetic energy and the plate is configured to generate second radicals from the second plasma, wherein the second radicals comprise a second kinetic energy higher than the first kinetic energy and the second radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction.
However, Lubomirsky '821 teaches that the plates in the system can be arranged in various configurations and any of the plates can be operated as an electrode in various configurations for producing plasmas and one or more additional showerheads or distributors may be included in the chamber between the first showerhead 225 and the wafer holder (comprising 250, Fig. 2)(para. [0042]). Lubomirsky '821 teaches an embodiment in Fig. 5 including a plate 523 which works with showerhead 515 to generate a plasma in plasma region 533 wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would understand includes ions and radicals and wherein the plate 523 may be connected to ground and filters out the ions to generate second radicals (para. [0055],[0056]).
Examiner notes that instant application para. [0032] and [0048] discloses that the plate 130 is connected to ground and acts to discharge ions and neutralizes ions and form radicals with higher kinetic energies than radicals generated in the plasma region 128 wherein the higher kinetic energies radicals can accelerate the ligand exchange reaction.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the configuration of Lubomirsky '821 Fig. 5 to be capable of generating the second plasma comprises first radicals with a first kinetic energy and the plate is configured to generate second radicals from the second plasma, wherein the second radicals comprise a second kinetic energy higher than the first kinetic energy and the second radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and the plate such that the second plasma comprises first radicals with a first kinetic energy and the plate is configured to generate second radicals from the second plasma, wherein the second radicals comprise a second kinetic energy higher than the first kinetic energy and the second radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction (for example by rearranging/reconfiguring the plates and power supplies in the system of Lubomirsky '821 such as that disclosed in Fig. 5 of Lubomirsky '821) because Lubomirsky '821 teaches adjusting/configuring the plates in the system to provide a desired plasma generation configuration. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the configuration of modified Lubomirsky '821 to be capable of generating the second plasma comprising first radicals with a first kinetic energy and the plate is configured to generate second radicals from the second plasma, wherein the second radicals comprise a second kinetic energy higher than the first kinetic energy because the plate 523 of Lubomirsk '821 is configured to generate plasma, is grounded, and configured to filter out ions (Lubomirsky '821: para. [0055]-[0056]), wherein the instant application para. [0032] and [0048] discloses/substantiates that such a configuration enables producing the higher kinetic energy radicals.
Additionally/alternatively, limitation “the second radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction” is/are intended use limitations. Since Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer teaches all of the structural limitations of claims 9 as applied above including a plasma generator and additionally teaches argon gas which is the same gas as that disclosed in the instant application [0030], the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use/functional limitations.
Regarding independent claim 21, Lubomirsky '821 teaches a system (comprising process chamber system 200, Fig. 2, para. [0035]), comprising:
a chamber (comprising 200 including chamber wall 240, Fig. 2) comprising: a wafer holder (comprising chuck 250, Fig. 2) configured to hold a wafer (comprising substrate 202, Fig. 2)(para. [0035]); and
a shower head (comprising flow distributor or baffle 215, Fig. 2, para. [0039]) above the wafer (comprising 202, Fig. 2);
a first gas line (comprising 224, Fig. 2) connected to the shower head (comprising 215, Fig. 2), wherein the first gas line (comprising 224, Fig. 2) is connected to a surface modification gas, and the showerhead (comprising 214, Fig. 2) is connected to a cleaning gas (para. [0041] discloses use of surface modification gas/first gas nitrogen fluoride gas; discloses a cleaning gas/first gas argon and/or hydrogen and para. [0039], [0041]);
a plasma generator (comprising 208 and/or 228, Fig. 2) configured to generate a plasm from the gas in the chamber (comprising 200, Fig. 2) (para. [0040]);
a plate (comprising 210, Fig. 2) configured to generate radicals from the plasma (para. [0042]);
a third gas line (comprising 223, Fig. 2) connected to the chamber (comprising 240, Fig. 2) to supply a vapor (i.e. a different gas source in gas distribution system 290, Fig. 2) (para. [0039]-[0041]).
Lubomirsky '821 does not explicitly teach the wafer has a metal oxide; a first valve connected to the first gas line and the first valve is configured to flow the surface modification gas at a first time; a second gas line connected to the showerhead wherein the second gas line is connected to a cleaning gas via a second valve and the second valve is configured to flow the cleaning modification gas at a second time after the first time; the plasma generator is configured generate a first plasma from the surface modification gas at the first time and a second plasma from the cleaning gas at the second time, wherein the second plasma comprises first radicals with a first kinetic energy; the plate is configured to generate second radicals from the second plasma, wherein the second radicals comprise a second kinetic energy higher than the first kinetic energy; a third gas line, wherein: the third gas line is connected to the chamber and a vapor via a third valve, the third valve is configured to control a gas flow of the vapor across the wafer for a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide, and the second radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction.
However, Treadwell teaches a system for etching a substrate (comprising substrate processing chamber 100, Fig. 1, para. [0033]) including a shower head (comprising gas injector 142, Fig. 1, 4, 5, para. [0039], [0047]) on a top surface of the chamber (comprising 100, Fig. 1), wherein the shower head (comprising 142, Fig. 1, 4, 5) is directly connected to a first gas line (comprising line connecting gas delivery system 150 to showerhead/gas injector 142, Fig. 1; comprising a conduit connected to 342, Fig. 4, 5; para. [0050]; comprising one of gas channels 208-1 to 208Q, i.e. gas channel 208-1, Fig. 2)) connected to a first gas source (comprising one of gas sources 210-1 to 210-N, i.e. 210-1, Fig. 2) via first valve (comprising a corresponding one of valves 212-1 to 212N or one of MFCs 214 to1-214N, i.e. 212-1 or 214-1, Fig. 2), a second gas line (comprising a different one of gas channels 208-1 to 208Q, i.e. gas channel 208-N, Fig. 2) is connected to a second gas source (comprising gas sources 230-1 to 230-P, Fig. 2) via a second valve (comprising a corresponding one of valves 232-1 to 232-P or MFCs 234-1 to 234-P, i.e. 232-1 or 234-1 , Fig. 2) (para. [0045]), and a third valve (comprising a different one of valves 212-1-212-N, 232-1 to 232-P, Fig. 2) connected to a third gas line (comprising line connecting gas delivery system 150 to 121 or 125, Fig. 1; para. [0034]-[0035]) through a sidewall of the chamber (comprising 100, Fig. 1)(para. [0044]-[0045]). Treadwell teaches that such a configuration enables controlling the gas flow rate and gas mixture of the process gases delivered into the chamber and enables flowing two or more separate gases through one injector/showerhead (para. [0044]-[0045], [0054]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a first valve and configure the shower head to be connected to the first valve connected to the first gas line and the first valve is configured to flow the surface modification gas (Lubomirsky '821: comprising nitrogen fluoride gas, para. [0041]); provide a second gas line connected to the showerhead wherein the second gas line is connected to a cleaning gas (Lubomirsky'821: comprising gas source in gas distribution system 290 including argon and/or hydrogen (para. [0039], [0041])) via a second valve, providing a third valve and configuring the third gas line to be connected to the chamber and a vapor via a third valve, because Treadwell teaches that such a configuration enables controlling the gas flow rate and gas mixture of the process gases delivered into the chamber and enables flowing two or more separate gases through one injector/showerhead (para. [0044]-[0045], [0054]).
Lubomirsky '821 in view of Treadwell as applied above does not explicitly teach: the wafer having a metal oxide; the first valve is configured to flow the surface modification gas at a first time; the second valve is configured to flow the cleaning modification gas at a second time after the first time; the plasma generator is configured generate a first plasma from the surface modification gas at the first time and a second plasma from the cleaning gas at the second time, wherein the second plasma comprises first radicals with a first kinetic energy; the third valve is configured to control a gas flow of the vapor across the wafer for a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide.
However, Fischer teaches plasma-assisted etching of a wafer having a metal oxide (para. [0045], see Fig. 5, see also para. [0070]-[0092]). Fischer teaches that the etching of the metal oxide comprises flowing/delivering of a surface modification gas (i.e. fluorine containing plasma step 501, Fig. 5, para. [0071]) at a first time, then flowing/delivering of a second/cleaning gas (i.e. hydrogen plasma, see step 505, Fig. 5, para. [0087]) at a second time after the first time (see Fig. 5) and controlling the flow of gasses with valves (para. [0069]). Fischer additionally teaches generating a plasma of the surface modification gas at the first time and generating a plasma of the cleaning gas at the second time (see Fig. 5, para. [0071],[0087], claim 13). Fischer further teaches a vaporizer (Fig. 4A-4C) configured to provide a precursor/vapor to the wafer for a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide (Fig. 4A-4C, abstract, para. [0015], [0063], [0067]; see step 503, Fig. 5, para. [0081]) modified by the plasma of the surface modification gas (i.e. fluorine-containing plasma, see step 501 in Fig. 5, para. [0071]), wherein etch selectivity is achievable depending on the pre-cursor utilized (para. [0062]) and wherein the precursor is not turned into plasma (para. [0067]). Fischer teaches that such a process enables plasma-assisted etching of a metal oxide (abstract; para. [0070]-[0092]). Fischer additionally teaches a system controller (comprising 1623, Fig. 16) for controlling the operation of the chamber/apparatus including gas flow (para. [0128]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a wafer having a metal oxide, configure to first valve to flow the surface modification gas at a first time; configure the second valve to flow the cleaning modification gas at a second time after the first time; provide a vapor (i.e. select a gas/vapor source such as those disclosed in Fischer) for a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide, configure the plasma generator to generate a first plasma of the surface modification gas at the first time and a second plasma of the cleaning gas at the second time (i.e. configure the system of modified Lubomirsky '821 to perform the method/process of Fischer) because Fischer teaches providing a wafer having a metal oxide, selecting a gas/vapor source for a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide, and generating a first plasma of the surface modification gas at the first time and a second plasma of the cleaning gas at the second time while controlling the flow of the gases with valves enables the system to perform a method/process such as plasma-assisted etching of a metal oxide on the wafer (Fischer: Fig. 5, abstract, para. [0015], [0062][0063], [0067], [0069]).
Lubomirsky '821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer as applied above do not clearly and explicitly teach wherein the second plasma comprises first radicals with a first kinetic energy and the plate is configured to generate second radicals from the second plasma, wherein the second radicals comprise a second kinetic energy higher than the first kinetic energy and the second radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction.
However, Lubomirsky '821 teaches that the plates in the system can be arranged in various configurations and any of the plates can be operated as an electrode in various configurations for producing plasmas and one or more additional showerheads or distributors may be included in the chamber between the first showerhead 225 and the wafer holder (comprising 250, Fig. 2)(para. [0042]). Lubomirsky '821 teaches an embodiment in Fig. 5 including a plate 523 which works with showerhead 515 to generate a plasma in plasma region 533 wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would include ions and radicals and wherein the plate 523 may be connected to ground and filters out the ions to generate second radicals (para. [0055],[0056]).
Examiner notes that instant application para. [0032] and [0048] discloses that the plate 130 is connected to ground and acts to discharge ions and neutralizes ions and form radicals with higher kinetic energies than radicals generated in the plasma region 128 wherein the higher kinetic energies radicals can accelerate the ligand exchange reaction.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the configuration of Lubomirsky '821 Fig. 5 to be capable of generating the second plasma comprises first radicals with a first kinetic energy and the plate is configured to generate second radicals from the second plasma, wherein the second radicals comprise a second kinetic energy higher than the first kinetic energy and the second radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and the plate such that the second plasma comprises first radicals with a first kinetic energy and the plate is configured to generate second radicals from the second plasma, wherein the second radicals comprise a second kinetic energy higher than the first kinetic energy and the second radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction (for example by rearranging/reconfiguring the plates and power supply configuration in the system of Lubomirsky '821 such as that disclosed in Fig. 5 of Lubomirsky '821) because Lubomirsky '821 teaches adjusting/configuring the plates in the system to provide a desired plasma generation configuration. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the configuration of modified Lubomirsky '821 to be capable of generating the second plasma comprising first radicals with a first kinetic energy and the plate is configured to generate second radicals from the second plasma, wherein the second radicals comprise a second kinetic energy higher than the first kinetic energy because the plate 523 of Lubomirsky '821 is configured to generate plasma, is grounded, and configured to filter out ions (Lubomirsky '821: para. [0055]-[0056]), wherein the instant application para. [0032] and [0048] discloses/substantiates that such a configuration enables producing the higher kinetic energy radicals.
Additionally/alternatively, limitation “the second radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction” is/are intended use limitations. Since Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer teaches all of the structural limitations of claims 21 as applied above including a plasma generator and additionally teaches argon gas which is the same gas as that disclosed in the instant application [0030], the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use/functional limitations.
Dependent claim rejections:
Regarding claim 3, Lubomirsky '821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Lubomirsky '821 further teaches wherein the plate (comprising 210, Fig. 2, para. [0039]) is a first plate (as understood from Fig. 2), and wherein the system further comprises a second plate (comprising first showerhead 225, Fig. 2, para. [0040]) disposed beneath the first plate (comprising 210, Fig. 2). Lubomirsky ‘821 additionally teaches one or more additional showerheads or distributors may be included in the chamber between the first showerhead 225 and the wafer holder (comprising 250, Fig. 2)(para. [0042]).
Regarding limitation "a second plate connected to the valve" and "configured to distribute the vapor uniformly across the wafer for the ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide," since Lubomirsky '821 already teaches the second gas line (comprising 223, Fig. 2) is connected to the second plate (comprising 225, Fig. 2) and wherein the system of Lubomirsky '821 has already been modified to include the valve and the vapor for the ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide as applied in claim 1 rejection above, the combination of Lubomirsky '821, Treadwell, and Fischer would obviously meet the above discussed limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4 and 15, Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 and 9, respectively as applied above and Lubomirsky ‘821 further teaches a heating system (comprising heat exchanger coil 217, Fig. 2) connected to the wafer holder (comprising 250, Fig. 2) and configured to heat (i.e. control the temperature) the wafer (para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 6, Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above. Fischer further teaches the surface modification gas comprises fluorine and the plasma of the surface modification gas fluorinates a surface of the metal oxide before the ligand exchange reaction (para. [0065], [0071]-[0072], [0078], [0082], see Fig. 5). Thus, the combination would meet claim 6 limitaitons.
Regarding claim 7 and 24, Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 and 21, as applied above. Lubomirsky ‘821 further teaches argon as the gas (para. [0039]). Fischer additionally teaches argon gas as a carrier gas for the surface modification gas (para. [0070]-[0072]). Examiner notes that though Lubomirsky ‘821 and Fischer teaches an argon gas, claim 7 limitation “wherein the cleaning gas comprises argon and the radicals of the surface modification gas accelerate the ligand exchange reaction” and claim 24 limitation “a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide is activated by the ligand exchange precursor and the second radicals,” is/are an intended use/functional limitation. Since Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer teaches all of the structural limitations of claims 1, 7, 21 as applied above including a plasma generator and additionally teaches argon gas, the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use/functional limitations.
Regarding claim 11 and 23, Lubomirsky '821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 and 23, respectively, and Lubomirsky teaches a gas comprising fluorine that is turned into plasma (para. [0041] discloses use of nitrogen fluoride gas is energized into plasma).
Fischer further teaches the surface modification gas comprises fluorine and the first plasma of the surface modification gas fluorinates/modifies a surface of the metal oxide (para. [0065], [0071]-[0072], [0078], [0082], see Fig. 5).
Furthermore, claim 11 and 23 limitation "the first plasma of the surface modification gas modifies a surface of the metal oxide" is an intended use/functional limitation. Since Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer as applied above teaches all of the structural limitations, including a plasma generator and a gas comprising fluorine, the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use/functional limitations. Furthermore, the courts have ruled the following: 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 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114. II
Regarding claim 12, Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell teaches all of the limitations of claim 9, as applied above. Lubomirsky ‘821 further teaches the cleaning gas comprises hydrogen (para. [0041]).
Additionally, Fischer further teaches the second plasma of the cleaning gas cleans a surface of the metal oxide (para. [0068], [0107]).
Though taught by the prior art (Fischer), claim 12 limitation “the second plasma of the cleaning gas cleans a surface of the metal oxide,” as currently claimed, is/are an intended use/functional limitation.
Since Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer teaches all of the structural limitations, the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use/functional limitations. Furthermore, the courts have ruled the following: 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 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114. II
Regarding claim 31, Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above. Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer as applied above already teaches a first gas line, surface modification gas, a plasma generator, the valve, and the radicals, as discussed in detail in claim 1 rejection above.
First interpretation: regarding limitation “the first gas line is further configured to: flow the surface modification gas at a first time, a stop flowing the surface modification gas at a second time later than the first time, and flow the cleaning gas at a third time later than the second time; the plasma generator is further configured to: generate the plasma of the surface modification gas at the first time, and generate the plasma of the cleaning gas at the third time; the valve is further configured to control the gas flow of the vapor for a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide at the third time; and the radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide at the third time,” as currently claims, these are intended use limitations, since Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer teaches all of the structural limitations, the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitation via manual user control of the system.
The courts have ruled the following: 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 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP §2114. II
Alternatively/second interpretation: regarding limitation “the first gas line is further configured to: flow the surface modification gas at a first time, a stop flowing the surface modification gas at a second time later than the first time, and flow the cleaning gas at a third time later than the second time; the plasma generator is further configured to: generate the plasma of the surface modification gas at the first time, and generate the plasma of the cleaning gas at the third time; the valve is further configured to control the gas flow of the vapor for a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide at the third time; and the radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide at the third time.”
Fischer teaches flowing a surface modification gas (comprising flowing fluorine containing gas step 501, Fig. 5, para. [0066]) at a first time, a stop flowing the surface modification gas at a second time later than the first time (para. [0066], [0083]), and flow the cleaning gas (flowing hydrogen step 505, Fig. 5, para. [0068]) at a third time later than the second time; the plasma generator is further configured to: generate the plasma of the surface modification gas at the first time (para. [0066]), and generate the plasma of the cleaning gas at the third time (para. [0068]); the valve (para. [0069]) is further configured to control the gas flow of the vapor (i.e. individual valves controlling introduction of each process gas into chamber, purge and pump out following each gas flow operation) for a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide at the third time (see step 503, Fig. 5, para. [0067],[0069], [0083]).
Thus, since the system of Lubomirsky '821 is modified to perform the process/method disclosed in Fischer, the combination of Lubomirsky '821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer would obviously meet limitation "the first gas line is further configured to: flow the surface modification gas at a first time, a stop flowing the surface modification gas at a second time later than the first time, and flow the cleaning gas at a third time later than the second time; the plasma generator is further configured to: generate the plasma of the surface modification gas at the first time, and generate the plasma of the cleaning gas at the third time; the valve is further configured to control the gas flow of the vapor for a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide at the third time." Further, regarding limitation "the radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide at the third time," since Lubomirsky '821 teaches the plate is configured to generate radicals for the plasma of the cleaning gas (Lubomirsky '821: para. [0041]-[0042] discloses argon or hydrogen) and the gas disclosed in Lubomirsky '821 is the same gas as disclosed in the instant application (i.e. para. [0048] of instant invention discloses argon or hydrogen) and since the combination of Lubomirksy '821 and Fischer as applied above teaches ligand exchange reaction, the system of the same is considered capable of meeting or would obviously meet the limitation "the radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction."
Regarding claim 33, Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above.
Regarding first interpretation claim 33: limitation “a period from the first time to the second time is a surface modification cycle; the surface modification cycle has a duration of about 10 seconds to about 30 seconds; and following the surface modification cycle a depth from 3Å to about 10Å of the metal oxide layer is modified” these are intended use limitations, since Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer teaches all of the structural limitations, the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitation via manual user control of the system.
The courts have ruled the following: 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 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP §2114. II
Regarding alternative/second interpretation claim 33:
Additionally, Fischer teaches a period from the first time to the second time is a surface modification cycle (para. [0067], [0078]); the surface modification cycle has a duration of about 1 to 15 seconds (para. [0067], [0078]) which overlaps with claimed range of “10 to about 30 seconds.” Examiner further notes that the courts have held that the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)(See MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, the combination meets the above claim 33 limitations.
Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer as applied above does not explicitly teach “following the surface modification cycle a depth from 3Å to about 10Å of the metal oxide layer is modified.”
However, Fischer teaches an example the fluorination depth/modification depth is 1.5 nm /15 A (para. [0095], [0104]) and further teaches that the depth of modification/fluorination depends on the diffusion/penetration of the surface modification gas [0078], plasma density and ion energy (para. [0094]) and the depth of penetration/diffusion can be adjusted using a bias (para. [0078]). Fischer further teaches that the depth of penetration/diffusion of the gas affects how much modification occurs in the metal oxide surface (para. [0078]). In other words, the depth of the metal oxide layer that is modified following the surface modification cycle is a result-effective variable which affects the amount of modification of the metal oxide layer.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the depth of the metal oxide layer that is modified following the surface modification cycle because Fischer teaches that the depth of the metal oxide layer that is modified following the surface modification cycle is a result-effective variable which affects the amount of modification of the metal oxide layer which can be adjusted by adjusting the plasma density, ion energy and bias wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the depth of the metal oxide layer that is modified following the surface modification cycle to enable optimized processing of the metal oxide on the wafer.
Regarding claim 34, Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above.
Regarding first interpretation claim 34: “a period from the third time to a fourth time later than the third time is a material removal cycle; the material removal cycle removes a surface of the metal oxide from a depth from about 3Å to about 10Å” these are intended use limitations, since Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer teaches all of the structural limitations, the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitation via manual user control of the system.
The courts have ruled the following: 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 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP §2114. II
Regarding alternative/second interpretation claim 34:
Additionally, Fischer teaches a period from the third time to a fourth time later than the third time is a material removal cycle (comprising step 505, Fig. 5, para. [0087], [0091]). Regarding limitation “the material removal cycle removes a surface of the metal oxide from a depth from about 3Å to about 10Å,” Fischer discloses that the material removal step removes the modified metal oxide surface (para. [0087], [0091]). Since claim 33 established that the depth of the modified metal oxide layer is optimized the depth of the removal of the modified metal oxide layer is obviously also optimized since the modified metal oxide surface is the part of metal oxide layer that gets removed in the process (Fischer: para. [0082]-[0083], [0087], [0091]). Thus, the combination would obviously meet claim 34 limitations.
Regarding claim 36, Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above but does not clearly and explicitly the radicals are first radicals, the first radicals comprise a first kinetic energy, the plate is further configured to generate second radicals, the second radicals comprise a second kinetic energy higher than the first kinetic energy, and the second radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction.
However, Lubomirsky '821 teaches that the plates in the system can be arranged in various configurations and any of the plates can be operated as an electrode in various configurations for producing plasmas and one or more additional showerheads or distributors may be included in the chamber between the first showerhead 225 and the wafer holder (comprising 250, Fig. 2)(para. [0042]). Lubomirsky '821 teaches an embodiment in Fig. 5 including a plate 523 which works with showerhead 515 to generate a plasma in plasma region 533 wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would include ions and radicals and wherein the plate 523 may be connected to ground and filters out the ions to generate second radicals (para. [0055],[0056]).
Examiner notes that instant application para. [0032] and [0048] discloses that the plate 130 is connected to ground and acts to discharge ions and neutralizes ions and form radicals with higher kinetic energies than radicals generated in the plasma region 128 wherein the higher kinetic energies radicals can accelerate the ligand exchange reaction.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the configuration of Lubomirsky '821 Fig. 5 to be capable of generating first radicals with a first kinetic energy and the plate is configured to generate second radicals, wherein the second radicals comprise a second kinetic energy higher than the first kinetic energy and the second radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and the plate such that the radicals are first radicals with a first kinetic energy and the plate is further configured to generate second radicals, wherein the second radicals comprise a second kinetic energy higher than the first kinetic energy and the second radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction (for example by rearranging/reconfiguring the plates and power supply configuration in the system of Lubomirsky '821 such as that disclosed in Fig. 5 of Lubomirsky '821) because Lubomirsky '821 teaches adjusting/configuring the plates in the system to provide a desired plasma generation configuration. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the configuration of modified Lubomirsky '821 to be capable of generating the second plasma comprising first radicals with a first kinetic energy and the plate is configured to generate second radicals from the second plasma, wherein the second radicals comprise a second kinetic energy higher than the first kinetic energy because the plate 523 of Lubomirsky '821 is configured to generate plasma, is grounded, and configured to filter out ions (Lubomirsky '821: para. [0055]-[0056]), wherein the instant application para. [0032] and [0048] discloses/substantiates that such a configuration enables producing the higher kinetic energy radicals.
Claim(s) 5, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky (US 2018/0096821 A1 hereinafter “Lubomirsky ‘821”) in view of Treadwell et al. (US 2017/0200586 A1 hereinafter “Treadwell”), and Fischer et al. (US 2019/0157105 A1 hereinafter “Fischer”) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 21, 23, 24, 31, 33, 34, 36 above and further in view of Yanagisawa et al. (US 2017/0186634 A1 hereinafter “Yanagisawa”).
Regarding claim 5, Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach a vaporizer connected to the second gas line.
However, as applied in claim 1 rejection the vapor is connected to the second gas line is for a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide.
Additionally, Fischer further teaches a vaporizer (Fig. 4A-4C) configured to provide a precursor/vapor to the wafer for a ligand exchange reaction on the metal oxide (Fig. 4A-4C, abstract, para. [0015], [0063], [0067]; see step 503, Fig. 5, para. [0081]).
Further, Yanagisawa teaches a wafer processing apparatus (substrate processing apparatus 100, Fig. 5) capable of processing a wafer using plasma (para. [0089], [0190]) and further teaches providing a vaporizer to a gas line to vaporize a precursor of a process gas that may be liquid under a room temperature and an atmospheric pressure (para. [0097]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to (i) add the vaporizer to the apparatus of modified Lubormisky '821 or alternatively to configure the gas source 290 of modified Lubomirsky '821 to further include a vaporizer because Fischer teaches the precursor/vapor for the ligand exchange reaction is stored in a vaporizer (Fischer: para. [0015], [0063], [0081]) and because Yanagisawa teaches that a vaporizer enables vaporizing a precursor of a process gas that may be liquid under a room temperature and an atmospheric pressure to allow delivery of this process gas into the chamber for wafer/substrate processing (Yanagisawa: para. [0097]).
Regarding claim 32, Lubomirsky '821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the chamber comprises a first chamber and further comprising a second chamber connected to the first chamber, wherein the wafer holder is a first wafer holder; and the second chamber comprises: a second wafer holder, and a connector configured to connect the first chamber to the second chamber and to transfer the wafer between the first chamber and the second chamber without breaking a vacuum, wherein a width of the connector is narrower than a width of the second wafer holder.
However, Yanagisawa teaches a wafer processing apparatus/system (substrate processing system 1000, Fig. 1 and 2, para. [0021]) capable of processing a wafer using plasma (para. [0089], [0190]) including a chamber (as understood from Fig. 1 and 2) wherein the chamber comprises a first chamber (comprising a first one of 100a, 100b, 100c, 100d, 100 g, 100h, Fig. 1, para. [0044]) and further comprising a second chamber (comprising a different one of 100a, 100b, 100c, 100d, 100 g, 100h, Fig. 1, para. [0044]) connected to the first chamber (comprising a first one of 100a, 100b, 100c, 100d, 100 g, 100h, Fig. 1, para. [0044]), wherein the wafer holder is a first wafer holder (comprising a corresponding substrate support part 210 in a first one of 100a, 100b, 100c, 100d, 100 g, 100h, Fig. 1, para. [0044],[0064], [0075]); and the second chamber(comprising a different one of 100a, 100b, 100c, 100d, 100 g, 100h, Fig. 1, para. [0044]) comprises: a second wafer holder (comprising a corresponding substrate support part 210 in the different one of 100a, 100b, 100c, 100d, 100 g, 100h, Fig. 1, para. [0044],[0064], [0075]), and a connector (comprising housing 1410 of vacuum transfer chamber 1400 including substrate loading/unloading gate1480e, Fig. 2, para. [0035], [0045]) configured to connect the first chamber (comprising a first one of 100a, 100b, 100c, 100d, 100 g, 100h, Fig. 1) to the second chamber (comprising a first one of 100a, 100b, 100c, 100d, 100 g, 100h, Fig. 1) and to transfer the wafer between the first chamber and the second chamber without breaking a vacuum (para. [0035]), wherein a width of the connector (i.e. a width of the substrate loading/unloading gate 1480e, Fig. 2) is narrower than a width of the second wafer holder (comprising 210, Fig. 2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to configure the system to have the chamber comprise a first chamber and a second chamber connected to the first chamber, wherein the wafer holder is a first wafer holder; and the second chamber comprises: a second wafer holder, and a connector configured to connect the first chamber to the second chamber and to transfer the wafer between the first chamber and the second chamber without breaking a vacuum, wherein a width of the connector is narrower than a width of the second wafer holder because Yanagisawa teaches that such a connector configuration is a known suitable alternative configuration of a system to enable transferring wafer/substrate under vacuum (Yanagisawa: para. [0035]).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky (US 2018/0096821 A1 hereinafter “Lubomirsky ‘821”) in view of Treadwell et al. (US 2017/0200586 A1 hereinafter “Treadwell”), and Fischer et al. (US 2019/0157105 A1 hereinafter “Fischer”) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 21, 23, 24, 31, 33, 34, 36 above and further in view of Tobin et al. (US 2014/0099795 A1 hereinafter “Tobin”) and Sawada (US 2013/0081761 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer as applied above teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the plate is connected to a DC power supply configured to hold the plate at a negative bias from about -1 volt to about -9 volts.
However, the plate is configured to generate radicals and can be configured to be ground potential (see claim 9 rejection above and teachings of Lubomirsky ‘821).
Additionally, Tobin teaches providing a plate (comprising ion shield 210, Fig. 1) configured to generate radicals/filter out ions by applying a ground voltage or connecting DC power supply (comprising 220, Fig. 1) to a plate to hold the plate at a negative bias wherein applying a negative bias can enhance screening of positive ions by attracting positive ions to the surface of the plate (comprising 210, Fig. 1) (para. [0021]). Tobin additionally teaches applying a voltage of 10 to 2000 voltages of DC power (para. [0042]).
Furthermore, Sawada teaches that the DC voltage applied to a plate (comprising radical filter 14, Fig. 1) configured to filter out ions and generate radicals is a result-effective variable which affects the filtering of ions and electrons from the plasma as well as the lifetime of the plate (para. [0070]-[0073]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system to further include a DC power supply connected to the plate to hold the plate at a negative bias and to further optimize the applied bias because Tobin teaches that applying a negative bias enables enhanced screening of positive ions by attracting positive ions to the surface of the plate and Tobin provides an example range of the negative bias (Tobin: para. [0021, [0042]]) and because Sawada teaches that the applied DC voltage affects the filtering of ions and electrons from the plasma as well as the lifetime of the plate (Sawada: para. [0070]-[0073]) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the applied DC voltage to the plate enable optimized radical generation/filtering of ions and electrons from the plasma while optimizing for the lifetime of the plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 Feb 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as further discussed below.
Applicant argues (remarks page 9-11) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1,Fischer, Sriraman, and Yanagisawa alone or in combination fail to disclose, teach, or suggest "a plate configured to generate radicals from the plasma of the cleaning gas" and "a second gas line comprising a valve, wherein…the valve is configured to control a gas flow of [a] vapor across [a] wafer for [a] ligand exchange reaction on [a] metal oxide; and the radicals accelerate the ligand exchange reaction" as recited in amended independent claim 1. Applicant argues regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claims 9, 21, these claims are amended similarly to that of independent claim 1 and thus Sriraman, and Yanagisawa alone or in combination fail to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended claim limitations.
Examiner responds claim 1, 9, 21 rejections have been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Currently claim 1, 9, 21 and rejected as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky ‘821 in view of Treadwell and Fischer as explained in detail in claims rejections above. Thus, Applicant’s arguments directed toward the combination of Fischer, Sriraman, and Yanagisawa are moot.
In light of the above, independent claims 1, 9, 21 are rejected. Additionally, dependent claims 3, 5-8, 11, 12, 15, including new claims 31-36, are also rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM 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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights