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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 22, 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on April 28, 2023 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Newly submitted claims 31-32 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The original presented claims were directed to flowing the first cleaning chemical to the remote plasma unit and flowing the second cleaning chemical to the bypass line at the same time. However, new claims 31-32 are directed toward “flowing the first cleaning chemical to the remote plasma unit for a first period, and flowing the second cleaning chemical to the bypass line for a second period”.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 31-32 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 22 recites “The system of claim 22”. Hence, claim 22 depends on claim 22 which is unclear. The Examiner believes this is a typographical error and that claim 22 should depend on independent claim 21 as previously claimed. 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 33 is 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.
In lines 1-5, claim 33 recites the limitation “further comprising a first heater and a substrate support assembly heater configured to heat a substrate support assembly, wherein the controller is configured to control the first heater components of the system to concurrently: heat at least one wall in the reaction chamber to a temperature less than 200oC.” There is no support for a first heater for heating at least one chamber wall. Paragraph [0044] teach that he chamber walls may be a temperature between approximately 100oC and 200oC, or between 120oC and 180oC, or between 140oC and 170oC but fail to disclose what structure is used for heating the walls. Additionally, the structure for heating the chamber walls is not shown in the figures. For purposes of examination, a structure of a heater will be used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 21, 23-25, 27, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lin et al. (U.S. 2019/0019670) in view of Kryliouk et al. (U.S. 2010/0273291), Lee et al. (U.S. 2008/0289576), Tsukamoto et al. (U.S. 2007/0235138), and Wu et al. (U.S. 2022/0157604).
Referring to Figure 1 and paragraphs [0017]-[0020], Lin et al. disclose a reactor system comprising: a reaction chamber comprising: a reaction space 110 (par.[0017]); a chemical storage assembly 160, 170, 180, 190 comprising: a first vessel 160 containing a first cleaning chemical containing NF3 (par.[0019]); a second vessel 180 containing a second cleaning chemical that is different from the first cleaning chemical (par.[0019]); a third vessel 190 containing solely an inert gas (par.[0019]); a remote plasma unit 140 fluidly connected to the first vessel and the second vessel and upstream from the reaction space (Fig. 1 and par.[0017]); a gas distribution assembly 130 disposed between the remote plasma unit and configured to receive a plasma activated species of the cleaning chemical from the remote plasma unit and further introduce the plasma activated species into the reaction space (Fig. 1, par.[0017]); a bypass line (i.e. line that extends from gas vessel 180) fluidly connecting the chemical storage assembly to the reaction chamber, wherein the bypass line is configured for introducing a non-plasma activated species into the reaction space disposed within the reaction chamber (par.[0019]); and a substrate support assembly 120 disposed within the reaction chamber (par.[0017]).
Lin et al. is silent on the second cleaning chemical selected from the group consisting of NF3, BCl3, CCl4, XeF3, F2, NOF, and NO2F.
Referring to paragraphs [0046], [0065],[0096], Kryliouk et al. teach it is conventionally known in the art for a cleaning chemical to be selected from the group consisting of NF3, BCl3, CCl4, XeF3, F2, NOF, and NO2F. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the second cleaning chemical of Lin et al. in view of Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., and Wu et al. to be selected from the group consisting of BCl3, CCl4, XeF3, F2, NOF, and NO2F as taught by Kryliouk et al. since it is a known cleaning chemical used to clean chamber components. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)).
Lin et al. fail to teach a first inlet in direct fluid communication with the reaction space; a second inlet in direct fluid communication with the reaction space; wherein the first and second inlets are disposed below and distal to the gas distribution assembly, and wherein the second inlet is disposed above the first inlet.
Referring to Figures 1, 3, and paragraphs [0028], [0035], [0046], Lee et al. teach a plasma reaction chamber teach a first inlet 537 in direct fluid communication with the reaction space to provide cleaning gases to the chamber (Fig. 1); a second inlet 537-1 in direct fluid communication with the reaction space to provide inert gases for purging the chamber (par.[0046], i.e. inert gas vessel Ar is used to purge the chamber 500 and a gas line). Additionally, as seen in Figure 1, Lee et al. further shows that the first 537 and second inlets 537-1 are disposed below and distal to the gas distribution assembly 502-1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Lin et al. with wherein a first inlet in direct fluid communication with the reaction space; a second inlet in direct fluid communication with the reaction space; and that the first and second inlets are disposed below and distal to the gas distribution assembly as taught by Lee et al. in order to provide non-plasma cleaning gases to the chamber and non-plasma purging gases to the chamber for the desired process. The modified apparatus of Lin et al. in view of Lee et al. would yield a first inlet in direct fluid communication with the reaction space; a second inlet in direct fluid communication with the reaction space; and wherein the first and second inlets are disposed below and distal to the gas distribution assembly.
Lin et al. fail to teach a first bypass line coupled to the first inlet and fluidly connecting the chemical the first vessel and the second vessel to the reaction chamber, wherein the first bypass line is configured for introducing a non-plasma activated species of the first or second cleaning chemicals directly into the reaction space without passing through the gas distribution assembly; and a second bypass line coupled to the second inlet and fluidly connecting the third vessel to the reaction chamber, wherein the second bypass line is configured to introduce the inert gas directly
into the reaction space without passing through the gas distribution assembly.
First of all, referring to Figures 3 and 6, Tsukamoto et al. teach alternate and equivalent designs to either provide non-plasma gases 160, 164 to the reaction space 110 via a gas distribution assembly 246 or provide non-plasma gases 160, 164 to the reaction space 110 without passing through a gas distribution assembly 546. Secondly, Tsukamoto et al. teach it is conventionally known in the art for a plurality of gases, singular or in combinations including NF3, NH3, or N2, to be provided directly to either a remote plasma unit 162, 115, or to the reaction chamber 164, 110 (Figs. Figs. 2, 6A, and pars. [0027]-[0029]). Thirdly, as seen in Figure 2, a bypass line 164 is coupled to the inlet and fluidly connecting the first, second, and third vessels 160 to reaction chamber 110, wherein the bypass line is configured for introducing a non-plasma activated species of the first, second, or third gases directly into the reaction space without passing through the gas distribution assembly. Additionally, the bypass line 164 can be configured to introduce, exclusively, the inert gas directly into the reaction space without passing through the gas distribution assembly (par.[0028]). Lastly, Tsukamoto et al. is silent on a second bypass line; however, it is an obvious and alternate design choice to use a second bypass line since it would still provide the desired gases to reaction chamber and since the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). Hence, the modified structure of Tsukamoto et al. would yield wherein the second bypass line is configured to introduce, exclusively, the inert gas directly into the reaction space without passing through the gas distribution assembly (Note. Last sentence of paragraph [0028] indicates that the auxiliary process gas (i.e. inert gas) is introduced, exclusively, directly into the reaction space).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success to alternatively provide the first vessel, second vessel, third vessel, first inlet, and second inlet of Lin et al. in view of Lee et al. with a first bypass line coupled to the first inlet and fluidly connecting the chemical the first vessel and the second vessel to the reaction chamber, wherein the first bypass line is configured for introducing a non-plasma activated species of the first or second cleaning chemicals directly into the reaction space without passing through the gas distribution assembly; and a second bypass line coupled to the second inlet and fluidly connecting the third vessel to the reaction chamber, wherein the second bypass line is configured to introduce, exclusively, the inert gas directly
into the reaction space without passing through the gas distribution assembly as taught by Tsukamoto et al. since it is an alternate and suitable means to provide a plurality of gases directly to reaction space to achieve the desired process. Hence, an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)).
The resulting apparatus of Lin et al. in view of Lee et al. and Tsukamoto et al. would yield a first bypass line coupled to the first inlet and fluidly connecting the chemical the first vessel and the second vessel to the reaction chamber, wherein the first bypass line is configured for introducing a non-plasma activated species of the first or second cleaning chemicals directly into the reaction space without passing through the gas distribution assembly; and a second bypass line coupled to the second inlet and fluidly connecting the third vessel to the
reaction chamber, wherein the second bypass line is configured to introduce, exclusively, the inert gas directly into the reaction space without passing through the gas distribution assembly.
Lin et al. in view of Lee et al. and Tsukamoto et al. is silent on wherein the second inlet is disposed above the first inlet.
Referring to Figure 3 and paragraphs [0042]-[0043], Wu et al. teach it is a conventionally known arrangement for the second inlet 379 to be disposed above the first inlet 314 as a means to direct process gases across the substrate support and/or substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Lin et al. in view of Lee et al. and Tsukamoto et al. with the second inlet is disposed above the first inlet as taught by Wu et al. since it is an alternate arrangement that would direct process gases across the substrate support and/or substrate. The modified apparatus of Lin et al. in view of Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., and Wu et al. would yield wherein the second inlet is disposed above the first inlet.
With respect to claim 3, the system of Lin et al. further includes wherein the substrate support assembly comprises an exposed ceramic surface (par.[0018], i.e. substrate support assembly is coated with a ceramic material).
With respect to claim 7, the system of Lin et al. in view of Lee et al. and Tsukamoto et al. further includes wherein the second inlet is configured to direct the inert gas stream towards a surface of the gas distribution assembly (Lee et al.- Figure 1 and paragraphs [0028], [0035], [0046]).
With respect to claim 21, referring to Figure 1 and paragraphs [0017]-[0020], Lin et al. disclose a reactor system comprising: a remote plasma unit 140 (Fig. 1 and par.[0017]); a reaction chamber coupled to remote plasma unit, and comprising: a showerhead plate 130 coupled downstream from the remote plasma unit and comprising a plurality of apertures (Fig. 1, par.[0017]); a reaction space 110 below the showerhead plate (par.[0017]); a chemical storage assembly 160, 170, 180, 190 comprising: a first vessel 160 containing a first cleaning chemical containing NF3 (par.[0019]); and a second vessel 190 containing an inert gas (par.[0019]); a bypass line (i.e. line that extends from gas vessel 180) fluidly connecting the chemical storage assembly to the reaction chamber and the inlets,
Lin et al. fail to teach a first inlet in direct fluid communication with the reaction space; a second inlet in direct fluid communication with the reaction space; and wherein the first and second inlets are disposed below and distal to the gas distribution assembly.
Referring to Figures 1, 3, and paragraphs [0028], [0035], [0046], Lee et al. teach a plasma reaction chamber teach a first inlet 537 in direct fluid communication with the reaction space to provide cleaning gases to the chamber (Fig. 1); a second inlet 537-1 in direct fluid communication with the reaction space to provide inert gases for purging the chamber (par.[0046], i.e. inert gas vessel Ar is used to purge the chamber 500 and a gas line). Additionally, as seen in Figure 1, Lee et al. further shows that the first 537 and second inlets 537-1 are disposed below and distal to the gas distribution assembly 502-1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Lin et al. with wherein a first inlet in direct fluid communication with the reaction space; a second inlet in direct fluid communication with the reaction space; and that the first and second inlets are disposed below and distal to the gas distribution assembly as taught by Lee et al. in order to provide non-plasma cleaning gases to the chamber and non-plasma purging gases to the chamber for the desired process. The modified apparatus of Lin et al. in view of Lee et al. would yield a first inlet in direct fluid communication with the reaction space; a second inlet in direct fluid communication with the reaction space; and wherein the first and second inlets are disposed below and distal to the gas distribution assembly.
Lin et al. fail to teach a first vessel fluidly coupled to the remote plasma unit and the first inlet via a first bypass line, and containing a first cleaning chemical selected from the group consisting of NF3, BC13, CCl4, XeF3, F2, NOF, and NOF; and a second vessel fluidly coupled to the remote plasma unit and the second inlet via a second bypass line, wherein the second bypass line delivers, exclusively, the inert gas to the reaction space.
First of all, referring to Figures 3 and 6, Tsukamoto et al. teach alternate and equivalent designs to either provide non-plasma gases 160, 164 to the reaction space 110 via a gas distribution assembly 246 or provide non-plasma gases 160, 164 to the reaction space 110 without passing through a gas distribution assembly 546. Secondly, Tsukamoto et al. teach it is conventionally known in the art for a plurality of gases, singular or in combinations including NF3, NH3, or N2, to be provided directly to either a remote plasma unit 162, 115, or to the reaction chamber 164, 110 (Figs. 2, 6A, and pars. [0027]-[0029]). Thirdly, as seen in Figure 2, first and second vessels 160 fluidly coupled to the remote plasma unit and an inlet via a bypass line 164. . Additionally, the bypass line 164 can be configured to introduce, exclusively, the inert gas directly into the reaction space without passing through the gas distribution assembly (par.[0028]). Lastly, Tsukamoto et al. is silent on a second bypass line; however, it is an obvious and alternate design choice to use a second bypass line since it would still provide the desired gases to reaction chamber and since the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). Hence, the modified structure of Tsukamoto et al. would yield wherein the second bypass line delivers, exclusively, the inert gas to the reaction space (Note. Last sentence of paragraph [0028] indicates that the auxiliary process gas (i.e. inert gas) is introduced, exclusively, directly into the reaction space).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success to alternatively provide the first vessel and second vessel, first inlet, and second inlet of Lin et al. in view of Lee et al. with a first vessel fluidly coupled to the remote plasma unit and the first inlet via a first bypass line, and containing a first cleaning chemical selected from the group consisting of NF3, BC13, CCl4, XeF3, F2, NOF, and NOF; and a second vessel fluidly coupled to the remote plasma unit and the second inlet via a second bypass line, and containing an inert gas as taught by Tsukamoto et al. since it is an alternate and suitable means to provide a plurality of gases directly to reaction space and remote plasma unit to achieve the desired process. Hence, an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)).
The resulting apparatus of Lin et al. in view of Lee et al. and Tsukamoto et al. would yield a chemical storage comprising: a first vessel fluidly coupled to the remote plasma unit and the first inlet via a first bypass line, and containing a first cleaning chemical selected from the group consisting of NF3, BC13, CCl4, XeF3, F2, NOF, and NOF; and a second vessel fluidly coupled to the remote plasma unit and the second inlet via a second bypass line, wherein the second bypass line delivers, exclusively, the inert gas to the reaction space, wherein the second bypass line delivers, exclusively, the inert gas to the reaction space.
Lin et al. in view of Lee et al. and Tsukamoto et al. is silent on wherein the second inlet is disposed above the first inlet.
Referring to Figure 3 and paragraphs [0042]-[0043], Wu et al. teach it is a conventionally known arrangement for the second inlet 379 to be disposed above the first inlet 314 as a means to direct process gases across the substrate support and/or substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Lin et al. in view of Lee et al. and Tsukamoto et al. with the second inlet is disposed above the first inlet as taught by Wu et al. since it is an alternate arrangement that would direct process gases across the substrate support and/or substrate. The modified apparatus of Lin et al. in view of Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., and Wu et al. would yield wherein the second inlet is disposed above the first inlet.
Additionally, Lee et al. show wherein the second inlet 537-1 is configured to direct the inert gas stream towards a surface of the gas distribution assembly (Lee et al.- Figure 1 and paragraphs [0028], [0035], [0046]). Thus, the modified apparatus of Lin et al. in view of Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., and Wu et al. would yield wherein the second inlet is disposed above the first inlet, wherein the second inlet is configured to direct an inert gas stream towards a surface of the showerhead plate.
With respect to claim 23, Lin et al. is silent on the first cleaning chemical selected from the group consisting of BCl3, CCl4, XeF3, F2, NOF, and NO2F.
Referring to paragraphs [0065],[0096], Kryliouk et al. teach it is conventionally known in the art for a cleaning chemical to be selected from the group consisting of BCl3, CCl4, XeF3, F2, NOF, and NO2F for the purpose of cleaning chamber components. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the first cleaning chemical of Lin et al. in view of Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., and Wu et al. to be selected from the group consisting of BCl3, CCl4, XeF3, F2, NOF, and NO2F as taught by Kryliouk et al. since it is a known cleaning chemical used to clean chamber components. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)).
With respect to claim 23, the system of Lin et al. in view of Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., Wu et al., and Kryliouk et al. further includes wherein the first cleaning chemical selected from the group consisting of BCl3, CCl4, XeF3, F2, NOF, and NO2F (Kryliouk et al.-paragraphs [0065],[0096]).
With respect to claim 24, the system of Lin et al. in view of Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., Wu et al., and Kryliouk et al. further includes wherein the second cleaning chemical selected from the group consisting of BCl3, CCl4, XeF3, F2, NOF, and NO2F (Kryliouk et al.-paragraphs [0065],[0096]).
With respect to claim 27, the system of Lin et al. in view of Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., Wu et al., and Kryliouk et al. further includes wherein the first cleaning chemical selected from the group consisting of BCl3, CCl4, XeF3, F2, NOF, and NO2F(Kryliouk et al.-paragraphs [0065],[0096]).
With respect to claim 29, the system of Lin et al. in view of Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., and Wu et al. further includes wherein directing the inert gas stream towards the surface of the gas distribution assembly 502, 371 provides a protective gas curtain across the surface of the gas distribution assembly (Lee et al.-Fig. 1A, Wu et al.-Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 30, the system of Lin et al. is silent on further comprising a controller comprising one or more microprocessors, memory elements, and/or switching elements, wherein the controller is configured to control components of the system to: flow the first cleaning chemical to the remote plasma unit, and flow the second cleaning chemical to the bypass line.
Referring to paragraphs [0040]-[0041] Tsukamoto et al. teach a controller 180 comprising one or more microprocessors, memory elements, and/or switching elements, wherein the controller is configured to control components of the system to: flow the first cleaning chemical to the remote plasma unit (pars.[0026]-[0027]), and flow the second cleaning chemical to the bypass line (pars.[0028]-[0029]) in order to provide radicals and process gases to the chamber for the desired substrate processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Lin et al. to include a controller comprising one or more microprocessors, memory elements, and/or switching elements, wherein the controller is configured to control components of the system to: flow the first cleaning chemical to the remote plasma unit, and flow the second cleaning chemical to the bypass line as taught by Tsukamoto et al. since a conventional means to automate flowing the first cleaning chemical to the remote plasma unit, and flowing the second cleaning chemical to the bypass line in order to provide radicals and process gases to the chamber for the desired substrate processing.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (U.S. 2019/0019670) in view of Kryliouk et al. (U.S. 2010/0273291), Lee et al. (U.S. 2008/0289576), Tsukamoto et al. (U.S. 2007/0235138), and Wu et al. (U.S. 2022/0157604) as applied to claims 1, 3, 7, 21, 23-25, 27 and 29-30 above, and further in view of Davis et al. (U.S. 2002/0144706).
The teachings of Lin et al. in view of Kryliouk et al., Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., and Wu et al. have been disclosed above.
Lin et al. in view of Kryliouk et al., Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., and Wu et al. is silent on a flow controller disposed downstream of at least one of the first vessel or the second vessel and upstream of the remote plasma unit.
Referring to Figure 12 and paragraphs [0045]-[0050], Davis et al. show that it is conventionally known in the art for flow controllers 138a, 138c disposed downstream of at least one of the first vessel 138 or the second vessel and upstream of the remote plasma unit 141 in order to adjust the gas flow. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Lin et al. in view of Kryliouk et al., Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., and Wu et al. with a flow controller disposed downstream of at least one of the first vessel or the second vessel and upstream of the remote plasma unit as taught by Davis et al. since it is a conventional known means to adjust the gas flow. Thus, the modification of Lin et al. in view of Kryliouk et al., Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., Wu et al., and Davis et al. would yield the flow controllers positioned after the gas vessel and therefore yield a flow controller disposed downstream of the at least one vessel and upstream of the remote plasma unit.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (U.S. 2019/0019670) in view of Kryliouk et al. (U.S. 2010/0273291), Lee et al. (U.S. 2008/0289576), Tsukamoto et al. (U.S. 2007/0235138), and Wu et al. (U.S. 2022/0157604) as applied to claims 1, 3, 7, 21, 23-25, 27 and 29-30 above, and further in view of Kohno et al. (CN101517713A).
The teachings of Lin et al. in view of Kryliouk et al., Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., and Wu et al. have been discussed above.
Lin et al. in view of Kryliouk et al., Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., and Wu et al. fail to teach a controller comprising one or more microprocessors, memory elements, and/or switching elements, wherein the controller is configured to control components of the system to: flow the first cleaning chemical to the first bypass line, and flow the inert gas to the second bypass line while flowing the first cleaning chemical to the first bypass line.
Referring to Figure 4 and paragraphs [0067]-[0071], Kohno et al. teach a reactor system wherein it is conventionally known for a controller 50 comprising one or more microprocessors, memory elements, and/or switching elements (pars.[0055]-[0056]), wherein the controller is configured to control components of the system to: flow the first cleaning chemical (i.e. NF3) to the first bypass line, and flow the inert gas (i.e. inactive gas) to the second bypass line while flowing the first cleaning chemical to the first bypass line in order to efficiently clean the chamber components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Lin et al. in view of Kryliouk et al., Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., and Wu et al. with a controller comprising one or more microprocessors, memory elements, and/or switching elements, wherein the controller is configured to control components of the system to: flow the first cleaning chemical to the first bypass line, and flow the inert gas to the second bypass line while flowing the first cleaning chemical to the first bypass line as taught by Kohno et al. in order to efficiently clean the chamber components.
Claim(s) 26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (U.S. 2019/0019670) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. 2008/0289576) ), Tsukamoto et al. (U.S. 2007/0235138), Wu et al. (U.S. 2022/0157604) and Kryliouk et al. (U.S. 2010/0273291) as applied to claims 1, 3, 7, 21, 23-25, 27 and 29-30 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (U.S. 2006/0266288).
The teachings of Lin et al. in view of Kryliouk et al., Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., and Wu et al. have been discussed above.
Lin et al. in view of Kryliouk et al., Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., and Wu et al. is silent on the first cleaning chemical selected from the group consisting of BCl3, CCl4, XeF3, NOF, and NO2F.
Referring to paragraphs [0043], Choi teach it is conventionally known in the art for a cleaning chemical to be selected from the group consisting of BCl3, CCl4, XeF3, NOF, and NO2F for the purpose of cleaning chamber components. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the first cleaning chemical of Lin et al. in view of Kryliouk et al., Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., and Wu et al. to be selected from the group consisting of BCl3, CCl4, XeF3, NOF, and NO2F since it is a known cleaning chemical used to clean chamber components. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)).
With respect to claim 28, the system of Lin et al. in view of Kryliouk et al., Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., Wu et al., and Choi includes wherein the first cleaning chemical selected from the group consisting of BCl3, CCl4, XeF3, NOF, and NO2F (Choi-par.[0043]).
Claim(s) 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (U.S. 2019/0019670) in view of Kryliouk et al. (U.S. 2010/0273291), Lee et al. (U.S. 2008/0289576), Tsukamoto et al. (U.S. 2007/0235138), and Wu et al. (U.S. 2022/0157604) as applied to claims 1, 3, 7, 21, 23-25, 27 and 29-30 above, and further in view of Lee (U.S. 5,616,208).
The teachings of Lin et al. in view of Kryliouk et al., Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., and Wu et al., have been discussed above.
Tsukamoto et al. teach that the controller 180 is configured to control components of the system to heat at least one wall in the reaction chamber (Tsukamoto et al.-pars.[0031],[0040]-[0041]). Lin et al. in view of Kryliouk et al., Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., and Wu et al. is silent on the system comprising: a first heater and a substrate support assembly heater configured to heat a substrate support assembly, wherein the controller is configured to control the first heater components of the system to concurrently: heat at least one wall in the reaction chamber less than 200oC, heat the substrate support assembly in the reaction chamber greater than 500 °C, and flow the second cleaning chemical to the first bypass line.
Referring to Figure 9 and column 22, lines 30-32 and column 28, lines 4-19, Lee‘208 each a reactor system wherein a first heater 127 and a substrate support assembly heater 84 configured to heat a substrate support assembly, wherein the controller 120 is configured to control the first heater to concurrently: heat at least one wall in the reaction chamber less than 200oC, heat the substrate support assembly in the reaction chamber greater than 500 °C, and flow the second cleaning chemical since it is a conventionally known means to perform chamber cleaning and prevent reaction products from depositing on the chamber surfaces (i.e. cleaning temperature between 17oC-700oC). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Lin et al. in view of Kryliouk et al., Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., and Wu et al., with a first heater and a substrate support assembly heater configured to heat a substrate support assembly, wherein the controller is configured to control the first heater to concurrently: heat at least one wall in the reaction chamber less than 200oC, heat the substrate support assembly in the reaction chamber greater than 500 °C, and flow the second cleaning chemical to the first bypass line as taught by Lee’208 since it is a conventionally known means to perform chamber cleaning and prevent reaction products from depositing on the chamber surfaces.
With respect to claim 34, the system of Lin et al. in view of Kryliouk et al., Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., Wu et al., and Lee’208 further comprising a substrate support assembly heater 84 configured to heat a substrate support assembly, wherein the controller 120 is configured to control the substrate support assembly heater configured to: heat the substrate support assembly in the reaction chamber greater than 500oC while flowing the second cleaning chemical to the first bypass line (Tsukamoto et al.-pars.[0031],[0040]-[0041], Lee’208- Figure 9 and column 22, lines 30-32 and column 28, lines 4-19, i.e. cleaning temperature between 17oC-700oC).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new references teach the new limitations.
Reference Kryliouk et al. teach a second cleaning chemical selected from the group consisting of NF3, BCl3, CCl4, XeF3, F2, NOF, and NO2F. Thus, the apparatus of Lin et al. in view of Kryliouk et al., Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., and Wu et al. satisfies the claim 1 requirements.
With respect to claim 22, new reference Kohno teach a controller comprising one or more microprocessors, memory elements, and/or switching elements, wherein the controller is configured to control components of the system to: flow the first cleaning chemical to the first bypass line, and flow the inert gas to the second bypass line while flowing the first cleaning chemical to the first bypass line. Thus, the apparatus of Lin et al. in view of Kryliouk et al., Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., Wu et al., and Kohno satisfies the claim 22 requirements.
With respect to claims 33-34, new reference Lee’208 a first heater and a substrate support assembly heater configured to heat a substrate support assembly, wherein the controller is configured to control the first heater components of the system to concurrently: heat at least one wall in the reaction chamber less than 200oC, heat the substrate support assembly in the reaction chamber greater than 500 °C, and flow the second cleaning chemical to the first bypass line. Thus, the apparatus of Lin et al. in view of Kryliouk et al., Lee et al., Tsukamoto et al., Wu et al., and Lee’208 satisfies the claims 33-34 requirements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kao et al.’859 teach a controller comprising one or more microprocessors, memory elements, and/or switching elements, wherein the controller is configured to control components of the system to: flow the first cleaning chemical to the first bypass line, and flow the inert gas to the second bypass line while flowing the first cleaning chemical to the first bypass line.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferen0cing 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 on 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.
/Michelle CROWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716