DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 12, 2026 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the amendment filed on August 12, 2026, claims 1 – 19, 21 are pending. Claims 1, 5, 6, 7 have been amended and claim 20 has been canceled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 12, 14 – 19 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12, 14 – 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention group and species group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 2, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 103 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claim 1 – 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vellaikal et al. US 20090215251 A1 (hereinafter “Vellaikal”) in view of Gottscho US 20190252163 A1 (hereinafter “Gottscho”).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11:
Vellaikal is directed to a plasma immersion ion implantation process and the apparatus for practice of the method (Abstract). Vellaikal discloses that their method comprises:
prior to the introduction of wafers into a reaction chamber, depositing a seasoning layer of silicon oxide [first layer of protective material, meeting claim 8] onto the interior surfaces of the reaction chamber comprising aluminum [first material, meeting claim 9] ([0003], [0017], [0024]; Fig 2A as a whole);
after seasoning of the chamber, introducing a set of wafers and processing the wafers (Fig. 2A 250, Fig. 2B 252 – 266; [0026]); and
after de-chucking the last wafer, removing or supplementing the previously deposited seasoning layer [meeting claim 4] after the processing of the previous wafer [no wafer present] and then depositing a new seasoning layer [second layer of protective material] (Fig. 2B 268 – 270 to B; Fig. 2A 226, ; [0026] – [0027]).
Vellaikal does not expressly teach:
that the protective material comprises a composition resistant to halide, iodide and chloride gases.
measuring an amount of the first material in the reaction chamber during the
processing the portion of the batch of wafers, or on one of the wafers in the portion of the batch of wafers;
determining that the first amount exceeds a threshold; and
that the deposition of the second layer of protective material is in response to the determination of the first amount exceeding the recited threshold.
Gottscho is directed to a system for use in the processing of a substrate and method of processing using closed loop control (Abstract; [0002]). As depicted in Fig. 7A and Fig. 7B, the method of processing using closed loop control comprises ([0082] – [0086], [0087] – [0088]):
processing a substrate in a process module;
inspecting an area of the process module and performing a tool and/or process analysis
adjusting one or more process parameters depending in part on the tool and/or process analysis; and
if the process parameters can no longer be adjusted to process a next substrate [related to first threshold, in response to the determination] performing a cleaning and seasoning operation.
The inspection can be performed with a detector module operatively connected to a scope ([0088], [0048] ; Fig. 2, Fig. 3). Gottscho discloses using the scope to measure and determine the condition of surfaces, amount of particulate matter remaining and/or etch residues accumulated [each may be considered individually or collectively a first amount of first material ] thereon ([0069] – [0071], [0089]), and then presenting the information in order to adjust the one or more process parameters or determine no further adjustments [determine a threshold where no further adjustments can be done] ([0088] – [0089], [0101], [0104] – [0105]). By using such a system and methods, the number of substrates processed between cleaning and seasoning operations can be maximized with little process drift between cleaning and seasoning operations ([0101], [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Vellaikal by measuring an amount of the first material in the reaction chamber during the processing the portion of the batch of wafers, or on one of the wafers in the portion of the batch of wafers; determining that the first amount exceeds a threshold, (whether the threshold is negative or positive); and that the deposition of the second layer of protective material is in response to the determination of the first amount exceeding the recited threshold; because Gottscho teaches that such steps would have allowed for the number of substrates processed between cleaning and seasoning operations to be maximized with little process drift between such cleaning and seasoning operations.
Regarding claim 6:
Vellaikal does not expressly teach that the measuring further includes measuring the amount of the first material in the reaction chamber during the processing operation by using a residual gas analyzer or a spectroscope.
However, Gottscho discloses that the scope may include sensors configured to capture reflected wavelengths of light emanating from a surface [spectroscope] ([0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Vellaikal by measuring an amount of the first material in the reaction chamber during the processing the portion of the batch of wafers, or on one of the wafers in the portion of the batch of wafers; determining that the first amount exceeds a threshold; and that the deposition of the second layer of protective material is in response to the determination of the first amount exceeding the recited threshold; because Gottscho teaches that such steps would have allowed for the number of substrates processed between cleaning and seasoning operations to be maximized with little process drift between such cleaning and seasoning operations.
Regarding claim 10:
Vellaikal discloses that during the implantation process [processing], the plasma also etches the seasoning film [etching operation] ([0011]).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vellaikal in view of Gottscho and optionally Wu as applied to claims 1 – 11 above, and further in view of Wu et al. 2018/0209042 A1 (hereinafter “Wu”).
Regarding claim 13:
Vellaikal discloses that the seasoning layer may be deposited by plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition ([0017], [0019], [0024]).
Vellaikal in view of Gottscho does not expressly teach that the seasoning layer [protective material] is deposited by atomic layer deposition (ALD).
Wu is directed to methods of forming a plasma resistant coating onto surfaces by ALD (Abstract). Wu discloses that ALD comprises providing in vapor phase precursors in half reactions at certain temperatures and is related to CVD ([[0029], [0083]). Wu further discloses that ALD allows the deposition of coatings inside high aspect ratio features on components and produce coatings that are porosity-free ([0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Vellaikal in view of Gottscho by depositing the silicon oxide layer by an ALD methodology because Wu teaches that ALD allows the deposition of coatings inside high aspect ratio features on components and produce coatings that are porosity-free.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vellaikal in view of Gottscho as applied to claims 1 – 11 above, and further in view of Yu et al. US 5131752 A (hereinafter “Yu”).
Regarding claim 21:
Vellaikal in view of Gottscho does not expressly teach the steps of: measuring, after the measuring of the first amount, a second amount of the first material on one of the wafers in the portion of the batch of wafers; and determining that the second amount exceeds a second threshold.
Yu is directed to method for film thickness endpoint control by use of an ellipsometer (Abstract; col 1 lines 5 – 20). Yu discloses that their method of using the ellipsometer and determining a deposition endpoint comprises (col 1 lines 10 – 40, col 13 line 30 – col 14 line 63); Fig. 6a, 6b): providing a desired process endpoint [second threshold] ( col 13 lines 30 – 50); measuring ellipsometry data of a film during the etching or deposition processing of a wafer and calculating film thickness measuring points (col 6 lines 9 – 60, col 10 lines 25 – 50; Claim 1); and determining when a film thickness measuring point crosses a control line indicative of the endpoint [determining when second amount exceeds the second threshold] (Claim 1). Yu further discloses that such a method is useful for determining when a substrate can move further in a larger manufacturing process of electronic circuits and components and to repeatably form films of desired thicknesses (col 1 lines 5 – 20, col 2 lines 19 – 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Vellaikal in view of Gottscho by including the steps of: measuring, after the measuring of the first amount, a second amount of the first material on one of the wafers in the portion of the batch of wafers; and determining that the second amount exceeds a second threshold; because Yu teaches that such a method is useful for determining when a substrate can move further in a larger manufacturing process of electronic circuits and components and to repeatably form films of desired thicknesses.
With regards to the timing of the steps:
Vellaikal discloses that after depositing a new seasoning layer [second layer of protective material], introducing a new first wafer and doping boron into wafers with ion implantation, which also results in miniscule etching during processing (Fig. 2B 270 to Fig. 2A via path B to Fig. 2B via path A, [0021], [0024]; claim 1)
Absent a showing of unexpected results, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the difference between the prior art and the claimed method/process is the order of the performance of the steps taught by the prior art. See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
a.) The prior art of record does not teach or suggest measuring a first amount of the first material in the reaction chamber, or on one of the wafers in the portion of the batch of wafers. Gottscho also does not teach or suggest “determining that the first amount exceeds a first threshold.
b.) Applicant respectfully submits that Gottscho does not teach or suggest depositing a second layer of protective material in response to a determination that the first amount exceeds the first threshold.
In response to the applicant's arguments, please consider the following comments.
a.) During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit' s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 and claims dependent on claim 1 adds the word “first” to amounts of first material and exceeding of a threshold. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “first” does not necessarily require that there are “seconds”, “thirds”, ect of a given object, e.g. “second amount of the first material”. The prior art of record discloses amounts of first material that are measured and a threshold that is exceeded, thus meeting the claims. Likewise the plain meaning of exceed does not
b.) The test for obviousness is what the teachings of the prior art as a whole would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Gottscho teaches a step of performing a cleaning and seasoning operation when process parameters can no longer be adjusted to process a next substrate ([0082] – [0086], [0087] – [0088]). Vellaikal teaches such a seasoning operation as discussed above where seasoning operations are repeated. Gottscho also expressly discloses the continuing of monitoring until the process parameters can no longer be adjusted to process a next substrate, i.e. until the process parameters (such as amount of first material) indicate that there can be no further adjustment, exceeding a first threshold ([0088] – [0089], [0101], [0104] – [0105]). "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights