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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the core gas tube" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed that “the core gas tube” is --the core plasma tube--.
Claims 2-20 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kabansky (US 6461972 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kabansky teaches a microwave plasma device for semiconductor wafer processing (abstract). Fig. 2 of Kabansky is shown below for convenience. Kabansky teaches [Col. 5, Lines 30 to Col. 6, Lines 21] a microwave plasma assembly (134), composed of a microwave power source (142) and a plasma tube (146). The plasma tube carries generated microwave plasma (138) into the reaction chamber (132) and attached to the plasma tube is gas distribution assembly (156) including a gas distribution cone (166) which delivers microwave plasma non-fluoride gas mixed with fluorine gas to the RF plasma generation area (140). The gas distribution assembly is understood to extend the structure of the plasma in the reaction chamber in order to produce a treated semiconductor (136) surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
530
807
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5-6 and 8-9, Kabansky teaches a gas distribution cone (166) as shown above [Col. 6, Lines 1-11]. The cone is narrowest near the top and increases in diameter as it extends into the chamber. Each cross section of the cone is cylindrical in shape, and each successive cross-section increases in diameter as it extends into the chamber.
Regarding Claim 18-19, Kablansky teaches the gas feed inlet (170) connects to the microwave plasma in the extension system in the reaction chamber [Col. 6, Lines 1-11].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 7, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabansky (US 6461972 B1).
Regarding Claim 7, Kabansky teaches a gas distribution cone (166) as shown above [Col. 6, Lines 1-11]. The cone is narrowest near the top and increases in diameter as it extends into the chamber. Each cross section of the cone is cylindrical in shape, and each successive cross-section increases in diameter as it extends into the chamber. The courts have held that the configuration of a claimed item is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (see MPEP 2144.05 IV B).
Regarding Claim 14-15 and 20, prior to the filing of the present invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the size of the extension structure in the microwave plasma device taught by Kablansky to meet the required limitations in Claims 14-15 and 20. That is, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Regarding Claims 16-17, prior to the filing of the present invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that optimize the relative size of the extension structure in the microwave plasma device taught by Kablansky in order to vary the degree to which the extension structure takes space within the reaction chamber as a matter of routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). Further, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Claims 2-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabansky (US 6461972 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Shih (US20140113453A1).
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Kablansky teaches to Claim 1, as shown above.
However, Kabansky doesn’t teach that a non-stick coating covers the interior of the reaction chamber.
Shih teaches that a reactor chamber for a plasma system is preferably formed of stainless steel alloys and coating with a tungsten carbide (WC) coating in order to resist the reactive gas being generated in the system [0029].
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to incorporate the tungsten carbide coating on the reaction chamber interior surface, as per Shih, with the microwave plasma apparatus of Kablansky in order to arrive at a microwave plasma system that resists the corrosive effects of active plasma gas.
Regarding Claim 12, Kablansky teaches to Claim 1, as shown above.
However, Kablansky does not teach that the extension structure is made of stainless steel.
Shih teaches that a reactor chamber for a plasma system is preferably formed of stainless steel alloys and coating with a tungsten carbide (WC) coating in order to resist the reactive gas being generated in the system [0029].
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the use of stainless steel for the internal componentry, as per Shih, could be used as the material from which to compose the gas distribution cone of Kablansky in order to arrive at a microwave plasma system with an extension structure that resists the corrosive effects of active plasma gas.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabansky (US 6461972 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Yamazaki (US 5601883 A).
Regarding Claim 4, Kablansky teaches to Claim 1, as shown above.
However, Kablansky does not teach that the extension structure or reaction chamber has an agitator, vibrator or oscillator nor that the extension structure is made of stainless steel.
Yamazaki teaches a microwave enhanced CVD system using plasma (abstract).
Yamazaki teaches that in a cylinder (10’), which is understood to be an extension structure, and which houses the reactive gas, is equipped with a micro-vibration system [Col. 3, Lines 32-34].
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have incorporated the vibrating stainless steel extension structure, as per Yamazaki, into the gas distribution cone of Kablansky in order to arrive at a microwave plasma system with an extension structure that ensures reactive gases have continuous movement.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabansky (US 6461972 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Meyer (DE202011100570U1).
Kabansky teaches to claim 1 as shown above.
However, Kabansky does not teach that the extension structure is coated in a ceramic felt.
Meyer teaches a protective coating for use with tubes in which microwave generated plasmas are formed [Pg. 1, Paragraph 3, first paragraph after state of the art]. Meyer teaches that the use of ceramic felt made of ceramic fibers in order to protect a tube from thermally stresses associated with temperature variation within as opposed to outside the tube [Pg 2, bottom 4 paragraphs].
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have incorporated the protective felt coating made of ceramic fibers on a plasma tube, as per Meyer, into the gas distribution structure of Kablansky in order to arrive at a microwave plasma system with an extension structure with added stability against thermal stress.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The nearest piece of prior art would be Ikeda (US 6340863 B1), which demonstrates an extension structure [element 50, Fig. 7, shown below and Co. 18, line 56 to Col. 19, Line 29] the tapers radially inward as it extends in the reaction/quenching zone (57). However, it is not readily apparent that one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to combine the gas distribution cone of Kabansky with the reaction tube of Ikeda, in order to arrive at an extension structure which tapers outward and then tapers inward as it extends towards the wafer piece being worked on.
PNG
media_image2.png
324
378
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES
Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759