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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 9/26/2025, with respect to the previous objections to the claims (see FP #10-12 of nonfinal action dated 6/30/2025) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to obviate the issues. The previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2025 regarding the previous 103 rejection under modified Tran have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues modified Tran, the controller, and “configured to” language (see Applicant’s Remarks, pages 5-7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is claiming non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions. Applicant is not claiming the actual processing chamber (or controller thereof) or a method. Examiner grants varying degrees of patentable weight depending on what is actually being claimed, and as established in the preamble. Examiner does not consider these interchangeable regarding analysis.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments pertaining to this being conclusory statements, Examiner has relied on established case law regarding automation of manual activities, in addition to secondary/evidentiary teachings by Fu to supplement this. Examiner maintains that Tran already discloses the general methodology, albeit not in the form of instructions/program. Carrying out Tran’s method via instructions is held to be an obvious advancement.
Applicant argues the intent of Tran (see Applicant’s Remarks, page 7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner considers the intent a moot point. Applicant must clearly identify how the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium and instructions is patentably distinct from Tran.
Applicant argues general differences between Tran and Applicant’s invention (see Applicant’s Remarks, pages 7-8).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments must be commensurate with the claimed invention, and any differences must be captured in the claim language. Applicant’s arguments must specifically point out which limitations have not been satisfied with regards to the prior art rejection basis. Examiner needs Applicant to clearly identify which particular instruction(s) are not disclosed by the rejection basis under modified Tran.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran et al. (US 20170069466, “Tran”) in view of Fu et al. (US 20090017227, “Fu”).
Tran teaches a method comprising the following of claim 1 except where underlined:
For Claim 1:
A non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions that, when executed by a controller of a processing chamber, are configured to cause the processing chamber to perform operations of:
exposing a semiconductor substrate comprising a surface structure with a metal bottom, dielectric sidewalls, and a field of dielectric to a dual plasma treatment in the processing chamber to remove chemical residual and/or impurities from the metal bottom, the dielectric sidewalls, and/or the field of the dielectric and/or repair surface defects in the dielectric sidewalls and/or the field of the dielectric (see [0042], [0062]-[0063]. See MPEP 2114 & 2115). Examiner notes that the claimed invention is a computer readable medium with instructions. The substrate itself is not part the claimed invention, but rather an object-to-be-treated/worked upon using the claimed medium in conjunction with a controller of a processing chamber; and
exposing the semiconductor substrate to a tungsten precursor to selectively form a tungsten film on the semiconductor substrate, the tungsten film forming selectively on the metal bottom relative to the dielectric sidewalls and the field of dielectric, the metal bottom comprising one or more of tungsten (W), cobalt (Co), or ruthenium (Ru), (see [0042], [0062]-[0063]. refer to precursors in [0042]) (see MPEP 2114, & 2115). Examiner notes that the claimed invention is a computer readable medium with instructions. Tran teaches the instruction of precursor exposure per [0042]. The actual precursor would depend on the apparatus/processing chamber the instructions are utilized with. The tungsten film appears to be a desired result/effect from the precursor exposure. The substrate particulars are not required, as the substrate itself is not part of the claimed invention (see above).
wherein the processing chamber comprises a dual plasma lid performing the dual plasma treatment, wherein the processing chamber comprises at least one side wall defining an internal volume, the internal volume comprising a remote plasma unit and a direct plasma unit (see Figures 1-4, gas source 132, first plasma 245, second plasma 275. [0042], [0062]-[0063]. see MPEP 2114 & 2115). Examiner notes that the claimed invention is a computer readable medium with instructions. The controller and processing chamber are not the claimed invention, but rather an intended application/use for the computer readable medium,
wherein the dual plasma treatment comprises simultaneously or sequentially exposing the surface structure to a direct plasma generated by the direct plasma unit and to a remote plasma generated by the remote plasma unit, the direct plasma comprising one or more of a direct oxygen plasma and a direct hydrogen plasma, and the remote plasma comprising one or more of a remote oxygen plasma and a remote hydrogen plasma. (see Figures 1-4, gas source 132, first plasma 245, second plasma 275. [0042], [0062]-[0063]) .
Tran appears to teach general execution of a method rather than a controller and associated medium instructions.
Examiner however, considers applying the method to a controller and instruction medium thereof to be an obvious automation activity (see MPEP 2144.04, “Automating a Manual Activity”). Examiner further refers to Fu as demonstrating such controller and set of instructions (see Fu’s Figure 2, controller 80, recordable medium 82. [0021])
Modified Tran also teaches the following:
For Claim 3:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, further including instructions that, when executed by the controller of the processing chamber, are configured to cause the processing chamber to perform operations of: exposing the semiconductor substrate to the direct oxygen plasma and to the remote hydrogen plasma (see Tran’s [0042], [0062]-[0063]).
For Claim 5:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, further including instructions that, when executed by the controller of the processing chamber, are configured to cause the processing chamber to perform operations of: exposing the semiconductor substrate to a co-flow of the direct oxygen plasma and the direct hydrogen plasma, and to a co-flow of the remote oxygen plasma and the remote hydrogen plasma (see Tran’s [0042], [0062]-[0063]).
For Claim 6:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 5, wherein the semiconductor substrate is exposed to the co-flow of the direct oxygen plasma and the direct hydrogen plasma before the co-flow of the remote oxygen plasma and the remote hydrogen plasma (see Tran’s [0042], [0062]-[0063]).
For Claim 7:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 3, wherein the semiconductor substrate is exposed to the direct oxygen plasma before the remote hydrogen plasma (see Tran’s [0042], [0062]-[0063]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC LORENZI whose telephone number is (571)270-7586 and fax number is (571)270-8586. The examiner can normally be reached from 9-5 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Gordon Baldwin at 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MARC LORENZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718