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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/05/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/12/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 09/12/2025.
Claim Status
Claims 1-4 and 7-19 are pending.
Claims 9-11 are currently withdrawn.
Claims 5-6 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 16 are currently amended.
Claims 17-19 are newly added.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20150091769 A, using previously attached English machine translation), and further in view of Zhang (US 20170323768 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a CVD apparatus, comprising (Kim, Fig. 2, L102-118, substrate processing apparatus 1000):
a chamber (Kim, Fig. 2, L102-118, substrate processing apparatus 1000);
a cleaning gas supply pipe that supplies a cleaning gas to the chamber comprising a first valve (Kim, Fig. 2, L102-118, first cleaning gas pipe 510 supplies a first cleaning gas to chamber 100 via valve 512);
a gas supply pipe that supplies a second cleaning gas to the chamber comprising a second valve (Kim, Fig. 2, L102-118, second cleaning gas pipe 520 supplies a second cleaning gas, Ar, to chamber 100 via valve 522); and
a controller (Kim, L253-257, control unit 600) configured to clean the chamber by:
opening the first valve to supply the cleaning gas to the inside of the chamber (Kim, L253-257, control unit 600 opens first cleaning valve 512 to deliver first cleaning gas to the chamber);
closing the first valve to stop supply of the cleaning gas inside of the chamber; and opening the second valve to supply the oxygen-containing gas to the inside of the chamber with the first valve closed (Kim, L253-257, control unit 600 opens second cleaning valve 522 to deliver second cleaning gas to the chamber, sequentially after delivering first cleaning gas), and
wherein the cleaning gas is a fluorine-containing gas (Kim, L216, first cleaning gas is NF3).
While Kim teaches a controller that is configured to control first and second valves of separate cleaning gas pipes to sequentially provide a first cleaning gas and a second cleaning gas to the chamber, Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein the gas supply steps are discrete and wherein the second cleaning gas is an oxygen-containing gas. Kim also fails to teach wherein the oxygen concentration of the oxygen-containing gas is in the range of 40% by volume or more and 60% by volume or less.
However, Zhang teaches a dual step byproduct removal method (Zhang, Fig. 2, [0029], method 200) executed by a controller (Zhang, [0026]-[0028], controller 110 controls the process sequence and regulates the gas flows from the gas panel 193) during which panel 193 flows gases to system 132, where a fluorine based gas is introduced into the chamber during operation 202 (Zhang, Fig. 2, [0031]-[0032]). After completion of operation 202 in which the fluorine based gas is flowed, operation 204 executes where an oxygen based gas is flowed into the chamber (Zhang, [0032]-[0043], operation 204 contains plasma treatment gas mixture of at least one hydrogen containing gas and/or an oxygen containing gas). Further, Zhang teaches wherein the oxygen concentration of the oxygen-containing gas is in the range of 40% by volume or more and 60% by volume or less (Zhang, [0032]-[0043], plasma treatment process 204 contains plasma treatment gas mixture of at least one hydrogen containing gas and/or an oxygen containing gas, which may be individually supplied with inert gas such as Ar or He, and where the inert gas can be supplied in a range of 100 sccm to 8000 sccm, such as 500 sccm, and the oxygen containing gas can be supplied in a flow range of 50 sccm to 50000 sccm, such as 500 sccm). When the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
Zhang is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same filed of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have flowed the fluorine containing gas in a first step and oxygen containing gas in a second step utilizing the flow rates taught by Zhang as doing so would clean chamber components or inner wall/structures in the system via the fluorine containing gas (Zhang, [0031]), and subsequently passivate the surfaces of chamber components so as to prevent the surface of the chamber components from further damage or attack via the oxygen containing gas (Zhang, [0040]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches a source gas supply pipe that supplies a source gas to the chamber (Kim, Fig. 2, L179-180, first reaction gas supply pipe 210 supplies a first reaction gas to chamber 100), wherein the source gas supply pipe, the cleaning gas supply pipe, and the oxygen- containing gas supply pipe are each connected to the chamber via a gas supply pipe (Kim, Fig. 2, L179-180 first reaction gas supply pipe 210, L102-118, first cleaning gas pipe 510 and second gas cleaning gas pipe 520 are connected to chamber 100 via supply pipe 413).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches wherein the cleaning gas supply pipe and the oxygen-containing gas supply pipe include a remote plasma unit (Kim, Fig. 2, L102-118, remote plasma generating unit 410 is located on supply pipe 413 downstream from first and second cleaning gas pipes 510 and 520).
Regarding claim 4, Kim fails to teach wherein the oxygen-containing gas contains oxygen and an inert gas.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the oxygen-containing gas contains oxygen and an inert gas (Zhang, [0032]-[0043], plasma treatment process 204 contains plasma treatment gas mixture of at least one hydrogen containing gas and/or an oxygen containing gas, which may be individually supplied with inert gas such as Ar or He).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have flowed the fluorine containing gas in a first step and oxygen containing gas in a second step utilizing the flow rates taught by Zhang as doing so would clean chamber components or inner wall/structures in the system via the fluorine containing gas (Zhang, [0031]), and subsequently passivate the surfaces of chamber components so as to prevent the surface of the chamber components from further damage or attack via the oxygen containing gas (Zhang, [0040]).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches wherein the fluorine-containing gas contains a fluorine compound gas (Kim, L216, first cleaning gas is NF3).
Kim fails to teach wherein the fluorine-containing gas contains an inert gas.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the fluorine-containing gas contains an inert gas (Zhang, [0032], cleaning gas mixture in operation 202 includes at least a fluorine containing gas and an inert gas).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have flowed the fluorine containing gas in a first step and oxygen containing gas in a second step utilizing the flow rates taught by Zhang as doing so would clean chamber components or inner wall/structures in the system via the fluorine containing gas (Zhang, [0031]), and subsequently passivate the surfaces of chamber components so as to prevent the surface of the chamber components from further damage or attack via the oxygen containing gas (Zhang, [0040]).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches wherein a gas outlet is arranged along the inner wall surface of the chamber (Kim, Fig. 2, L122-127, exhaust pump 140 is connected to open port in chamber 100).
Regarding claim 14, Kim fails to teach wherein the cleaning gas is supplied to the inside of the chamber at a first flow rate, wherein the oxygen-containing gas is supplied to the inside of the chamber at a second flow rate, and wherein the second flow rate is between 2 and 10 times greater than the first flow rate.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the cleaning gas is supplied to the inside of the chamber at a first flow rate (Zhang, [0031]-[0034], the fluorine containing gas supplied in the cleaning gas mixture may be supplied into the processing chamber at a flow rate between about 1 sccm and about 12000 sccm, such as 100 sccm) wherein the oxygen-containing gas is supplied to the inside of the chamber at a second flow rate (Zhang, [0032]-[0043], the oxygen containing gas can be supplied in a flow range of 50 sccm to 50000 sccm, such as 500 sccm), and wherein the second flow rate is between 2 and 10 times greater than the first flow rate (Zhang, [0031]-[0034], fluorine containing gas can be supplied at 100 sccm, and the oxygen containing gas can be supplied at 500 sccm). When the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have flowed the fluorine containing gas in a first step and oxygen containing gas in a second step utilizing the flow rates taught by Zhang as doing so would clean chamber components or inner wall/structures in the system via the fluorine containing gas (Zhang, [0031]), and subsequently passivate the surfaces of chamber components so as to prevent the surface of the chamber components from further damage or attack via the oxygen containing gas (Zhang, [0040]).
Regarding claim 15, Kim fails to teach wherein the first flow rate is between 0.1 and 10 slpm.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the first flow rate is between 0.1 and 10 slpm (Zhang, [0031]-[0034], the fluorine containing gas supplied in the cleaning gas mixture may be supplied into the processing chamber at a flow rate between about 1 sccm and about 12000 sccm). When the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have flowed the fluorine containing gas in a first step and oxygen containing gas in a second step utilizing the flow rates taught by Zhang as doing so would clean chamber components or inner wall/structures in the system via the fluorine containing gas (Zhang, [0031]), and subsequently passivate the surfaces of chamber components so as to prevent the surface of the chamber components from further damage or attack via the oxygen containing gas (Zhang, [0040]).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches a susceptor (Kim, L119-121, substrate holding portion 110 is within chamber 100 located in lower half of the chamber, where the surface of the substrate holding portion is on the same plane as the gate valve 130), wherein the controller is configured to clean the chamber with the susceptor in a lowered position and wherein the lowered position is configured to allow a substrate to be transferred into or out of the chamber (Kim, Fig. 2, L221-226, controller 600 performs the cleaning process of the substrate processing apparatus 1000 after the substrate deposition process is performed).
Regarding claim 17, Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein opening the first valve to supply the cleaning gas to the inside of the chamber is configured to remove deposits on an inner surface of the chamber and forms a metal fluoride on the inner surface of the chamber.
However, Zhang teaches wherein opening the first valve to supply the cleaning gas to the inside of the chamber is configured to remove deposits on an inner surface of the chamber (Zhang, [0031], operation 202 cleans chamber components or inner wall/structures in the plasma processing system 132) and forms a metal fluoride on the inner surface of the chamber (Zhang, [0035], residuals such as aluminum fluoride are formed after operation 202).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have flowed the fluorine containing gas in a first step and oxygen containing gas in a second step utilizing the flow rates taught by Zhang as doing so would clean chamber components or inner wall/structures in the system via the fluorine containing gas (Zhang, [0031]), and subsequently passivate the surfaces of chamber components so as to prevent the surface of the chamber components from further damage or attack via the oxygen containing gas (Zhang, [0040]).
Regarding claim 18, Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein opening the second valve to supply the oxygen-containing gas to the inside of the chamber with the first valve closed is configured to oxidize the metal fluoride.
However, Zhang teaches wherein opening the second valve to supply the oxygen-containing gas to the inside of the chamber with the first valve closed is configured to oxidize the metal fluoride (Zhang, [0040], oxygen elements from the oxygen containing gas may then react with the active metal contaminants to form metal oxide).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have flowed the fluorine containing gas in a first step and oxygen containing gas in a second step utilizing the flow rates taught by Zhang as doing so would clean chamber components or inner wall/structures in the system via the fluorine containing gas (Zhang, [0031]), and subsequently passivate the surfaces of chamber components so as to prevent the surface of the chamber components from further damage or attack via the oxygen containing gas (Zhang, [0040]).
Regarding claim 19, Kim fails to explicitly teaches a passivation film on an inner surface of the chamber, wherein the passivation film is formed by oxidation of the metal fluoride.
However, Zhang teaches a passivation film on an inner surface of the chamber, wherein the passivation film is formed by oxidation of the metal fluoride (Zhang, [0040], oxide layer is formed on surfaces of the chamber components).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have flowed the fluorine containing gas in a first step and oxygen containing gas in a second step utilizing the flow rates taught by Zhang as doing so would clean chamber components or inner wall/structures in the system via the fluorine containing gas (Zhang, [0031]), and subsequently passivate the surfaces of chamber components so as to prevent the surface of the chamber components from further damage or attack via the oxygen containing gas (Zhang, [0040]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20150091769 A) in view of Zhang (US 20170323768 A1), as applied in claims 1-4, 7-8, and 14-19, and further in view of Singh (US 20030005943 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 7-8, and 14-19 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches wherein the controller is configured to open the first valve for a first supply time (Kim, L253-257, control unit 600 opens first cleaning valve 512 to deliver first cleaning gas to the chamber), and wherein the controller is configured to open the second valve for a second supply time (Kim, L253-257, control unit 600 opens second cleaning valve 522 to deliver second cleaning gas to the chamber, sequentially after delivering first cleaning gas).
Kim fails to teach wherein the first supply time is between 2 and 10 times longer than the second supply time.
However, Singh teaches wherein the first supply time is between 2 and 10 times longer than the second supply time (Singh, Table 4, step 2 time in which fluorine containing gas is flowed can be 20 sec, step 3 time in which only oxygen containing gas is flowed can be 5 sec).
Singh is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same filed of semiconductor processing. When the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
Regarding claim 13, Kim fails to teach wherein the first supply time is between 20 seconds and 300 seconds.
However, Singh teaches wherein the first supply time is between 20 seconds and 300 seconds (Singh, Table 4, step 2 time in which fluorine containing gas is flowed can be 20 sec). When the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 11/12/2025, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Buckalew, teach the claim limitations “wherein the oxygen concentration of the oxygen-containing gas is in the range of 40% by volume or more and 60% by volume or less, and wherein the cleaning gas comprises a fluorine containing gas” of independent claim 1 as newly amended. Particularly, that one would not combine Buckalew with references Kim and Singh as it would be improper. In response to the amendments, the Examiner has newly rejected the claims in the “Claims Rejections” sections above, thereby rendering the arguments moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
San (US 6767836 B2) teaches fluorine and oxygen clean steps can be in any order.
Shrotriya (US 5843239 A) teaches two step clean where fluorine gas creates metal fluoride, then oxygen/ozone mix follows to clean.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached 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 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.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718