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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on June 25, 2025 is acknowledged.
During the search of Group I art was found that reads on Group II, claim 17, as a result, claim 17 has been rejoined and examined below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a trap mechanism in claims 3, 4, 6, and 7; and
exhaust device in claim 17 .
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically,
the trap mechanism is interpreted as being trap body 10 as seen in Figure 3; and
exhaust device is interpreted as being a pump 9 as seen in Figure 1.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 11-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 4599701 B2 (‘701), in view of JP WO2005065805 (‘805).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, ‘701 teaches a substrate processing apparatus 2 comprising: a processing chamber 6 configured to process a substrate W; a first gas supplier configured to supply a metal-containing gas (TiCl4 source, Figure 9; titanium-containing gas, a tungsten-containing gas, and a tantalum-containing gas, Paragraph 0010) into the processing chamber 6; a second gas supplier configured to supply a first oxygen-containing gas (oxygen-containing gas, and water vapor, Paragraph 0010) into the processing chamber 6; and an exhauster 33 including a gas exhaust pipe 30 and a trap 32 configured to collect a component of the metal-containing gas contained in an exhaust gas, the exhauster being configured to discharge the exhaust gas from the processing chamber, wherein the trap includes: a trap mechanism (outer wall of trap 32) configured to collect the component of the metal-containing gas contained in the exhaust gas and including a trap fin 32A, a third gas supplier 160 configured to supply a second oxygen-containing gas 166 into the trap mechanism (outer wall of trap 32) via nozzle 162 (Paragraph 0035), wherein the component of the metal-containing gas is caused to react with the second oxygen-containing gas in the trap mechanism, and wherein the component of the metal-containing gas adheres to the trap fin in the trap mechanism. (Figure 9)
‘701 differs from the present invention in that ‘701 does not teach the use of plasma in the trap, a plasma generator configured to generate the plasma, a third gas supplier configured to supply a second oxygen-containing gas to the plasma generator, a high-frequency power supply configured to supply high-frequency power to the plasma generator, and a fourth gas supplier configured to supply a gas from the plasma generator to the trap mechanism, wherein the plasma generator activates the second oxygen-containing gas with plasma.
‘805 teaches the use of plasma in the trap 11, a plasma generator 1 configured to generate the plasma, a third gas supplier (Figure 11) configured to supply a second oxygen-containing gas (air) to the plasma generator 1, a high-frequency power supply 21 configured to supply high-frequency power to the plasma generator 1, and a fourth gas supplier (pipe between plasma chamber 1 and trap 11) configured to supply a gas from the plasma generator to the trap 11, wherein the plasma generator activates the second oxygen-containing gas with plasma.
The motivation for adding the remote plasma source of ‘805 to the oxidizing gas introducing means 160 of ‘701 is to activate the oxidizing gas of ‘701 and to deliver the activated gas to the trap of ‘701 to more efficiently breakdown and trap by-products of the deposition chamber. Furthermore, it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the remote plasma source of ‘805 to the oxidizing gas oxidizing gas introducing means of ‘701.
Regarding claim 5, ‘805 teaches that the plasma generator 1 includes an electrode 3 connected to the high-frequency power supply 21 and an electrode connected to the ground that is a reference potential (Figure 11).
Regarding claim 8, ‘701 and ‘805 teach that a product generated by a reaction between the component of the metal-containing gas and the activated second oxygen-containing gas is caused to adhere to the trap fin.
Regarding claim 9, ‘701 teaches that the trap fin is made of stainless steel. (Paragraph 0018)
Regarding claims 11-14, ‘701 teaches that the oxygen containing gas can be oxygen or ozone (paragraph 0035). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use oxygen and/or ozone as the first and/or second oxygen-containing gas.
Regarding claim 15, the plasma source of ‘701 and ‘805 is an ozonizer configured to generate the ozone.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ’701 and ‘805 as applied to claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, and 17 above, and further in view of Hara et al, US 9,896,761.
‘701 teaches that the trap 32 is disposed between a pump 33 configured to exhaust the processing chamber 6.
‘701 and ‘805 differ from the present invention in that they do not teach an auxiliary pump configured to support the pump; and the pump is a dry pump, and the auxiliary pump is a mechanical booster pump.
Hara et al teaches a trap disposed between a pump 66 configured to exhaust the processing chamber 12 and an auxiliary pump 70 configured to support the pump; and the pump 66 is a dry pump (turbomolecular pump), and the auxiliary pump 70 is a dry mechanical booster pump. (Figure 1)
The motivation for replacing the pump of ‘701 and ‘805 with the dry pump (turbomolecular pump) and the auxiliary pump (dry mechanical booster pump) of Hara et al is to provide an alternate and equivalent pumping arrangement as taught by Hara et al. Furthermore, it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the pump of ‘701 and ‘805 with the dry pump (turbomolecular pump) and the auxiliary pump (dry mechanical booster pump) of Hara et al.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ’701 and ‘805 as applied to claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, and 17 above, and further in view of Raoux et al, US 6,045,618 A.
‘701 and ‘805 does not teach a controller to control the processing apparatus.
Raoux et al teaches a controller 34 configured to control the first gas supplier, the second gas supplier and the exhauster to alternately perform (a) supplying the metal-containing gas from the first gas supplier into the processing chamber and (b) supplying the first oxygen-containing gas from the second gas supplier into the processing chamber, and perform (c) discharging the exhaust gas containing the component of the metal-containing gas after (a) and (d) collecting the component of the metal-containing gas contained in the exhaust gas.
The motivation for adding the controller of Raoux et al to the apparatus of ‘701 and ‘805 is to provide a controller to automate the control of the apparatus of ‘701 and ‘805. Furthermore, it has been held that automation is obvious. (In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958); MPEP 2144.04)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add the controller of Raoux et al to the apparatus of ‘701 and ‘805.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments regarding the 101 and 112(b) rejections do not address the 101 and 112(b) rejections. Both were directed to whether ozone can be used as a plasma source gas. The Examiner discussed the topic with his SPE, Parviz Hassanzadeh, and other examiners, and the results of preliminary search led the Examiner to conclude that it was not possible to use ozone as a plasma source gas. As a result the 101 and 112(b) rejections were made with the hope that the Applicant could provide evidence that this was not correct. Applicant did not provide any evidence that ozone could clarify the record and provide evidence that ozone can be used as a plasma source gas. The Applicant only referred to the specification as teaching that ozone can be used as a plasma source gas. The Examiner continued to search the topic. Initially, the Examiner found information indicating that ozone cannot be used as a plasma source gas. However, upon further search the following patents were found that teach the use of ozone as a plasma source gas: CN 119725091 A, CN 102969238 B, WO 2007149694 A2, CN 1701423 A, and WO 9524975 A1. The Examiner notes that WO 9524975 A1 specifically teaches “Using ozone as the feed gas for a microwave discharge plasma it is possible to produce localized, high concentrations of excited oxygen atoms” (Page 3 lines 27-29). Based on these teaching the Examiner has concluded that it is known in the art to use ozone as a plasma source gas and the apparatus will function as claimed and that the claims particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. Therefore the 101 and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments entitled “Claim Rejection-35 U.S.C. 102”, filed November 10, 2025, with respect to the 102 rejection of record have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection of record has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments entitled “Claim Rejection-35 U.S.C. 103”, filed November 10, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 11-17 under 103 in view of Hasegawa (‘701), Raoux, and Okubo (‘805) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of ‘701 and ‘805.
Applicant's arguments filed November 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the argument directed to Hasegawa’s (‘701) about the location of the nozzle 162 of the oxidizing gas source 166, the Examiner disagrees for the following reasons:
The claim does not require the fourth gas supplier to be “a part of/included in the trap mechanism 32”. The claim requires “a fourth gas supplier configured to supply a gas from the plasma generator to the trap mechanism”. Thus, the present rejection of Hasegawa (‘701) and Okubo (‘805) teaches this limitation because a third gas supplier 166 is configured to supply a second oxygen-containing gas (O2 or ozone) to the plasma generator of Okubo (‘805) and the fourth gas supplier (pipe 164 of Hasegawa (‘701) downstream of the plasma source to the nozzle 162) configured to supply a gas from the plasma generator to the trap mechanism via the exhaust pipe 30, teaches these claim limitations. because the source gas.
Furthermore, as noted above Okubo (‘805) specifically teaches that “The nozzle 162 may be provided in the trap mechanism 132, and the oxidizing gas may be directly introduced therein” in Paragraph 0035.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. The following references teach:
The use of plasma in the exhaust: US 20200083029 A1; US 20200075297 A1; US 20150252473 A1; US 8580076 B2; US 20020066535 A1; US 6391146 B1; and US 6367412 B1;
The use of fins in a trap: US 8147786 B2; and
The use of a trap between pumps: JP 2005109383 A; US 6223684 B1; and US 5928426 A
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 Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at (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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716