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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the heater configured to heat the gas exhaust pipe in claim 1 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al, JP 4599701 B2, in view of Okubo et al, JP WO2005065805.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Hasegawa et al 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; and a heater 55C configured to heat the gas exhaust pipe 30 to a temperature at which the metal-containing gas and the oxygen plasma readily react (i.e. a temperature at which the metal-containing gas is a gas and will readily react with the oxygen plasma). (Figure 9, Paragraph 0020) The Examiner also notes that the limitation “a temperature at which the metal-containing gas and the oxygen plasma readily react” is a functional limitation, and it has been held that: “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Emphasis in original) Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus “if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Also see MPEP 2114. Hasegawa et al teaches all of the structural limitations and is capable of heating the metallic gas to the desired temperature. Therefore the limitation “a temperature at which the metal-containing gas and the oxygen plasma readily react” does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from Hasegawa et al.
Hasegawa et al differs from the present invention in that Hasegawa et al 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 an oxygen plasma from the plasma generator to the trap mechanism, wherein the plasma generator activates the second oxygen-containing gas with plasma.
Okubo et al 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 an oxygen plasma 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 Okubo et al to the oxidizing gas introducing means 160 of Hasegawa et al is to activate the oxidizing gas of Hasegawa et al and to deliver the activated gas to the trap of Hasegawa et al 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 Okubo et al to the oxidizing gas introducing means of Hasegawa et al.
Regarding claim 5, Okubo et al 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, Hasegawa et al and Okubo et al 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, Hasegawa et al teaches that the trap fin is made of stainless steel. (Paragraph 0018)
Regarding claims 11-14, Hasegawa et al 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 Hasegawa et al and Okubo et al is an ozonizer configured to generate the ozone.
Regarding claim 19, Okubo et al teaches an electrode 3 configured to generate plasma, and wherein the electrode 3 is disposed inside the plasma generation unit 1.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al and Okubo et al as applied to claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 11-15, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of Hara et al, US 9,896,761.
Hasegawa et al and Okubo et al differ from the present invention in that they do not teach an auxiliary pump configured to support the pump; the trap disposed between a pump configured to exhaust the processing chamber and an auxiliary pump and the pump is a dry pump, and the auxiliary pump is a mechanical booster pump.
Hara et al teaches a trap 68 disposed between a pump 66 configured to exhaust the processing chamber 12 and an auxiliary pump 70 configured to support the pump 66; and the pump 66 is a dry pump (turbomolecular pump), and the auxiliary pump 70 is a mechanical booster pump. (Figure 1)
The motivation for replacing the pump and trap arrangement of Hasegawa et al and Okubo et al with the pump and trap arrangement of Hara et al (i.e. the trap between the dry pump (turbomolecular pump) and the auxiliary pump (mechanical booster pump) is to provide an alternate and equivalent pump and trap 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 and trap arrangement of Hasegawa et al and Okubo et al with the pump and trap arrangement of Hara et al.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al and Okubo et al as applied to claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of Raoux et al, US 6,045,618 A.
Hasegawa et al and Okubo et al 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 Hasegawa et al and Okubo et al is to provide a controller to automate the control of the apparatus of Hasegawa et al and Okubo et al. 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 Hasegawa et al and Okubo et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the arguments that “Hasegawa does not teach "a heater configured to heat the gas exhaust pipe to a temperature at which the metal-containing gas and the oxygen plasma readily react," as recited in amended claim 1”, the Examiner disagrees for the following reasons:
As noted by the Applicant, Hasegawa et al (JP4599701 B2) teaches a heater 55C that heat the exhaust pipe. Applicant argues that this is done to prevent the condensation of the precursor gases in the pipe before it reaches the trap 32, which is different than heating the exhaust gas pipe to a temperature at which the metal-containing gas and the second oxygen-containing gas readily react. This is not found persuasive because heating the exhaust system so that the metal-containing gas (precursor) remains a gas and does condense or liquefy is equivalent to heating the metal-containing gas (precursor) so that the metal-containing gas and the second oxygen-containing gas will readily (easily) react. The metal-containing gas (precursor) will readily react much better than a metal containing liquid. Thus Hasegawa et al teaches the newly added limitation.
As noted above, the limitation "a temperature at which the metal-containing gas and the second oxygen-containing gas readily react" is an intended use of the heater and the heater is capable of heating the metal-containing gas and the second oxygen-containing gas to a temperature at which they readily react. The specific temperature that the metal-containing gas is heated to is not disclosed or claimed and in general the vaporization temperature (point at which the liquid becomes a gas) and the decomposition temperature (temperature at which the metal-containing gas decomposes into a metal and gaseous byproducts) of the metal-containing gas is a very small range usually on the order of 10s of degrees, thus within the range of a standard heater like that taught by Hasegawa et al. To show otherwise the Applicant must show that the claimed temperature is outside the range of a standard heater. The Examiner note that no such explanation is made in the specification, and no specific heater structure is claimed or disclosed so there is no indication that heater of Hasegawa et al is not capable of heating the metal-containing gas and the second oxygen-containing gas so that they readily react.
Paragraph 0039 teaches that the temperature of the exhaust is not particularly required to be controlled, but the exhaust piping may be heated. Thus the exhaust pipes "may be heated" and the specific temperature the metal-containing gas is heated to is of no criticality in the limitation, and is an obvious choice.
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
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
Prosecution Insights