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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The applicants amended the claims.
The amended claims recite:
A plasma processing method, in which a sample placed on a sample table is plasma-processed in a processing chamber, the method comprising:
a first step of removing residual sample processing deposits in the processing chamber by using plasma;
a second step of depositing a film on inner walls of the processing chamber and on a dummy wafer disposed on the sample table, wherein the film contains a carbon element and a hydrogen element and is formed by plasma processing of a mixed gas of hydrofluorocarbon gas and argon (Ar) gas after the first step, while a bias power is applied to the sample table;
a third step of selectively removing the deposited film from the dummy wafer on the sample table by using a mixed gas of oxygen (02) gas and argon (Ar) gas after the second step; and
a fourth step of plasma-processing a predetermined number of sheets of the sample after the third step.
Such is not supported by the original disclosure for the entire scope of the claims.
The applicants allege that the support for the refenced amendment is provided by Figure 2 and the original specification at [0026-35].
This is not persuasive.
The original disclosure also clearly teach that the dummy wafer is placed at the step 201 and is removed in the step 205.
The original disclosure clearly teaches that “After the dummy wafer is placed, a mixed gas containing sulfur hexafluoride (SF.sub.6), oxygen (O.sub.2), and argon (Ar) is supplied from the gas supply pipe 110 into the processing chamber 101 to perform plasma processing in step 202 (first step), thereby removing the residual film (deposits) in the processing chamber 101.”
PNG
media_image1.png
871
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claims are not limited to such.
The claims do not specify when the dummy wafer is placed on the mounting table 103.
The claims do not exclude placing the dummy wafer after the step of removing residual sample processing deposits in the processing chamber by using plasma.
Thus, the claims are not supported by the original disclosure for the entire scope of the claims.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0648858 in view of Van Autryve et al (US 6,014,979).
EP 0648858 teaches a method for controlling contamination built-up by forming a polymer film on the chamber wall to cover and entrap plasma processing by-products on the walls. This process is conducted after plasma processing. EP 0648858 teaches etching as a plasma process. EP 0648858 teaches processing of substrates after the refenced film formation. EP 0648858 also teach periodic cleaning of the chamber by oxygen plasma with oxygen plasma. EP 0648858 also teach the use of film forming gases and etching gases in the mixture with argon. See at least page 2, lines 9-39, page 3, line 33 – page 7, line 44.
Thus, EP 0648858 as applied above teaches a method as claimed except for the specific recitation of the use of the dummy wafer.
However, Van Autryve et al teach that it was known to use dummy wafers to protect substrate supports during cleaning (at least column 9, lines 15-19).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use dummy wafers to protect substrate supports in the method of EP 0648858 in order to use a known technique for its known purpose.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0648858 in view of Van Autryve et al (US 6,014,979), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Takeshita et al (US 2006/0091104).
As to claims 3-6:
Modified EP 0648858 as applied above teaches a method as claimed except for the specific recitation of the use of CH3F gas. EP 0648858 teaches a genus that comprises the referenced gas, but does not exemplify the referenced gas.
On the other hand, Takeshita et al teach that it was known to use CH3F for forming coatings in processing chambers and also teach the referenced gas as an alternative to the gasses exemplified by EP 0648858.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use CH3F in the method of EP 0648858 for forming the coating in the processing chamber, in order to use a known gas for known purpose, since EP 0648858 teaches a genus that comprises the referenced gas and since Takeshita et al teach that it was known to use CH3F for forming coatings in processing chambers and also teach the referenced gas as an alternative to the gasses exemplified by EP 0648858.
As to claims 4-6 application of RF recited by the claims is disclosed by EP 0648858, since generation of plasma in EP 0648858 requires application of RF to the substrate support. See at least page 5, lines 25-32.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0648858 in view of Van Autryve et al (US 6,014,979), further in view of Takeshita et al (US 2006/0091104), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of WO 2014/113177.
Modified EP 0648858 as applied above teaches a method as claimed except for the specific recitation of the use of sulfur hexafluoride gas.
EP 0648858, however, teaches that the etching process must be tailored to the particular material to be removed (at least page 3, lines 16-19).
On the other hand, WO 2014/113177 teaches that sulfur hexafluoride was a known component of etching gases that was known to be used together with gases recited by EP 0648858.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use sulfur hexafluoride together with the gasses disclosed by EP 0648858 depending from the specific application in order to better tailor the process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants amended the claims and argue that the amended claims correspond to the requirements of 35 USC 112.
This is not persuasive for the reasons presented above.
While most of the deficiencies of the claims have been obviated by the amendments made, the claims are still not supported by the original disclosure for the entire scope of the claims.
The art rejections based on the teaching of EP 0648858 and the secondary documents have been reinstated in view of the amendments made to the claims.
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 ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711