DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 1/29/2026.
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-10, 12-14, and 17 are pending.
Claims 11, 15-16, and 18-19 are cancelled.
Claims 2-3 and 14 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 4-10, and 12 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aoki (US Pub. 2004/0159286).
Regarding claim 1, Aoki teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1, plasma processing apparatus #1) for processing a substrate (Fig. 1, wafer W), the apparatus comprising: a processing chamber (Fig. 1, chamber #2) comprising: an outer chamber (Fig. 1, space below baffle plate #28), and a reactor (Fig. 1, space above baffle plate #28) having an inlet (Fig. 1, plate #20 with gas holes #19) and an outlet (Fig. 1, slits #28a of baffle plate #28), the reactor being positioned within the outer chamber (Fig. 1, inner space is bounded by the chamber walls and baffle plate, which define a subdivision of the overall inner space); a plasma generator configured to provide plasma in the reactor and the outer chamber ([0054] and Fig. 1, power source #12 and #27 producing plasma in the entire chamber #2); and a substrate support configured to be positioned at a first position with respect to the reactor and in a second position different than first position with respect to the reactor ([0041] and Fig. 1, elevation mechanism provided to raise/lower support #6).
Regarding the limitations: “wherein during processing, gas phase species pass from the reactor, through the outlet, into the outer chamber during processing when the substrate support is at the first position: plasma is provided in the reactor, at least the reactor and substrate support are configured to form a first flow path between the reactor and the outer chamber, the first flow path has a first flow conductance of about 0.2 sccm/mTorr or less, and the plasma in the reactor is configured to flow through the first flowpath at the first flow conductance, and during processing when the substrate support is at the second position: plasma is provided in the reactor, at least the reactor and substrate support are configured to form a second flowpath between the reactor and the outer chamber, the second flowpath has a second flow conductance of about 1 sccm/mTorr or greater, and the plasma in the reactor is configured to flow through the second flowpath at the second flow conductance”, the limitations are construed as an intended use of the apparatus and not structurally limiting.
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. See MPEP 2114(II).
The Aoki apparatus is regarded as capable of performing the functional limitations above by virtue of the elevating substrate support ([0041]) which can provide an upper processing position and lower “open” position. Additionally, the gas supply source of Aoki is regarded as capable of providing gas at a variety of flow rates ([0066]). Finally, the substrate support comprises a counter-electrode to the upper electrode to generate plasma therebetween ([0067]), thus plasma could be generated in/supplied to all interior regions of the chamber #2.
The recited conductances are regarded as an intended result of other conditions (gas flow rates, exhaust rates, particular spacings between chamber elements; i.e. the processing steps), thus are also not structurally limiting of the claim. See MPEP 2114.04.
Regarding claim 4, Aoki teaches wherein in the first position, at least the substrate the support and the reactor are configured to confine the plasma to the reactor (configuration shown in Fig. 1, also [0067]-[0068]). Examiner’s note: this limitation is also construed as an intended use but is explicitly taught by Aoki.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, to clarify the record, the entire claims are merely intended uses and are given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended uses. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Aoki is regarded as capable of performing the claimed functions since it has all the structural elements of claim 1 and a vacuum pump (Fig. 1, exhaust device #4), which would allow for variable exhaust conductance as desired.
Regarding claim 8, to clarify the record, the entire claim is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
The Aoki apparatus is regarded as capable of performing the claimed function by virtue of the disclosed structure and operation (see at least the elements identified in the rejection of claim 1).
The Examiner notes that even though there is a plasma confinement structure provided (Fig. 1, baffle #28), ionized radical species can still escape confinement in the raised position via slits #28a. Additionally, the movable substrate support could be lowered to allow for plasma to escape confinement in a lowered position.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawamata (US Patent 9,460,893).
Regarding claim 12, Kawamata teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1 and 7-8B) for processing a substrate (Fig. 1, wafer W), the apparatus comprising: a processing chamber (Fig. 1, processing chamber #102); a plasma generator configured to provide plasma in the processing chamber (Fig. 1, HF power supply #132); a substrate support (Fig. 1, mounting table #110); a first inlet to the processing chamber (Figs. 1 and 7-8B, inlet above chamber to #224), the first inlet configured to provide deposition vapor to the processing chamber (see Fig. 7, gases detailed in C9, L55-65); a second inlet to the processing chamber (Figs. 1 and 7-8B, inlet above chamber to #222), the second inlet configured to provide etch gas to the processing chamber (see Fig. 7, gases detailed in C9, L55-65), wherein the deposition vapor and etch gas do not mix with one another before passing into the processing chamber (see Fig. 7); and an outlet to the processing chamber (Fig. 1, exhaust port #104), wherein: the first inlet delivers deposition vapor to a plenum and gas ring (Figs. 1 and 7-8B, to room #224 and gas plate #230), the second inlet delivers etch gas to a plenum and showerhead (Figs. 1 and 7-8B, to room #222 and plate #210), and the gas ring encircles and is radially outwards and physically separate from the showerhead (see Figs. 1 and 7-8B).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US Pub. 2004/0159286), as applied to claims 1, 4-5, and 7-8 above, further in view of Marakhtanov (US Pub. 2013/0126513).
The limitations of claims 1, 4-5, and 7-8 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 6, Aoki teaches wherein the substrate support moves between the first position and the second position ([0041]).
Aoki does not explicitly teach a controller.
However, Marakhtanov teaches a controller (Marakhtanov – [0027]-[0028], [0032] and Fig. 1B, controller #107).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to incorporate the controller of Marakhtanov with the Aoki apparatus in order to control RF sources, substrate support positions, and/or control circuits (Marakhtanov – [0027]-[0028], [0032]).
Additionally, the Examiner respectfully submits that unified process controllers are ubiquitous in the art for automated, precise control over a multitude of aspects of complicated PECVD apparatuses. A PHOSITA would recognize that utilizing such a controller is a necessary element of PECVD control in the art at the time of filing.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US Pub. 2004/0159286), as applied to claims 1, 4-5, and 7-8 above, further in view of Beppu (US Pub. 2005/0252451).
The limitations of claims 1, 4-5, and 7-8 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, Aoki does not teach wherein the plasma generator is configured to generate a remote plasma that is delivered to the outer chamber without flowing through the reactor.
However, Beppu teaches this limitation (Beppu – [0114] and Fig. 3, remote plasma device #70 providing to the space around #18/#20, not through #25).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Aoki apparatus to include the sidewall plasma generator of Beppu in order to perform efficient cleaning processes with small gas volumes with environmentally friendly waste generation (Beppu – [0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Aoki does not teach wherein the plasma generator is configured to flow the remote plasma through a sidewall partially defining the outer chamber.
However, Beppu teaches this limitation (Beppu – [0114] and Fig. 3, remote plasma device #70 providing to the space around #18/#20, not through #25).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Aoki apparatus to include the sidewall plasma generator of Beppu in order to perform efficient cleaning processes with small gas volumes with environmentally friendly waste generation (Beppu – [0028]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US Pub. 2004/0159286), as applied to claims 1, 4-5, and 7-8 above, further in view of Zhou (US Pub. 2019/0157095).
The limitations of claims 1 and 4-10 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, Marakhtanov teaches a controller ([0032] and Fig. 1B, controller #107).
Marakhtanov does not teach the specific configuration of the controller.
However, Zhou teaches a process for introduction of a first etch gas into the processing chamber (Fig. 4, #410); introduction of a deposition vapor into the processing chamber (Fig. 4, #420); introduction of a second etch gas into the processing chamber (Fig. 4, #430); generation of a plasma from the second etch gas to complete etching features into the substrate (Fig. 4, #430).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the method of Zhou in the Marakhtanov apparatus in order to eliminate process complexity, reduce processing time/costs, and avoid unwanted contamination of substrates (Zhou – [0056]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US Pub. 2004/0159286), as applied to claims 1, 4-5, and 7-8 above, further in view of Mizusawa (US Pub. 2007/0181181).
The limitations of claims 1 and 4-10 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, Aoki does not teach a dual showerhead.
However, Mizusawa teaches a dual showerhead ([0048] and Fig. 1, upper electrode/showerhead #302 comprises zones #330 and #340).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Aoki apparatus to comprise a dual showerhead in order to provide desired in-surface uniformity of gas supply for processed substrates (Mizusawa – [0009]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has submitted an amended Abstract to alleviate minor informalities, thus the objection to the Specification is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §102(a)(1) and §103 rejections have been carefully considered, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as presented herein.
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights