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 Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: “CHF” should be CHF3 as supported in the specification. CHF is a gas that does not exist in a stable form. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnia; Moretza et al. (US 20080081130 A1) in view of Chandler; Phil et al. (US 20090018688 A1) and, if necessary, Fink; Steven T. et al. (US 20060060303 A1). Farnia teaches a process system (Figure 4; [0048]), comprising a process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1); a plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) located downstream of the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1);a reagent gas delivery apparatus (335; Figure 4; [0038]-[0039]-Applicant’s 104; Figure 1) located between the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) and the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1);a vacuum pump (504; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1) located downstream of the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1); a wet scrubber (509; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) located downstream of the vacuum pump (504; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1); and a controller (134; Figure 3,4; [0019],[0022]-[0023]) configured to control an operation performed in the process system (Figure 4; [0048]), the operation comprising: performing a semiconductor etch process (“both for etching and layer deposition”; [0005]) within the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) using process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) including fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]), HBr (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”; [0004]), and C12 (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”; [0004]), wherein the fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) are selected from a group consisting of CF4, SF6, C4F8, and CHF, wherein the process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) are configured to flow out of the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) into the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1); introducing water vapor (H20) from the reagent gas delivery system (335; Figure 4; [0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]-Applicant’s 104; Figure 1) to the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) to react with the process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]); and applying RF power ([0044]) to the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) – claim 1. The claimed gas identities may be considered intended use claim requirements for the pending apparatus claims. See below.
Farnia further teaches:
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 1, wherein the reagent gas delivery apparatus (335; Figure 4; [0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]-Applicant’s 104; Figure 1) is configured to supply hydrogen (H) and oxygen (0) atoms to the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1), as claimed by claim 3
wherein the amount of RF power is between about 2000 Watts and about 4000 Watts (3000Watts; [00045]) - claim 6
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 1, wherein the fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) include at least one of CF4, SF6, C4F8, or CHF3, as claimed by claim 7
A process system (Figure 4; [0048]), comprising: a process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1); a plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) located downstream of the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1);a reagent gas delivery apparatus (335; Figure 4; [0038]-[0039]-Applicant’s 104; Figure 1) located between the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) and the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1);a vacuum pump (504; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1) located downstream of the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1); a wet scrubber (509; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) located downstream of the vacuum pump (504; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1); and a controller (134; Figure 3,4; [0019],[0022]-[0023]) configured to control an operation performed in the process system (Figure 4; [0048]), the operation comprising: performing a semiconductor etch process (“both for etching and layer deposition”; [0005]) within the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) using process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) including fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]), HBr, and C12 , wherein the fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) are selected from a group consisting of CF4, SF6, C4F8, and CHF, wherein the process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) are configured to flow out of the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) into the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1); introducing a reagent vapor ([0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]-Applicant’s H,O,water atoms-claims 1,3,10,11,15,16) from the reagent gas delivery system (335; Figure 4; [0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]-Applicant’s 104; Figure 1) to the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) to react with the process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]); applying RF power ([0044]) to the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) – claim 8. The claimed gas identities may be considered intended use claim requirements for the pending apparatus claims. See below.
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 8, wherein the reagent vapor ([0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]-Applicant’s H,O,water atoms-claims 1,3,10,11,15,16) includes H20, as claimed by claim 10
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim of claim 8, wherein the reagent vapor ([0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]-Applicant’s H,O,water atoms-claims 1,3,10,11,15,16) includes hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) atoms, as claimed by claim 11
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 8, the amount of RF power is between about 2000 Watts and about 4000 Watts (3000Watts; [00045]), as claimed by claim 13
A process system (Figure 4; [0048]), comprising: a process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1); a plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) located downstream of the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1);a reagent gas delivery apparatus (335; Figure 4; [0038]-[0039]-Applicant’s 104; Figure 1) located between the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) and the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1);a vacuum pump (504; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1) located downstream of the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1); a wet scrubber (509; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) located downstream of the vacuum pump (504; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1); and a controller (134; Figure 3,4; [0019],[0022]-[0023]) configured to control an operation performed in the process system (Figure 4; [0048]), the operation comprising: performing a semiconductor etch process (“both for etching and layer deposition”; [0005]) within the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) using process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) including fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]), HBr, and C12 , wherein the fluorinated gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) are selected from a group consisting of CF4, SF6, C4F8, and CHF, wherein the process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) are configured to flow out of the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) into the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1); introducing a reagent vapor ([0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]-Applicant’s H,O,water atoms-claims 1,3,10,11,15,16) from the reagent gas delivery system (335; Figure 4; [0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]-Applicant’s 104; Figure 1) to the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) to react with the process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]); applying RF power ([0044]) to the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1); and introducing an inert gas ([0032]) between the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) and the vacuum pump (504; Figure 4) configured to pump (504; Figure 4) gases exiting the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) – claim 14. The claimed gas identities may be considered intended use claim requirements for the pending apparatus claims. See below.
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 14, wherein the reagent vapor ([0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]-Applicant’s H,O,water atoms-claims 1,3,10,11,15,16) includes H2O, as claimed by claim 15
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim of claim14, wherein the reagent vapor ([0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]-Applicant’s H,O,water atoms-claims 1,3,10,11,15,16) includes hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) atoms, as claimed by claim 16
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim of claim14, wherein the fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) include at least one of CF4 or SF6, as claimed by claim 17
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 14, wherein the operations further comprise pumping (504; Figure 4) gases exiting the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) and the inert gas ([0032]) into the wet scrubber (509; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1), as claimed by claim 20
Farnia may not teach Farnia’s etch process (“both for etching and layer deposition”; [0005]) using the claimed process gases with sufficient specificity. As a result, Farnia may not teach performing Farnia’s semiconductor etch process (“both for etching and layer deposition”; [0005]) within Farnia’s process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) using Farnia’s process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) including Farnia’s fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]), HBr (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”; [0004]), and C12 (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”; [0004]), wherein Farnia’s fluorinated gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) are selected from a group consisting of CF4, SF6, C4F8, and CHF3 – claim 1, 8, 14.
Farnia does not teach:
an inert gas ([0032]) delivery apparatus (Applicant’s 108; Figure 1) located between Farnia’s plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) and Farnia’s vacuum pump (504; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1) – claim 1, 8, 14
wherein a ratio of a H2O (additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]) flow rate to a HBr (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”; [0004]) flow rate is greater than 2:1; and a ratio a H2O (additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]) flow rate to a Br2 (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”; [0004]) byproduct gas is greater than 15:1 and introducing an inert gas via the inert gas delivery apparatus between Farnia’s plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) and Farnia’s vacuum pump (504; Figure 4) – claim 1
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 1, wherein a ratio of a H2O (additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]) flow rate to a Cl2 byproduct (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”; [0004]) gas is greater than 8:1, as claimed by claim 2
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 3, wherein the amount of H and O atoms are greater than the amount of fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]), as claimed by claim 4
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 3, wherein the amount of fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) [[are]] is greater the amount of H and O atoms, as claimed by claim 5
converting Farnia’s process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) at least partially to a Br2 byproduct gas within Farnia’s plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) and reacting the Br2 byproduct gas with the reagent vapor ([0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]-Applicant’s H,O,water atoms-claims 1,3,10,11,15,16) to form HBr, wherein a ratio of a reagent vapor ([0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]-Applicant’s H,O,water atoms-claims 1,3,10,11,15,16) flow rate to a HBr flow rate of the HBr gas to Farnia’s process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) is greater than 2:1; and introducing an inert gas ([0032]) via the inert gas delivery apparatus between Farnia’s plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) and Farnia’s vacuum pump (504; Figure 4) configured to pump (504; Figure 4) gases exiting Farnia’s plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) – claim 8
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 8, wherein a ratio a H2O flow rate to a Br2 byproduct gas is greater than 15:1, as claimed by claim 9
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim of claim 10, wherein the amount of fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) are greater the amount of H and O atoms, as claimed by claim 12
converting Farnia’s process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) at least partially to a HCl byproduct gas within Farnia’s plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) and reacting the C12 byproduct gas with Farnia’s reagent vapor ([0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]-Applicant’s H,O,water atoms-claims 1,3,10,11,15,16) to form HCl, and introducing an inert gas ([0032]) via the inert gas delivery apparatus between the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) and the vacuum pump (504; Figure 4) – claim 14
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim of claim 16, wherein the amount of fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) are greater the amount of H and O atoms, as claimed by claim 18
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 14, wherein a ratio a H2O flow rate to a Br2 byproduct gas is greater than 15:1, as claimed by claim 19
Chandler also teaches a wafer processing apparatus (102; Sheet 3) with Chandler’s plasma effluent abatement tool (114,138; Sheet 3; [0027]) including Chandler’s inert gas delivery apparatus (132; Sheet 3-Applicant’s 108; Figure 1) located between Chandler’s reactor (102; Sheet 3; [0026]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) and Chandler’s vacuum pump (130; Sheet 3-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1) – claim 1, 8, 14. Chandler further teaches operational optimization of flow rates of Chandler’s abatement tool (114,138; Sheet 3; [0045]).
If the above process gases are considered part of the claimed controller and not intended use, then, Fink also teaches a plasma generation process gas as claimed ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Farnia to add Chandler’s inert gas delivery apparatus (132; Sheet 3-Applicant’s 108; Figure 1) at optimized operation and, if necessary, for Farnia to use Fink’s precursor etching gas sources.
Motivation for Farnia to add Chandler’s inert gas delivery apparatus (132; Sheet 3-Applicant’s 108; Figure 1) at optimized operation is for at least concentration calibration, dilution, and “calculating destruction removal efficiency.” as taught by Chandler ([0030],[0042]) and “…flow rates may also be used to effectively break down the energized hazardous gas species” as taught by Farnia ([0040]), and “…by properly selecting the volumetric flow ratio of reactive gas to hazardous gas in the effluent, the hazardous gas reduction efficiency can be substantially improved by an unexpected amount.” as taught by Farnia ([0041]).
Motivation, if necessary, for Farnia to use Fink’s precursor etching gas sources is for conducting a desired etching process as taught by Fink ([0027]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
In the Farnia process, an effluent comprising unreacted precursor gas and byproducts from the carbon-doped silicon deposition process is exhausted from the process zone and passed into an effluent treatment zone of an effluent treatment reactor.
“
In response, Applicant’s position is not sufficiently specific regarding Farnia’s process chamber operation. Farnia specifcally states at [0025]:
“
The substrate 20 can be a semiconductor wafer, integrated circuit, a sheet of a polymer material to be coated, a metal to be surface hardened by ion implantation, or some other material to be etched or deposited, for example.
“ (emphasis added)
Although Farnia’s etch process is not discussed in detail, the Examiner cites Fink as teaching etching operations with the claimed precursors.
Applicant states:
“
Farnia does not provide a prima facie showing of an inert gas delivery apparatus is located between the plasma reactor and the vacuum pump as recited in claims 1, 8, and 14.
“
And…
“
Farnia does not provide a prima facie showing of a controller configured to control an operation performed in the process system, the operation comprising introducing an inert gas via the inert gas delivery apparatus between the plasma reactor and the vacuum pump configured to pump gases exiting the plasma reactor as recited in claims 1, 8, and 14.
“
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Notably, the Examiner cites Chandler for teaching the benefits of Chandler’s inert gas delivery apparatus (132; Sheet 3-Applicant’s 108; Figure 1) located between Chandler’s reactor (102; Sheet 3; [0026]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) and Chandler’s vacuum pump (130; Sheet 3-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1) – claim 1, 8, 14. Chandler further teaches operational optimization of flow rates of Chandler’s abatement tool (114,138; Sheet 3; [0045]).
Applicant states:
“
However, Farnia does not provide a prima facie showing of an operation performed in the process system, the operation comprising performing a semiconductor etch process within the process chamber using process gases including fluorinated greenhouse gases, HBr, and C12, wherein the fluorinated gasses are selected from a group consisting of CF4, SF6, C4F8, and CHF, as recited in claims 1, 8, and 14.
“
In response, Farnia indeed teaches an etching operation as discussed above at [0025] that is also supported by Farnia’s sensor (400; Figure 4; [0046]) that detects “fluorinated counterparts” (claim 14) between Farnia’s process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) and Farnia’s plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1).
Applicant states:
“
The Examiner further states that Farnia fails to disclose wherein a ratio of a H20 flow rate to a HBr flow rate is greater than 2:1; and a ratio a H20 flow rate to a Br2 byproduct gas is greater than 15:1 as recited in claim 1.
“
In response, the Examiner agrees, however, the Examiner notes that both Farnia and Chandler make statements supporting such ratios as result-effective variables. As a result, motivation for Farnia to add Chandler’s inert gas delivery apparatus (132; Sheet 3-Applicant’s 108; Figure 1) at optimized operation is for at least:
concentration calibration, dilution, and “calculating destruction removal efficiency.” as taught by Chandler ([0030],[0042])
“…flow rates may also be used to effectively break down the energized hazardous gas species” as taught by Farnia ([0040])
“…by properly selecting the volumetric flow ratio of reactive gas to hazardous gas in the effluent, the hazardous gas reduction efficiency can be substantially improved by an unexpected amount.” as taught by Farnia ([0041]).
Only result-effective variables can be optimized (In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP2144.05.
Applicant states:
“
Chandler, like Farnia, does not provide a prima facie showing of an inert gas delivery apparatus is located between the plasma reactor and the vacuum pump as recited in claims 1, 8, and 14.
Chandler, like Farnia, does not provide a prima facie showing of a controller configured to control an operation performed in the process system, the operation comprising introducing an inert gas via the inert gas delivery apparatus between the plasma reactor and the vacuum pump configured to pump gases exiting the plasma reactor as recited in claims 1, 8, and 14.
Chandler and Farnia, alone or in combination, do not provide a prima facie showing of a process chamber, a plasma reactor located downstream of the process chamber, a reagent gas delivery apparatus located between the process chamber and the plasma reactor, a vacuum pump located downstream of the plasma reactor, and an inert gas delivery apparatus located between the plasma reactor and the vacuum pump as recited in the claims 1, 8, and 14.
“
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant states:
“
The Applicants respectfully submit that there is no suggestion or motivation in the references to replace the CVD deposition of carbon-doped silicon of Farnia with the process and equipment of for modifying an operating parameter of an abatement system of Chandler.
However, even if the Examiner suggested motivation for Farnia is adopted "to add Chandler's inert gas delivery apparatus at optimized operation is for at least concentration calibration and dilution as taught by Chandler", there is at least no basis for a suggestion or motivation in either reference to modify Farnia to have an inert gas delivery apparatus located between the plasma reactor and the vacuum pump.
“
And…
“
The Applicants respectfully submit that there is no suggestion or motivation in the references to replace the CVD deposition of carbon-doped silicon of Farnia with the listed plasma generation gas of Fink. However, even if the Examiner suggested motivation for Farnia is adopted "to use Fink's precursor etching gases", the process of Farnia could not be performed and the invention of Farnia would be destroyed.
Further, there is no basis for a suggestion or motivation in either reference to modify Farnia to have an inert gas delivery apparatus located between the plasma reactor and the vacuum pump.
Thus, the Applicant respectfully submits that there is no suggestion or motivation in the references to modify the systems and processes of Farnia with the inert gas source of Chandler, and/or with the listed plasma generation gas of Fink to teach or suggest the subject-matter as recited in claims 1, 8, and 14.
“
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Examiner has cited specific portions in the applied references supporting the Examiner’s grounds of motivation. Reproduced from above:
motivation for Farnia to add Chandler’s inert gas delivery apparatus (132; Sheet 3-Applicant’s 108; Figure 1) at optimized operation is for at least:
concentration calibration, dilution, and “calculating destruction removal efficiency.” as taught by Chandler ([0030],[0042])
“…flow rates may also be used to effectively break down the energized hazardous gas species” as taught by Farnia ([0040])
“…by properly selecting the volumetric flow ratio of reactive gas to hazardous gas in the effluent, the hazardous gas reduction efficiency can be substantially improved by an unexpected amount.” as taught by Farnia ([0041]).
Motivation, if necessary, for Farnia to use Fink’s precursor etching gas sources is for conducting a desired etching process as taught by Fink ([0027]).
Only result-effective variables can be optimized (In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP2144.05.
Applicant states:
“
Fink, like Farnia and Chandler, does not provide a prima facie showing of an inert gas delivery apparatus is located between the plasma reactor and the vacuum pump as recited in claims 1, 8, and 14.
Fink, like Farnia and Chandler, does not provide a prima facie showing of a controller configured to control an operation performed in the process system, the operation comprising introducing an inert gas via the inert gas delivery apparatus between the plasma reactor and the vacuum pump configured to pump gases exiting the plasma reactor as recited in claims 1, 8, and 14.
Fink and Chandler and Farnia, alone or in combination, do not provide a prima facie showing of a process chamber, a plasma reactor located downstream of the process chamber, a reagent gas delivery apparatus located between the process chamber and the plasma reactor, a vacuum pump located downstream of the plasma reactor, and an inert gas delivery apparatus located between the plasma reactor and the vacuum pump as recited in the claims 1, 8, and 14.
Fink is silent as to the operations performed in the process system as recited in the respective claims 1, 8, and 14.
“
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and relied on and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Plasma gas abatement in reactor effluents include: US 20170027049 A1; US 20200083029 A1; US 20160077508 A1; US 20190338419 A1; US 20170301524 A1; US 20230377842 A1; US 20240128065 A1; US 20090018688 A1; US 20080081130 A1; US 20200041211 A1; US 20200191488 A1; US 20100071548 A1; US 20090238972 A1; US 20020066535 A1; US 6187072 B1; US 6194628 B1; US 9997325 B2; US 6391146 B1; US 5137701 A; US 6888040 B1; US 6673323 B1; 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 Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights