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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 01/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/23/2025.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 12, 13 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 9-11, 14 is/are amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by previously relied on references below.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Cruse nor Gold disclose that the vent paths of the various etching paths are coupled together and not “a first set of gas valves coupled to a first gas source…”
Examiner disagrees, and notes that Gold already discloses the set of gas valves coupled to gas sources (102A-102F [gas sources], Fig. 5-6, para [0023, 0027, 0038] for example).
Due to the explanations above, Applicant’s arguments are rendered not persuasive.
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 sacts 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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Gas distribution manifold (gas panel, para. [0024]) in claims 1-17.
Gas distribution channel (set of switching valves, para. [0033, 0034) in claims 1-17.
Gas injection channel (independent gas injection line, para. [0037]) in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110266256 to Cruse in view of US 20080202609 to Gold.
Claims 1-3: Cruse discloses (claim 1) a system for semiconductor processing, the system comprising: a chamber (110/111, Fig. 2) enclosing a first processing region (208 [first processing volume]); a first substrate support (201 [first substrate support]) within the chamber (110/111) and configured to retain a first substrate (203 [first substrate]) in the first processing region of the chamber (208 of 110/111);
a gas distribution manifold (204 [shared gas panel]), wherein the gas distribution manifold (204) is operatively coupled to the chamber (110/111) to introduce a first etching gas comprising one or more gases from the gas distribution manifold (204) using a first inlet (inlets of line into 228) into the chamber (110/111) and a second etching gas comprising one or more gases from the gas distribution manifold (204) into the chamber using a second inlet (inlets of line into 234, para. [0031-0032]); (claim 2) wherein the chamber (110/111) encloses a second processing region (214 [second processing volume]), and wherein the system further comprises: a second substrate support (209 [second substrate support]) within the chamber (1110/111) and configured to retain a second substrate (215) in the second processing region of the chamber (214 of 110/111).
Cruse also discloses that three-way valves that can divert process gas from the manifold (204) to a vent (230 [foreline conduit], Fig. 2, para. [0032]) from either three-way valve; also teaches gases can be metered out via flow controllers such as a mass flow controller or flow ratio controller, and independently and/or simultaneously (para. [0031]).
However Cruse does not explicitly disclose (claim 1) a first set of gas valves coupled to the first inlet and configured to selectively switch between directing the first etching gas along a first gas flow path towards the first processing region within the chamber, and directing the first etching gas along a second gas flow path towards a vent; and a second set of gas valves coupled to the second inlet and configured to selectively switch between directing the second etching gas along a third gas flow path towards the vent, and directing the second etching gas along a fourth gas flow path towards the first processing region within the chamber; and a first flow ratio controller (FRC) operatively coupled to the first set of gas valves and the second set of gas valves and configured to direct the first etching gas and the second etching gas towards the first processing region;
(claim 3) further comprising a third set of gas valves is further configured to selectively switch between directing the first etching gas along a fifth gas flow path towards the second processing region, and directing the first etching gas along a sixth gas flow path towards the vent, and further comprising a fourth set of gas valves is further configured to selectively switch between directing the second etching gas along a seventh gas flow path towards the vent, and directing the second etching gas along an eighth gas flow path towards the second processing region; and a second flow ratio controller (FRC) operatively coupled to the third set of gas valves and the fourth set of gas valves and configured to direct the first etching gas and the second etching gas towards the second processing region.
Gold discloses (claims 1, 3) multiple sets of gas valves (lines and valves of 108B-108E, 172, 190, and valves above 630, Fig. 6) coupled to the respective multiple gas sources (102A-102C [gas sources]) and configured to selectively switch between directing the etching gas(es) along respective gas flow path(s) towards the first and/or second processing regions (inside 114 [first processing chamber] or 614 [second processing chamber]) within the chamber (114/614), and directing the multiple etching gas(es) along respective gas flow path(s) towards a vent (154 [purge line]); Gold discloses this for the purpose of providing a connection from the chemical delivery sources through the processing chamber delivery path through one or more valves to a vacuum environment that is separate from the processing chamber (para. [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the plurality of sets of gas valves with vent lines configuration as taught by Gold with motivation to provide a connection from the chemical delivery sources through the processing chamber delivery path through one or more valves to a vacuum environment that is separate from the processing chamber.
Gold also teaches in a similar embodiment, a plurality of flow ratio controllers (FRC) (502, 504 [flow ratio controllers], Fig. 5), which are coupled to the sets of gas valves (any lines and valves of 106B-106E, and valves above 114, Fig. 5), which are
configured to direct the etching gas(es) towards the processing region(s), for the purpose of splitting the flows exiting each outlet portions so that a predetermined flow ratio is provided between each inlet port (516, 518) of the processing chamber(s) (at least 114).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the flow ratio controllers and configurations as taught by Gold with motivation to split the flows exiting each outlet portions so that a predetermined flow ratio is provided between each inlet port of the processing chamber(s).
Regarding the limitations that recite “selectively switch between directing the first etching gas along a fifth gas flow path towards the second processing region, and directing the first etching gas along a sixth gas flow path towards the vent” (and similar recitations for claims 1 and 3), both Cruse and Gold both teach the claimed structures as necessary and teach many uses of the structures (including optimization and optional uses), which read on the claims. The courts have held 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. MPEP 2114 II.
Additionally, Cruse and Gold teach that the structures may be duplicated as necessary. The courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
Claim 4: The apparatus of Cruse in view of Gold does not explicitly disclose wherein the gas distribution manifold comprises a first gas distribution manifold operatively coupled to the chamber, and further comprising: a second gas distribution manifold, wherein the second gas distribution manifold is operatively coupled to the chamber to introduce a third etching gas comprising one or more gases from the second gas distribution manifold through a third inlet into the chamber and a fourth etching gas comprising one or more gases from the second gas distribution manifold into the chamber through a fourth inlet; a third sets of gas valves coupled to the third inlet and configured to selectively switch between directing the third etching gas along a fifth gas flow path towards the first processing region within the chamber, and directing the third etching gas along a sixth gas flow path towards a vent; and a fourth sets of gas valves coupled to the fourth inlet and configured to selectively switch between directing the fourth etching gas along a seventh gas flow path towards the vent,
directing the fourth etching gas along an eighth gas flow path towards the second processing region within the chamber; and a second flow ratio controller (FRC) operatively coupled to the third sets of gas valves and the fourth sets of gas valves and configured to direct the first etching gas or the second etching gas towards the second processing region.
Gold teaches that any number of manifolds may be coupled together (para. [0036]), any number of gas sources may be configured to interface the manifold (para. [0022]), any number of deliver lines may be connected to the manifold (para. [0031]); additionally, the general teachings of Cruse in view of Gold render a duplication of parts obvious as Cruse and Gold already teach the recitations above. The courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI (B). Also see above case law for regarding intended use of the system.
Claim 5: The apparatus of Cruse in view of Gold discloses wherein the first processing region (208, Fig. 2, Cruse) and the second processing region (214) comprise separately controllable process plasmas (229, 235, para. [0045], [0043], [0054]).
Claim 6: The apparatus of Cruse in view of Gold discloses wherein the first etching gas comprises two or more gases, and the second etching gas comprises two or more different gases (see para. [0031], [0020]) where one or more gases sources are included).
Claim 8: The apparatus of Cruse in view of Gold discloses further comprising: a first gas distribution plate (228 [first showerhead], Fig. 2, Cruse) and a second gas distribution plate (234 [second showerhead]), wherein each of the first and second gas distribution plates (228, 234) comprises a plurality of openings (intrinsic to showerheads) for directing the first etching gas or the second etching gas towards the first substrate or the second substrate (para. [0020], [0038], [0055]), respectively, and wherein the first and second gas distribution plates (228, 234) are configured to deliver a first gas flow rate and second gas flow rate.
However the apparatus of Cruse in view of Gold does not explicitly disclose delivering gas flow rate(s) to an edge and a center of the first and second substrates, respectively, and the showerheads operatively coupled to the first FRC and the second FRC, respectively.
Gold teaches delivering gas flow rate(s) to an edge and a center of a substrate (para. [0038]), and the showerhead (“showerhead”, para. [0038]) operatively coupled to at least one FRC (502 and/or 504 [FRC], Fig. 5), respectively, for the purpose of having either a fixed or adjustable output ratio of predetermined flow to the process chamber (para. [0039]). Additionally, see case law above regarding duplication of parts, which is obvious to attain for each chamber.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the center/edge requirements and FRCs as taught by Gold with motivation to have either a fixed or adjustable output ratio of predetermined flow to the process chamber.
Claims 12, 13: (Cancelled).
Claim 17: The apparatus of Cruse in view of Gold discloses further comprising, a gas injection channel (516, 518, [gas inlet ports], Fig. 5, Gold) operatively coupled to the gas distribution manifold (“showerhead”) and configured to direct an injection gas toward the first processing region, wherein the gas injection channel (516, 518) comprises a first injection flow (518) to an edge region and a second injection flow (516) to a center region of the first substrate support (para. [0038]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruse in view of Gold as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 17 above, and further in view of US 20110059614 to Saldana.
Claim 7: The apparatus of Cruse in view of Gold discloses wherein the first etching gas and second etching gas exist (para. [0020], [0038], [0055], Cruse).
However the apparatus of Cruse in view of Gold does not explicitly the first etching gas comprises an oxide-based etching gas and the second etching gas comprises a nitride-based etching gas.
Saldana teaches that a first etching gas can comprise oxygen, CO2, CF4, SF4, SF6, and mixtures thereof, and the second etching gas can comprise nitrogen, for the purpose of having process fluids that can be combined in various ratios depending on the process being performed within the chamber (para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the inclusion of gas requirements as taught by Saldana with motivation to have process fluids that can be combined in various ratios depending on the process being performed within the chamber.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruse in view of Gold as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 17 above, and further in view of US 20200270748 to Gregor.
Claims 9-11: The apparatus of Cruse in view of Gold does not disclose (claim 9) further comprising one or more first flow restriction nodes arranged to restrict gas flow of the first etching gas along the first gas flow path and/or the fifth gas flow path; (claim 10) further comprising one or more second flow restriction nodes arranged to restrict gas flow of the second etching gas along the fourth gas flow path and the eighth gas flow path; (claim 11) wherein the one or more first flow restriction nodes and the one or more second flow restriction nodes are operable to maintain a threshold flow of gas along the first flow path and/or along the fourth and the eighth flow path , respectively, for a period of time including a switch between flow of the first etching gas and the second etching gas.
Gregor teaches (claim 9, 10) further comprising one or more flow restriction nodes (variable or fixed flow restrictor(s), para. [0077]) arranged to restrict gas flow of the etching gas(es) along the gas flow path(s), respectively (para. [0077]; (claim 11) wherein the one or more flow restriction nodes are operable to maintain a threshold flow of gas along the flow path(s)0, respectively, for a period of time including a switch between flow of the etching gas(es) (para. [0077]), for the purpose of allowing injection of precise gas doses into a processing chamber using multiple injectors without affecting the downstream pressure (para. [0075]). See above case law regarding duplication of parts.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one or more flow restriction nodes as taught by Gregor with motivation to allow injection of precise gas doses into a processing chamber using multiple injectors without affecting the downstream pressure.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruse in view of Gold as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 17 above, and further in view of US 20150292084 to Glaudel.
Claims 14-15: The apparatus of Cruse in view of Gold does not disclose (claim 14) wherein a distance between the first set of switching valves and the third set of switching valves from the first FRC is minimized; (claim 15) wherein a distance between the second set of valves and the fourth set of valves from the second FRC is minimized. Yet the apparatus of Cruse in view of Gold already teaches the switching valves and FRCs above.
Glaudel teaches that valves are positioned in close very proximity to the inlets and thus orifices for the purpose of achieving critical predetermined ratios where flowrates can be quite small, that transit times even in narrow diameter tubes can be slow, and that the desire that long tubing runs can create slow rise and fall times in vet vapor delivery rates (para. [0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the positioning requirements to the configuration of the apparatus of Cruse in view of Gold as taught by Glaudel with motivation to achieve critical predetermined ratios where flowrates can be quite small, that transit times even in narrow diameter tubes can be slow, and that the desire that long tubing runs can create slow rise and fall times in vet vapor delivery rates.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruse in view of Gold as applied to claims 14-15 above, and further in view of US 20190112707 to Liu.
Claim 16: The apparatus of Cruse in view of Gold does not disclose wherein a stabilization time to establish a threshold pressure of the second etching gas after switching between flow of the first etching gas and the second etching gas comprises less than about 2 seconds.
Liu teaches that typical switching speeds for a typical reactor are about 0.05 to 20 seconds, for example between about 1 and 2 seconds, for the purpose of readily determining the appropriate phase and cycle times based on the particular circumstances.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the time requirements as taught by Liu with motivation to readily determine the appropriate phase and cycle times based on the particular circumstances.
Claims 18-20: (Withdrawn).
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 Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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 on 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights