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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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(s) 1-4, 8, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sone (US 2008/0302391 A1) in view of Shinto (JP 2009/185362 A, with the attached citations taken from the previously included Google translated document)
As to claim 1, Sone teaches a process where organic impurities are attached to a mask after depositing an organic material (para 0002-0004) where the mask has to be removed from the deposition area for cleaning and the cleaning process degrades the mask. Shinto teaches a similar mask deposition method that solves these issues.
Shinto teaches a mask processing method (abstract), the method comprising: (a) forming a sacrificial layer on a mask in a first chamber (film forming chamber, p2); (b) transferring the mask to a second chamber (processing chamber, p2) in which a substrate is disposed (support substrate p3), and then processing the substrate using the mask; and (c) removing the sacrificial layer on the mask (Embodiments).
Shinto includes a protective or sacrificial layer that the deposition material/contaminants deposits on instead of the mask as in Sone, so that when it is cleaned, the protective layer is removed and the mask is not damaged (p3, Embodiments). Because the protective layer is removed with impurities attached to it in Shinto, the impurities are not being removed directly. Shinto’s process is a dry process that improves upon that of Sone as it does not require the removal of the mask from the deposition area for cleaning (p2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify Sone’s mask to include a protective layer and a dry-cleaning process as the protective layer to extend the life of the mask and not have to remove the mask from the deposition area for cleaning.
As to claim 2, the protective film is formed on the mask in the processing chamber (Shinto bottom of p 5).
As to claim 3, the protective film includes silicon (Shinto bottom of p 3).
As to claim 4, the film may be made by CVD (Shinto p2) which would inherently include a Si containing gas and reactant to make the films on Shinto p3.
As to claim 8, oxygen plasma is used to remove organic impurities on Shinto p 5.
As to claim 10, cleaning is affected by gases such as chlorine that react with elements such as Al where the salt would be removed on Shinto p 5. Fluorine is also used in the Embodiments.
As to claim 13, these limitations are taught as discussed above.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sone and Shinto in view of Kim et al. (US 2013/0101752 A1)
Shinto does not teach the claimed ALD process for creating silicon oxide. Kim et al. teaches the claimed process in the abstract and paras 0007-0015. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the deposition process of Kim et al. in Shinto as Kim et al. teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
Claim(s) 5, 11-12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sone and Shinto in view of Tolle et al. (US 2015/0270122 A1)
As to claims 5 and 14, Shinto does not teach remote plasma generated outside of the chamber. Tolle et al. teaches remote plasma generation in paras 0051. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use remote plasma in Shinto as taught by Tolle et al. as it is a common alternative to in situ plasma and Tolle et al. teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
As to claims 11-12 and 14, Shinto does not teach the particulars of the cleaning process, including heating. Tolle et al. teaches cleaning silicon oxide (abstract) using HF and ammonia in paras 0047-0050 with heating, that would inherently create the claimed reactions as the same materials are used (this is also described in para 0049). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Shinto to include the cleaning process of Tolle et al. as Tolle et al. teaches its process as effective at cleaning silicon oxide.
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 KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights