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 1-15 in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shinto (JP 2009/185362 A, with the attached citations taken from the included Google translated document)
As to claim 1, 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).
As to claim 2, the protective film is formed on the mask in the processing chamber (bottom of p 5).
As to claim 3, the protective film includes silicon (bottom of p 3).
As to claim 4, the film may be made by CVD (p2) which would inherently include a Si containing gas and reactant to make the films on p3.
As to claim 7, using the mask includes an organic deposition step in the film forming chamber (OLED formation) on p 3, also Embodiments, for example.
As to claim 8, oxygen plasma is used to remove organic impurities on p 5.
As to claim 9, the cleaning is a dry cleaning as on 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 p 5. Fluorine is also used in the Embodiments.
As to claim 13, these limitations are taught as discussed above.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 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
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at 571-272-1423. 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 1715
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718