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, see section titled “Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. 112,” filed 06/24/2026, with respect to the 112 rejection of claim 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection of claim 11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Claim Rejection 35 U.S.C. 103,” filed 06/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sasaki et al. (US20180082855A1, hereinafter Sasaki).
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki discloses
a method of cleaning a dielectric tube (Par. 34 teaches that “a plasma cleaning processing is performed for eliminating particles, coatings, and deposited materials deposited and remaining on the surface inside the processing chamber 101” which includes dielectric window 103 as shown in fig. 1), the method comprising:
exposing the dielectric tube to a cleaning gas comprising a fluorine-containing compound (Par. 34 “in step 301, plasma is formed by introducing a mixture gas containing an NF3 gas and an Ar gas as a cleaning gas into the processing chamber 101”); and
generating a microwave plasma from the cleaning gas using a microwave waveguide positioned within the dielectric tube to clean the dielectric tube (Par. 23 “[i]n the present Example, a microwave at 2.45 GHz is used as the electromagnetic wave and “a waveguide 107 for transmitting an electromagnetic wave is disposed above the dielectric window 103” and examiner notes that as the waveguide 107 is disposed within the enclosure defined by dielectric window 103 then the waveguide is within the dielectric window 103).
See below for full claims mapping.
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 1-2, 4, 9-12, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasaki (US20180082855A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki discloses
a method of cleaning a dielectric tube (Par. 34 teaches that “a plasma cleaning processing is performed for eliminating particles, coatings, and deposited materials deposited and remaining on the surface inside the processing chamber 101” which includes dielectric window 103 as shown in fig. 1), the method comprising:
exposing the dielectric tube to a cleaning gas comprising a fluorine-containing compound (Par. 34 “in step 301, plasma is formed by introducing a mixture gas containing an NF3 gas and an Ar gas as a cleaning gas into the processing chamber 101”); and
generating a microwave plasma from the cleaning gas using a microwave waveguide positioned within the dielectric tube to clean the dielectric tube (Par. 23 “[i]n the present Example, a microwave at 2.45 GHz is used as the electromagnetic wave and “a waveguide 107 for transmitting an electromagnetic wave is disposed above the dielectric window 103” and examiner notes that as the waveguide 107 is disposed within the enclosure defined by dielectric window 103 then the waveguide is within the dielectric window 103).
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the cleaning gas further comprises a noble gas or molecular nitrogen (N2) (Par. 34 “in step 301, plasma is formed by introducing a mixture gas containing an NF3 gas and an Ar gas as a cleaning gas into the processing chamber 101” and Ar is a noble gas).
Regarding claim 4, Sasaki discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the fluorine-containing compound comprises one or more of carbon tetrafluoride (CF4), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) or sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) (Par. 41 teaches that "examples of the processing gas used for the metal cleaning processing” include “a mixture gas containing a CH4 gas and a Cl2 gas, or a mixture gas containing a CH4 gas and a gas containing F (SF6 gas, CF4 gas, CxHyFz gas or the like)”).
Regarding claim 9, Sasaki discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the dielectric tube is cleaned in the same chamber as is used for plasma deposition processing resulting in the need for cleaning the dielectric tube, without removing the tube from a process position (Par. 34 teaches that “in step 301, plasma is formed by introducing a mixture gas containing an NF3 gas and an Ar gas as a cleaning gas into the processing chamber 101, and a plasma cleaning processing is performed for eliminating particles, coatings, and deposited materials deposited and remaining on the surface inside the processing chamber 101” and so the dielectric window 103 is cleaned without the need for removal).
Regarding claim 10, Sasaki discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the dielectric tube is a fused silica tube (Par. 21 teaches that “dielectric window 103 [is] made of quartz” which is fused silica).
Regarding claim 11, Sasaki discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the method comprises removing at least one of carbon residue and boron residue from an outside surface of the dielectric tube (Par. 42 teaches that “cleaning is then performed using a chlorine gas, to remove the boron element-containing compound remaining in the processing chamber 101”).
Regarding claim 12, Sasaki discloses a method of depositing a film in a microwave plasma processing chamber, the method comprising:
depositing a film comprising carbon, boron, nitride or oxide on a substrate surface by exposing the substrate surface to a microwave plasma in the microwave plasma processing chamber (Par. 36 “in step 302, the inner surface of the processing chamber 101 subjected to the plasma cleaning processing to be in a cleaned state is subjected to a coating processing to deposit a deposited film to be described later in order to stabilize the characteristics of an etching processing” and par. 35 teaches that “the surface of the inner side sidewall of the processing chamber 101, and the upper and side surfaces of the sample stage 111 are covered with a deposited film made of a material containing Si or SiO” which includes an oxide),
the microwave plasma generated using a microwave waveguide positioned within a dielectric tube (Par. 23 “[i]n the present Example, a microwave at 2.45 GHz is used as the electromagnetic wave and “a waveguide 107 for transmitting an electromagnetic wave is disposed above the dielectric window 103” and examiner notes that as the waveguide 107 is disposed within the enclosure defined by dielectric window 103 then the waveguide is within the dielectric window 103),
the film depositing on the substrate surface and the dielectric tube (Par. 35 teaches that “the surface of the inner side sidewall of the processing chamber 101, and the upper and side surfaces of the sample stage 111 are covered with a deposited film”); and
cleaning the dielectric tube by exposing the dielectric tube to a cleaning microwave plasma of a cleaning gas generated using a microwave waveguide positioned within the dielectric tube (Par. 23 “[i]n the present Example, a microwave at 2.45 GHz is used as the electromagnetic wave and “a waveguide 107 for transmitting an electromagnetic wave is disposed above the dielectric window 103” and examiner notes that as the waveguide 107 is disposed within the enclosure defined by dielectric window 103 then the waveguide is within the dielectric window 103), the cleaning gas comprising a fluorine-containing compound (Par. 40 teaches that “[p]lasma is generated by mixing the gas exhibiting reduction properties such as a boron trichloride gas with chlorine (Cl) or fluoride (F) and supplying the mixture gas into the processing chamber 101, and thereby the metal-containing material remaining in the processing chamber 101 is removed” and so the cleaning gas contains fluorine).
Regarding claim 14, Sasaki discloses the method of claim 12,
wherein depositing the film and cleaning the dielectric tube occur in the same microwave plasma processing chamber (Par. 35 teaches that “the surface of the inner side sidewall of the processing chamber 101, and the upper and side surfaces of the sample stage 111 are covered with a deposited film” and par. 40 teaches that “[p]lasma is generated by mixing the gas exhibiting reduction properties such as a boron trichloride gas with chlorine (Cl) or fluoride (F) and supplying the mixture gas into the processing chamber 101, and thereby the metal-containing material remaining in the processing chamber 101 is removed” and so both actions occur in the same processing chamber 101).
Regarding claim 18, Sasaki discloses the method of claim 12,
wherein the dielectric tube is a fused silica tube (Par. 21 teaches that “dielectric window 103 [is] made of quartz” which is fused silica).
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.
Claims 3 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki in view of Cho et al. (US20150144154A1, hereinafter Cho).
Regarding claim 3, Sasaki teaches the method of claim 2.
Sasaki does not appear to teach
wherein the fluorine-containing compound and noble gas or molecular nitrogen are in a ratio in the range of 1:1 to 1:10.
Cho teaches
wherein the fluorine-containing compound and noble gas or molecular nitrogen are in a ratio in the range of 1:1 to 1:10 (Cho par. 27 “In some embodiments, the carbonyl group containing gas or carbon monoxide gas and the inert gas supplied in the first cleaning gas mixture is controlled at a ratio between about 1:5 to about 1:40”).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sasaki with the teachings of Cho because, as Sasaki is silent as to the specific mixture ratios of their cleaning gas, this would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to seek out references such as Cho who do explicitly teach a ratio.
Regarding claim 15, Sasaki teaches the method of claim 12,
the cleaning gas further comprises a noble gas or molecular nitrogen (N2) (Par. 34 “in step 301, plasma is formed by introducing a mixture gas containing an NF3 gas and an Ar gas as a cleaning gas into the processing chamber 101” and Ar is a noble gas).
Sasaki does not appear to teach
the fluorine-containing compound and noble gas or molecular nitrogen are in a ratio in the range of 1:1 to 1:10.
Cho teaches
the fluorine-containing compound and noble gas or molecular nitrogen are in a ratio in the range of 1:1 to 1:10 (Cho par. 27 “In some embodiments, the carbonyl group containing gas or carbon monoxide gas and the inert gas supplied in the first cleaning gas mixture is controlled at a ratio between about 1:5 to about 1:40”).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sasaki with the teachings of Cho because, as Sasaki is silent as to the specific mixture ratios of their cleaning gas, this would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to seek out references such as Cho who do explicitly teach a ratio.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Sasaki and Cho teaches the method of claim 15,
wherein the fluorine-containing compound comprises one or more of carbon tetrafluoride (CF4), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) or sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) (Sasaki par. 41 teaches that "examples of the processing gas used for the metal cleaning processing” include “a mixture gas containing a CH4 gas and a Cl2 gas, or a mixture gas containing a CH4 gas and a gas containing F (SF6 gas, CF4 gas, CxHyFz gas or the like)”).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US20180082855A1) in view of Sahmuganathan et al. (US20220068643A1, hereinafter Sahmuganathan).
Regarding claim 5, Sasaki teaches the method of claim 1.
Sasaki does not appear to teach
wherein the microwave plasma is a continuous wave plasma.
Sahmuganathan teaches
wherein the wherein microwave plasma is a continuous wave plasma (Par. 68 “the microwave plasma is applied as a continuous wave at a power in a range of about 2 to about 12 kilo watts (kW)”).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sasaki with the teachings of Sahmuganathan because as Sasaki is silent as to the specific microwave plasma mode, this would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to seek out references such as Sahmuganathan who explicitly discloses a microwave plasma mode.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sasaki and Sahmuganathan teaches the method of claim 5,
wherein the microwave plasma has a power in the range of 2 kW to 12 kW (Sahmuganathan par. 68 “the microwave plasma is applied as a continuous wave at a power in a range of about 2 to about 12 kilo watts (kW).” As Sahmuganathan teaches the use of a continuous microwave plasma, they also teach the associated power parameters which overlap the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sasaki (US20180082855A1) and Sahmuganathan (US20220068643A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Bi et al. (US20170365450A1, hereinafter Bi).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sasaki and Sahmuganathan teaches the method of claim 5.
The combination of Sasaki and Sahmuganathan do not appear to teach
wherein the cleaning gas is at a pressure in the range of 0.1 Torr to 10 Torr.
Bi teaches
wherein the cleaning gas is at a pressure in the range of 0.1 Torr to 10 Torr (Bi par. 43 teaches that “[t]he pressure can be reduced to between 1 Torr and 10 Torr, such as 5 Torr” which lies in the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Sasaki and Sahmuganathan with the teachings of Bi because, as Sasaki is silent as to the specific pressures of their cleaning gas, this would motivate a person of ordinary skill to seek out references such as Bi who do explicitly teach pressures for the cleaning gas.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sasaki and Sahmuganathan teaches the method of claim 5.
The combination of Sasaki and Sahmuganathan do not appear to teach
wherein the dielectric tube is maintained at a temperature in the range of room temperature to 300 °C.
Bi teaches
wherein the dielectric tube is maintained at a temperature in the range of room temperature to 300 °C (Examiner notes par. 31 of the specification which defines “room temperature” as 25°C. Bi par. 29 teaches “[i]n one embodiment, the H2 and the O2 each flow into the WVG system at a rate in the range from about 1 SLM to about 100 SLM at a temperature of about 110° C. to about 120° C” which lies in the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Sasaki and Sahmuganathan with the teachings of Bi because, as Sasaki is silent as to the specific temperatures of their cleaning gas, this would motivate a person of ordinary skill to seek out references such as Bi who do explicitly teach temperatures for the cleaning gas.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US20180082855A1).
Regarding claim 13, Sasaki teaches the method of claim 12,
wherein there is more than one microwave waveguide in the microwave plasma processing chamber, each of the microwave waveguides positioned within a dielectric tube (While Sasaki teaches the use of a single waveguide 107, the primary function of a waveguide is to transmitting an electromagnetic wave, see par. 23. A duplication of a waveguide 107 to form more than one microwave waveguide would not provide any new or unexpected results as the primary function of transmitting an electromagnetic wave is maintained. Additionally, as nothing within the disclosure indicates the presence of new or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the claims were effectively filed to therefore duplicate waveguide 107 to form more than one microwave waveguide in the microwave plasma processing chamber which would be within dielectric window 103, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US20180082855A1) in view of Sahmuganathan (US20220068643A1) and Bi (US20170365450A1).
Regarding claim 17, Sasaki teaches the method of claim 12.
Sasaki does not appear to teach
wherein the cleaning microwave plasma is a continuous wave plasma with a power in the range of 2 kW to 12 kW,
a pressure in the range of 0.1 Torr to 10 Torr, and maintained at a temperature in the range of room temperature to 300 °C.
Sahmuganathan teaches
wherein the cleaning microwave plasma is a continuous wave plasma with a power in the range of 2 kW to 12 kW (Sahmuganathan par. 68 “the microwave plasma is applied as a continuous wave at a power in a range of about 2 to about 12 kilo watts (kW).” As Sahmuganathan teaches the use of a continuous microwave plasma, they also teach the associated power parameters which overlap the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Bi teaches
a pressure in the range of 0.1 Torr to 10 Torr, and maintained at a temperature in the range of room temperature to 300 °C (Bi par. 43 teaches that “[t]he pressure can be reduced to between 1 Torr and 10 Torr, such as 5 Torr” which lies in the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)) par. 29 teaches “[i]n one embodiment, the H2 and the O2 each flow into the WVG system at a rate in the range from about 1 SLM to about 100 SLM at a temperature of about 110° C. to about 120° C” which lies in the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Being in analogous arts it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sasaki with the teachings of Sahmuganathan because as Sasaki is silent as to the specific microwave plasma mode and power, this would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to seek out references such as Sahmuganathan who explicitly discloses a microwave plasma mode and power. It would have been obvious to further modify the combination of Sasaki and Sahmuganathan with the teachings of Bi because, as Sasaki is silent as to the specific pressures and temperatures of their cleaning gas, this would motivate a person of ordinary skill to seek out references such as Bi who do explicitly teach pressures and temperatures for the cleaning gas.
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 COLE LEON LINDSEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/COLE LEON LINDSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 /CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights