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 Invention I in the reply filed on 02/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/26/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “lifetime of an uncleaned dielectric tube” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lifetime of an uncleaned dielectric tube” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As the lifetime of an uncleaned dielectric tube is not established, the claimed limitation of double said lifetime is also not established and so the claim is indefinite. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the lifetime of an uncleaned dielectric tube. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
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 1-4, 9, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi et al. (US20170365450A1, hereinafter Bi) in view of Cho et al. (US20150144154A1, hereinafter Cho).
Regarding claim 1, Bi teaches a method of cleaning a dielectric tube (Fig. 2 showerhead 212, par. 19 “[t]he residual deposits found in region R1 include the boron-carbon layers formed on the surface of showerhead 120” and in par. 49 teaches “operation 302, which targets the removal of the boron-carbon residual film from regions R1 and R2”), the method comprising:
exposing the dielectric tube to a cleaning gas comprising a fluorine-containing compound (Par. 46 “a fluorine-containing gas or a chlorine-containing gas may be ionized in combination with the water vapor or the water vapor may be combined with a fluorine or chlorine to increase the etching rate of the boron-carbon film”); and
generating a plasma from the cleaning gas to clean the dielectric tube (Par. 47 “FIG. 4 is a flow diagram 400 illustrating another method of removing a boron-carbon residual film using plasma generated from water vapor according to one embodiment of the invention”).
Bi does not appear to teach
generating a microwave plasma for cleaning.
Cho teaches
generating a microwave plasma for cleaning (Pars. 31/20 “the microwave power may be supplied to the plasma processing chamber between about 200 Watt and about 2000 Watt” and “chambers with remote plasma sources, microwave plasma chambers. electron cyclotron resonance (ECR) plasma chambers, and the like may be utilized to practice the disclosure”).
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 because as both Bi and Cho teach suitable in-situ plasma cleaning methods, it would have been obvious to substitute Bi’s plasma cleaning method with Cho’s microwave range plasma cleaning method to achieve the predictable result of using a microwave plasma for in-situ cleaning.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bi and Cho teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein the cleaning gas further comprises a noble gas or molecular nitrogen (N2) (Bi par. 36 “It is believed that helium/argon gas, which is used as a carrier gas, increases the etch uniformity of the chamber cleaning process” and helium and argon are noble gases).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bi and Cho teaches the method of claim 2,
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” and as Cho teaches a microwave plasma cleaning method, see above rejection of claim 1, they also teach the specific ratios to achieve that microwave plasma cleaning which include embodiments within the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bi and Cho teaches 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) (Cho par. 26 “the first cleaning gas mixture may further include a halogen containing gas [such as]…sulfur hexafluoride gas (SF6)” and as Cho teaches a microwave plasma cleaning method, see above rejection of claim 1, they would also teach the specific compounds utilized in their method).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bi and Cho teaches 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 (Cho par. 14 teaches that “[t]he in-situ cleaning process effectively remove etch by-products, particularly refractory metal and/or metal silicide residues, from the plasma processing chamber without damaging chamber components” and as Cho teaches the microwave plasma cleaning process, they also teach the in-situ cleaning technique).
Regarding claim 12, Bi teaches 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 plasma in the plasma processing chamber (Par. 19 “By operation of the high temperature plasma boron-carbon deposition process within the chamber, not only is a boron-carbon film deposited on substrate 190, but residual deposits of boron-carbon are also deposited on chamber components and the chamber walls as depicted by regions R1, R2, R3 and R4”), the plasma generated using a waveguide positioned within a dielectric tube (Examiner notes par. 2 of the specification which defines a waveguide as “also called an antenna or electrode.” Fig. 2, par. 32 “electric power is provided to the showerhead 212 to establish a plasma in the processing volume” and so the showerhead contains an electrode, and therefore a waveguide) the film depositing on the substrate surface and the dielectric tube (Par. 19 teaches that “operation of the high temperature plasma boron-carbon deposition process within the chamber, not only is a boron-carbon film deposited on substrate 190, but residual deposits of boron-carbon are also deposited on chamber components and the chamber walls as depicted by regions R1, R2, R3 and R4” and “[t]he residual deposits found in region R1 include the boron-carbon layers formed on the surface of showerhead 120”); and
cleaning the dielectric tube by exposing the dielectric tube to a cleaning plasma of a cleaning gas (Par. 49 “operation 302, which targets the removal of the boron-carbon residual film from regions R1 and R2” which as taught above includes showerhead 120), the cleaning gas comprising a fluorine-containing compound (Par. 46 “a fluorine-containing gas or a chlorine-containing gas may be ionized in combination with the water vapor or the water vapor may be combined with a fluorine or chlorine to increase the etching rate of the boron-carbon film”).
Bi does not appear to teach
generating a microwave plasma for cleaning.
Cho teaches
generating a microwave plasma for cleaning (Pars. 31/20 “the microwave power may be supplied to the plasma processing chamber between about 200 Watt and about 2000 Watt” and “chambers with remote plasma sources, microwave plasma chambers. electron cyclotron resonance (ECR) plasma chambers, and the like may be utilized to practice the disclosure”).
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 because as both Bi and Cho teach suitable in-situ plasma cleaning methods, it would have been obvious to substitute Bi’s plasma cleaning method with Cho’s microwave range plasma cleaning method to achieve the predictable result of using a microwave plasma for in-situ cleaning.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Bi and Cho 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 the combination of Bi and Cho does not explicitly teach multiple waveguides, or electrodes as defined in par. 2 of applicant’s specification, within the showerhead, the primary function of the showerhead’s electrode is to electrically bias the showerhead. A duplication of an electrode within the showerhead to form an additional electrode would not provide any new or unexpected results as the primary function of biasing the showerhead 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 an electrode within Bi’s showerhead 212 to form more than one microwave waveguide in the microwave plasma processing chamber, each of the microwave waveguides positioned within a dielectric tube, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Bi and Cho teaches the method of claim 12,
wherein depositing the film and cleaning the dielectric tube occur in the same microwave plasma processing chamber (Cho par. 14 teaches that “[t]he in-situ cleaning process effectively remove etch by-products, particularly refractory metal and/or metal silicide residues, from the plasma processing chamber without damaging chamber components” and as Cho teaches the microwave plasma cleaning process, they also teach the in-situ cleaning technique).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Bi and Cho teaches the method of claim 12,
the cleaning gas further comprises a noble gas or molecular nitrogen (N2), and 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” and as Cho teaches a microwave plasma cleaning method, see above rejection of claim 1, they also teach the specific ratios to achieve that microwave plasma cleaning which include embodiments within the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Bi 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) (Cho par. 26 “the first cleaning gas mixture may further include a halogen containing gas [such as]…sulfur hexafluoride gas (SF6)” and as Cho teaches a microwave plasma cleaning method, see above rejection of claim 12, they would also teach the specific compounds utilized in their method).
Claims 5-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bi and Cho as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, respectively, and further in view of Sahmuganathan et al. (US20220068643A1, hereinafter Sahmuganathan).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bi and Cho teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Bi and Cho does not appear to teach
wherein the wherein 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 because as Bi and Cho are 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 Bi, Cho, 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)).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bi, Cho, and Sahmuganathan teaches the method of claim 5,
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)).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bi, Cho and Sahmuganathan teaches the method of claim 5,
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)).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Bi and Cho teaches the method of claim 12,
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)), and
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)).
The combination of Bi and Cho 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.
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)”)
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)”)
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 because as Bi and Cho are 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 and its associated power ranges.
Claims 10 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bi and Cho as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, respectively, and further in view of Champetier (US20070076780A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bi and Cho teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Bi and Cho does not appear to teach
wherein the dielectric tube is a fused silica tube.
Champetier teaches
wherein the dielectric tube is a fused silica tube (Par. 24 “a showerhead 22 may be made of…fused silica”).
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 Bi and Cho with the teachings of Champetier because as both Bi and Champetier teach suitable materials for use as a showerhead, it would have been obvious to substitute Bi’s showerhead material with Champetier’s fused silica to achieve the predictable result of forming a showerhead formed from fused silica.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Bi and Cho teaches the method of claim 12,
The combination of Bi and Cho does not appear to teach
wherein the dielectric tube is a fused silica tube.
Champetier teaches
wherein the dielectric tube is a fused silica tube (Par. 24 “a showerhead 22 may be made of…fused silica”).
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 Bi and Cho with the teachings of Champetier because as both Bi and Champetier teach suitable materials for use as a showerhead, it would have been obvious to substitute Bi’s showerhead material with Champetier’s fused silica to achieve the predictable result of forming a showerhead formed from fused silica.
Conclusion
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