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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on April 9, 2026 was received and has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11-14, and 17-18 were amended. Claim 5 was cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-15, and 17-18 are in the application and pending examination. Claims 3, 16, and 19-20 have been withdrawn.. A replacement paragraph was submitted to amend the title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
The previous objection to the title of the invention for not being descriptive is withdrawn based on the submission of an amended title.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The previous rejection of claims 1-2, 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1 and cancellation of claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,637,153 B1 to Niino et al (hereinafter Niino).
Regarding claim 1, Moradian teaches a semiconductor processing system, comprising: a chamber arrangement (103); an exhaust arrangement (106) connected to the chamber arrangement; an accretion sensor (124-133, see paragraph 29) supported within the exhaust arrangement; and a controller (401) in communication with the accretion sensor, wherein the controller comprises: a processor (circuit, ASIC, hardware) and a memory storing instructions (software). (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Moradian does not explicitly teach an etchant supply valve in connection with the exhaust arrangement.
Niino teaches an etchant supply valve (36a, 19) in connection with the exhaust arrangement (23). ( See Niino, Abstract, Figs. 1, 14; col. 5, lines 23-33; col. 18, lines 22-52; col. 19, lines 48-52.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an etchant supply valve in connection with the exhaust arrangement and a controller in communication with the etchant supply valve, because Niino teaches this structure enables films deposited in the piping system 34 to be removed. ( See Niino, Abstract, Figs. 1, 14; col. 5, lines 23-33; col. 18, lines 22-52; col. 19, lines 48-52.)
Moradian does not explicitly teach a controller in communication with the etchant supply valve.
Niino teaches an etchant supply valve (36a, 19) in connection with the exhaust arrangement (23). ( See Niino, Abstract, Figs. 1, 14; col. 5, lines 23-33; col. 17, lines 30-65; col. 18, lines 22-52; col. 19, lines 48-52.)
Nino teaches it is known to control gas supply valves with a controller. (See Nino, col. 19, line 65- col. 20, line 3; col. 21, lines 34-41.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a controller in communication with the etchant supply valve. with a reasonableexpectation of success, because Niino teaches this would enable the valves to have a level of automated control. (See Nino, col. 19, line 65- col. 20, line 3; col. 21, lines 34-41.)
The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)
Moradian teaches wherein the controller comprises a processor (circuit, ASIC, hardware) and a memory storing instructions (software) that when executed by the processor cause the controller to:. :
receive, from the accretion sensor (305), a first accretion signal indicating of a first accretion amount disposed within the exhaust arrangement (310);
receive a predetermined accretion amount value (threshold in paragraph 19) ; and
execute, based on the accretion amount exceeding the predetermined accretion amount value (315) , an accretion countermeasure;
during execution of the accretion countermeasure, receive a second accretion signal indicating a second accretion amount disposed within the exhaust arrangement (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Moradian does teach wherein the controller comprises :
an accretion countermeasure; wherein the executing the accretion countermeasure includes opening the etchant supply valve.
Niino teaches the supply of the cleaning gas to the exhaust line can be done separately. ( See Niino, Abstract, Figs. 1, 14; col. 18, lines 22-52; col. 19, lines 48-52.)
Niino teaches the controller controls the valves. (See Nino, col. 19, line 65- col. 20, line 3; col. 21, lines 34-41.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller comprises :
execute an accretion countermeasure; wherein the executing the accretion countermeasure includes opening the etchant supply valve, because Niino teaches this would control would enable the control to be take place based on a signal from another measurement i.e.automation . ( See Niino, Abstract, Figs. 1, 14; col. 5, lines 23-33; col. 17, lines 30-65; col. 18, lines 22-52; col. 19, lines 48-52.)
The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)
Moradian does teach wherein the controller comprises :
execute an accretion countermeasure; wherein the executing the accretion ;
cause, based on the second accretion amount failing to exceed the predetermined accretion amount value, the etchant supply valve to close.
Moridian teaching sensing when removal of build-up is complete. (See Moridian paragraphs 36, 44, 48.) (Examiner is considering execute based on the first accretion amount exceeding the predetermined accretion amount value to be equivalent to sensing when removal of build-up is complete.)
Niino teaches the supply of the cleaning gas to the exhaust line can be done separately. ( See Niino, Abstract, Figs. 1, 14; col. 18, lines 22-52; col. 19, lines 48-52.)
Niino teaches the controller controls the valves. (See Nino, col. 19, line 65- col. 20, line 3; col. 21, lines 34-41.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller comprises :
cause, based on the second accretion amount failing to exceed the predetermined accretion amount value, the etchant supply valve to close, because Niino teaches this would enable the valves to have a level of automated control. (See Nino, col. 19, line 65- col. 20, line 3; col. 21, lines 34-41.)
The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)
Regarding claim 2, Moradian teaches the accretion sensor includes a quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) structure. (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
Regarding claim 4, Moradian teaches the first accretion amount is disposed at least in part on the QCM structure. (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
Regarding claim 6, Moradian teaches further comprising an isolation valve (115, 118, 121) connecting the exhaust arrangement to the chamber arrangement (103) , wherein the isolation valve (115,121) separates the accretion sensor (127-133) from the chamber arrangement (103). (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
Regarding claim 7, Moradian teaches a pressure control valve arranged along the exhaust arrangement (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ) , wherein the pressure control valve (118) is between the accretion sensor (127-133) and the chamber arrangement (103). (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29.)
The previous rejection of claims 8-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) as applied to claim 7 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) and US Pat. Num. 5,637,153 B1 to Niino et al (hereinafter Niino) as applied to claim 7 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa).
Regarding claim 8, Moradian does not explicitly teach the exhaust arrangement has an etchant port, wherein the pressure control valve is between the accretion sensor and the etchant port.
Furusawa teaches a structure for removing deposit on the exhaust unit.
Furusawa teaches the exhaust conduit (13) has an etchant port (19). (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the exhaust arrangement has an etchant port, because Furusawa teaches this structure would enable unwanted deposits to be removed. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Regarding claim 8, Moradian the pressure control valve is between the accretion sensor and the etchant port.
Furusawa the pressure control valve (118) is between the accretion sensor (133) and foreline clean system 210. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Examiner is considering the foreline clean system which receives gases NF3 and Argon to remove build-up from the pipes (See Moradian, paragraph 44) to be an art recognized equivalent of the etchant port in Furusawa.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pressure control valve is between the accretion sensor and the etchant port, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this location would enable the gas etchant gas to clean the pressure control valve and the sensor would be able to determine the level of build-up and cleaning required. (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 8, 19, 28-29, 31-32, 39, 44. )
Regarding claim 9, Moradian does not explicitly teach an etchant conduit connected to the etchant port; and an etchant source connected to the etchant arrangement and bypassing the chamber arrangement, etchant provided to the exhaust conduit bypassing the chamber arrangement.
Furusawa teaches an etchant conduit connected to the etchant port; and an etchant source connected to the etchant conduit and bypassing the chamber arrangement, etchant provided to the exhaust arrangement bypassing the chamber arrangement (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an etchant conduit connected to the etchant port; and an etchant source connected to the etchant arrangement and bypassing the chamber arrangement, etchant provided to the exhaust conduit bypassing the chamber arrangement, because Furusawa teaches this structure would enable unwanted deposits to be removed. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Regarding claim 10, Moradian does not explicitly teach the etchant source includes chlorine (Cl2) gas.
Furusawa teaches the etchant source includes a hydrogen chloride gas and a gas containing chlorine may be used in place of hydrogen chloride. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the etchant source includes chlorine (Cl2) gas as an art recognized equivalent for a chloride containing gas. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 10, applicant claims a specific material or article worked upon including chlorine gas. The coating apparatus in the applied references would be capable of coating these substrates. Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 11, Moradian teaches a maintenance valve (121) connected to the exhaust conduit (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ), wherein the accretion sensor (130) is supported within the exhaust conduit (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ) between the maintenance valve (121) and the chamber arrangement (103). (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
Regarding claim 12, Moradian teaches an exhaust arrangement (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ), connected to the chamber arrangement (103), wherein the accretion sensor (124, 127, 130, 133) is supported within the exhaust arrangement. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Regarding claim 12, Moradian does not explicitly teach an etchant conduit connected to the etchant port; and an etchant source connected to the etchant conduit and bypassing the chamber arrangement.
Furusawa teaches an etchant conduit (19) connected to the etchant port; and an etchant source (square at end of 19) connected to the etchant conduit and bypassing the chamber arrangement (21). (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an etchant conduit connected to the exhaust conduit; and an etchant source connected to the etchant conduit, the etchant conduit bypassing the chamber arrangement, because Furusawa teaches this structure would enable unwanted deposits to be removed from the exhaust conduit. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
The previous rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) as applied to claim 12 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090170328 A1 to Kameda et al (hereinafter Kameda) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) and US Pat. Num. 5,637,153 B1 to Niino et al (hereinafter Niino) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) as applied to claim 12 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090170328 A1 to Kameda et al (hereinafter Kameda).
Regarding claim 13, Moradian does not explicitly teach a reducing agent conduit connected to the etchant conduit; a reducing agent supply valve arranged along the reducing agent conduit; and wherein the reducing agent conduit is connected to the etchant conduit between the etchant supply valve and the exhaust arrangement to introduce a reducing agent into an etchant provided by the etchant source within the etchant conduit.
Kameda teaches a structure for cleaning a processing chamber.
Kameda teaches a cleaning gas including hydrogen to form a cleaning gas mixture. (See Kameda, Abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs 5, 29, 117, 169.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a reducing agent conduit connected to the etchant conduit; a reducing agent supply valve arranged along the reducing agent conduit; and wherein the reducing agent conduit is connected to the etchant conduit between the etchant supply valve and the exhaust arrangement to introduce a reducing agent into an etchant provided by the etchant source within the etchant conduit, because Kameda teaches this mixtures of cleaning gas can be formed with hydrogen gas and this structure would enable the mixture of cleaning gas to be formed. (See Kameda, Abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs 5, 29, 117, 169.)
The previous rejection of claim 14 under is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090170328 A1 to Kameda et al (hereinafter Kameda) as applied to claim 13 and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) and US Pat. Num. 5,637,153 B1 to Niino et al (hereinafter Niino) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090170328 A1 to Kameda et al (hereinafter Kameda) as applied to claim 13 and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima).
Regarding claim 14, Moradian does not explicitly teach the etchant supply valve and the reducing agent supply valve are operably associated to heat the exhaust arrangement using the heat generated by reducing the etchant with the reducing agent within the etchant conduit.
Mizushima teaches a structure for cleaning a processing chamber.
Mizushima teaches a cleaning gas including hydrogen to form a cleaning gas mixture. (See Mizushima, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 6, 32, 52, 83, 111-112, 129, 131.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the etchant supply valve and the reducing agent supply valve are operably associated to heat the exhaust arrangement using the heat generated by reducing the etchant with the reducing agent within the etchant conduit, because Mizushima teaches this mixtures of cleaning gas can be formed with hydrogen gas and this structure would enable the mixture of cleaning gas to be formed. (See Mizushima, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 6, 32, 52, 83, 111-112, 129, 131.)
Regarding claim 14, Moradian does not explicitly teach the etchant supply valve and the reducing agent supply valve are operably associated with the processor to heat the exhaust conduit using heat generated by reducing the etchant with the reducing agent within the etchant conduit .
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before, because Moradian teaches the use of the processor allows the timing of the cleaning or preventative maintenance to be predictively determined or more efficiently scheduled.
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the etchant supply valve and the reducing agent supply valve are operably associated with the processor to heat the exhaust conduit using heat generated by reducing the etchant with the reducing agent within the etchant conduit, with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of the processor is known in the art to control processing operations and allow for more efficient scheduling. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
The previous rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090170328 A1 to Kameda et al (hereinafter Kameda) as applied to claim 13 and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200230666 A1 to Takezawa et al (hereinafter Takezawa) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) and US Pat. Num. 5,637,153 B1 to Niino et al (hereinafter Niino) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090170328 A1 to Kameda et al (hereinafter Kameda) as applied to claim 13 and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200230666 A1 to Takezawa et al (hereinafter Takezawa).
Regarding claim 15, Moradian does not explicitly teach the etchant source comprises chlorine (Cl2) gas, wherein the reducing agent comprises hydrogen (H2) gas.
Takezawa teaches a structure for cleaning a processing chamber.
Takezawa teaches the etchant source comprises chlorine (Cl2) gas, wherein the reducing agent comprises hydrogen (H2) gas. (See Takezawa, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 3, 30-31, 50, and 79-80.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the etchant source comprises chlorine (Cl2) gas, wherein the reducing agent comprises hydrogen (H2) gas, because Takezawa teaches the etchant source comprises chlorine (Cl2) gas, wherein the reducing agent comprises hydrogen (H2) gas as effective cleaning gases. (See Takezawa, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 3, 30-31, 50, and 79-80.)
Regarding claim 15, applicant claims a specific material or article worked upon including chlorine gas. The coating apparatus in the applied references would be capable of coating these substrates. Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
The previous rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) and US Pat. Num. 5,637,153 B1 to Niino et al (hereinafter Niino) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima).
Regarding claim 17, Moradian does not explicitly teach wherein the accretion countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: fluidly separating the exhaust arrangement from the chamber arrangement.
Furusawa teaches the accretion countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: fluidly separating (16) the exhaust arrangement from the chamber arrangement (21). (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the accretion countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: fluidly separating the exhaust arrangement from the chamber arrangement, because Furusawa teaches this step would allow the exhaust unit to be heated and cleaned. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Regarding claim 17, Moradian does not explicitly teach fluidly coupling the exhaust arrangement to an etchant source.
Furusawa teaches fluidly coupling the exhaust arrangement to an etchant source (19). (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fluidly coupling the exhaust arrangement to an etchant source, because Furusawa teaches this step would allow the exhaust unit to be cleaned. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Regarding claim 17, Moradian does not explicitly teach wherein the countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: heating the exhaust arrangement using a reducing agent provided by the reducing agent source and an etchant provided by the etchant source.
Mizushima teaches the countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: heating the exhaust arrangement using a reducing agent provided by the reducing agent source and an etchant provided by the etchant source. (See Mizushima, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 6, 32, 52, 83, 111-112, 129, 131.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: heating the exhaust arrangement using a reducing agent provided by the reducing agent source and an etchant provided by the etchant source, because Mizushima teaches this step would allow the by-products in the exhaust pipe to be removed. (See Mizushima, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 6, 32, 52, 82-83, 111-112, 129, 131.)
The previous rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,368,567 B2 to Comita et al (hereinafter Comita) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) and US Pat. Num. 5,637,153 B1 to Niino et al (hereinafter Niino) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,368,567 B2 to Comita et al (hereinafter Comita).
Regarding claim 18, Moradian does not explicitly teach the chamber arrangement comprises susceptor supported from rotation within a chamber body, the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor.
Comita teaches the chamber arrangement comprises susceptor (115) supported from rotation within a chamber body (100) , the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor. (See Comita, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 12-25, lines 33-46; col. 2, lines 15-25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the chamber arrangement comprises susceptor supported from rotation within a chamber body, because Comita teaches this structure is effective for forming a deposit on a substrate. (See Comita, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 12-25, lines 33-46; col. 2, lines 15-25.)
Regarding claim 18, Moradian does not explicitly teach the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor.
Comita teaches the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor. (See Comita, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 12-25, lines 33-46; col. 2, lines 15-25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor, because Comita teaches this structure is effective for forming a deposit on a substrate. (See Comita, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 12-25, lines 33-46; col. 2, lines 15-25.)
Claim 18 recites an intended use clause (i. e. the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor ). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Comita is capable of performing the intended use and as a result meets the claim limitation.
The previous rejection of claims 1-2, 4-7, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20220056577 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20220056577 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,637,153 B1 to Niino et al (hereinafter Niino) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200043764 A1 to Clark et al (hereinafter Clark).
Regarding claim 1, Mizushima teaches a semiconductor processing system, comprising: a chamber arrangement (10); an exhaust arrangement (18) connected to the chamber arrangement (10). (See Mizushima, Abstract, paragraphs 33-47, 55, 70, and 140.)
Mizushima does not explicitly teach an accretion sensor supported within the exhaust arrangement; and a controller in communication with the accretion sensor and wherein the controller comprises: a processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to: receive, from the accretion sensor, a first accretion signal indicating a first accretion amount disposed within the exhaust arrangement;
receive, a predetermined accretion amount value ;
execute, based on the first accretion amount exceeding the predetermined accretion amount value, an accretion countermeasure, wherein the executing the accretion countermeasure includes opening the etchant supply valve,
during execution of the accretion countermeasure, receive a second accretion signal indicating a second accretion amount disposed within the exhaust arrangement; and cause, based on the second accretion amount failing to exceed the predetermined accretion amount value, the etchant supply valve to close.
Moradian teaches wherein the controller the controller comprises a processor (circuit, ASIC, hardware) and a memory storing instructions (software) that when executed by the processor cause the controller to:
receive, from the accretion sensor (305), a first accretion signal indicating of a first accretion amount disposed within the exhaust arrangement (310);
receive a predetermined accretion amount value (threshold in paragraph 19) ; and
execute, based on the accretion amount exceeding the predetermined accretion amount value (315), an accretion countermeasure;
during execution of the accretion countermeasure, receive a second accretion signal indicating a second accretion amount disposed within the exhaust arrangement (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include the controller comprises :
receive, from the accretion sensor, a first accretion signal indicating of a first accretion amount disposed within the exhaust arrangement;
receive a predetermined accretion amount value; and
execute, based on the accretion amount exceeding the predetermined accretion amount value, an accretion countermeasure;
during execution of the accretion countermeasure, receive a second accretion signal indicating a second accretion amount disposed within the exhaust arrangement, because Moradian teaches this arrangement allows the timing of the cleaning or preventative maintenance to be predictively determined or more efficiently scheduled. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Moradian does not explicitly teach an etchant supply valve in connection with the exhaust arrangement.
Niino teaches an etchant supply valve (36a, 19) in connection with the exhaust arrangement (23). ( See Niino, Abstract, Figs. 1, 14; col. 5, lines 23-33; col. 18, lines 22-52; col. 19, lines 48-52.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an etchant supply valve in connection with the exhaust arrangement and a controller in communication with the etchant supply valve, because Niino teaches this structure enables films deposited in the piping system 34 to be removed. ( See Niino, Abstract, Figs. 1, 14; col. 5, lines 23-33; col. 18, lines 22-52; col. 19, lines 48-52.)
Moradian does not explicitly teach a controller in communication with the etchant supply valve.
Niino teaches an etchant supply valve (36a, 19) in connection with the exhaust arrangement (23). ( See Niino, Abstract, Figs. 1, 14; col. 5, lines 23-33; col. 17, lines 30-65; col. 18, lines 22-52; col. 19, lines 48-52.)
Nino teaches it is known to control gas supply valves with a controller. (See Nino, col. 19, line 65- col. 20, line 3; col. 21, lines 34-41.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a controller in communication with the etchant supply valve. with a reasonableexpectation of success, because Niino teaches this would enable the valves to have a level of automated control. (See Nino, col. 19, line 65- col. 20, line 3; col. 21, lines 34-41.)
The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)
Moradian does teach wherein the controller comprises :
an accretion countermeasure; wherein the executing the accretion countermeasure includes opening the etchant supply valve;
execute an accretion countermeasure; wherein the executing the accretion ;
cause, based on the second accretion amount failing to exceed the predetermined accretion amount value, the etchant supply valve to close.
Moridian teaching sensing when removal of build-up is complete. (See Moridian paragraphs 36, 44, 48.) (Examiner is considering execute based on the first accretion amount exceeding the predetermined accretion amount value to be equivalent to sensing when removal of build-up is complete.)
Niino teaches the supply of the cleaning gas to the exhaust line can be done separately. ( See Niino, Abstract, Figs. 1, 14; col. 18, lines 22-52; col. 19, lines 48-52.)
Niino teaches the controller controls the valves. (See Nino, col. 19, line 65- col. 20, line 3; col. 21, lines 34-41.)
Clark is directed to a control system for a substrate treatment facility including etching.
Clark teaches data utilization can be used from all systems in a substrate processing treatment. (i.e. equipment health monitoring, predictive maintenance, run-to-run, gas supply systems, controllers, etc.) (See Clark, paragraphs 76, 84, and 87 and Figs. 1-37.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller comprises :
execute, based on the first accretion amount exceeding the predetermined accretion amount value, an accretion countermeasure; wherein the executing the accretion countermeasure includes opening the etchant supply valve;
cause, based on the second accretion amount failing to exceed the predetermined accretion amount value, the etchant supply valve to close, because Clark teaches this would corrective adjustment made is upstream or downstream to correct the defect or non-conformity . (See Clark, Abstract, paragraphs 76, 84, 87, 211, 218, and 223-224, and Figs. 1-37.)
Regarding claim 2, Mizushima does not explicitly teach the accretion sensor includes a quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) structure.
Moradian teaches the accretion sensor includes a quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) structure. (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include the accretion sensor includes a quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) structure, because Moradian teaches this arrangement allows the timing of the cleaning or preventative maintenance to be predictively determined or more efficiently scheduled. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Regarding claim 4, Mizushima does not explicitly teach the accretion amount is disposed at least in part on the QCM structure.
Moradian teaches the accretion amount is disposed at least in part on the QCM structure. (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include the accretion amount is disposed at least in part on the QCM structure, because Moradian teaches this arrangement allows the timing of the cleaning or preventative maintenance to be predictively determined or more efficiently scheduled. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Regarding claim 5, Mizushima teaches the exhaust arrangement (18) comprises an exhaust conduit (conduit from 26 to bottom of 10) connected to the chamber arrangement (10). (See Mizushima, Fig. 1.)
Mizushima does not explicitly teach the accretion sensor is supported within the exhaust conduit.
Moradian teaches the exhaust arrangement (106) comprises an exhaust conduit (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ) connected to the chamber arrangement (103) , wherein the accretion sensor (124-133) is supported within the exhaust conduit (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ) . (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include the accretion sensor is supported within the exhaust conduit, because Moradian teaches this arrangement allows the timing of the cleaning or preventative maintenance to be predictively determined or more efficiently scheduled. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Regarding claim 6, Mizushima does not explicitly teach an isolation valve connecting the exhaust conduit to the chamber arrangement, wherein the isolation valve separates the accretion sensor from the chamber arrangement.
Moradian teaches further comprising an isolation valve (115, 118, 121) connecting the exhaust conduit to the chamber arrangement (103) , wherein the isolation valve (115,121) separates the accretion sensor (127-133) from the chamber arrangement (103). (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include an isolation valve connecting the exhaust conduit to the chamber arrangement, wherein the isolation valve separates the accretion sensor from the chamber arrangement, because Moradian teaches this arrangement allows the timing of the cleaning or preventative maintenance to be predictively determined or more efficiently scheduled. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Regarding claim 7, Mizushima does not explicitly teach a pressure control valve arranged along the exhaust conduit, wherein the pressure control valve is between the accretion sensor and the chamber arrangement.
Moradian teaches a pressure control valve arranged along the exhaust conduit (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ) , wherein the pressure control valve (118) is between the accretion sensor (127-133) and the chamber arrangement (103). (See Mizushima, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include a pressure control valve arranged along the exhaust conduit, wherein the pressure control valve is between the accretion sensor and the chamber arrangement, because Moradian teaches this arrangement allows the timing of the cleaning or preventative maintenance to be predictively determined or more efficiently scheduled. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Regarding claim 11, Mizushima does not teach a maintenance valve connected to the exhaust conduit, wherein the accretion sensor is supported within the exhaust conduit between the maintenance valve and the chamber arrangement.
Moradian teaches a maintenance valve (121) connected to the exhaust conduit (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ), wherein the accretion sensor (130) is supported within the exhaust conduit (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ) between the maintenance valve (121) and the chamber arrangement (103). (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include a maintenance valve connected to the exhaust conduit, wherein the accretion sensor is supported within the exhaust conduit between the maintenance valve and the chamber arrangement, because Moradian teaches this arrangement allows the timing of the cleaning or preventative maintenance to be predictively determined or more efficiently scheduled. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
The previous rejection of claims 8-10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) as applied to claim 7 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,637,153 B1 to Niino et al (hereinafter Niino) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200043764 A1 to Clark et al (hereinafter Clark).as applied to claim 7 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa).
Regarding claim 8, Mizushima does not explicitly teach the exhaust conduit has an etchant port, wherein the pressure control valve is between the accretion sensor and the etchant port.
Furusawa teaches the exhaust conduit (13) has an etchant port (19). (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the exhaust conduit has an etchant port, because Furusawa teaches this structure would enable unwanted deposits to be removed. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Regarding claim 8, Mizushima the pressure control valve is between the accretion sensor and the etchant port.
Furusawa the pressure control valve (118) is between the accretion sensor (133) and foreline clean system 210. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Examiner is considering the foreline clean system which receives gases NF3 and Argon to remove build-up from the pipes (See Moradian, paragraph 44) to be an art recognized equivalent of the etchant port in Furusawa.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pressure control valve is between the accretion sensor and the etchant port, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this location would enable the gas etchant gas to clean the pressure control valve and the sensor would be able to determine the level of build-up and cleaning required. (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 8, 19, 28-29, 31-32, 39, 44. )
Regarding claim 9, Mizushima does not explicitly teach an etchant conduit connected to the etchant port; and an etchant source connected to the etchant conduit and bypassing the chamber arrangement, etchant provided to the exhaust conduit bypassing the chamber arrangement.
Furusawa teaches an etchant conduit connected to the etchant port; and an etchant source connected to the etchant conduit and bypassing the chamber arrangement, etchant provided to the exhaust conduit bypassing the chamber arrangement (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an etchant conduit connected to the etchant port; and an etchant source connected to the etchant conduit and bypassing the chamber arrangement, etchant provided to the exhaust conduit bypassing the chamber arrangement, because Furusawa teaches this structure would enable unwanted deposits to be removed. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Regarding claim 10, Mizushima does not explicitly teach the etchant source includes chlorine (Cl2) gas.
Furusawa teaches the etchant source includes a hydrogen chloride gas and a gas containing chlorine may be used in place of hydrogen chloride. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the etchant source includes chlorine (Cl2) gas as an art recognized equivalent for a chloride containing gas. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 10, applicant claims a specific material or article worked upon including chlorine gas. The coating apparatus in the applied references would be capable of coating these substrates. Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 12, Mizushima an exhaust conduit, connected to the chamber arrangement, wherein the accretion sensor is supported within the exhaust conduit.
Moradian teaches an exhaust conduit (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ), connected to the chamber arrangement (103), wherein the accretion sensor (124, 127, 130, 133) is supported within the exhaust conduit. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include an exhaust conduit, connected to the chamber arrangement, wherein the accretion sensor is supported within the exhaust conduit, because Moradian teaches this arrangement allows the timing of the cleaning or preventative maintenance to be predictively determined or more efficiently scheduled. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Regarding claim 12, Mizushima does not explicitly teach an etchant conduit connected to the etchant port; and an etchant source connected to the etchant conduit and bypassing the chamber arrangement.
Furusawa teaches an etchant conduit (19) connected to the etchant port; and an etchant source (square at end of 19) connected to the etchant conduit and bypassing the chamber arrangement (21). (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an etchant conduit connected to the exhaust conduit; and an etchant source connected to the etchant conduit, the etchant conduit bypassing the chamber arrangement, because Furusawa teaches this structure would enable unwanted deposits to be removed from the exhaust conduit. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
The previous rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) as applied to claim 12 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090170328 A1 to Kameda et al (hereinafter Kameda) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,637,153 B1 to Niino et al (hereinafter Niino) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200043764 A1 to Clark et al (hereinafter Clark) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) as applied to claim 12 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090170328 A1 to Kameda et al (hereinafter Kameda).
Regarding claim 13, Mizushima does not explicitly teach a reducing agent conduit connected to the etchant conduit; a reducing agent supply valve arranged along the reducing agent conduit; an etchant supply valve arranged along the etchant conduit; and wherein the reducing agent conduit is connected to the etchant conduit between the etchant supply valve and the exhaust conduit to introduce a reducing agent into an etchant provided by the etchant source within the etchant conduit.
Kameda teaches a structure for cleaning a processing chamber.
Kameda teaches a cleaning gas including hydrogen to form a cleaning gas mixture. (See Kameda, Abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs 5, 29, 117, 169.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a reducing agent conduit connected to the etchant conduit; a reducing agent supply valve arranged along the reducing agent conduit; an etchant supply valve arranged along the etchant conduit; and wherein the reducing agent conduit is connected to the etchant conduit between the etchant supply valve and the exhaust conduit to introduce a reducing agent into an etchant provided by the etchant source within the etchant conduit, because Kameda teaches this mixtures of cleaning gas can be formed with hydrogen gas and this structure would enable the mixture of cleaning gas to be formed. (See Kameda, Abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs 5, 29, 117, 169.)
The previous rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090170328 A1 to Kameda et al (hereinafter Kameda) as applied to claim 13 is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,637,153 B1 to Niino et al (hereinafter Niino) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200043764 A1 to Clark et al (hereinafter Clark) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090170328 A1 to Kameda et al (hereinafter Kameda) as applied to claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Mizushima does not explicitly teach the etchant supply valve and the reducing agent supply valve are operably associated to heat the exhaust conduit using heat generated by reducing the etchant with the reducing agent within the etchant conduit.
Mizushima teaches a structure for cleaning a processing chamber.
Mizushima teaches a cleaning gas including hydrogen to form a cleaning gas mixture. (See Mizushima, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 6, 32, 52, 83, 111-112, 129, 131.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the etchant supply valve and the reducing agent supply valve are operably associated to heat the exhaust conduit using heat generated by reducing the etchant with the reducing agent within the etchant conduit, because Mizushima teaches this mixtures of cleaning gas can be formed with hydrogen gas and this structure would enable the mixture of cleaning gas to be formed. (See Mizushima, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 6, 32, 52, 83, 111-112, 129, 131.)
Regarding claim 14, Moradian does not explicitly teach the etchant supply valve and the reducing agent supply valve are operably associated with the processor to heat the exhaust conduit using heat generated by reducing the etchant with the reducing agent within the etchant conduit .
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before, because Moradian teaches the use of the processor allows the timing of the cleaning or preventative maintenance to be predictively determined or more efficiently scheduled.
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the etchant supply valve and the reducing agent supply valve are operably associated with the processor to heat the exhaust conduit using heat generated by reducing the etchant with the reducing agent within the etchant conduit, with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of the processor is known in the art to control processing operations and allow for more efficient scheduling. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
The previous rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090170328 A1 to Kameda et al (hereinafter Kameda) as applied to claim 13 and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200230666 A1 to Takezawa et al (hereinafter Takezawa) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,637,153 B1 to Niino et al (hereinafter Niino) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200043764 A1 to Clark et al (hereinafter Clark) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090170328 A1 to Kameda et al (hereinafter Kameda) as applied to claim 13 and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200230666 A1 to Takezawa et al (hereinafter Takezawa).
Regarding claim 15, Mizushima does not explicitly teach the etchant source comprises chlorine (Cl2) gas, wherein the reducing agent comprises hydrogen (H2) gas.
Takezawa teaches a structure for cleaning a processing chamber.
Takezawa teaches the etchant source comprises chlorine (Cl2) gas, wherein the reducing agent comprises hydrogen (H2) gas. (See Takezawa, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 3, 30-31, 50, and 79-80.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the etchant source comprises chlorine (Cl2) gas, wherein the reducing agent comprises hydrogen (H2) gas, because Takezawa teaches the etchant source comprises chlorine (Cl2) gas, wherein the reducing agent comprises hydrogen (H2) gas as effective cleaning gases. (See Takezawa, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 3, 30-31, 50, and 79-80.)
Regarding claim 15, applicant claims a specific material or article worked upon including chlorine gas. The coating apparatus in the applied references would be capable of coating these substrates. Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
The previous rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,637,153 B1 to Niino et al (hereinafter Niino) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200043764 A1 to Clark et al (hereinafter Clark)as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa).
Regarding claim 17, Mizushima does not explicitly teach wherein the countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: fluidly separating the exhaust arrangement from the chamber arrangement.
Furusawa teaches the countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: fluidly separating (16) the exhaust arrangement from the chamber arrangement (21). (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: fluidly separating the exhaust arrangement from the chamber arrangement, because Furusawa teaches this step would allow the exhaust unit to be heated and cleaned. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Regarding claim 17, Mizushima does not explicitly teach fluidly coupling the exhaust arrangement to an etchant source.
Furusawa teaches fluidly coupling the exhaust arrangement to an etchant source (19). (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fluidly coupling the exhaust arrangement to an etchant source, because Furusawa teaches this step would allow the exhaust unit to be cleaned. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Regarding claim 17, Mizushima does not explicitly teach wherein the countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: heating the exhaust arrangement using a reducing agent provided by the reducing agent source and an etchant provided by the etchant source.
Mizushima teaches the countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: heating the exhaust arrangement using a reducing agent provided by the reducing agent source and an etchant provided by the etchant source. (See Mizushima, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 6, 32, 52, 83, 111-112, 129, 131.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: heating the exhaust arrangement using a reducing agent provided by the reducing agent source and an etchant provided by the etchant source, because Mizushima teaches this step would allow the by-products in the exhaust pipe to be removed. (See Mizushima, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 6, 32, 52, 82-83, 111-112, 129, 131.)
The previous rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,368,567 B2 to Comita et al (hereinafter Comita) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,637,153 B1 to Niino et al (hereinafter Niino) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200043764 A1 to Clark et al (hereinafter Clark)
as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,368,567 B2 to Comita et al (hereinafter Comita).
Regarding claim 18, Mizushima does not explicitly teach the chamber arrangement comprises susceptor supported from rotation within a chamber body, the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor.
Comita teaches the chamber arrangement comprises susceptor (115) supported from rotation within a chamber body (100) , the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor. (See Comita, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 12-25, lines 33-46; col. 2, lines 15-25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the chamber arrangement comprises susceptor supported from rotation within a chamber body, because Comita teaches this structure is effective for forming a deposit on a substrate. (See Comita, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 12-25, lines 33-46; col. 2, lines 15-25.)
Regarding claim 18, Moradian does not explicitly teach the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor.
Comita teaches the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor. (See Comita, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 12-25, lines 33-46; col. 2, lines 15-25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor, because Comita teaches this structure is effective for forming a deposit on a substrate. (See Comita, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 12-25, lines 33-46; col. 2, lines 15-25.)
Claim 18 recites an intended use clause (i. e. the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor ). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Comita is capable of performing the intended use and as a result meets the claim limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 6-18 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.
US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,637,153 B1 to Niino et al (hereinafter Niino) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200043764 A1 to Clark et al (hereinafter Clark) is being used in a first set of rejections.
US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,637,153 B1 to Niino et al (hereinafter Niino) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200043764 A1 to Clark et al (hereinafter Clark) is being used in a second set of rejections.
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 KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights