DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-40 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 30:
The prior art of record, whether alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the limitation “wherein the first inlet hole cover and the first outlet hole cover are positioned at the same height and configured to be simultaneously operated to simultaneously open or close the corresponding inlet and outlet hole rows” in the context of the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claims 31-40:
Claims 31-40 are allowed at least based on their dependency from claim 30.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 28:
Claim 28 recites “wherein temperature of the process radicals is reduced to a process temperature of the plasma surface treatment process after the process radicals are supplied into the process chamber”. Nothing in the specification as originally filed indicates that the temperature of the process radicals is reduced to a process temperature after the process radicals are supplied into the process chamber. The specification as originally filed appears to disclose the opposite. The cooler 300 reduces the temperature of the process radicals to a process temperature of the plasma surface treatment process before the process radicals are supplied into the process chamber [fig 9, s400].
Regarding claim 29:
Claim 29 is rejected at least based on its dependency from claim 28.
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.
Claims 26-29 are 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.
Regarding claim 26:
Claim 26 recites the limitation "a vacuum pressure is applied to the discharge duct, a supply duct is opened, and …" in claim 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the discharge duct” in the claim. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting claim 26 to depend from claim 24 and to recite "a vacuum pressure is applied to the discharge duct, [[a]] the supply duct is opened, and …".
Regarding claim 27:
Claim 27 is rejected at least based on its dependency from claim 26.
Regarding claim 28:
Claim 28 recites “wherein temperature of the process radicals is reduced to a process temperature of the plasma surface treatment process after the process radicals are supplied into the process chamber”. This limitation contradicts the specification as originally filed [fig 9, s400]. Therefore, this limitation is unclear in light of the specification (i.e. it is unclear when the reduction in temperature occurs). A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “wherein temperature of the process radicals is reduced to a process temperature of the plasma surface treatment process before the process radicals are supplied into the process chamber”.
Regarding claim 29:
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the supply duct" in claim 28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that “supply duct is first set forth in claim 22. However, claim 28 depends from claim 21. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting intervening claim 28 to depend from claim 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al (US 2002/0036066) in view of Matsuura (US 2005/0287806) and Shi et al (US 2006/0037700).
Regarding claim 21:
Ogawa teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (manufacturing a semiconductor device) [0001], comprising: loading a plurality of wafers (plurality of wafers 1 held on boat 47 loaded via 43) [fig 5-6 & 0080] to a process chamber (process tube, 41) having first (left wall of 41) and second walls (right wall of 41) spaced apart in a first direction (x-direction) and a supply baffle (distribution plate, 57) and a discharge baffle (conductance plate, 59) adjacent to the first and the second walls, respectively (left and right walls of 41), the supply (57) and discharge (59) baffles extending in a second direction (z-direction) perpendicular to the first direction (x-direction) [fig 5-6 & 0076-0078], the supply baffle (57) having a plurality of inlet holes (gas injection openings, 58) and the discharge baffle (59) having an outlet hole (gas exhaust opening, 59a) [fig 5-6, 7B & 0078, 0098]; supplying process radicals (activated gas) generated from an exterior plasma generator (remote plasma unit, 55) into the process chamber (41) through the inlet holes (58) to thereby conduct a plasma surface treatment process (remove the natural oxide film) to surfaces of the wafers (1) with the process radicals (activated gas) [fig 5-6 & 0081-0082]; and discharging the process radicals (activated gas) from the process chamber (41) through the outlet hole (59a) [fig 5-6 & 0081], wherein the wafers (1) are stacked in a third direction (y-direction) perpendicular to the first (x-direction) and second (z-direction) directions while the plasma surface treatment process is performed (see fig 5-6) [fig 5-6 & 0075].
Ogawa does not specifically teach the discharge baffle having a plurality of outlet holes.
Matsuura teaches a discharge baffle having a plurality of outlet holes (exhaust holes, 81) [fig 5 & 0094].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the discharge baffle of Ogawa to have a plurality of outlet holes, as in Matsuura, to improve planar uniformity of processing and enable gases to be more efficiently exhausted thereby improving productivity [Matsuura – 0096].
Ogawa modified by Matsuura does not specifically disclose the plurality of wafers being a plurality of package structures.
Shi teaches a plurality of package structures (26 may include electrical components such as an IC package) [fig 3 & 0022].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of wafers of modified Ogawa to be a plurality of package structures, as in Shi, to carry out a cleaning process prior to attaching a die [Shi – 0049-0050].
Regarding claim 22:
Ogawa teaches the first wall of the process chamber (left wall of 41) is connected to a supply duct (53) and the supply baffle (57) is positioned opposite to the supply duct (53) with respect to the first wall in the process chamber (left wall of 41) [fig 5-6 & 0076-0078].
Regarding claim 23:
Ogawa teaches the plurality of the inlet holes (58A) is arranged in the supply baffle (57) as a plurality of inlet hole rows being spaced apart by a same gap in the third direction (y-direction) of the process chamber (41) [fig 5-6, 7B & 0098].
Regarding claim 24:
Ogawa teaches the second wall of the process chamber (right wall of 41) is connected to a discharge duct (51) and the discharge baffle (59) is positioned opposite to the discharge duct (51) with respect to the second wall in the process chamber (right wall of 41) [fig 5-6 & 0076-0078].
Regarding claim 25:
Modified Ogawa teaches the plurality of the outlet holes (exhaust holes, 81) is arranged in the discharge baffle as a plurality of outlet hole rows being spaced apart by a same gap (see fig 5) in the third direction (y-direction) of the process chamber (6) [Matsuura - fig 5 & 0094].
Regarding claims 26-27:
Ogawa teaches a vacuum pressure (exhausting force) is applied to the discharge duct (51), the supply duct (53) is opened, and the process radicals (activated gas) flows into the process chamber (41) through the supply duct (53) and flows out of the process chamber (41) through the discharge duct (51) [fig 5-6 & 0081]; and wherein the vacuum pressure (exhausting force) is simultaneously applied to the supply duct (53), the process chamber (41) and the discharge duct (51) so that the process radicals (activated gas) are formed into a single/continuous flow through the supply duct (53) to the discharge duct (51) [fig 5-6 & 0081].
Claim(s) 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Ogawa et al (US 2002/0036066) in view of Matsuura (US 2005/0287806) and Shi et al (US 2006/0037700) as applied to claims 21-27 above, and further in view of Huang et al (US 5,262,610).
The limitations of claims 21-27 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 28-29:
Modified Ogawa does not specifically disclose temperature of the process radicals is reduced to a process temperature of the plasma surface treatment process before the process radicals are supplied into the process chamber; and wherein a cooling fluid flows in a cooler enclosing/surrounding the supply duct and a heat transfer occurs between the process radicals and the cooling fluid in the cooler.
Huang teaches temperature of the process radicals is reduced to a process temperature of the plasma surface treatment process before the process radicals are supplied into the process chamber (plasma is reduced to a process temperature via 34 before the plasma is supplied to 10) [fig 1 & col 2, lines 35-51]; and wherein a cooling fluid (cooling water) flows in a cooler (34) enclosing/surrounding the supply duct (18) and a heat transfer occurs between the process radicals (plasma) and the cooling fluid (cooling water) in the cooler (34) [fig 1 & col 2, lines 35-51].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the supply duct of modified Ogawa to be surrounded by a cooler to reduce a temperature of the process radicals to a process temperature before the process radicals are supplied into the process chamber, as in Huang, to dissipate heat during plasma generation to protect reactor parts and enhance reliability of the reactor [Huang – col 4, lines 3-7].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brors et al (US 6,352,593) teaches a supply baffle and a discharge baffle [fig 30].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896