DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/01/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasagawa et al. (JP 2009283919 A, Machine Translation).
As to claim 1, Sasagawa discloses a method of processing a substrate [Fig. 7A-C, “Embodiment 2”], the method comprising:
a substrate loading operation of loading a substrate into a treating space of a chamber [Fig. 4];
a film removal operation of removing a film 112 provided on the substrate [Fig. 7A-C, “Embodiment 2”];
a protective film formation operation of forming a protective film 116 containing oxygen on the substrate [Fig. 7A-7C, “Embodiment 2”]; and
a substrate unloading operation of unloading the substrate from the treating space [Fig. 4].
As to claim 5, Sasagawa discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the film removal operation is performed by transferring plasma to the film [Fig. 7A-C, “Embodiment 2”].
As to claim 7, Sasagawa discloses the method of claim 5, wherein in the film removal operation, water, hydrogen, and inert gas are supplied to the treating space, and in the protective film formation operation, water, hydrogen, and inert gas are supplied to the treating space [Fig. 7A-C, “Embodiment 2”].
Here, the downflow type ICP plasma processing apparatus [Fig. 4], of Sasagawa would more likely than not include an inert gas, such as argon, in order to improve plasma ignition, stabilize discharge, and maintain uniform flow. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately envisage including a carrier gas, e.g., an inert gas such as argon, as it is common practice in plasma processing to include a carrier gas in order to improve plasma ignition, stabilize discharge, and maintain uniform flow.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singhal et al. (US 20180005801 A1).
As to claim 1, Singhal discloses a method of processing a substrate [Abstract], the method comprising:
a substrate loading operation of loading a substrate into a treating space of a chamber [Fig. 10, step 1005];
a film removal operation of removing a film provided on the substrate [Fig. 10, step 1015; para. 0086-87];
a protective film formation operation of forming a protective film containing oxygen on the substrate [Fig. 10, step 1010 and step 1020; para. 0085, “first dielectric layer can be a dielectric oxide, such as silicon dioxide (SiO2)”; para. 0088, “second dielectric layer can be a dielectric oxide, such as SiO2” ]; and
a substrate unloading operation of unloading the substrate from the treating space [para. 0089-90; Fig. 4A-4B].
As to claim 2, Singhal discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the protective film formation operation is performed after the film removal operation [Fig. 10, step 1020; para. 0088].
As to claim 3, Singhal discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the protective film formation operation is performed before the film removal operation. [Fig. 10, step 1010; para. 0085].
As to claim 5, Singhal discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the film removal operation is performed by transferring plasma to the film [para. 0086-87].
As to claim 6, Singhal discloses the method of claim 5, wherein in the film removal operation [Fig. 4B], a gap between a chuck supporting the substrate and a baffle disposed above the substrate is a first gap [Fig. 4B; para. 0051], and a pressure in the treating space is maintained at a first pressure [para. 0088; Table I],
in the protective film formation operation [Fig. 4A], a gap between the chuck and the baffle is a second gap greater than the first gap [Fig. 4B; para. 0051], and a pressure in the treating space is maintained at a second pressure less than the first pressure [para. 0088; Table I], any one of the chuck and the baffle is connected with a power unit that generates an electric field in the treating space, and the other of the chuck and the baffle is grounded [para. 0088; Table I].
Here, Singhal teaches specific pressure examples of the etching process in Table I (e.g., 1.0 Torr), and broadly states the pressure range from the deposition processes is 0.3 Torr to 1 Torr [para. 0088], the broad proportion (i.e., all except 1.0 Torr) of which is less than the first pressure ,and therefore provides sufficient specificity to anticipate the limitation.
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, 2, and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (KR 100927410 B1, Machine Translation), in view of Fujinaga (JP 6184760 B2, Machine Translation).
As to claim 1, Cho discloses a method of processing a substrate, the method comprising:
a film removal operation of removing a film 310A/310B provided on the substrate [Fig. 3a-3b];
a protective film formation operation of forming a protective film 340 containing oxygen on the substrate [Fig. 3c].
Cho fails to explicitly disclose:
a substrate loading operation of loading a substrate into a treating space of a chamber;
a substrate unloading operation of unloading the substrate from the treating space.
However, Fujinaga teaches a method of treating a substrate in a plasma etching apparatus [pg. 2, “Background”], including:
a substrate loading operation of loading a substrate into a treating space of a chamber [“Preparation process”];
a substrate unloading operation of unloading the substrate from the treating space [“End process”].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of plasma etching a substrate, of Cho, to include the steps of loading and unloading a wafer within a plasma etching apparatus, of Fujinaga, in order to control the temperature of the substrate during plasma etching and deposition processes, as taught by Fujinaga [pg. 2, “Background”].
As to claim 2, modified Cho discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the protective film 340 formation operation is performed after the film removal operation 310A/310B [Fig. 3a-3b].
As to claim 4, modified Cho discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
a liquid treatment operation of supplying a chemical solution to the substrate and removing impurities remaining on the substrate or the protective film after the substrate unloading operation [Cho, pg. 5, para. 7, “hydroxyl amine base”].
As to claim 5, modified Cho discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the film removal operation is performed by transferring plasma to the film [Cho, pg. 4, para. 4-10].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the additionally cited references are cited to show methods and apparatus for depositing and/or etching semiconductor layers through plasma exposure [Abstract].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M REMAVEGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 AM - 3:30 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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER REMAVEGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1713