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 .
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites that “the reference value is based on particles resulting from maintenance operations comprising one or more of…”, and then applicant recites a list of operations. Applicant’s limitation reciting that “the reference value is based on particles resulting from maintenance operations comprising one or more of…” (the examiner has put the word “based” in italics for emphasis) is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed.
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 4 and 9-11 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.
Claim 4 recites “the plurality of particles removed in the sweeping step”. However, in lines 13-14, claim 4 also recites that “the sweeping step, the deposition step, the first removing step, and the second removing step are repeated two or more times”. Thus, when applicant recites “the sweeping step” in line 15 of claim 4, it is not clear if applicant is referring to the first performance of the sweeping step or a repeated performance of the “sweeping step”. Similarly, when applicant recites “the plurality of particles” in line 15 of claim 4, it is not clear if applicant is referring to the particles swept in the first performance of the sweeping step or the particles swept in a repeated performance of the sweeping step.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 10,184,173 to Yonemoto in view of U.S. 2013/0061871 by Collins in view of U.S. 6,737,666 to Ito.
With regard to claim 1, Yonemoto teaches a plasma processing method for plasma processing a semiconductor substrate (item 110 in Figure 1; (Abstract; Col. 2, line 46 to Col. 8, line 4). Yonemoto’s method comprises a deposition step (step S201 in Figure 2) of depositing a silicon-containing film (item 120 in Figure 3) in a plasma-processing chamber (item 101 in Figures 1 and 3; Col. 20, line 46 to Col. 4, line 42). After the silicon-containing film is formed, a semiconductor substrate is placed on a sample stage inside the plasma-processing chamber and plasma etched (Col. 4, lines 43-47). After the plasma-etching of the semiconductor substrate, the etched substrate is removed from the plasma-processing chamber such that no substrate is on the sample stage (Col. 4, lines 47-55). After the removal of the substrate from the chamber, a “third plasma” step (reads on applicant’s first removing step) is performed, wherein an NF3 plasma is used to etch away the silicon-containing film 120 (Col. 5, lines 12-32). After the “third plasma” step, a “fourth plasma” step (reads on applicant’s second removing step) is performed, wherein a plasma of O2 is used to remove residual fluorine from the plasma-processing chamber (Col. 5, lines 33-42).
Yonemoto does not teach performing a sweeping step of seeping out a particle from the plasma processing chamber.
Collins teaches that when attempting to maintain a clean plasma processing chamber, a plasma cleaning step can advantageously be followed with a “gas purge” step wherein inert gas pressurizes the inside of the plasma processing chamber and then the gas (and entrained contaminant particles) is pumped out of the chamber (Par. 0004, 0010, 0011, 0018, 0022; claim 6 of Collins).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yonemoto such that, after the “fourth plasma” step (of cleaning residues from the plasma chamber), a gas purge step is performed, wherein the gas purge involves pressurizing the inside of the plasma processing chamber with inert gas and then pumping that gas (and entrained contaminant particles) out of the chamber. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Collins, who teaches that when attempting to maintain a clean plasma processing chamber, a plasma cleaning step can advantageously be followed with a “gas purge” step wherein inert gas pressurizes the inside of the plasma processing chamber and then the gas (and entrained contaminant particles) is pumped out of the chamber.
The combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins does not teach performing a particle number confirmation step, wherein the particle number confirmation step determines a number of the plurality of particles removed in the sweeping step.
Ito teaches that when cleaning and purging a chamber for plasma-processing a semiconductor substrate, counting (via a particle counter) a number of particles entrained in gas discharged from the chamber can advantageously be used to determine if chamber-cleaning is complete (by seeing if the counted number of particles is equal to or less than a threshold number) or if more cleaning is needed (Col. 1, line 6 to Col. 2, line 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yonemoto in view of Collins such that the gas purge step also comprises a particle counting step performed via a particle counter, wherein the particle counting step counts the number of particles entrained in the purge gas as it exits the treated chamber, and wherein the number of counted particles can be advantageously used to determine if cleaning is complete (by seeing if the counted number of particles is equal to or less than a threshold number) or if more cleaning is needed. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Ito, who teaches that when cleaning and purging a chamber for plasma-processing a semiconductor substrate, counting (via a particle counter) a number of particles entrained in gas discharged from the chamber can advantageously be used to determine if chamber-cleaning is complete or if more cleaning is needed.
The combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito does not explicitly teach repeating steps two or more times.
However, in the art of semiconductor substrate processing, it is well known to use the same apparatus many times to process different semiconductor substrates. Such repeated use of an apparatus allows for many substrates to advantageously be processed, not just one substrate. For example, Collins teaches that a plasma processing chamber may be used to “operate on lots of wafers” (Par. 0003). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito such that the processing routine (comprising but not limited to said deposition step, said plasma etching of a semiconductor substrate, said “third plasma” step, said “fourth plasma” step, and said inert gas purge step) of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito is repeated for processing at least four different semiconductor substrates. As discussed, in the art of semiconductor substrate processing, it is well known to use the same apparatus many times to process different semiconductor substrates – Collins being an example, as Collins teaches that a plasma processing chamber may be used to “operate on lots of wafers”. Motivation for repeating the processing routine of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito for at least four different semiconductor substrates would be to advantageously use the routine of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito to successfully etch at least four different semiconductor substrates.
In this developed combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito, the processing routine of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito is used to process a first substrate, the processing routine is later repeated to process a second substrate, the processing routine is later repeated to process a third substrate, and the processing routine is later repeated to process a fourth substrate. In the developed combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito, the “third plasma” step when processing the first substrate corresponds to applicant’s maintenance. In the developed combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito, the fourth substrate is what corresponds to applicant’s sample, and the plasma etching of the fourth substrate is what corresponds to applicant’s plasma-processing the sample and applicant’s the plasma processing step (the last four words of applicant’s claim 1).
In the developed combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito, the first performance (performed sometime after the plasma etching of the first substrate and sometime before the plasma etching of the second substrate) of the inert gas purge corresponds to applicant’s sweeping step, and a contaminant particle removed from the chamber by being entrained in the purge gas pumped out of the chamber corresponds to applicant’s a particle.
In the developed combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito, the first performance (performed sometime after the plasma etching of the first substrate and sometime before the plasma etching of the second substrate) of the inert gas purge, the second performance (performed sometime after the plasma etching of the first substrate and sometime before the plasma etching of the second substrate) of the deposition step, the second performance (performed sometime after the plasma etching of the second substrate and sometime before the plasma etching of the third substrate) of the “third plasma” step, and the second performance (performed sometime after the plasma etching of the second substrate and sometime before the plasma etching of the third substrate) of the “fourth plasma” step all together correspond to a first series of steps in applicant’s repeated (see the last line of applicant’s claim 1) series of steps.
In the developed combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito, the second performance (performed sometime after the plasma etching of the second substrate and sometime before the plasma etching of the third substrate) of the inert gas purge, the third performance (performed sometime after the plasma etching of the second substrate and sometime before the plasma etching of the third substrate) of the deposition step, the third performance (performed sometime after the plasma etching of the third substrate and sometime before the plasma etching of the fourth substrate) of the “third plasma” step, and the third performance (performed sometime after the plasma etching of the third substrate and sometime before the plasma etching of the fourth substrate) of the “fourth plasma” step all together correspond to a second series of steps in applicant’s repeated (see the last line of applicant’s claim 1) series of steps.
With regard to claim 2, in the developed combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito, no sample is on the sample stage during the performances of the gas purge steps, the depositions steps, the “third plasma” steps, and the “second plasma” steps.
With regard to claims 6 and 7, in the developed combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito, the deposition step is performed using a plasma generated by a gas containing SiCl4 (Col. 4, lines 13-42 of Yonemoto). In the developed combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito, the “third plasma” step is performed using a plasma generated by NF3 gas (Col. 5, lines 12-32 of Yonemoto). In the developed combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito, the “fourth plasma” step is performed using a plasma generated by O2 gas (Col. 5, lines 33-42 of Yonemoto).
With regard to claim 8, the combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito is silent as to the thickness of the deposition film. In the developed combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito, the deposition film provides a removable layer that can receive undesirable (undesirable because it is undesirable to have them accumulate on the inner walls of the plasma processing chamber) etching byproducts thereon such that those byproducts and the deposition film can later be etched away, leaving clean (uncontaminated by etching byproducts) inner walls of the plasma processing chamber (Col. 1, line 12 to Col. 2, line 12 of Yonemoto; Col. 4, lines 43 to Col. 5, line 42 of Yonemoto). In the combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito, the thickness of the deposition film can thus be considered a result-effective variable, as the plasma for forming the deposition film has to be performed long enough to ensure that all to-be-protected-from-etching-byproducts surfaces are covered with an amount of deposition film sufficient to prevent byproduct contamination of the chamber walls, and the thickness of the deposition film also affects how much plasma etching is later required to etch away the deposition film (in the “third plasma” step of Yonemoto). Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito by optimizing a thickness of the deposition film, as that thickness can be considered a result-effective variable.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 10,184,173 to Yonemoto in view of U.S. 2013/0061871 by Collins in view of U.S. 6,737,666 to Ito as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2018/0369881 by Saito as evidenced by U.S. 2010/0068659 by Hamaya.
With regard to claim 3, in the developed combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito, the plasma processing of a substrate is only performed when cleaning is completed (by seeing if the counted number of particles is equal to or less than a threshold number), whereas further cleaning is needed with the purge-and-particle-counting indicates that further cleaning is needed.
The combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito teaches that operations for using the inert gas purge to remove entrained contaminant particle(s) from the chamber include pressurizing the chamber with inert gas and then pumping that inert gas (with the entrained particles(s)) out of the chamber. The combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito does not teach that those operations include an operation of opening and closing a valve configured to exhaust the processing chamber.
Saito teaches that when attempting to remove contaminants particles from a substrate processing chamber by pressurizing the chamber with inert gas and pumping that inert gas out of the chamber, such inert gas purging can be successfully accomplished by having a valve (item 35 in Figure 1) control the connection between the chamber and the pump and by having the pressurizing and pumping steps repeated a plurality of times (Par. 0035 and 0056-0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito by having a valve control the fluid connection between the chamber interior and the pump used during the inert gas purging, wherein each performance of inert gas purging of the chamber involves repeatedly opening and closing said valve in order to perform multiple cycles of pressurizing the chamber with inert gas and pumping the inert gas out of the chamber. Saito teaches that when attempting to remove contaminants particles from a substrate processing chamber by pressurizing the chamber with inert gas and pumping that inert gas out of the chamber, a valve can control the fluid connection between the chamber interior and the pump, and repeated pressurizing and pumping steps can successfully be used to remove undesired particles from the chamber. The motivation for performing the modification would be to use a valve between the chamber interior and the pump to successfully perform such repeated pressurizing and pumping steps to remove contaminant particles from the plasma processing chamber.
The combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito in view of Saito does not teach that the threshold number is based on particles resulting from maintenance operations comprising one or more of the operations listed in claim 3.
Hamaya teaches that, in the art of processing wafers in a chamber, friction of component surfaces can lead to the generation of contaminating particles (Par. 0013).
Although the combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito in view of Ito in view of Saito does not explicitly recite that friction from the repeating opening and closing of the valve during purging (the purging can be considered as part of maintenance of the cleaning chamber) results in particle generation. However, since the valve opening and closing involves some amount of friction, it is reasonably expected that the valve opening and closing leads to some amount of particles be generated, in accordance with the teachings of Hamaya, who teaches that, in the art of processing wafers in a chamber, friction of component surfaces can lead to the generation of contaminating particles. The method of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito in view of Ito in view of Saito teaches the same method steps as recited by applicant with the same materials as recited by applicant, and thus the same results are reasonably expected – including the result that repeated opening and closing of the valve results in some amount of generations of particles.
In the combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito in view of Ito in view of Saito as evidenced by Hamaya, the threshold number represents a point where the chamber is considered clean enough. In the combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito in view of Ito in view of Saito as evidenced by Hamaya, the threshold number is considered to be based in part on the particles generated from the repeated opening and closing of the valve during purging, as those particles can contribute to an overall particle level within the chamber.
Claims 4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 10,184,173 to Yonemoto in view of U.S. 2013/0061871 by Collins of U.S. 6,737,666 to Ito in view of U.S. 2010/0068659 by Hamaya.
With regard to claim 4, Yonemoto teaches a plasma processing method for plasma processing a semiconductor substrate (item 110 in Figure 1; (Abstract; Col. 2, line 46 to Col. 8, line 4). Yonemoto’s method comprises a deposition step (step S201 in Figure 2) of depositing a silicon-containing film (item 120 in Figure 3) in a plasma-processing chamber (item 101 in Figures 1 and 3; Col. 20, line 46 to Col. 4, line 42). After the silicon-containing film is formed, a semiconductor substrate is placed on a sample stage inside the plasma-processing chamber and plasma etched (Col. 4, lines 43-47). After the plasma-etching of the semiconductor substrate, the etched substrate is removed from the plasma-processing chamber such that no substrate is on the sample stage (Col. 4, lines 47-55). After the removal of the substrate from the chamber, a “third plasma” step (reads on applicant’s first removing step) is performed, wherein an NF3 plasma is used to etch away the silicon-containing film 120 (Col. 5, lines 12-32). After the “third plasma” step, a “fourth plasma” step (reads on applicant’s second removing step) is performed, wherein a plasma of O2 is used to remove residual fluorine from the plasma-processing chamber (Col. 5, lines 33-42).
Yonemoto does not teach performing a sweeping step of seeping out a particle from the plasma processing chamber.
Collins teaches that when attempting to maintain a clean plasma processing chamber, a plasma cleaning step can advantageously be followed with a “gas purge” step wherein inert gas pressurizes the inside of the plasma processing chamber and then the gas (and entrained contaminant particles) is pumped out of the chamber (Par. 0004, 0010, 0011, 0018, 0022; claim 6 of Collins).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yonemoto such that, after the “fourth plasma” step (of cleaning residues from the plasma chamber), a gas purge step is performed, wherein the gas purge involves pressurizing the inside of the plasma processing chamber with inert gas and then pumping that gas (and entrained contaminant particles) out of the chamber. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Collins, who teaches that when attempting to maintain a clean plasma processing chamber, a plasma cleaning step can advantageously be followed with a “gas purge” step wherein inert gas pressurizes the inside of the plasma processing chamber and then the gas (and entrained contaminant particles) is pumped out of the chamber.
The combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins does not teach performing a particle number confirmation step, wherein the particle number confirmation step is performed after the sweeping step and before the plasma processing of the substrate.
Ito teaches that when cleaning and purging a chamber for plasma-processing a semiconductor substrate, counting (via a particle counter) a number of particles entrained in gas discharged from the chamber can advantageously be used to determine if chamber-cleaning is complete (by seeing if the counted number of particles is equal to or less than a threshold number) or if more cleaning is needed (Col. 1, line 6 to Col. 2, line 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yonemoto in view of Collins such that the gas purge step is followed by a particle counting step performed via a particle counter, wherein the particle counting step counts the number of particles entrained in the purge gas as it exits the treated chamber, and wherein the number of counted particles can be advantageously used to determine if cleaning is complete (by seeing if the counted number of particles is equal to or less than a threshold number) or if more cleaning is needed. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Ito, who teaches that when cleaning and purging a chamber for plasma-processing a semiconductor substrate, counting (via a particle counter) a number of particles entrained in gas discharged from the chamber can advantageously be used to determine if chamber-cleaning is complete or if more cleaning is needed. In this combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito, if the particle counting step determines that cleaning has been successful (and thus further cleaning is not needed), future plasma processing of a substate can be performed.
The combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito does not explicitly teach repeating steps two or more times.
However, in the art of semiconductor substrate processing, it is well known to use the same apparatus many times to process different semiconductor substrates. Such repeated use of an apparatus allows for many substrates to advantageously be processed, not just one substrate. For example, Collins teaches that a plasma processing chamber may be used to “operate on lots of wafers” (Par. 0003). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito such that the processing routine (comprising but not limited to said deposition step, said plasma etching of a semiconductor substrate, said “third plasma” step, said “fourth plasma” step, and said inert gas purge step) of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito is repeated for processing at least five different semiconductor substrates. As discussed, in the art of semiconductor substrate processing, it is well known to use the same apparatus many times to process different semiconductor substrates – Collins being an example, as Collins teaches that a plasma processing chamber may be used to “operate on lots of wafers”. Motivation for repeating the processing routine of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito for at least five different semiconductor substrates would be to advantageously use the routine of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito to successfully etch at least five different semiconductor substrates.
In this developed combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito, the processing routine of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito is used to process a first substrate, the processing routine is later repeated to process a second substrate, the processing routine is later repeated to process a third substrate, the processing routine is later repeated to process a fourth substrate, and the processing routine is later repeated to process a fifth substrate. In the developed combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito, the fifth substrate is what corresponds to applicant’s sample, and the plasma etching of the fifth substrate is what corresponds to applicant’s plasma-processing the sample and applicant’s the plasma processing step.
In the developed combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito, the second performance (performed sometime after the plasma etching of the second substrate and sometime before the plasma etching of the third substrate) of the inert gas purge corresponds to applicant’s sweeping step, and contaminant particles removed from the chamber by being entrained in the purge gas pumped out of the chamber corresponds to applicant’s plurality of particles.
In the developed combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito, the second performance (performed sometime after the plasma etching of the second substrate and sometime before the plasma etching of the third substrate) of the inert gas purge, the third performance (performed sometime after the plasma etching of the second substrate and sometime before the plasma etching of the third substrate) of the deposition step, the third performance (performed sometime after the plasma etching of the third substrate and sometime before the plasma etching of the fourth substrate) of the “third plasma” step, and the third performance (performed sometime after the plasma etching of the third substrate and sometime before the plasma etching of the fourth substrate) of the “fourth plasma” step all together correspond to a first series of steps in applicant’s repeated series of steps.
In the developed combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito, the third performance (performed sometime after the plasma etching of the third substrate and sometime before the plasma etching of the fourth substrate) of the inert gas purge, the fourth performance (performed sometime after the plasma etching of the third substrate and sometime before the plasma etching of the fourth substrate) of the deposition step, the third performance (performed sometime after the plasma etching of the fourth substrate and sometime before the plasma etching of the fifth substrate) of the “third plasma” step, and the fourth performance (performed sometime after the plasma etching of the fourth substrate and sometime before the plasma etching of the fifth substrate) of the “fourth plasma” step all together correspond to a second series of steps in applicant’s repeated series of steps.
The combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito does not recite that the particles removed in the gas purge are particles that result from one or more or the operations listed in claim 4.
Hamaya teaches that when inserting a substrate in a substrate-processing chamber, a gate valve can be successfully used as a selectively-openable gate through which a substrate can be inserted into chamber, wherein friction in the operation of the gate valve can cause particles to be generated (Par. 0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito such that the chamber comprises a gate valve that can be selectively opened to allow a substrate to be inserted into and removed from the chamber, wherein friction of the gate valve produces particles that are purged away by the gas purge, and wherein the opening of the gate valve for the removal of a processed substrate and the removal itself can be considered operations for maintenance of the chamber because processing of the substrate is completed and cleaning of the chamber is beginning. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Hamaya, who teaches that when inserting a substrate in a substrate-processing chamber, a gate valve can be successfully used as a selectively-openable gate through which a substrate can be inserted into chamber, wherein friction in the operation of the gate valve can cause particles to be generated.
With regard to claims 9 and 10, in the developed combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito in view of Hamaya, the deposition step is performed using a plasma generated by a gas containing SiCl4 (Col. 4, lines 13-42 of Yonemoto). In the developed combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito in view of Hamaya, the “third plasma” step is performed using a plasma generated by NF3 gas (Col. 5, lines 12-32 of Yonemoto). In the developed combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito in view of Hamaya, the “fourth plasma” step is performed using a plasma generated by O2 gas (Col. 5, lines 33-42 of Yonemoto).
With regard to claim 11, the combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito in view of Hamaya is silent as to the thickness of the deposition film. In the developed combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito in view of Hamaya, the deposition film provides a removable layer that can receive undesirable (undesirable because it is undesirable to have them accumulate on the inner walls of the plasma processing chamber) etching byproducts thereon such that those byproducts and the deposition film can later be etched away, leaving clean (uncontaminated by etching byproducts) inner walls of the plasma processing chamber (Col. 1, line 12 to Col. 2, line 12 of Yonemoto; Col. 4, lines 43 to Col. 5, line 42 of Yonemoto). In the combination of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito in view of Hamaya, the thickness of the deposition film can thus be considered a result-effective variable, as the plasma for forming the deposition film has to be performed long enough to ensure that all to-be-protected-from-etching-byproducts surfaces are covered with an amount of deposition film sufficient to prevent byproduct contamination of the chamber walls, and the thickness of the deposition film also affects how much plasma etching is later required to etch away the deposition film (in the “third plasma” step of Yonemoto). Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yonemoto in view of Collins in view of Ito in view of Hamaya by optimizing a thickness of the deposition film, as that thickness can be considered a result-effective variable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights