Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II and Species A (claims 5-6 are representative) in the reply filed on 27 August 2027 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 24 October 2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: claim 10 treatment gas supply device which has been interpreted as a vaporizer, and equivalents thereof, as set forth, e.g., in the specification at paras. 25-26; claim 10 exhaust device which has been interpreted as including an exhaust pipe and a pump, and equivalents thereof, as set forth, e.g., in the specification at para. 29; claim 10 control unit which has been interpreted as including storage and a calculation unit, and equivalents thereof, as set forth, e.g., in the specification at para. 50.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-12 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.
With respect to claims 11 and 12, appear to require that the threshold be non-zero and positive, although this is not claimed in either of these claims or in claim 10. The claims are considered at best unclear (although other rejections may be appropriate depending on Applicant’s response/amendments) because there is no indication in the disclosure that processing is performed when the amount of remaining processing is equal to zero (as in current claim 11), nor is there an indication that processing continues when the substrate has been etched past the endpoint (as in current claim 12). Thus, it appears that further clarifications are necessary with how to determine the remaining amount of processing and the associated “threshold”. In order to expedite examination, the claims have been examined as written.
In order to overcome the rejections and advance examination, Examiner provides the following suggestion as an amendment to claim 10 for clarifying how to determine the remaining amount of processing and the “threshold” by adding the following steps, or similar, as first and second steps attributed to the controller and modifying the other steps accordingly:
“a step of providing the substrate with the film to be treated and the film having a non-zero remaining amount of processing;
a step of comparing the remaining amount of processing for the film to be treated with a threshold amount of remaining processing; …”
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Additionally, with respect to claim 11, it is unclear whether or not the recitations of the claim are met by either value of the inequality/equality or must be met by both of the values. If the former instance is Applicant’s intention, Examiner suggests stating “in a case where the remaining amount of processing is at least one of equal to the threshold of remaining processing or less than the threshold of remaining processing…” to clarify the intention. If the second instance is the intention, Examiner suggests stating “in a case where the remaining amount of processing is equal to the threshold of remaining processing and in case where the remaining amount is less than the threshold of remaining processing”. Presently, Examiner has assumed that either scenario is acceptable and has examined accordingly.
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al (US 2021/0233747 A1) in view of WO 2021/124539 to Kobayashi et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0118576 is considered an English language equivalent of ‘539 and below is used as a translation with respect to citations)
Yamaguchi discloses a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus substantially as claimed and comprising: Yamaguchi discloses a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprising: a vacuum container (e.g., Fig. 1, 60) having a treatment chamber (1) therein; a stage (4) that is disposed within the treatment chamber and that has a top surface on which a semiconductor wafer (3) having, on a surface thereof, a film (cobalt, [0030]) to be treated is placed; a treatment gas supply device (e.g., vaporizer/vaporizing nozzle unit, 70) configured to supply an organic gas (acetylacetone) into the treatment chamber; an exhaust device (exhaust pipes 80A and 80B and pump not illustrated [24]) configured to exhaust the gas inside the treatment chamber; a heater (62) configured to heat the semiconductor wafer to raise a temperature of the semiconductor wafer to a predetermined temperature; and a control unit (40) that controls the apparatus (see, e.g., para. 34) to perform a process, including:
a step of comparing a remaining amount of processing (e.g., 0 OR <0) for the film to be treated with a threshold (i.e. the threshold being the total amount processing needed or desired) (in there is a step of providing a substrate with >0 and full amount of remaining processing for a film and then subjecting that substrate/film to that processing), wherein determining a substrate needs to be processed and providing the substrate to the apparatus for said processing is inherently comparing with the threshold),
forming a compound made from the film to be treated (cobalt, [0030]) and an organic gas (acetylacetone [0035]) by heating the semiconductor wafer while supplying the organic gas (using control unit 40, [0036]), the organic gas including a material having, within a molecule, at least two substituents that hold a lone pair (oxygen atoms of acetylacetone);
causing the compound to desorb from a surface of the semiconductor wafer by further heating the semiconductor wafer after the step of forming the compound, to raise a temperature of the semiconductor wafer to a predetermined temperature (conversion from physisorption to chemisorption [0037], heating to 200 °C [0038]).
However, Yamaguchi fails to explicitly disclose the control unit comprising storage and a calculation unit.
Kobayashi et al. disclose providing a control unit including storage and a calculation unit as part of a semiconductor manufacturing device performing etching for the purpose of storing data indicating a correlation related to etched film thickness in the storage, calculating a number of cycles to determine that a target removal amount has been reached and carrying the substrate out of the apparatus by terminating the etching without starting a next cycle (see, e.g., paras. 54, 107, 109 and 112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Yamaguchi a control unit including storage and a calculation unit in order to store data indicating a correlation related to etched film thickness in the storage, calculate a number of cycles to determine that a target removal amount has been reached and carry the substrate out of the apparatus by terminating the etching without starting a next cycle as taught by Kobayashi et al.
With respect to claim 11, in modified Yamaguchi, Kobayashi et al. teaches during etching/desorbing, in a case where the remaining amount of processing is equal to less than the threshold, heating the semiconductor wafer in a plurality of stages after the supply of the organic gas is stopped, to raise the temperature of the semiconductor wafer to the predetermined temperature. Kobayashi et al. disclose when the remaining amount of process is less than the threshold, repeating for the number of cycles, including a plurality of cycles, needed to reach the threshold.
With respect to claim 12, in modified Yamaguchi, both Yamaguchi and Kobayashi et al., teach that the etching cycle may be repeated, wherein if an additional film was provided on the substate causing the remaining amount of processing to be greater than the threshold, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to continue etching to the threshold, by continuously heating the semiconductor wafer while supplying the organic gas to the treatment chamber, to raise the temperature of the semiconductor wafer to the predetermined temperature.
Conclusion
The (prior) art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent and Patent Pubs. "20180308707"|20190131120"|"11515167" disclose similar semiconductor etching apparatus, as do WO 2020157954 and WO 2021192210.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716