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 was previously 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Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 calculation unit has been interpreted as a calculation section that is an algorithm/program written in software/storage device, and equivalents thereof, as set forth, e.g., in the specification at para. 56.
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 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 10-12 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
With respect to claim 10, Applicant has added the phrase “through a determined treatment condition which is changed or switched based on a result of the step of comparing”. Examiner is unable to find support for this limitation in the original disclosure. It is not even clear what this recitation is meant to describe with respect to the disclosed and claimed inventions. Examiner acknowledges that for a substrate, the remaining processing is determined based on the comparing step. However, Examiner is unable to find any indication of “changing” or “switching” attributed to the determination, just “selecting” based on the comparison. Furthermore, it is not clear to what “a predetermined treatment condition” is meant to refer. Clarification and/or correction is requested. Nevertheless, in order to expedite examination, the claims have been examined as written.
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 10-12 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
With respect to claim 10: The previously claimed control unit included the calculation unit and storage, such that it is actually the calculation unit in combination with the storage, not just the calculation unit, that control the claimed sequence of steps. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
With respect to claim 10, Applicant has added the phrase “through a determined treatment condition which is changed or switched based on a result of the step of comparing”. It is unclear to Examiner what this phrase is meant to add or describe with respect to claim limitations attributed to the method steps represented by Fig. 2 and controlled by the calculation unit and storage. Examiner acknowledges that for a substrate, the remaining processing is determined based on the comparing step. However, Examiner is unable to find any indication of “changing” or “switching” attributed to the determination, just “selecting” based on the comparison. Furthermore, it is not clear to what “a predetermined treatment condition” is meant to refer. Also, Applicant has not incorporated “a step of providing the substrate with the film to be treated and the film having a non-zero remaining amount of processing” or similar as part of the control sequence as suggested, but it still seems that the measurable amount of remaining processing needs to be referenced in the control sequence, as it is a requisite step thereof. At least this combination of issues generally render claims 10-12 unclear.
Applicant has also added the feature of “a treatment gas” although all further treatment steps are based on the organic gas. Thus, the introduction of the same renders the claim unclear. It also appears to be unnecessary. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Based on Examiner’s understanding of the disclosed and claimed inventions and standard US claim writing practice and protocol, additional claim suggestions are set forth below with respect to the control sequence which appears to form the crux of Applicant’s claimed invention, but remains unclear at best. The language is provided for Applicant’s consideration and in order to expedite examination, as the clarifications would address many of the clarity issues which now exist in the claims and therefore advance examination. Examiner suggests incorporation of the language (or similar language) for favorable consideration.
Claim 10:
…wherein the storage and the calculation unit control:
a step of comparing the remaining amount of processing for the film to be treated with a predetermined threshold amount of remaining processing, for the semiconductor wafer having on the surface thereof the film, wherein the film to be treated has a non-zero remaining amount of processing before the treatment starts;
a step of determining how the remaining processing will be performed based on the results of the step of comparing, wherein the remaining processing to be performed includes a) a step of forming a compound made from the film to be treated by heating the semiconductor wafer while supplying the organic gas to the treatment chamber, the organic gas including a material having, within a molecule, at least two substituents that hold a lone pair; and b) after the step of forming the compound, a step of causing the compound to desorb form the surface of the semiconductor wafer by further heating the semiconductor wafer to raise the temperature to the predetermined temperature where desorption occurs; and
a step of performing the remaining processing based on the steps of comparing and determining.
Claim 11:
…wherein in a case where the remaining amount of processing is at least one of equal to the predetermined threshold of the remaining amount of processing, or less than the predetermined threshold of the remaining amount of processing, during the step of causing the compound to desorb, the further heating of the semiconductor wafer is performed in a plurality of stages after supplying of the organic gas is stopped, to raise the temperature of the semiconductor wafer to the predetermined pressure.
Claim 12:
…wherein in a case where the remaining amount of processing is greater than the predetermined threshold of the remaining amount of processing, during the step of causing the compound to desorb, the further heating of the semiconductor wafer is performed is performed continuously while also supplying the organic gas, to raise the temperature of the semiconductor wafer to the predetermined pressure.
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and accompanying arguments, to the extent they are originally supported and clear, filed 13 April 2026, with respect to the previously applied prior art rejections based on obviousness have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections based on relied upon prior art references Yamaguchi and Kobayashi et al. have been withdrawn. In particular, neither Yamaguchi nor Kobayashi, nor a combination thereof disclose the control sequence including a compare step, “a determination step”, and a step including “through a predetermined treatment condition which is changed or switched based on a result of the step of comparing” to the extent supported and understood as now claimed. However, see above with respect to rejections under 35 USC 112, a, b.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights