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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the below noted elements are not shown in the as-filed drawings must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Some of the below noted drawing objections do not have antecedence with the as-filed specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 16-18, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hills; Graham W. et al. (US 6125788 A). Hills teaches a plasma processing apparatus (Figure 1,9,10) comprising: a plasma generation source (110; Figure 1,9,10-Not shown by Applicants); a nozzle (300; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 108; Figure 3A) configured to direct plasma from the plasma generation source (110; Figure 1,9,10-Not shown by Applicants) to a wafer (125; Figure 1-Applicant’s 126) that is to be processed in a processing chamber (105; Figure 1,9,10), the plasma having the form of a plasma stream at an exit of the nozzle (300; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 108; Figure 3A);a gas shroud (all above 125; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 110; Figure 3A,B) disposed in the processing chamber (105; Figure 1,9,10) and over the wafer (125; Figure 1-Applicant’s 126), the gas shroud (all above 125; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 110; Figure 3A,B) surrounding the nozzle (300; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 108; Figure 3A), the gas shroud (all above 125; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 110; Figure 3A,B) comprising: a first circular opening (opening defined by 300; Figure 9-Applicant’s 123a; Figure 2; 5/26/26 statements) in a top surface of the gas shroud (all above 125; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 110; Figure 3A,B); a second circular opening (opening defined by 320; Figure 9-Applicant’s 123b; Figure 2; 5/26/26 statements) in a bottommost surface of the gas shroud (all above 125; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 110; Figure 3A,B), the nozzle (300; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 108; Figure 3A) being disposed in the first circular opening (opening defined by 300; Figure 9-Applicant’s 123a; Figure 2; 5/26/26 statements) and the second circular opening (opening defined by 320; Figure 9-Applicant’s 123b; Figure 2; 5/26/26 statements); and a gas plenum (volume inside 320; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 116; Figure 3A,B) configured to be maintained at a first pressure (pressure inside 320; Figure 9), a first region (corresponding “first region” of Figure 9 bounded by 325; Applicant’s 128) between the second circular opening (opening defined by 320; Figure 9-Applicant’s 123b; Figure 2; 5/26/26 statements) and a top surface of the wafer (125; Figure 1-Applicant’s 126) being configured to be maintained at a second pressure (“desired pressure level”; Figure 9; column 1; lines 35-45), the first pressure (pressure inside 320; Figure 9) and the second pressure (“desired pressure level”; Figure 9; column 1; lines 35-45) being different; and orifices (325; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 121; Figure 3A,B) disposed below and overlapping by the gas plenum (volume inside 320; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 116; Figure 3A,B), wherein the orifices (325; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 121; Figure 3A,B) are disposed below a topmost surface of the nozzle (300; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 108; Figure 3A), and wherein the orifices (325; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 121; Figure 3A,B) are disposed above a bottommost surface of the nozzle (300; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 108; Figure 3A), as claimed by claim 1. The Examiner notes that the claimed relative pressures must be taught by Hills for Hills’s process gas to flow as described.
Hills further teaches:
The plasma processing apparatus (Figure 1,9,10) of claim 1, wherein the first pressure (pressure inside 320; Figure 9) is larger than the second pressure (“desired pressure level”; Figure 9; column 1; lines 35-45), as claimed by claim 2. As notes above, the claimed relative pressures must be taught by Hills for Hills’s process gas to flow as described.
The plasma processing apparatus (Figure 1,9,10) of claim 1, wherein the orifices (325; Figure 9-”several millimeters”; column 6; lines 60-65) directly connect and allow flow of gas between the gas plenum (volume inside 320; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 116; Figure 3A,B) and the first region (corresponding “first region” of Figure 9 bounded by 325; Applicant’s 128), as claimed by claim 4
The plasma processing apparatus (Figure 1,9,10) of claim 4, wherein the orifices (325; Figure 9-”several millimeters”; column 6; lines 60-65) are arranged in the form of a ring pattern (Figure 10), the ring pattern (Figure 10) being disposed around the second circular opening (opening defined by 320; Figure 9-Applicant’s 123b; Figure 2; 5/26/26 statements), as claimed by claim 5
The plasma processing apparatus (Figure 1,9,10) of claim 5, wherein the flow of gas between the gas plenum (volume inside 320; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 116; Figure 3A,B) and the first region (corresponding “first region” of Figure 9 bounded by 325; Applicant’s 128) through the orifices (325; Figure 9-”several millimeters”; column 6; lines 60-65) is in the form of jets of the gas, and wherein the jets of the gas surround the plasma stream, as claimed by claim 6. Applicant has not provided sufficient distinguishing structural characteristics of Applicant's claimed invention to contrast the Examiner's cited prior art. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examiner notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The plasma processing apparatus (Figure 1,9,10) of claim 1, wherein the plasma stream has a lateral width that is in a range from 2 mm to 20 mm, the lateral width being a width between outermost points of the plasma stream that are in physical contact with the top surface of the wafer (125; Figure 1-Applicant’s 126), as claimed by claim 9. The Examiner notes that the claimed dimensions are not related to the claimed structure for the pending apparatus claims and are thus considered intended use claim recitations for the pending apparatus claims. Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115).
An apparatus (Figure 1,9,10) comprising: a radical source (110; Figure 1,9,10-Not shown by Applicants); a nozzle (300; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 108; Figure 3A) configured to deliver radicals from the radical source (110; Figure 1,9,10-Not shown by Applicants) into a processing chamber (105; Figure 1,9,10); a gas shroud (all above 125; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 110; Figure 3A,B) disposed over a wafer (125; Figure 1-Applicant’s 126) to be processed in the processing chamber (105; Figure 1,9,10), the gas shroud (all above 125; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 110; Figure 3A,B) comprising: a first opening (gas entry at 310; Figure 9; not shown by Applicants) in a topmost surface of the gas shroud (all above 125; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 110; Figure 3A,B); a second opening (gas exit of 310; Figure 1,9,10; not shown by Applicants) in a bottommost surface of the gas shroud (all above 125; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 110; Figure 3A,B), a first region (corresponding “first region” of Figure 9 bounded by 325; Applicant’s 128) being disposed between the second opening (gas exit of 310; Figure 1,9,10; not shown by Applicants) and a top surface of the wafer (125; Figure 1-Applicant’s 126); a gas plenum (volume inside 320; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 116; Figure 3A,B); and first orifices (inner 325; Figure 10) arranged in the form of a ring pattern (Figure 10) around the second opening (gas exit of 310; Figure 1,9,10; not shown by Applicants), the first orifices (inner 325; Figure 10) acting as a conduit for gas flow between the gas plenum (volume inside 320; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 116; Figure 3A,B) and the first region (corresponding “first region” of Figure 9 bounded by 325; Applicant’s 128), an exit of the nozzle (300; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 108; Figure 3A) being disposed in the first region (corresponding “first region” of Figure 9 bounded by 325; Applicant’s 128) and being above the wafer (125; Figure 1-Applicant’s 126), the nozzle (300; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 108; Figure 3A) extending through the first opening (gas entry at 310; Figure 9; not shown by Applicants), the second opening (gas exit of 310; Figure 1,9,10; not shown by Applicants), and the gas shroud (all above 125; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 110; Figure 3A,B), the nozzle (300; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 108; Figure 3A) also extending through and surrounded by the ring pattern of the first orifices (325; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 121; Figure 3A,B), as claimed by claim 16
The apparatus (Figure 1,9,10) of claim 16, wherein the gas shroud (all above 125; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 110; Figure 3A,B) further comprises a gas inlet (330; Figure 9), an inert gas being supplied to the gas plenum (volume inside 320; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 116; Figure 3A,B) through the gas inlet (330; Figure 9) to maintain the gas plenum (volume inside 320; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 116; Figure 3A,B) at a first pressure (pressure inside 320; Figure 9), and a gas outlet (between 105 and 150; Figure 1) connected to a vacuum pump (150; Figure 1) to remove unused radicals and contaminants from the gas shroud (all above 125; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 110; Figure 3A,B), as claimed by claim 17. The above italicized claim text is considered to a recitation of intended use in the pending apparatus claims.
The apparatus (Figure 1,9,10) of claim 17, wherein the first region (corresponding “first region” of Figure 9 bounded by 325; Applicant’s 128) is maintained at a second pressure (“desired pressure level”; Figure 9; column 1; lines 35-45), the first pressure (pressure inside 320; Figure 9) being higher than the second pressure (“desired pressure level”; Figure 9; column 1; lines 35-45), as claimed by claim 18. The Examiner notes that the claimed relative pressures must be taught by Hills for Hills’s process gas to flow as described.
A plasma processing apparatus (Figure 1,9,10) comprising: a plasma generation source (110; Figure 1,9,10-Not shown by Applicants); a wafer chuck (Figure 1; claim 2) in a processing chamber (105; Figure 1,9,10), the wafer chuck (Figure 1; claim 2) configured to support a wafer (125; Figure 1-Applicant’s 126) to be processed; a gas shroud (all above 125; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 110; Figure 3A,B) over the wafer (125; Figure 1-Applicant’s 126) and in the processing chamber (105; Figure 1,9,10); a nozzle (300; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 108; Figure 3A) extending through the gas shroud (all above 125; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 110; Figure 3A,B) and configured to direct plasma from the plasma generation source (110; Figure 1,9,10-Not shown by Applicants) to the wafer (125; Figure 1-Applicant’s 126), the plasma having the form of a plasma stream at an exit of the nozzle (300; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 108; Figure 3A), the nozzle (300; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 108; Figure 3A) having a cylindrical shape with a uniform width along a length of the nozzle (300; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 108; Figure 3A) from a topmost surface of the nozzle (300; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 108; Figure 3A) to a bottommost surface of the nozzle (300; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 108; Figure 3A), wherein the gas shroud (all above 125; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 110; Figure 3A,B) comprises; a first circular opening (opening defined by 300; Figure 9-Applicant’s 123a; Figure 2; 5/26/26 statements) in a top surface of the gas shroud (all above 125; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 110; Figure 3A,B); and a second circular opening (opening defined by 320; Figure 9-Applicant’s 123b; Figure 2; 5/26/26 statements) in a bottommost surface of the gas shroud (all above 125; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 110; Figure 3A,B), the nozzle (300; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 108; Figure 3A) extending through the first circular opening (opening defined by 300; Figure 9-Applicant’s 123a; Figure 2; 5/26/26 statements) and the second circular opening (opening defined by 320; Figure 9-Applicant’s 123b; Figure 2; 5/26/26 statements), wherein a diameter of the second circular opening (opening defined by 320; Figure 9-Applicant’s 123b; Figure 2; 5/26/26 statements) is larger than a diameter of the first circular opening (opening defined by 300; Figure 9-Applicant’s 123a; Figure 2; 5/26/26 statements), as claimed by claim 21
The plasma processing apparatus (Figure 1,9,10) of claim 21, wherein the gas shroud (all above 125; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 110; Figure 3A,B) further comprises: a gas plenum (volume inside 320; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 116; Figure 3A,B) configured to be maintained at a first pressure (pressure inside 320; Figure 9), a first region (corresponding “first region” of Figure 9 bounded by 325; Applicant’s 128) between the second circular opening (opening defined by 320; Figure 9-Applicant’s 123b; Figure 2; 5/26/26 statements) and a top surface of the wafer (125; Figure 1-Applicant’s 126) being configured to be maintained at a second pressure (“desired pressure level”; Figure 9; column 1; lines 35-45), the first pressure (pressure inside 320; Figure 9) and the second pressure (“desired pressure level”; Figure 9; column 1; lines 35-45) being different, as claimed by claim 22. The Examiner notes that the claimed relative pressures must be taught by Hills for Hills’s process gas to flow as described.
The plasma processing apparatus (Figure 1,9,10) of claim 23, further comprising orifices (325; Figure 9-”several millimeters”; column 6; lines 60-65) that directly connect and allow flow of gas between the gas plenum (volume inside 320; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 116; Figure 3A,B) and the first region (corresponding “first region” of Figure 9 bounded by 325; Applicant’s 128), as claimed by claim 24
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 3, 7, 8, 19, 20, 25, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hills; Graham W. et al. (US 6125788 A) in view of Hassan; Vinayak Vishwanath et al. (US 20220122821 A1). Hills further teaches:
The plasma processing apparatus (Figure 1,9,10) of claim 7, wherein each of the orifices (325; Figure 9-”several millimeters”; column 6; lines 60-65) has a diameter that is in a range from 0.3 mm to 2.0 mm, as claimed by claim 8
The apparatus (Figure 1,9,10) of claim 19, further comprising: second orifices (outer 325; Figure 10) arranged in the form of a ring pattern (Figure 10) around the first orifices (inner 325; Figure 10), the second orifices (outer 325; Figure 10) acting as a conduit for gas flow between the gas plenum (volume inside 320; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 116; Figure 3A,B) and a second region, wherein the second region surrounds and is adjacent to the first region (corresponding “first region” of Figure 9 bounded by 325; Applicant’s 128), wherein the gas flow in the second orifices (outer 325; Figure 10) between the gas plenum (volume inside 320; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 116; Figure 3A,B) and the second region is in the form of second jets of gas, and wherein the second region has a pressure that is different from the first pressure (pressure inside 320; Figure 9) and the second pressure (“desired pressure level”; Figure 9; column 1; lines 35-45) – claim 20. The Examiner notes that the claimed relative pressures must be taught by Hills for Hills’s process gas to flow as described.
The plasma processing apparatus (Figure 1,9,10) of claim 24, wherein each of the orifices (325; Figure 9-”several millimeters”; column 6; lines 60-65) has a diameter that is in a range from 0.3 mm to 2.0 mm, as claimed by claim 25
Hills does not teach:
The plasma processing apparatus (Figure 1,9,10) of claim 1, wherein the first pressure (pressure inside 320; Figure 9) is in a range from 1.0 torr to 50.0 torr, the second pressure (“desired pressure level”; Figure 9; column 1; lines 35-45) is in a range from o.1 torr to 5.0 torr – claim 3
The plasma processing apparatus (Figure 1,9,10) of claim 6, wherein the jets of the gas travel at a speed that is equal to the speed of sound, as claimed by claim 7
The apparatus (Figure 1,9,10) of claim 18, wherein the gas flow in the first orifices (inner 325; Figure 10) between the gas plenum (volume inside 320; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 116; Figure 3A,B) and the first region (corresponding “first region” of Figure 9 bounded by 325; Applicant’s 128) is in the form of first jets of gas, and wherein the first jets of gas travel at a speed equal to the speed of sound, as claimed by claim 19
wherein the second jets of gas travel at a speed equal to the speed of sound, wherein the second jets of gas travel in a direction that leads away from the nozzle (300; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 108; Figure 3A) – claim 20
The plasma processing apparatus (Figure 1,9,10) of claim 21, wherein the gas shroud (all above 125; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 110; Figure 3A,B) and the nozzle (300; Figure 1,9,10-Applicant’s 108; Figure 3A) both comprise the same material, as claimed by claim 26
Hassan also teaches a remote plasma processing apparatus (Figure 2) including a gas shroud (Figure 3A) having orifices accommodating dimensions permitting flow velocities “substantially equal to Mach 1” ([0110]-[0111]). Hassan also teaches chamber components made from aluminum ([0018],[0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Hills to optimize Hills’s apparatus dimensions and materials of construction.
Motivation for Hills to optimize Hills’s apparatus dimensions and materials of construction is for at least optimizing process “parameters or constraints” as taught by Hassan ([0105]). Further, motivation for Hills to use optimized materials for Hills’s apparatus is for desired materials as taught by Hassan ([0018],[0022]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 and 16-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The arguments for the Examiner’s drawing of specification objections are addressed above in the Examiner’s new grounds of rejection. Drawing and specification objections not addressed by Applicant’s May 26, 2026 amendment are maintained above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remote plasma apparatus including similar gas injection and exhaust include US 20210087686 A1; US 20150361553 A1; US 20130267045 A1; US 20120145078 A1; US 6287980 B1; US 7408225 B2; US 20080054472 A1; US 20070264427 A1
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights