DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention (apparatus), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11 April 2025.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
Claim(s) 10-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo et al. (WO 2019/139761) in view of Tjandra et al. (US 2016/0010206).
Regarding Claim 10, Lo et al. (WO’761) teach a method of producing hydroxyl radicals (OH species, [0059], comprising: forming, via a controller, a plasma of a plasma gas using a remote plasma source 183 fluidly coupled to a gas inlet conduit 190 coupled to a first nozzle (gas outlet 188) of a processing chamber 102; producing, via the controller, a first gas radical by flowing a first gas from a first gas source through the remote plasma source [0032];introducing, via the controller, the first gas radical into the processing chamber using the gas inlet conduit 190 coupled to the first nozzle ;introducing, via the controller, a second gas from a second gas source 198 using a four-way valve [0032], wherein the first nozzle is oriented on a first side of the processing chamber (Fig. 1); and producing, via the controller, an oxidation radical by mixing the first gas radical and the second gas in the processing chamber (Abstract; [0037,0050,0052-0053]).
WO’761 fails to teach a plurality of second nozzles fluidly of the processing chamber, wherein the first nozzle is oriented on a first side of the processing chamber and the plurality of second nozzles are oriented on a second side of the processing chamber. Tjandra et al. (US’206) is analogous art in the field of plasma deposition and teaches an analogous method, including forming a plasma of a plasma gas using a remote plasma source as a radical source (connected to injection assembly 147) coupled to a gas inlet conduit (between gas sources 153,154 and injection assembly 147) coupled to a first nozzle 160,162 of a processing chamber 100 (Fig. 1B; [0029,0031]); introducing the first gas radical into the processing chamber using the gas inlet conduit coupled to the first nozzle, the first gas radical having a first flow located in a plane (compare positions of side port 122, gas inlet 131, and directions of “GAS” flow, main gas flow 145, and side gas flow 148 in Figs. 1A-1B with reference position of pump system 136) (Figs. 1A,1B;[0024,0029]). In addition, US’206 suggests that more than one side ports 122 may be formed to improve gas distribution uniformity in both edge and center regions of the substrate and that there can be more than one gas inlets perpendicular to the flow from 122 [0024,0029-0031,0033]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of WO’761 by introducing a first gas radical having a first flow located in a plane and introducing a second gas from a second gas source into the process chamber using a plurality of second nozzles fluidly coupled to the second gas source, the second gas having a second flow located in the plane the second flow being in a different direction than the first flow, such that by operation of a controller, an oxidation radical is produced by intersecting the first flow and the second flow in the plane within the processing chamber, because US’206 suggests that process gasses can be introduced from gas inlets configured to introduce perpendicular flows of multiple gases, one including a radical to improve a reaction rate, to improve thickness uniformity.
As to the controller, WO’761 teaches a flow controller for switching the four-way valve [0032]. US’206 also teaches a flow adjusting device 146 to control a flow rate of side gas flow 148 [0029]. US’206 fails to teach specifically a controller which introduces both the first gas radical and the second gas. However, WO’761 and US’206 suggest controlling these processes, and controllers were conventional at the time of invention. Moreover, WO’761 provides evidence that controllers are used to switch valves [0032, and it was conventional at the time of invention to use controllers to switch valves to control flow through various nozzles as required. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references by performing the steps with a controller. Moreover, it is obvious to automate a manual activity. MPEP 2144.04.III.
Regarding Claims 11-12, WO’761 teaches that the first gas is a reactive gas mixture comprising Ar, H2, or O2 [0054,0056].
Regarding Claim 13, WO’761 teaches that the second gas is a reactive gas comprising H2 or O2 and the second gas is different from the first gas [0032,0052-0055]. Moreover, WO’761 provides sufficient guidance to introduce the reactive gases as claimed with a reasonable expectation of producing radicals for a deposition of a combination of those species.
Regarding Claim 14, WO’761 teaches that the second gas is H2 [0032].
Regarding Claim 15, US’206 suggests multiple inlets and holes (Fig. 1B; [0027]). Moreover, the recited range for a quantity of nozzles represents a prima facie obvious duplication of parts. MPEP 2144.04.VI.B. Also, it would have been obvious to provide as many nozzles as desired to introduce as many different species of gas as desired or in a volume of flow desired.
Regarding Claim 16, WO’761 teaches that an oxidation radical includes a hydroxyl (OH) radical [0059].
Regarding Claim 17, WO’761 teaches a pressure range of between 0.5 and 5 Torr (Claim 7).
Regarding Claim 19, WO’761 teaches oxidizing an outer layer of a substrate disposed in the processing chamber [0061].
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of WO’761 in view of US’206 fairly suggests the obviousness of the process; WO’761 teaches a controller for valves, and controllers to control valves and flow through various nozzles were conventional at the time of invention. Therefore, the computer readable medium configured to perform the claimed steps is obvious. Moreover, it is obvious to automate a manual activity. MPEP 2144.04.III.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to the clams, filed 8 September 2025, with respect to the objection to Claim 10 has been fully considered and overcomes the objection. The objection to Claim 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to Claims 10 and 20, filed 8 September 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10-20 under 35 USC 103 as obvious over the combination of WO’761 in view of US’853 has been fully considered and overcomes the previous rejection. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendment to the claims, which necessitates the new grounds of rejection.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the combination of WO’761 in view of US’853 fails to teach or fairly suggest additional limitations, including a first gas radical having a first flow located in a plane, a second gas having a second flow located in the plane and in a different direction than the first flow, wherein the first flow and second flow intersect in the plane (Remarks, pp. 8-9), Tjandra et al. (US 2016/0010206) is now cited to show the obviousness of these limitations.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712