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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) The “a second region below the adsorption equilibrium pressure curve” of Claim 17 should be “a second region below the adsorption equilibrium pressure curve of the hydrogen fluoride”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim interpretation
(1) 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
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:
-a. The “temperature adjusting module configured to adjust a temperature…” in Claim 16, because of the term “module”, as a substitute for “means”, that is a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
-b. The “exhaust system configured to adjust a pressure…” in Claim 16, because of the term “system”, as a substitute for “means”, that is a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
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.
(2) Following limitations are intended use of an apparatus:
The “wherein the substrate includes a silicon-containing film” of Claim 21,
The “wherein the substrate includes a metal-containing film” of Claim 22,
The “the substrate including a first film and a second film formed on the first film, the second film having an opening therein” of Claim 25,
The “wherein the second film contains silicon” of Claim 28,
The “wherein the first film contains carbon” of Claim 29,
The “wherein the second film is a mask” of Claim 30,
The “wherein the first film is selected from the group consisting of a polycrystalline silicon film, an amorphous silicon film, and a SiGe film” of Claim 32.
The features above are related with a substrate to be processed by the claimed apparatus. Further, the films on the substrate are not features obtained by the claimed processing apparatus, rather it is formed on the substrate before processing by the claimed apparatus.
Emphasized again, the applicants claim an apparatus. In a processing apparatus, processing either a substrate having a feature A or a substrate having a feature B is mere different use of the processing apparatus, thus the substrate related features do not add a patentable weight to the claimed processing apparatus, see the MPEP citations below.
Consequently, when an apparatus of a prior art teaches a substrate, it is sufficient to meet the claimed limitation.
MPEP citations:
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 (See MPEP 2106; Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409). When apparatus is capable of performing such functions, it is considered to meet the claim limitations. 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 (See MPEP 2111.02, 2115; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (See MPEP 2112.01; In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433 (CCPA 1977). It has further been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). While features of an apparatus may be described either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus MUST be distinguished from prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP §2114).
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 16-24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) The “and (d) set the temperature of the substrate support to a second temperature, and set the pressure in the chamber to a second pressure, wherein at least one of the temperature adjusting module, the gas supply, and the exhaust system is controlled such that the second temperature is higher than the first temperature and/or the second pressure is lower than the first pressure” of Claim 16 is not clear.
First, the “set the temperature of the substrate support to a second temperature, and set the pressure in the chamber to a second pressure” of (d) includes both A and B.
Whereas, “the second temperature is higher than the first temperature and/or the second pressure is lower than the first pressure” in the “wherein” phrase includes A or B, thus when the A or B condition is selected, it contradict to the A and B condition.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of A or B in (D).
Second, the “and/or” is not clear. When “or” is selected, it includes A or B or AB, thus it is not clear what difference is required between “and” and “or”.
(2) Claim 17 recites “curve of hydrogen fluoride”, “indicating a temperature” and “indicating a pressure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
The limitation will be examined inclusive of “curve of the hydrogen fluoride”, “indicating the temperature” and “indicating the pressure”.
(3) The “wherein the system controller is further programmed to control such that, in the graph, the first region is positioned below a saturated vapor pressure curve of hydrogen fluoride” of Claim 18 is not clear.
Claim 18 is dependent from Claim 16. The claim 16 does not recite the “graph” and “first region”. They are recited in the claim 17.
Therefore, for the purpose of examination, it will be examined as dependent from Claim 17.
(4) The “wherein in (c), a substance is produced from the substrate processing apparatus adheres to a surface of the substrate” of Claim 23 is not clear.
It is not clear whether the recited feature is invented by the applicants or not.
The applicants’ disclosure discloses “a substance (e.g., an etching residue or particles) exists on the surface of the substrate, the substance may be removed with the desorption of hydrogen fluoride”, see the paragraph [0033] of the published instant application.
Therefore, the substance appears not an applicants’ own inventions, rather it is considered being a process defect caused by a prior processing step, and the defect is removed by the applicants’ recited processing apparatus.
If the applicants argue the feature is an applicants’ invention, it is respectfully requested to provide appropriate details.
(5) Claim 23 above is still not clear, because of the “is” and “adheres”.
Due to the “is”, the verb is the “is”. In this case, what is purpose of the other verb “adhere”? it is not clear which part is adhered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16, 20-23, 25, 28-30 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tahara et al. (US 20140083979, hereafter ‘979).
Regarding to Claim 16, ‘979 teaches:
the gas processing apparatus 200 includes an airtightly sealable processing chamber 201 (Fig. 2, [0022], the claimed “A substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber”);
Provided in the processing chamber 201 is a stage 202 for mounting thereon a semiconductor wafer (substrate) W. The stage 202 has a temperature control unit (not shown) ([0022], the claimed “a substrate support provided in the chamber; a temperature adjusting module configured to adjust a temperature of at least one of the substrate support and a substrate disposed on the substrate support”);
a gas inlet 203 for introducing a predetermined processing gas (a mixture of HF gas and methanol gas in the present embodiment) into the processing chamber 201 ([0023], the claimed “a gas supply configured to supply a processing gas including hydrogen fluoride gas into the chamber”);
The gas exhaust line 207 is connected to a vacuum pump (not shown) or the like, and the inside of the processing chamber 201 can be exhausted to a predetermined pressure ([0024], the claimed “an exhaust system configured to adjust a pressure in the chamber”);
It is well-known in the art that overall operation of a processing chamber is controlled by a controller, thus the apparatus of ‘979 would have a controller (the claimed “and a system controller configured to control an overall operation of the substrate processing apparatus, wherein the system controller is programmed to:”);
in the cycle treatment process, the semiconductor wafer W is mounted on the stage 202 that has been previously set to a predetermined temperature and maintained at the predetermined temperature. In that state, a predetermined processing gas (mixture of HF gas and methanol gas in the present embodiment) is introduced through the gas inlet 203, and the exhaust is performed through the exhaust pipe 207. Accordingly, the inside of the processing chamber 201 is set to a processing gas atmosphere at a predetermined pressure ([0045], the claimed “(a) dispose the substrate on the substrate support, (b) supply the processing gas into the chamber, (c) set a temperature of the substrate support to a first temperature, and set a pressure in the chamber to a first pressure”);
in the cycle treatment process, a first period in which a partial pressure of methanol gas is set to a first partial pressure (step 303) and a second period in which a partial pressure of the methanol gas is set to a second partial pressure lower than the first partial pressure by exhausting the inside of the processing chamber ([0046], the claimed “and (d) set the temperature of the substrate support to a second temperature, and set the pressure in the chamber to a second pressure, wherein at least one of the temperature adjusting module, the gas supply, and the exhaust system is controlled such that the second temperature is higher than the first temperature and/or the second pressure is lower than the first pressure”).
Regarding to Claim 20,
‘979 teaches a temperature control unit (not shown) ([0022], note heater or heat exchanger is commonly well-known temperature control unit in the art, the claimed “wherein the temperature controller includes a heater, a heat transfer medium, a flow path, and any combination thereof”).
Regarding to Claims 21-22,
‘979 teaches a desired pattern is formed on a substrate such as a semiconductor wafer or the like ([0002]), and silicon dioxide (e.g., a gate oxide film) as a structure in a pattern ([0003], see also the claim interpretation above, the claimed “wherein the substrate includes a silicon-containing film” of Claim 21 and “wherein the substrate includes a metal-containing film” of Claim 22).
Regarding to Claim 23,
‘979 teaches if an STI (Shallow Trench Isolation) process is carried out, deposits of silicon oxide (e.g., SiO.sub.2 or SiOBr) are deposited on a sidewall of the pattern ([0002], the claimed “wherein in (c), a substance is produced from the substrate processing apparatus adheres to a surface of the substrate”).
Regarding to Claim 25, ‘979 teaches:
Provided in the processing chamber 101 is a stage 102 for mounting thereon a semiconductor wafer (substrate) W (Fig. 1, [0018], the claimed “A substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber; a substrate support provided in the chamber”);
a gas inlet 203 for introducing a predetermined processing gas (a mixture of HF gas and methanol gas in the present embodiment) into the processing chamber 201 ([0023], the claimed “a first gas supply configured to supply a first processing gas including a hydrogen fluoride gas into the chamber”);
a gas inlet 105 for introducing a predetermined processing gas containing oxygen gas (e.g., a single gas of O2 gas) ([0019], the claimed “a second gas supply configured to supply a second processing gas into the chamber”);
a plasma P of the processing gas introduced through the gas inlet 105 is generated by the action of the high frequency power supplied to the RF coil 104 ([0019], the claimed “a plasma generator configured to form a plasma from the second processing gas in the chamber”);
It is well-known in the art that overall operation of a processing chamber is controlled by a controller, thus the apparatus of ‘979 would have a controller (the claimed “and a controller configured to control an overall operation of the substrate processing apparatus, wherein the controller is programmed to execute a process comprising:”);
As shown in the flowchart of FIG. 3, the etching process is performed in the previous step (step 301)… For example, when an STI (Shallow Trench Isolation) process is carried out… The etching process (step 301) is performed by, e.g., the following two steps ([0026-0040], note the etching process intrinsically requires disposing the substrate on the stage and it is commonly well-known that the STI process of Figs. 5A-5C is performed by etching through mask layer having opening, nitride or oxide layer, then silicon layer, see the illustration below. Further the substrate feature does not add a patentable weight to the claimed apparatus, see the claim interpretation above, the claimed “(a) disposing a substrate on the substrate support, the substrate including a first film and a second film formed on the first film, the second film having an opening therein; (b) etching the first film by the plasma”);
PNG
media_image1.png
431
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
96
435
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the etching process is performed in the previous step (step 301), and deposits generated by the etching process (so-called deposits) are deposited on a sidewall portion of a predetermined pattern of the semiconductor wafer W… Here, the deposits deposited on the sidewall portion of the pattern are removed by the deposit removal process of the present embodiment ([0026]), and the cycle treatment in the deposit removal process is carried out (steps 303 to 305)… a predetermined processing gas (mixture of HF gas and methanol gas in the present embodiment) is introduced ([0044-0045], the claimed “and (c) exposing the substrate to the first processing gas to remove a reaction product produced during (b))”.
Regarding to Claims 28-30 and 32,
‘979 teaches a desired pattern is formed on a substrate such as a semiconductor wafer or the like ([0002]), and silicon dioxide (e.g., a gate oxide film) as a structure in a pattern ([0003], note it is commonly well-known that the STI process of Figs. 5A-5C is performed by etching through mask layer having opening, nitride or oxide layer, then silicon layer, see the illustration above, and see also the claim interpretation above, the claimed “wherein the second film contains silicon” of Claim 28, “wherein the first film contains carbon” of Claim 29, “wherein the second film is a mask” of Claim 30, and “wherein the first film is selected from the group consisting of a polycrystalline silicon film, an amorphous silicon film, and a SiGe film” of Claim 32).
Regarding to Claim 33,
Claim 33 is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 25 rejection above, because claim 25 rejection has all the limitations of Claim 33, in other word, the scope of Claim 33 is merely broader than the claim 25.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 19, 26-27 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘979.
Regarding to Claim 19,
‘979 further teaches At this time, it is preferable to set the temperature of the semiconductor wafer W to a low level of, e.g., about several tens of degrees (e.g., about 30°C.) or less. The pressure in the first period is preferably, e.g., about 665 Pa (5 Torr) to 1330 Pa (10 Torr) ([0048]), thus ‘979 teaches all the limitations, “wherein the system controller is further programmed to control such that the first temperature and the second temperature are in a range of, and the first pressure and the second pressure are in a range of 1 Pa or more and 1x105 Pa or less”, and merely silent about the number range “-140 °C or higher and 0 °C or lower”.
However, ‘979 clearly teaches the temperature is an adjustable parameter to control the process of ‘979, therefore, the temperature is also a result effective parameter.
Consequently, even if ‘979 is silent about the range as claimed, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have found the range as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to Claims 26-27 and 31,
‘979 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 26: wherein the process further comprising:(d) after (c), etching the first film using the plasma.
Claim 27: wherein the process further comprising:(e) after (d), exposing the substrate to the processing gas including the hydrogen fluoride gas, thereby removing the deposit adhering to the opening of the second film in (d).
Claim 31: wherein the process further comprising (f) repeating (b) and (c).
However, ‘979 further teaches the cycle treatment is repeated predetermined number of times ([0050]), therefore ‘979 clearly acknowledges process step can be repeated, depending on an intended purpose.
Because, during the STI process, the depth of the trench can be adjusted depending on a desired application. Therefore, even if ‘979 is silent about the repeating of the process as recited, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the repetition, for the purpose of obtaining clean deep etched trench, by repeating the etching and removal of deposit, thus preventing accumulation of the deposits during the deep trench etching.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘979 in view of OTA et al. (US 20130161287, hereafter ‘287).
Regarding to Claim 24,
‘979 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 24: wherein the processing gas includes an inert gas.
‘287 is analogous art in the field of processing apparatus (title). ‘287 teaches exhaust of gas by sucking out of the enclosed space and supply of an inert gas into the enclosed space are conducted in parallel. This results in replacement of the process vapor in the enclosed space for the inert gas. This prevents the process vapor from leaking out of the enclosed space when the enclosed space is opened up to the outer space thereof ([0011]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added an inert gas, into ‘979, for the purpose of providing purging step, thus preventing the process vapor from leaking or affecting to following processing steps.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16-17 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11798793 (hereafter ‘793) in view of ‘979.
Regarding to Claim 16-17 and 19,
‘793 teaches all the limitation of Claims 16-17 and 19 (some different limitations are mere synonyms), except followings of Claim 16,
(1) “a temperature adjusting module configured to adjust a temperature of at least one of the substrate support and a substrate disposed on the substrate support”,
(2) “an exhaust system configured to adjust a pressure in the chamber”,
(3) “(a) dispose the substrate on the substrate support”,
(4) “(b) supply the processing gas into the chamber”,
(5) “wherein at least one of the temperature adjusting module, the gas supply, and the exhaust system is controlled such that the second temperature is higher than the first temperature and/or the second pressure is lower than the first pressure”
However, ‘979 teaches the limitations, see the 102 rejection above.
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the features of (1)-(5), into ‘793, for the purpose of performing removal process of unnecessary deposits on the pattern of the substrate.
Claims 16-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11798793 (hereafter ‘793) in view of ‘979.
Regarding to Claim 16-19,
‘793 teaches all the limitation of Claims 16-19 (some different limitations are mere synonyms), except followings of Claim 16,
(1) “A substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber; a substrate support provided in the chamber; a temperature adjusting module configured to adjust a temperature of at least one of the substrate support and a substrate disposed on the substrate support; a gas supply configured to supply a processing gas including hydrogen fluoride gas into the chamber; an exhaust system configured to adjust a pressure in the chamber; and a system controller configured to control an overall operation of the substrate processing apparatus, wherein the system controller is programmed to”,
(2) “wherein at least one of the temperature adjusting module, the gas supply, and the exhaust system is controlled such that the second temperature is higher than the first temperature and/or the second pressure is lower than the first pressure”
However, ‘979 teaches the limitations, see the 102 rejection above.
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the structural feature of (1), into ‘793, because the method of ‘793 requires an apparatus to perform the method.
Further, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the feature of (5), into ‘793, for the purpose of performing removal process of unnecessary deposits on the pattern of the substrate.
Claims 25 and 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 26 of copending Application No. 18/603584 (reference application), hereafter ‘584.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of ‘584 is narrower than the instant application (‘584 is silent about the second gas supply, however, ‘584 clearly requires two processing materials, therefore, the second gas supply would be intrinsically required).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 25, 28, 30 and 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/603584 (reference application), hereafter ‘584.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of ‘584 is narrower than the instant application (‘584 is silent about the structural feature of claims 25 and 33, however, the etching method of ‘584 clearly requires processing apparatus, therefore, the structural limitations of the processing apparatus, such as chamber, gas supply, plasma generator would be intrinsically required).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
When the 112 and double patenting issues of Claim 17 are resolved, Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Further, Claim 19 recites mere operational parameters of the claimed apparatus, thus the claim is not patentable. However, when the claim 19 is a parameter to control the specific process result of the claim 17, it will be reconsidered, in other words, when the claim 19 is combined with the claim 17, the patentability will be reconsidered.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718