DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mui (US 8,278,224).
As to claim 1, Mui teaches a semiconductor processing system (Fig. 4). The Mui system comprises a processing chamber (Fig. 4, item 418) coupled to a gas delivery system (Fig. 4, item 401), a system controller comprising a processor (16:22, CPU) and memory storing instructions (16:19-44), and a heating element (6:18; 12:38-41).
The Mui apparatus system controller (16:22) is capable of and configured to perform a first process (6:22-30) on a substrate (6:5) in the processing chamber. The Mui apparatus is configured to operate the heating element at a first temperature (6:15-16) and flow a first process gas from the gas delivery system into the processing chamber (6:23). The claimed stabilizing in the substrate is an unpatentable statement of material worked upon, but it should be noted that since the Mui apparatus can use oxygen or ozone (6:25-28) like the instant apparatus (see instant claim 6), the Mui apparatus is configured to stabilize bonds in a film in the same manner claimed.
The Mui apparatus is configured to perform a second process within the process chamber (column 8). The Mui apparatus is configured to supply a different gas (8:20-23) to the processing chamber. While Mui does not specifically disclose operating the heating elements at a second temperature, Mui specifically teaches that pressure and temperature may be adjusted (9:34-35), and therefore the Mui apparatus would be configured to operate the heating elements at a second temperature. Mui’s apparatus configured to provide second process conditions which would densify the stabilized film.
As to claims 2, 4-8, these claims represent statements of material worked upon or process conditions such as the pressure (claim 2), gas composition (claims 6-8), temperature (claims 4 and 8), and composition conversion (claim 5). However, because Mui teaches that the apparatus adjusts gas pressure and gas flow (7:43-46; 9:34-35), valves which control flow of multiple compositions (6:25-30; 10:14-28) (including those recited in the instant claims), and a device which controls temperature (9:30-35) (which could lead to composition conversion), the Mui apparatus meets all structural features required by the claim. As to claim 9, Mui teaches that a remote plasma generator (6:28-29) may be used in the first process or second process.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mui (US 8,278,224) in view of Tanabe (US 20030203646).
As to claim 10, Mui teaches a semiconductor processing system (Fig. 4). The Mui system comprises a processing chamber (Fig. 4, item 418) coupled to a gas delivery system (Fig. 4, item 401), a system controller comprising a processor (16:22, CPU) and memory storing instructions (16:19-44), and a heating element (6:18; 12:38-41).
The Mui apparatus system controller (16:22) is capable of and configured to perform a first process (6:22-30) on a substrate (6:5) in the processing chamber. The Mui apparatus is configured to operate the heating element at a first temperature (6:15-16) and flow a first process gas from the gas delivery system into the processing chamber (6:23). The claimed stabilizing in the substrate is an unpatentable statement of material worked upon, but it should be noted that since the Mui apparatus can use oxygen or ozone (6:25-28) like the instant apparatus, the Mui apparatus is configured to stabilize bonds in a film in the same manner claimed. The Mui apparatus is configured to perform a second process within the process chamber (column 8). .
Although Mui does not specifically teach that the apparatus is capable of heating to 300 C to 1000 C, Tanabe teaches that a similar process can be performed at 850C ([0225]) inherently using a heater.
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Tanabe heating device into Mui because Mui teaches/suggests heating (9:33) and this is what Tanabe provides within the scope of the Mui teaching/suggestion. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in light of the similar processes performed in Mui and Tanabe.
As to claims 11-14, these claims represent statements of material worked upon or process conditions such as the pressure (claim 11-13) and densification within the film (claim 14). However, Mui teaches that the apparatus adjusts gas pressure and gas flow (7:43-46; 9:34-35) and valves which control flow of multiple compositions (6:25-30; 10:14-28). Tanabe teaches an apparatus capable of heating to a temperature which would cause the claimed densifying.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mui (US 8,278,224) in view of Tanabe (US 20030203646), and further in view of Lee (US 5,002,464). Mui and Tanabe teach the subject matter of claim 10 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 15, Mui already teaches a device capable of performing a first process and second process, but is silent to the inner and outer chambers and valve assembly which isolates and provides fluid communication between the chambers.
Lee teaches an inner and outer chamber (Fig. 2, items 4 and 6) with a hinged door (Fig. 2, item 14) that acts as a valve assembly to isolate/communicate the inner chamber and outer chamber. Other valves are also present (Fig. 1, item 18).
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the inner/outer chamber of Lee into Mui motivated by providing a negligible pressure difference between the two chambers that would promote a leakfree-condition in the high vacuum inner chamber (5:53-65).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Although a helpful discussion was held with Applicant’s representative, the amendments do not appear to provide a structural distinction over the existing prior art.
The arguments regarding claim 1 on pages 8-9 appear to be on the grounds that Mui does not teach certain features of the invention, such as the claimed processor and memory. The arguments regarding claim 10 on pages 9-10 are on the grounds that Mui teaches a thermal anneal at 275 C, but is silent to certain features of claim 10. Applicant argues that Tanabe provides an oxidizing furnace for selective oxidation, but does not teach a controller comprising a processor and memory. Applicant further argues that there no suggestion to modify the Mui process with the steps of Tanabe.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mui specifically teaches a system controller that includes a CPU or computer. The Examiner maintains that this CPU or computer necessarily includes a processor and memory. Even though Mui does not specifically teach heating to 300 C, the fact that Mui teaches to anneal to 275 C would lead one - and provides a teaching/suggestion/motivation rationale - to incorporate a device such as that of Tanabe into Mui. Even if there are differences in the end use of Tanabe, the Examiner maintains that it provides an apparatus structure obvious for use with the Mui apparatus.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights