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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification on paragraphs 54 and 56 are objected to for the following reasons. Applicant recites trifluoro acetylacetonate as "tfac". However, the acronym "tfac" stands for trifluoroacetyl chloride.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-11 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US2015/0144154A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 2023/0230819A1).
Re claim 1, Cho et al. teach a method of in-situ cleaning a chamber comprising a) reacting a first processing gas including fluorine-containing gas with a metal containing substrate (abstract), wherein the limitations of forming a second metal containing substrate are inherently met as a result of the chemical interaction with the first processing gas, and b) removing the second metal containing substrate using a precursor in the chamber. Specifically, paragraph 22 teaches the method of removal of transition metals/refractory metals, wherein a first plasma is formed using a first cleaning gas mixture, which etches, and removes the metal (paragraph 23). Paragraph 23 teaches the first cleaning gas mixture comprising at least one carbonyl group and a halogen containing gas (paragraph 26), wherein the first cleaning gas mixture chemically reacts with the halogen gas (SF6, NF2, CF4) to form a carbonyl halide which then reacts with the metal to carry it off as a gaseous metal carbonyl halide. In summary, the refractory metal reacts with the first processing gas (i.e. carbonyl halide) to form a second metal containing substance (i.e. metal carbonyl halide).
The metal carbonyl halide reacts with a second processing gas (paragraph 29), wherein the second processing gas is a at least a boron containing gas such as BCl3 (paragraph 30). Cho et al. specifically teaches a second cleaning gas mixture which is used to “continue” cleaning or removing the remaining residues, including other types of residues from the interior of the chamber. Paragraph 33 further teaches that the fluorine containing gas, which were introduced in the previous steps, may continue to flow in the chamber without interruption. It is also noted that Applicant’s claim is so broadly interpreted, as the reaction of the metal with the first processing chemical mixture inherently forms a second metal containing substance, and the second processing gas and/or the continued supplied of the halogen gas aids in the removal of the second metal containing substance from the interior of the processing chamber.
Re claims 1, 16 and 18, Cho et al. teach the second processing gas comprising BCl3 or a fluorine gas, but Cho et al. fail to teach the second processing gas including a precursor, wherein the precursor contains the claimed metal complex (claims 1 and 18) or a metal-free precursor (claim 16).
Lin et al. teach cleaning the processing chamber comprising plasma and non-plasma cleaning steps to remove metal and non-metallic contaminants from the process chamber (paragraphs 19-20, 29-31). Paragraph 30 teaches methods of removing residue include the use of halogen containing gases such as BCl3. Other embodiments include the use of ligand complexes including acac to remove the metal containing residue. Furthermore, Lin et al. teach the use of acac to remove the same metal containing cobalt residues, as that of Cho et al. (paragraph 22).
In reference to claim 1, Lin et al. teach a metal containing chelate comprising a B-diketonate. Paragraph 54 of applicant's specification teaches B-diketonate may include acetylacetonate. Paragraph 31 of Lin et al. metal acetylacetonates such as Sn(acac)2.
In reference to claim 16, the claim requires a metal-free precursor of at least one b-diketone selected from acetylacetone. Paragraph 31 of Lin et al. specifically teaches a vapor comprising at least one of acetylacetone (acac).
In reference to claim 18, the claim requires a metal containing precursor is a complex of at least one metal from the claimed Markush group and a carbon containing precursor comprising amidines. Paragraph 31 of Lin et al. teach the ligand vapor may comprise ligands of metal acetylacetonates or amidines, and further teaches metals such as Sn, Zn, Ti, Hf.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Cho et al. to include substituting BCl3 with ligand chemistries, including metal and metal-free precursors , as taught by Lin et al., for purposes of performing the same function of removal of the same metal contaminant residues from the interior of the processing chamber.
Re claim 2, refer to paragraph 35 for example. Re claims 3-4, refer to paragraph 33. Re claim 3, the third cleaning gas can include at least an oxygen containing gas which may include N2O, NO2, and CO which reads on applicant’s limitation of a nitrogen containing gas and a carbon monoxide gas. Re claim 5, refer to paragraph 18. Re claim 6, refer to paragraphs 17 (1500Watts for the etching process) as compared to the first cleaning plasma process (paragraph 27, about 2000Watts). Re claim 7, refer to paragraphs 26 and 29 for example.
Re claim 8, Cho et al. in view of Lin et al. fail to teach repeating the processing steps. Paragraph 37 teaches that the process sequence is illustrative and may vary depending upon the contaminations or residues to be removed. In the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Cho et al. to include repeatedly performing the claimed processing steps, until the desired level of cleanliness has been achieved. Re claim 9, Cho et al. do not teach the first processing gas reacting without plasma generation. However, in the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect the limitations to be met as a result of the halogen gas continuously flowing into the plasma processing chamber without interruption. Specifically, as the halogen is being continuously flowed into the chamber, the examiner argues that a portion of the halogen gas reacts with the metal residues prior to being changed to a plasma mixture.
Re claim 10, refer to paragraph 22 for example. Re claim 11, the limitations are inherently met as a result of forming a plasma from the first processing chemical mixture for example. Re claim 17, the limitations are met as Cho et al. teach the third chemical mixture comprising boron in combination with the fluorine gas.
Response to Arguments
6. The rejection of the claims, under 112, second paragraph is withdrawn in view of the newly amended limitations.
7. The rejection of claims as being unpatentable over Cho et al. in view of Lin et al. is maintained. Applicant's amended limitations of "metal containing chelate" are not found persuasive in view of the teachings of Lin et al., for the reasons recited above.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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 Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc
Prosecution Insights