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: Paragraph 73, pages 23-24 bridging applicant recites the metal may be bonded to organic elements (e.g., carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc.). The specification is objected to because oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen are not organic. Carbon is the only element in the Markush group that is organic. Paragraph 74 is objected to because the specification further states that hydrogen may react with metal-organic compounds and provides the example of SnO, however tin oxide (SnO) is not organic. The examiner suggests amending paragraph 0073 of the specification to “The metal may be bonded to elements”, removing the term “organic”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. (US2014/0083453A1) in view of Ha et al. (US2023/0227970).
Re claims 1 and 11, Yin et al. teach flowing a first processing gas, into the chamber, the processing gas comprising hydrogen (paragraph 22), wherein the first processing gas reacts with metal-organic deposits to form a first volatile species (paragraphs 40-41). The limitations of the volatile species decomposing to redeposit metal containing material are a result of reaction with the first processing gas and the metal-organic deposits, and therefore, the limitations are inherently met. Yin further teaches flowing a second processing gas comprising chlorine, wherein the chlorine reacts with the metal containing material to form a second volatile species (paragraphs 51, 53)
Re claims 1 and 8, Yin et al. teach after semiconductor manufacture, cleaning cvd chambers of metal deposits using hydrogen and oxygen gases, but fail to teach a metal containing compound comprising a metal oxide and further fails to teach tin oxide deposits. Ha et al. teach during chemical vapor deposition in the fabrication of semiconductor devices, deposits generated include metal oxide, such as tin oxide, such that the processing chambers require periodic cleaning to remove the deposits. Ha et al. further teach removing the tin oxide deposits using processing gases comprising hydrogen and oxygen (paragraphs 3-4, and 6-12), wherein the chambers are cleaning at low temperatures of 30-120C. 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 Yin et al. to include other metal oxide deposits, such as tin oxide, as taught by Ha et al., which are also generated during the fabrication of semiconductor wafers). Re claims 2 and 13, refer to paragraph 79. Re claim 3, refer to paragraph 51. Re claims 4 and 12, refer to the abstract. Re claim 5, refer to paragraph 37. Re claim 6, refer to paragraphs 11 and 22. Re claim 7, refer to paragraph 65. Re claims 9 and 16, refer to paragraph 2. Re claim 10, refer to paragraph 43. Re claim 11, refer to paragraph 79. Re claim 14, the limitations read broadly on ambient conditions, Ha et al. clearly teaches that processing conditions can occur under ambient conditions. Re claim 15, refer to paragraph 38.
Response to Arguments
7. The objection to the specification is maintained for the reasons set forth above.
8. The rejection of the claims, under 112, second paragraph is withdrawn in view of corrections made by applicant.
9. The rejection of the claims as being anticipated by Yin et al. is withdrawn in view of the newly amended claims.
10. It appears that applicant has amended claim 1 to partially incorporate the limitations of claim 8. Accordingly, the rejection of the claims as being unpatentable over Yin et al. in view of Ha et al. is maintained for the reasons set forth above.
11. 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.
12. 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