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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4 (apparatus) in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (method), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/26/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The claim 1 limitations “a gas mixture”, “generate a plasma”, “etch a silicon-containing film on a substrate by delivering the plasma and a fluorine-containing gas to the silicon-containing film, wherein the gas mixture contains hydrogen atoms, nitrogen atoms, and oxygen atoms” is interpreted as being directed to at least one of: the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be employed (e.g. etching, delivering plasma), the article worked upon (e.g. “silicon-containing film on a substrate”), and contents of the apparatus during operation (e.g. gas mixture containing specific elements). Regarding the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be employed, [i]t has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Regarding the article worked upon, [i]nclusion 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)). Regarding contents of the apparatus during operation, [e]xpressions 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). Where the applied prior art teaches any of the above limitations, the citations will be included for the purpose of compact prosecution on the merits. This is not an indication that the limitations are more than the above discussion has addressed.
Claim 3 refers to an accommodation chamber but does not recite this as a structure of the apparatus. Therefore the claim is not interpreted as requiring an accommodation chamber. As noted above, where the applied prior art teaches an accommodation chamber, a citation will be made in the event applicant amends the claims to recite an accommodation chamber as a structure of the etching device. Applicant is kindly requested to consider amending to recite the etching device “further comprises an accommodation chamber” prior to the current recitations of accommodation chamber to actively claim the structure as part of the apparatus.
Additionally regarding claim 3, recitations of the oxygen gas concentration including within a specific range are interpreted as being directed to contents of the apparatus during operation as explained above for claim 1 and the references to the gas mixture or specific gas components.
Regarding claim 4, recitations of the specific gases of the gas mixture are interpreted as being directed to contents of the apparatus during operation as explained above for claim 1 and the references to the gas mixture or specific gas components.
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:
“gas supply unit” in claim 1 interpreted as structure 21 of Fig 1 including a source of gas (21A-C) and a gas line (shown not numbered in Fig 1), and equivalents thereof.
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.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites that “the discharge tube is formed from sapphire” this is unclear because sapphire is a specific form of aluminum oxide and claim 1 requires in line 7-8 that “the discharge tube is formed from a main component of aluminum oxide”. It is unclear if the limitation of claim 2 is intended to indicate the discharge tube is formed from a main component of aluminum oxide and formed from sapphire (i.e. the sapphire is different from the main component and thus to what extent of the discharge tube is the main component to be considered a “main component” while the tube is also considered formed of sapphire) or if applicant intends for the main component formed of aluminum oxide to specifically be sapphire. Consistent with the instant specification (see [0027]) and for purpose of examination on the merits, the claim will be examined inclusive of an interpretation that the claim language of claim 2 is intended to limit the main component formed of aluminum oxide to specifically be sapphire. Applicant is kindly requested to amend the claim for clarity such as amending the claim to recite “the main component is formed from sapphire”.
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2002/0179248 of Kabansky, hereinafter Kabansky.
Regarding claim 1, Kabansky teaches an etching device (Fig. 2 and [0025]), comprising: a discharge tube (plasma tube 146 Fig 2 [0027]) irradiated with microwaves [0027]; and a gas supplying unit (conventional source 148 Fig 2 with line connected to inlet 150 [0027] is a functional equivalent) configured to supply a gas mixture to the discharge tube [0026-0027], wherein the etching device is configured to generate plasma of the gas mixture in the discharge tube [0026-0027] and etch [0025] a silicon-containing film [0003] on a substrate (wafer 136 Fig 2 [0025]) by delivering the plasma [0028] and a fluorine-containing gas (see 172 Fig 2 and [0029-0030]) to the silicon-containing film (Fig 2, see wafer 136), wherein the gas mixture contains hydrogen atoms, nitrogen atoms, and oxygen atoms [0008], and wherein the discharge tube is formed from a main component of aluminum oxide (tube 146 made of ceramic alumina or sapphire [0027]).
Regarding claim 2, Kabansky teaches the main component is formed from sapphire [0027].
Regarding claim 3, as noted above in the claim interpretation section, the claim does not require an accommodation space where the substrate is accommodated. However, Kabansky does teach an accommodation space (process chamber 132 Fig 2 [0025]) where the substrate (136 Fig 2) is accommodated (Fig 2 and [0025]). Regarding the specific inclusion of oxygen at the recited amount, the analysis remains as applied in the claim interpretation section. Kabansky teaches this supplied to the chamber [0008]. The apparatus of Kabansky is capable of being operated with the recited amount of oxygen in the chamber.
Regarding claim 4, regarding the specific gases recited, the analysis remains as applied in the claim interpretation section that this is directed to the contents of the apparatus. Additionally, the apparatus of Kabansky is capable of containing the recited gases and specifically teaches oxygen gas and nitrogen gas [0008].
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) 1-4 is/are additionally and/or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabansky in view of US Patent Application Publication 2005/0257890 of Park et al., hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 1, Kabansky remains as applied to claim 1 in the anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 as applied above. This rejection is provided additionally and/or alternatively in the event applicant can demonstrate that the “conventional source 148 Fig 2 with line connected to inlet 150 [0027]” is not a functional equivalent of the claimed “gas supplying unit”. If the conventional source 148 Fig 2 with line connected to inlet 150 [0027] for supplying gas to the tube in which plasma is generated of Kabansky is not a functional equivalent of the claimed “gas supplying unit”, then in the same field of endeavor of etching apparatuses [0026] Park teaches a gas supply unit includes a source of gas (140, 142 Fig 3), a gas line (shown as unnumbered line), and a valve (140b, 142b Fig 3) for supplying a gas mixture to a tube (134 Fig 3) which will be irradiated with microwaves (from 148 Fig 3) to form plasma [0078]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kabansky to use the gas supply structure of Park in place of the “conventional source 148” of Kabansky because this represents a simple substitution of one known structure (gas supply structure of Park) for another (gas supply structure of Kabansky) to achieve predictable results (gas supply to the tube in which plasma is formed by microwave irradiation).
Regarding claim 2, Kabansky teaches the main component is formed from sapphire [0027].
Regarding claim 3, as noted above in the claim interpretation section, the claim does not require an accommodation space where the substrate is accommodated. However, Kabansky does teach an accommodation space (process chamber 132 Fig 2 [0025]) where the substrate (136 Fig 2) is accommodated (Fig 2 and [0025]). Regarding the specific inclusion of oxygen at the recited amount, the analysis remains as applied in the claim interpretation section. Kabansky teaches this supplied to the chamber [0008]. The apparatus of Kabansky is capable of being operated with the recited amount of oxygen in the chamber.
Regarding claim 4, regarding the specific gases recited, the analysis remains as applied in the claim interpretation section that this is directed to the contents of the apparatus. Additionally, the apparatus of Kabansky is capable of containing the recited gases and specifically teaches oxygen gas and nitrogen gas [0008]. Further Park teaches ammonia gas as a source of hydrogen [0013].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2016/0234924 teaches remotely formed plasma using microwaves [0003]. [0078] and teaches oxygen at 1-1000 ppm in the chamber to reduce surface erosion in the chamber [0058]. JP 2013-016592 teaches irradiating a tube (12) with microwaves to form plasma prior to supplying to a chamber (Fig. 5-8). US 2012/0006486 demonstrates the effects of different feeding configurations to supply gases to both the remote plasma unit or some directly to the chamber and others to the remote plasma unit (Fig 4A-7B). US 2011/0143546 teaches a microwave generator to apply gas to a pipe to form plasma prior to entry to the chamber (Fig 1). US 2008/0214017 teaches a microwave generator to apply gas to a pipe to form plasma prior to entry to the chamber (Fig 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716