DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 7/30/2026.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are pending.
Claim 6 is cancelled.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 9 are currently amended.
Claim Interpretation
Interpretation under 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 and equivalents thereof 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.
The limitations requiring an interpretation under §112(f) and their respective structure/material/acts are as follows (all paragraph citations made in reference to US2016/0281230 – PG-Pub of parent application):
In claims 1-3 and 12: “means for promoting a low recombination rate of radicals” is construed as a material selected from: silicon oxide, zirconium oxide, aluminum oxide, hafnium oxide, yttrium oxide, yttria-stabilized zirconia, and combinations thereof (instant claim 12 and par. [0035]).
In claim 1: “means for supporting a substrate” is construed as a pedestal-style substrate support (par. [0033] and Fig. 1)
In claims 1 and 5, “means for generating hydrogen plasma” is construed as a remote plasma source (par. [0033] and Fig. 1, #110) comprising a plasma generator utilizing ICP, CCP, or microwave plasma ([0033]).
In claim 1, “means for delivering a silicon-containing precursor” is construed as a gas inlet (par. [0033] and Fig. 1, #108)
In claims 1 and 10, “means for distributing hydrogen plasma” is construed as a showerhead (par. [0072] and Fig. 1, #111)
In claims 1, 4 and 7-9, “means for controlling operations” is construed as any electronics that can execute programming (par. [0076]).
In claim 11, “means for removing material” is construed as an exhaust port (par. [0015] and Fig. 1, #109).
Interpretation of functional language
In the interest of clarity of the record and brevity of this action, the Examiner notes the claims are replete with functional language that are construed as an intended use of the apparatus- not structurally limiting. These limitations are present in claims 1, 5, and 6.
The Examiner notes functional limitations stemming from the “means for controlling operations… to cause the following:” are also not construed as structurally limiting of the claims (intended use). Particularly, the claims are not limited by any positive recitation of programming contained on a controller (“controller configured to”) since the 112(f) interpretation of the above means are not so limited.
These functional limitations are given patentable weight only to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended uses. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshimizu (US Patent 6,162,323) in view of Rossman (US Patent 6,696,362) and, alternatively, Jung (US Pub. 2014/0120738).
Regarding claim 1, Koshimizu teaches a remote plasma processing apparatus (Fig. 1, apparatus #100) for processing a substrate (Fig. 1, wafer W), the apparatus comprising: a reaction chamber (Fig. 1, chamber #102 with processing space #134) comprising: means for supporting a substrate within the reaction chamber (Fig. 1, susceptor #116); means for generating hydrogen plasma to form hydrogen radicals (Fig. 1, antenna #110, match unit #112, RF power supply #114, gas supply #142 several hydrogen-containing species: C6, L9-11; all components operating in the plasma generating space #132) wherein the hydrogen plasma generating means is separate from the reaction chamber (see Fig. 1, #132 separate from #134); means for delivering a silicon-containing precursor to the reaction chamber (Fig. 1, via supply line #144); means for distributing hydrogen plasma to the reaction chamber (Fig. 1, grid electrode #128 with holes #129), and means for controlling operations in the reaction chamber (Fig. 1, CPU #152).
Koshimizu does not teach wherein the reaction chamber comprises: means for promoting a low recombination rate of radicals coated on interior chamber surfaces of the reaction chamber.
However, Rossman teaches this limitation (Rossman – C4, L53-59: thin seasoning layer of silicon oxide, described in the instant application as a low recombination material coating).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Koshimizu apparatus to comprise the means for promoting a low recombination rate of radicals of Rossman in order to treat the processing chamber to prevent contamination of a deposition process (Rossman – C4, L47-55) and to protect the chamber from contaminants (Rossman – C4, L54-59).
Regarding the limitation: “to cause the following: generating hydrogen radicals in the means for generating hydrogen plasma; flowing the hydrogen radicals through the means for distributing hydrogen plasma; and flowing the silicon-containing precursor into the reaction chamber through the means for delivering the silicon-containing precursor without exposure to an active plasma, wherein the silicon-containing precursor reacts with the hydrogen radicals to deposit a silicon-containing film on the substrate”, the limitation is regarded as an intended result/use of the claimed apparatus.
Modified Koshimizu is regarded as capable of performing the function by virtue of the plasma formation structure and various gas sources of Koshimizu – including one below the electrode #128, as well as the material coating of Rossman.
In the interest of fairness to Applicant, the Examiner further submits the Jung reference in an additional/alternative rejection to the above. Applicant is advised this is a second, parallel rejection for completeness and compact prosecution.
Jung teaches generating hydrogen radicals in the means for generating hydrogen plasma; flowing the hydrogen radicals through the means for distributing hydrogen plasma; and flowing the silicon-containing precursor into the reaction chamber through the means for delivering the silicon-containing precursor without exposure to an active plasma, wherein the silicon-containing precursor reacts with the hydrogen radicals to deposit a silicon-containing film on the substrate (Jung – [0117]-[0123]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Koshimizu apparatus to perform the process of Jung in order to produce films with desired composition, good step coverage, and desired thickness (Jung – [0033]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 3, Koshimizu does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Rossman teaches wherein the low recombination rate of radicals promoting means comprises an oxide material (Rossman – C4, L53-59: thin seasoning layer of silicon oxide).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Koshimizu apparatus to comprise the means for promoting a low recombination rate of radicals of Rossman in order to treat the processing chamber to prevent contamination of a deposition process (Rossman – C4, L47-55) and to protect the chamber from contaminants (Rossman – C4, L54-59).
Regarding claim 10, Koshimizu teaches wherein the hydrogen plasma distributing means comprises a showerhead that separates the hydrogen plasma generating means from the reaction chamber (C14, L48 and Fig. 1, grid electrode #128 with holes #129 serves as a showerhead/shower plate).
Regarding claim 11, Koshimizu teaches means for removing material from the reaction chamber (Fig. 1, exhaust line #154 with pump #160).
Regarding claim 12, Koshimizu does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Rossman teaches wherein low recombination rate of radicals promoting means comprises silicon oxide (Rossman – C4, L53-59: thin seasoning layer of silicon oxide).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Koshimizu apparatus to comprise the means for promoting a low recombination rate of radicals of Rossman in order to treat the processing chamber to prevent contamination of a deposition process (Rossman – C4, L47-55) and to protect the chamber from contaminants (Rossman – C4, L54-59).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshimizu (US Patent 6,162,323) in view of Rossman (US Patent 6,696,362), alternatively with Jung (US Pub. 2014/0120738), as applied to claims 1, 3, and 10-12 above, and further in view of Londergan (US Pub. 2004/0023516).
The limitations of claims 1, 3, and 10-12 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, modified Koshimizu does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Londergan teaches wherein the low recombination rate of radicals promoting means has an average thickness between 50 Å and 500 Å (Londergan – [0030]: 30 cycles deposits approximately 20 angstroms of alumina, and number of cycles can increase to approximately 60, which should deposit approximately 40 angstroms of alumina).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to form the low recombination rate of radicals promoting means of modified Koshimizu to between the claimed range since Londergan teaches a value substantially close to the claimed range (Londergan – [0030]). The courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges do not overlap with the prior art, but are merely close, absent any additional showing of unexpected results or criticality. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Koshimizu does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Rossman teaches means for controlling operations in the reaction chamber (Rossman – C3, L1-9: controller) to cause deposition of the oxide material on the interior chamber surfaces (Rossman – C4, L53-59) while no substrate is present in the reaction chamber (Rossman – C4, L43-45: cleaning procedures performed between deposition steps; L55-57: seasoning performed after cleaning).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Koshimizu apparatus to comprise the means for controlling operations of Rossman in order to treat the processing chamber to prevent contamination of a deposition process (Rossman – C4, L47-55) and to protect the chamber from contaminants (Rossman – C4, L54-59).
Modified Koshimizu does not teach deposition of the oxide material on the interior chamber surfaces by atomic layer deposition.
However, Londergan teaches this limitation (Londergan – [0027]-[0029]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Koshimizu apparatus to comprise the ALD deposition method of Londergan in the Rossman procedure in order to improve uniformity of deposition and restore chamber capabilities (Londergan – [0028], [0039]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshimizu (US Patent 6,162,323) in view of Rossman (US Patent 6,696,362), alternatively with Jung (US Pub. 2014/0120738), as applied to claims 1, 3, and 10-12 above, and further in view of Fu (US Pub. 2009/0017227).
The limitations of claims 1, 3, and 10-12 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, modified Koshimizu does not teach the added limitations of the claim (Koshimizu teaches inductively-coupled remote plasma).
However, Fu teaches wherein the means for generating hydrogen plasma comprises means for generating hydrogen plasma by capacitively coupled plasma generation to form the hydrogen radicals (Fu – [0017] and Fig. 2, RPS source #60 may be either capacitive or inductive for hydrogen plasma generation via source #50).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to substitute the capacitive remote plasma source of Fu for the inductive remote plasma source of modified Koshimizu as a matter of simple substitution of one known equivalent for another (capacitive instead of inductive) to obtain predictable results (suitable remote plasma formation of hydrogen plasma; Fu – [0017]). See MPEP 2143(I) example (B).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshimizu (US Patent 6,162,323) in view of Rossman (US Patent 6,696,362), alternatively with Jung (US Pub. 2014/0120738), as applied to claims 1, 3, and 10-12 above, and further in view of Yamazaki (US Patent 8,088,296).
The limitations of claims 1, 3, and 10-12 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, modified Koshimizu does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Yamazaki teaches causing the reaction chamber to be exposed to an oxidizing plasma to recondition the interior chamber surfaces and thereby reform the low recombination rate of radicals promoting means (Yamazaki – C5,L21-26: Si surface oxidized to reform SiO2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Koshimizu apparatus with the reconditioning oxidizing plasma process of Yamazaki in order to reduce the frequency of part replacement by extending part life (Yamazaki – C5, L27-30).
Regarding claim 8, modified Koshimizu does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
While Yamazaki does not explicitly teach wherein the controlling operations in the reaction chamber means is configured to cause the reaction chamber to be exposed to the oxidizing plasma for a duration between about 0.05 seconds and about 5 seconds, Yamazaki teaches wherein the exposure time is a result effective variable. Particularly, that the effective oxidizing plasma exposure time is dependent on a number of factors including elapsed processing time, number of substrates processed, and gas concentration (Yamazaki – C5, L58-62).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Koshimizu apparatus to perform the oxidizing plasma step for the claimed duration in order to compensate for elapsed processing time, number of substrates processed, and gas concentration (Yamazaki – C5, L58-62). 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 claim 9, modified Koshimizu does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Yamazaki teaches means for controlling operations in the reaction chamber to cause formation of a second coating on at least a portion of the interior chamber surfaces, wherein the second coating is a different material than the low recombination rate of radicals promoting means (Yamazaki – C5, L11-14: SiO2 layer reduced to Si by hydrogen plasma; first layer changed to second layer).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Koshimizu apparatus to cause formation of a second coating similar to Yamazaki as a result of a resist mask removal process to minimize the increase in dielectric constant of a patterned film (Yamazaki – C1, L29-34).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejections have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive.
Particularly, the Applicant appears to be assigning too much patentable weight to the functional limitations as added to claim 1. As explained herein, these limitations are not recited in the claim as structurally limiting controller programming. In accordance, no explicit recitation of this function is necessary if the prior art apparatus would be capable of performing the function. The Examiner has explained this capability in the body of the rejection above.
Despite this, the Examiner has provided the Jung reference that explicitly teaches the added functional language as part of a second, parallel rejection to claim 1. In view of Jung, Applicant’s arguments are moot because they do not pertain to Jung, which appears to remedy any alleged deficiencies of the other prior art of record.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (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 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights