DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baluja (2012/0090691) in view of Xie (2015/0162189) and Elliott (2002/0069966).
Baluja teaches a system comprising:
- a chamber, see Figs 1-3 and related text,
- a platform in the chamber (see 306) to hold a substrate,
- a showerhead over the platform, see showerhead 414 [0045],
- a second electromagnetic radiation source attached to the top of the chamber, see 214 [0035].
The teachings do not include an electrode in the platform or the showerhead or a first EM source attached to the side of the chamber.
Xie however teaches that it is useful to include an electrode in a substrate support and showerhead of a semiconductor substrate process system in order to control certain processes [0032]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to include an electrode in the platform and showerhead of Baluja as per Xie such an arraignment would be beneficial for certain processes.
In regard to the first EM source, Elliot teaches an apparatus for applying EM (including UV) to a substrate – Elliot teaches various arrangements such the source being at the top and/or side of the chamber, particularly Figs. 11 and 12 and [0068]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to include an EM source at the side of the chamber as Elliott teaches that such sources are useful at the top, side or a combination. The combination includes a window for transmission. In regard to the EM radiation sources overlapping the perimeter of the substrate, this is a matter of arrangement of such sources per Elliot and further an intended use of the apparatus -such an overlap would depend partially on the size of the substrate applied.
Regarding the intended use of the system to burn cluster defects, the arguments over intended use are addressed as previously. Wherein the EM radiation is present it is capable of carrying out the same process. The claim does not require any substrate to be present nor does it require any such process.
Regarding claim 2, the arguments in regard to intended use are addressed above. In this case, the teachings of Baluja include gas supply and therefore include the capability of dissociating such gases [0010, 13].
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the sources are UV as noted.
Claims 1, 2 4-9, 11-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aita (2022/0178031) in view of Xie (2015/0162189) and Elliott.
Aita teaches a system comprising:
- a chamber, see Fig 5 and related text,
- a platform in the chamber (14) to hold a substrate,
- a showerhead over the platform, see showerhead 20 [0028],
- a second electromagnetic radiation source attached to the top of the chamber, see light source 26 conveyed through showerhead through 25a/b [0052].
The teachings do not include an electrode in the platform or the showerhead or a first EM source attached to the side of the chamber.
Xie and Elliott, however, are applied to Aita in the same manner as applied to Baluga above and will not be repeated.
Regarding the configuration to burn, the claims are rejected again in the same manner above, in this case, the teachings of Aita include gas supply and therefore include the capability of dissociating such gases.
Regarding claim 2, the claims are rejected again in the same manner above, in this case, the teachings of Aita include gas supply and therefore include the capability of dissociating such gases.
Regarding claims 4-6, 11, 17 and 18, the EM radiation (laser) sources are arranged as claimed – the text describes that 25b is either annular or separated into individual sources as claimed. In regard to the EM radiation sources placement, this is a matter of arrangement of such sources per Elliot wherein the teachings are not specifically limiting on the placement of the EM radiation sources. Further, as per MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. a rearrangement of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality. In this case, there is no criticality demonstrated within the scope of the claims
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the sources are UV as noted.
Regarding claim 9, all elements of the clam are met as per above, the requirement for the side source of Elliott is not specifically required, however, in any case Elliott teaches that an effective treatment source for processing system includes a UV laser [0048-53], therefore wherein Aita teaches a UV source, it would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the UV laser UV source of Elliott in the apparatus of Aita as an operable UV source as per Elliott. As per claim 4 above, the sources are arranged as claimed overlapping an outer edge or in any reasonable manner for the same purpose of applying the UV radiation.
Regarding claim 12, the system is configured as claimed – the plasma power source discussed above and the use to dissociate material is intended use as above.
Regarding claim 13, as per the combined art, the sources are UV/laser.
Regarding claim 14, the teachings include that the transmission windows are at the showerhead level, but the transmission source 27b is above the showerhead.
Regarding claim 15, all elements of the system are taught as per above, the platform, showerhead, plasma power source, laser and chamber – the defects is intended use as is the use of the laser source to irradiate the defects – the prior art combination of Aita and Elliott is capable of the same as pointed out per claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 19, per the originally applied teachings of Elliott, there are the further EM sources at the side of the chamber in addition to the top.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of references includes multiple EM radiation sources and is not limiting on other sources such as claimed – particularly wherein both Aita and Elliott teach multiple sources. The use is again intended use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 21 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not teach the claimed arrangement of the gas curtain and inlet valve. While curtains are generally known, there is no known reason to modify the applied teachings herein. Other references such as Eden (4,843,030) include a laser source to the side outside of the chamber, but do not include or provide any reason for a valve as claimed – wherein the valve is external between the chamber and laser source.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to the arrangement of the EM radiation sources, the teachings of Elliot include a varied arrangement of the sources, to arrange in any manner such as claimed is obvious as presented.
Applicants argue that the use of “configured to” requires a narrower meaning than the Office is giving. The Office does not agree. Initially, it is noted that such interpretation requires a substrate (which is not claimed) and further the presence of cluster defects, which are also not explicitly claimed. More importantly, though, applicants are omitting important portions of the arguments in re Giannelli. In that case, the court determined that there was specific language in that specification that defined what ‘adapted to’ should be interpreted as. There is no such language in the instant specification. It is further noted that a more recent case, In re Blue Buffalo Enterprises Inc. No. 2025-1611 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2026) affirmed an examiner’s rejection wherein intended use was argued. In that case the court determined that nothing in the specification of that case indicated that “configured to” should be limited to elements specifically designed for the recited functions. The Office therefore maintains the rejections and holds that the functional language does not hold the weight as argued by applicants. The case is analogous to In re Blue and not re Giannelli.
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 JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application 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/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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712