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 .
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.
Drawings
Figures 1-5 and 9 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 21-23, 25-29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Iyer et al, DE 102022130723 A1.
Iyer et al teaches:
Regarding claims 1, 21, and 28, a mechanism for filtering an etching byproduct during semiconductor fabrication, comprising: an semiconductor processing tool 101 (which includes etching tools), configured to process (which includes etching) a portion of a material layer and having an outlet for discharging the etching byproduct formed from the etched portion of the material layer; a pipeline 103, for allowing the etching byproduct to flow through, the pipeline having a first end connected to the outlet of the etching tool and a second end distal to the first end and the etching tool (Figure 1); and a filter 104, 415, disposed between the first end and the second end and configured to filter the etching byproduct (Figure 1), wherein the filter 415 includes a solidifier 417 configured to solidify the etching byproduct by heating, and a medium 415a, 415b configured to retain the etching byproduct solidified by the solidifier 417 (Figure 4, Paragraph 0030)
If it is held that the substrate processing chamber for processing a wafer is not an etching chamber etching a wafer, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the generic substrate processing chamber with an etching chamber, which is well known in the art.
Regarding claims 2 and 27, a pump 106, wherein the pump 106 is configured to suck the etching byproduct out of the etching tool. (Figure 1)
Regarding claim 4, the etching byproduct includes polymer. (Paragraph 0001)
Regarding claims 7 and 26, the medium retains the etching byproduct solidified by the solidifier.
Regarding claims 22 and 29, the filter is attachable to or detachable from the pipeline. The Examiner notes that every element in an exhaust system are and must be attachable or detachable so they can be repaired or replaced.
Regarding claim 23, the filter is replaceable.
Regarding claim 25, the medium includes activated carbon.
Regarding claim 31, the medium includes multiple holes and/or fine hair structures.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al, DE 102022130723 A1, in view of Chou et al, US 2014/0238107 A1, or Applicants disclosed prior art (ADPA).
Iyer et al was discussed above.
Iyer et al differs from the present invention in that Iyer et al does not teach that the pipeline extends between multiple floors.
Chou et al teaches a semiconductor fabrication facility that includes utility lines that extend through the floor.
Applicant discloses in Figure 4 a prior art etching tool having a pipeline 30 that extends through multiple floors F1, F2, F3.
The motivation for running a pipeline through a floor is to connect a multiple tools to a single device (i.e. multiple tools with a common vacuum) as taught by Chou et al or to provide separation between the clean room tools and the vacuum pump as taught by ADPA.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to run the pipeline of Iyer et al through multiple floors as taught by Chou et al or ADPA.
Claims 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al, DE 102022130723 A1.
Regarding claims 5 and 8, Iyer et al was discussed above and further teaches that the pipeline includes a turning point configured to change a flowing direction of the etching byproduct inside the pipeline from a first flowing direction to a second flowing direction. (Figure 1)
Iyer et al differs from the present invention in that Iyer et al does not teach that the pipeline includes a turning point is an acute angle between the first flowing direction and the second flowing direction. and the filter is disposed between the etching tool and the turning point (claim 5) or disposed between the first end and the turning point (claim 8).
It was held that: the rearrangement of parts is obvious (see In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70); and a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) MPEP 2144.04.IV.B)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to move the filter of Iyer et al between the etching tool and the turning point (claim 5) or disposed between the first end and the turning point (claim 8); and to change the angle of the turning point to an acute angle.
Regarding claim 6, the apparatus of Iyer et al as modified in claim 5 would trap the byproduct in the filter and the etching byproduct accumulated at the turning point would be minimized or absent.
Claims 9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al, DE 102022130723 A1, in view of Kishkovich et al, WO 01/85308 A2.
Iyer et al was discussed above.
Iyer et al differs from the present invention in that Iyer et al does not teach a spectrometer electrically coupled to the filter, wherein the spectrometer is configured to: detect an amount of the etching byproduct adsorbed by the filter (claim 9); or to detect a light signal to determine a timing to replace or wash the filter (claim 24).
Kishkovich et al teaches the use of a spectrometer 520 to monitor the performance of the filter 502.
The motivation for adding the spectrometer of Kishkovich et al to the filter of Iyer et al is to monitor the filter of Iyer et al as taught by Kishkovich et al and enable the apparatus of Iyer et al to: detect an amount of the etching byproduct adsorbed by the filter (claim 9); or detect a light signal to determine a timing to replace or wash the filter (claim 24).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add the spectrometer of Kishkovich et al to the filter of Iyer et al is to monitor the filter of Iyer et al as taught by Kishkovich et al and enable the apparatus of Iyer et al to: detect an amount of the etching byproduct adsorbed by the filter (claim 9); or detect a light signal to determine a timing to replace or wash the filter (claim 24).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al, DE 102022130723 A1, in view of Monereau et al, FR 2933313 A1.
Iyer et al was discussed above and includes a cartridge or sleeve type static filter.
Iyer et al differs from the present invention in that Iyer et al does not teach that the filter is an electrostatic filter.
Monereau et al teaches the use of an electrostatic filter or a cartridge or sleeve type static filter.
The motivation for replacing the cartridge or sleeve type static filter of Iyer et al with an electrostatic filter in the apparatus of Iyer et al is to provide an alternate and equivalent filter for use in the apparatus of Iyer et al as taught by Monereau et al.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the cartridge or sleeve type static filter of Iyer et al with an electrostatic filter in the apparatus of Iyer et al as taught by Monereau et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. The cited art contains patents that could be used to reject the claims under 35 USC § 102 or 103. These rejections have not been made because they do not provide any additional or different teachings, and if they were applied, would have resulted in an undue multiplication of references. (See MPEP 707.07(g))
DE 102022130724 A1 or KR 20200125276 A could be used to replace DE 102022130723 A1 in the above rejections.
CN 113993610 A; US 20210394116 A1 teach the use of a spectrometer.
KR 20200125276 A, US 7356378 B1 teaches the use of a multiple floor fab.
JP 2005506898 A teaches the use of an electrostatic filter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716