DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18518862 application filed November 24, 2023, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on December 16, 2025. Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-18 and 21-22 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 4, 15 and 19-20 acknowledged.
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 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-18 and 21-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hudson et al. (PCT/US2020/043138, published February 4, 2021, referred here as U.S. PGPub. No. 20220254616), hereinafter “Hudson”: --Claims 1, 14: Hudson teaches a method of chamber clean (Fig. 3B), comprisingperforming a CWAC operation comprising i) providing a plasma chamber having a chuck 106 comprising a lower electrode ([0099]), and an upper electrode 212 facing the chuck 106 (Fig. 2A, [0079-0081, 0134]),wherein the chuck 106 is adjacent to an edge ring 102 ([0112], Fig. 3A);ii) placing a dummy substrate S1 on a chuck 106, such that the dummy substrate S1 has an overhang portion 304 over the chuck 106 ([0112], Fig. 3A);iii) supply one or more process gases into the chamber ([0113]);iv) supply RF power to the chuck 106 to generate a plasma to remove residues on the walls of the chamber and components inside the chamber ([0114]), wherein RF power is not supplied to the edge ring 102 ([0115]);v) after a predetermined amount of time, stopping the supply of the gases and RF powerthen performing a PER WAC operation ([0111, 0118]), comprisingvi) lifting the dummy substrate S1 to a distance above the chuck 106 by using a lift pin (Fig. 3B, [0119, 0124-0125]);vii) supply one or more process gases, such as “oxygen, nitrogen, argon, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and the fluorine-based gas, and a combination of two or more thereof”, into the chamber, wherein the amount of the fluorine-based gas may be less than the amount of the fluorine-based gas supplied in step ii), wherein the fluorine-based gas may include NF3 or CF4 ([0088, 0101, 0118]);viii) RF power signal 134 from a source power supply 110 to the edge ring 102 to generate a plasma to remove residues in pockets between the chuck 106 and the edge ring 102 ([0015, 0021, 0037, 0053, Fig. 1B]), wherein the RF power 156 may comprise a frequency, such as 58-62 MHz, that is higher than the RF power 110; for examples, the RF power signal 170 has a frequency 27 MHz and the RF power signal 134 has a frequency 400 KHz, or the RF power signal 170 has a frequency 27 MHz and the RF power signal 134 has a frequency 2 MHz ([0056]); ix) after a predetermined amount of time, stopping the supply of the gases and RF power ([0102-0110]). Hudson further teaches that the RF power to the chuck 106 may be in a pulsed RF signal comprising multiple state, such as a first state for a first time period at a first power level and a second state for a second time period at a second power level ([0065]). Hudson further teaches that the process gases supplied during the CWAC operation is different than the process gases supplied during the PER WAC process, such as the a cleaning agent in the process gases supplied during the CWAC operation has a higher amount than a cleaning agent in the process gases supplied during the PER WAC operation, or such as a fluorine-based gas in the process gases supplied during the CWAC operation has a higher amount of fluorine than a fluorine-based gas in the process gases supplied during the PER WAC operation ([0113, 0012, 0118]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to performing the chamber clean performing a CWAC operation for a predetermined amount of time, comprising (a) providing RF power to the chuck 106 for a first time period at a first power level then (b) providing RF power to the chuck 106 for a a second time period at a second power level, then performing a PER WAC operation for a predetermined amount of time, comprising (c) providing RF power to the chuck 106 for a third time period at a third power level then (d) providing RF power to the chuck 106 for a fourth time period at a fourth power level, wherein the time periods are different from each other and/or the power levels are different from each other. It is noted that claim 1 does not require the first process gas, the second processing gas, and the third processing gas to be different from each other. It is noted that steps (a), (b), and (d) correspond to the first clean operation, the modification operation, and the second operation, respectively.--Claims 2, 3, 14: It is noted that the process gases supplied during the PER WAC operation include “oxygen, nitrogen, argon, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and the fluorine-based gas, and a combination of two or more thereof”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use process gases that include oxygen in the CWAC operation, wherein the oxygen has a higher amount that an oxygen supplied during the PER WAC operation.--Claim 5, 16: It is noted that steps (c) correspond to the dummy substrate processing operation.--Claims 6, 7: It is noted that the process gases supplied during the PER WAC operation include “oxygen, nitrogen, argon, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and the fluorine-based gas, and a combination of two or more thereof”.--Claims 8, 12: It is noted that the performing a PER WAC operation ([0111, 0118]) comprises lifting the dummy substrate S1 to a distance above the chuck 106 by using a lift pin (Fig. 3B, [0119, 0124-0125]);--Claims 9, 13, 21, 22: Hudson further teaches that, after the chamber clean, a production substrate S2 is processed in the chamber ([0152]), then removed from the chamber at the end of the processing ([0160]).. Although Hudson fails to teach the claimed feature of moving the dummy substrate S1 from the chamber to a substrate storage place, since the chamber is a single substrate processing chamber, such moving the dummy substrate S1 would be obvious and necessary.--Claims 10, 17: Hudson teaches that during the PER WAC process the substrate S1 is lifted from the chuck by a lift pin (Fig. 3B, [0119, 0124-0125]), and RF power is not supplied to the chuck ([0049]). Hudson further teaches to protect chamber components, such as the chuck from plasma damage ([0041-0042, 0118]). Since Fig. 3B, 3C and 4 does not show any plasma formed between the chuck and the dummy substrate S1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to perform the PER WAC process such that plasma is not formed between the chuck and the dummy substrate S1.--Claims 11, 18: Although Hudson is silent about a distance that the lift pin lifts the substrate S1 above the chuck, since Hudson teaches to protect the chuck from plasma damage and Fig. 3B, 3C and 4 does not show any plasma formed between the chuck and the dummy substrate S1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the distance between the dummy S1 and the chuck, such as 1 mm or less, because it’s been well established that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2025 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that Hudson fails to teach the amended feature of claim 1, this arguments is not persuasive. Hudson clearly teach the amended feature, considering each phase of the pulse RF signal to be a step during the cleaning, as explained above. Accordingly, the modification step is clearly different and performed at a different time than the first cleaning and the second cleaning operation. Per Applicant’s request, the Office action has been modified to clearly provide the evidences that show the claims read on the prior art.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713