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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaman [US 20050039680] in view of Okada [US 20200258748].
Claim 1: Beaman teaches a method for conditioning ALD chambers [title], wherein the method includes cleaning the surface of the process chamber (102) [Fig. 3], which can include a plasma etch of the chamber to clean the inside of the chamber using NF3 (flowing fluorine containing gas) [0028]. Beaman further teaches a purge gas flow may be used in conjunction with vacuum to purge any residual etchant from the chamber [0034], wherein Beaman teaches ethe purge gas may be supplied before the first (121) and second (122) gas flows [0034]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the purging gas after supplying the etchant NF3 to remove any residual etchant. Beaman also teaches supplying a first (121) and second (122) gas flow (a raw material gas and a reducing gas) into the processing chamber [0034] to form a precoat film [0033; 0038]. Beaman also teaches the purge gas can be supplied again after the first and second gas flows into the chamber [0034] and/or a reducing gas step [0035] prior to performing a deposition onto a subsequent substrate (140, 150,151) [Fig. 3; 0037-0038]. Beaman teaches the purge gas can be nitrogen [0041], where one of ordinary skill in the art could recognize as a reducing type of gas in light of the original specification. However, the prior art does not appear to teach wherein the reducing gas supplied in step b) and d) is NH3 gas and in step d) the NH3 gas is supplied from a buffer tank after being temporarily stored in the buffer tank, and the in b) the NH3 gas is not stored in a buffer tank before being supplied. Okada is provided.
Okada teaches a method of supplying gases into the processing chamber [abstract], wherein a reducing gas supply line is provided with a buffer tank that temporarily stores NH3 gases and supplies the necessary NH3 gas in a short time, wherein a valve controls the supply of the gas [0053]. Although the prior art does not explicitly teach NH3 not being stored prior to being supplied in step b) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the valve being open during a step would allow for the gas to flow without being stored before being supplied, where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose from a finite number of options of supplying the reducing gas to the process chamber, e.g. with the valved closed prior to supplying or valved opened prior to supplying.
Claim(s) 8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaman in view of Okada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagashima [EP0416400].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach all the limitations of claims 8, 11-13. Nagashima is also provided.
Claim 8: Nagashima teaches an improvement in cleaning a deposition chamber [abstract] by removing reacting fluorine residues [col 2, ln 16-30] by using reducing gases such as ammonia [col 3, ln 5-19]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supply a reducing gas such as ammonia as taught by Nagashima since reducing gas remove unwanted fluorine residues better than flushing with inert gases [col 1, ln 25-40]. Beaman teaches the reducing gas used for depositing on the substrate is ammonia [0069], and Nagashima teaches the reducing gas for removing fluorine residues is also ammonia [col 3, ln 5-19].
Claims 11: Again, Beaman teaches the reducing gas used for depositing on the substrate is ammonia [0069], and Nagashima teaches the reducing gas for removing fluorine residues is also ammonia [col 3, ln 5-19]. Beaman also teaches depositing the same coating as the pre-coat onto subsequent substrates using the same raw gases [0067-0070].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaman in view of Okada and Nagashima as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yu [WO2009134925].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the reducing gas is supplied at a constant. Yu is provided.
Claim 3: Yu a constant flow of a purge gas may be provided with alternating periods of pulsing and non-pulsing of raw material gases [00243].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a constant flow of the purging or reducing gases since Yu teaches such gas supplying technique with alternating supply of raw material is well known and operable in the vapor art.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaman in view of Okada, Nagashima and Yu as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Harada [KR20200035210].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach purging for three hours or more. Harada is provided.
Claim 4: Harada teaches that purging gases can be provided 5-10 hours [pg 12, para 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a purging period of three hours or more since Harada teaches such time ranges have been typical in the fluorine cleaning methods in the art.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaman in view of Okada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu [US 20140326276].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the claimed pressure range. Wu is provided.
Claim 6: Wu teaches the pressure in the process chamber may range from 10mTorr to about 300Torr [0040] where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a chamber pressure chamber of the claimed range since Wu teaches such chamber pressure is known in the pre cleaning field.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaman in view of Okada and Wu as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi [US 20210115560].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the ammonia gas is temporarily stored in a tank. Yamaguchi is provided.
Claim 7: Yamaguchi teaches ammonia source is stored in a storage tank before being supplied into the processing chamber [0067]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to temporarily stored in a tank as taught by Yamaguchi so as to stably supply the gases into the chamber at large flow rates [0067]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to flow the gases into the chamber in the same pressure range so as to maintain the desired pressure of the chamber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,3-4,6-8 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718