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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 5/15/2026 is acknowledged.
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) 1-4 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike [US 5746841].
Claim 1: Koike teaches a method for forming a passivating film onto a surface for use in a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus [abstract], wherein the method includes introducing an oxidizing gas into the chamber containing stainless steel [col 4, ln 45-50]; forming a passivation film on the inner surface of said chamber by means of said oxidizing gas [col 4, ln 55-60]. Although Koik does not explicitly teach the chamber is a heat treatment apparatus, since Koike teaches the chamber is for semiconductor manufacturing apparatus [col 4, ln 49], and performing a step of heating [col 6, ln 55-65] it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the apparatus capable of performing the heating step would meet the limitation of a heat treatment apparatus.
Claim 2: Koike teaches stopping gas supply into the gas and exhaust from said chamber to seal the oxidizing gas in said chamber for a predetermined waiting time period after introducing the oxidizing gas into the chamber [col 6, ln 50-63].
Claim 3: although Koike does not explicitly teach the waiting time period is not greater than half life of the oxidizing gas, since Koike teaches the treatment time is result effective of the thickness of the passivation film [col 6, ln 65-col 7, ln 10]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of waiting time such as to exceed the half life of the oxidizing gas as a result effective variable to control the thickness of the passivation film.
Claim 4: Koike teaches the heat source heats the oxidizing gas sealed in the chamber during the step [col 6, ln 45-60].
Claim 8: Koike teaches the pressure in said chamber is reduced before step (a) [col 6, ln 45-55].
Claim 9: Koike teaches the oxidizing gas is ozone [col 6, ln 51].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohmi [US 6612898].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the heat source heats an atmosphere between 100 degrees to 300 degrees. Ohmi is provided.
Claim 5: Ohmi teaches forming an oxidation-passive layer [abstract], where mixed gas atmosphere comprises ozone and can be heated from 20-300 degrees C [abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the treatment at the claimed range as suggested by Ohmi so as to improve the resistance of the passivation layer [col 5, ln 40-60].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Izumi [JP 2009084602].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 6. Izumi is provided
Claim 6: Izumi teaches that concentration, temperature, pressure and treatment time are correlated to forming the passive film [pg 5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize and determine the time period based upon all these dependent conditions in order to achieve the desired film results.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishimura [US 9067789] and Hishiya [US 7208428].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 7. Nishimura and Hishiya are provided.
Claim 7: Nishimura teaches abnormality of the ozone gas supply can be alerted to the operator for further steps [col 13, ln 15-30]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have abnormality detection as taught by Nishimura so as to improve process control management. However, the prior art does not appear to teach supplying nitrogen gas to the chamber to discharge the oxidizing gas. Hishiya is provided.
Hishiya teaches supplying nitrogen to discharge the oxidizing gas [col 5, ln 20-33]. It would have been obvious tone of ordinary skill in the art to use nitrogen to purge or discharge the ozone from the chamber as taught by Hishiya to improve process controls [col 2, ln 65 to col 3, ln 10].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Omori [US 20200075344].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 10. Omori is provided.
Claim 10: Omori teaches the heating of the wafer performed using halogen lamps and flash lamps [abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use both of these types of lamps to heat the substrate since Omori teaches this a known technique.
Conclusion
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
