DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending. Non-elected Claims 3 & 9-16 are withdrawn. Claims 1-2 & 4-8 are examined on the merits.
Response to Amendments
The claim objections and the 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 12/19/2025 arguments (“Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as explained below.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, Applicant’s arguments address the GUIDOTTI reference individually (see Remarks at 12-13) and address the HE reference individually (see id.), but do not address the combination of GUIDOTTI and HE as articulated in ¶¶ 26-27 of the 9/19/2025 Non-Final Action. In particular, Applicant fails to address: (1) why it would’ve been obvious to modify GUIDOTTI to deposit GUIDOTTI’s TiN layer on top of GUIDOTTI’s metal oxide layer (see Non-Final at ¶ 26); or (2) why it would’ve been obvious to apply GUIDOTTI’s chamber-cleaning method to clean HE’s deposition chamber (see Non-Final at ¶ 27). Thus, Applicant does not present a sufficient rebuttal of the § 103 rejections.
Applicant contends that:
Guidotti merely discloses the material deposit 45 deposited on the substrate holder 20, and is silent on any heating film formed on the material deposit 45. On the other hand, He merely discloses a titanium nitride (TiN) layer covering a gate dielectric layer. (Remarks at 12)
These arguments are not persuasive because they do not accurately reflect the prior art teachings and do not address the heart of the § 103 rejections.
First, GUIDOTTI teaches that material deposit 45—formed on the substrate holder—can include multiple layers (see Non-Final at ¶ 20), such as a TiN layer (corresponding to the recited “heating film”) and a layer of metal oxide such as ZrO2 and HfO2 (corresponding to the recited “deposition film”). Thus, it’s not accurate to say that GUIDOTTI “is silent on any heating film formed on the material deposit 45,” when the § 103 rejection explains that material deposit 45 includes the TiN layer (the recited “heating film”).
Second, Applicant’s statement that “He merely discloses a titanium nitride (TiN) layer covering a gate dielectric layer” does not actually rebut the § 103 rejection (see Non-Final at ¶¶ 25-26, HE teaches the order of forming TiN layer on top of metal oxide layer).
Third, the Non-Final presented two possible ways to combine GUIDOTTI with HE, but
Applicant fails to address either of them. Regarding the first way, Applicant fails to address why it would’ve been obvious to modify GUIDOTTI to deposit GUIDOTTI’s TiN layer on top of GUIDOTTI’s metal oxide layer (see Non-Final at ¶ 26). Regarding the second way, Applicant fails to address why it would’ve been obvious to apply GUIDOTTI’s chamber-cleaning method to clean HE’s deposition chamber, which contains a TiN layer on top of a metal oxide layer (see Non-Final at ¶ 27). Thus, Applicant does not present a sufficient rebuttal.
Applicant contends that:
Guidotti discloses monitoring and controlling excessive temperature increases caused by exothermic reactions during the chamber cleaning process so as to prevent damage to chamber components. In contrast, the method recited in amended Claim 1 requires that, after heating the deposition film using the reaction heat generated by the reaction between the heating film and the cleaning gas, the deposition film is efficiently removed by the cleaning gas at a low temperature. (Remarks at 12).
This is not persuasive. First, the rejected claims do not recite “low temperature.” Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Second, the combination of GUIDOTTI and HE teaches the same cleaning gas (e.g., ClF3, HF, and NF3) and the same heating film (e.g., TiN film) as disclosed by the present application, so the combination teaches or reasonably suggests the same exothermic reaction between the heating film and the cleaning gas. See also Non-Final Action at ¶¶ 21-22.
Applicant contends that:
Guidotti is directed to a passive method of monitoring the temperature of the chamber system during the cleaning process and controlling the cleaning parameters, while amended Claim 1 is directed to an active method of heating the deposition film locally using the exothermic reaction between the heating film and the cleaning gas. (Remarks at 12)
These arguments are not persuasive. First, it’s unclear why GUIDOTTI’s cleaning method is passive but the claimed cleaning method is active, when both methods perform cleaning by supplying a halogen gas (ClF3, HF, NF3) into the processing space. Second, the claims do not recite anything about “passive” or “active,” and the arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Third, GUIDOTTI teaches the same cleaning gas (ClF3, HF, NF3) and the same heating film (TiN) as the present application, and explicitly states that the cleaning reaction is exothermic (see Non-Final at ¶ 22).
Applicant’s remaining arguments (see Remarks at 13) are directed to the dependent claims, but do not present anything tailored for those dependent claims.
Examiner’s Comments
The prior art references cited in the “Relevant Prior Art” section below may be used to generate various sets of 35 USC § 103 rejections, although these rejections are not made at this time to avoid overly burdening Applicant. For example, the claims may be rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over:
GUIDOTTI (US PGPUB 20050279384) in view of CLARK et al. (US PGPUB 20200035493);
MORITA et al. (US PGPUB 20150368794) in view of HE et al. (Chinese Publication CN103426767A);
MORITA et al. in view of CLARK et al.;
HERRING et al. (US PGPUB 20030216041) in view of HE et al.;
HERRING et al. in view of CLARK et al.
These references may be used for § 103 rejections in a future Office Action, depending on the claim amendment and/or Applicant’s reply.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUIDOTTI (US PGPUB 20050279384), in view of HE et al. (Chinese Publication CN103426767A, as translated by Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 1, GUIDOTTI teaches a method of performing a cleaning to remove a deposition film deposited during a substrate processing (see, e.g., abstract, ¶¶ 0004, 0018, 0027-28, 0031, 0043, claims 1-22, Figs. 3A-3B, 7).
When depositing films/layers on a substrate, those films/layers are also deposited on the substrate holder holding the substrate (see ¶ 0027, material deposit 45 formed on the substrate holder comes from a deposition process where a material is deposited onto the substrate; see also ¶¶ 0002-03, processing of substrates—deposition processes in particular—can result in formation of a material deposit on a substrate holder).
GUIDOTTI teaches that the deposition film (one of the layers in material deposit 45, see ¶¶ 0027-28) is deposited on a surface of a device (e.g., substrate holder 20) arranged in a space where the processing is performed (interior space of process chamber 10, see abstract, Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0003, 0018, 0027).
GUIDOTTI teaches that material deposit 45—formed on substrate holder 20 (i.e., the recited “device”)—includes multiple layers (see ¶ 0028), such as a layer of a metal nitride like titanium nitride (TiN) and a layer of a metal oxide such as zirconium oxide (ZrO2) or hafnium oxide (HfO2) (see ¶ 0028). The TiN layer corresponds to the recited “heating film” and the metal oxide layer (e.g., ZrO2, HfO2) corresponds to the recited “deposition film.”
Because material deposit 45—which includes TiN layer and metal oxide layer—comes from film deposition/forming processes (see ¶¶ 0002-03, 0027), GUIDOTTI teaches a step of forming the heating film (TiN) and a step of forming the deposition film (ZrO2, HfO2).
GUIDOTTI’s method comprises supplying a cleaning gas (e.g., ClF3, HF, NF3, see ¶ 0031) to the heating film to remove the heating film (see abstract, ¶¶ 0004, 0018, 0029, 0031, 0043, the material deposit is exposed to the cleaning gas for removal/cleaning; as explained above, the material deposit may comprise TiN layer), wherein the heating film (TiN layer) undergoes a temperature increase due to a reaction heat generated by a reaction between the heating film and the cleaning gas (see abstract, ¶¶ 0031, 0036-37, Fig. 5, exothermic reaction between the cleaning gas and the material deposit, which includes the TiN layer).
GUIDOTTI’s method comprises supplying the cleaning gas (e.g., ClF3, HF, NF3) to the deposition film to remove the deposition film (see abstract, ¶¶ 0004, 0018, 0029, 0031, 0043, the material deposit is exposed to the cleaning gas for removal/cleaning; as explained above, the material deposit may comprise a layer of metal oxide such as ZrO2 or HfO2).
Although GUIDOTTI does not explicitly teach that the TiN layer (“heating film”) is formed “by supplying a heating film forming gas,” this is still reasonably suggested by GUIDOTTI. GUIDOTTI teaches that the material deposit (formed on the substrate holder) may come from chemical vapor deposition (CVD) or atomic layer deposition (ALD) (see ¶ 0002), which are gas-based deposition processes just like the ones disclosed by the present application (see specification at ¶¶ 0059-60, using CVD or ALD to form the heating film). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect GUIDOTTI’s TiN layer (“heating film”) to be formed by supplying a heating film forming gas.
Alternatively, if GUIDOTTI’s teachings do not clearly envisage forming the TiN layer by supplying a heating film forming gas, it still would’ve been obvious to do so, because such technique is well known in the prior art. HE teaches forming a TiN layer by supplying gases like TiCl4 and NH3 (see HE at ¶¶ 0071, 0101). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
GUIDOTTI does not explicitly teach:
the heating film (e.g., TiN layer) is formed “on an upper surface of” the deposition film (e.g., layer of ZrO2 or HfO2);
“heating the deposition film on a lower surface of the heating film by the temperature increase” underwent by the heating film, i.e., the deposition film has “an increased temperature due to the heating the deposition film”;
the deposition film is removed “after the heating film is removed.”
But it’s well known in the prior art to first perform a step of forming a metal oxide layer (e.g., ZrO2 or HfO2) (see HE at Figs. 4 & 17, ¶¶ 0057-58, 0099) followed by a step of forming a titanium nitride (TiN) layer on top of the metal oxide layer (see id. at Figs. 4 & 17, ¶¶ 0059-60, 0100). In other words, the residue or deposit material formed inside the chamber would include a layer of TiN formed on top of a layer of metal oxide (e.g., ZrO2 or HfO2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify GUIDOTTI such that the deposit material includes a layer of TiN (i.e., “heating film”) formed on top of a layer of metal oxide (i.e., “deposited film”), with reasonable expectation of cleaning the chamber. GUIDOTTI already teaches that the deposit material may include multiple layers, such as a metal nitride layer (e.g., TiN) and a metal oxide layer (e.g., ZrO2 or HfO2), and it’s already well known in the art for the TiN layer to form on top of the metal oxide layer (see HE). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
Alternatively, it would’ve been obvious to apply GUIDOTTI’s chamber-cleaning method to clean HE’s processing chamber—in which a titanium nitride (TiN) layer has been formed on top of a metal oxide layer (e.g., ZrO2 or HfO2)—with reasonable expectation of cleaning the chamber. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, C. Just like GUIDOTTI’s chamber, HE’s chamber also deposits films (made of TiN, ZrO2, HfO2) on the substrates and on the interior surfaces of the chamber. Thus, applying GUIDOTTI’s chamber-cleaning method to clean HE’s chamber in the same manner—i.e., using a halogen gas to react with and remove films/residues in the chamber—would’ve been readily obvious.
In the resulting combination of GUIDOTTI and HE:
the heating film (TiN layer) would be formed on an upper surface of the deposition film (ZrO2 or HfO2 layer), i.e., the deposition film would be on a lower surface of the heating film;
because the cleaning gas (ClF3, HF, NF3) supplied into the chamber would be exposed to the heating film (TiN layer) first, the cleaning gas would remove the heating film first, i.e., the cleaning gas would remove the deposition film—which is underneath the heating film—after the heating film is removed; and
because the cleaning process is an exothermic reaction (as explained above), the cleaning gas would first react with the heating film to generate a temperature increase that heats the deposition film underneath the heating film, i.e., the deposition film would have “an increased temperature due to the heating the deposition film.”
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of GUIDOTTI and HE teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the cleaning gas includes a halogen compound gas (e.g., ClF3, HF, NF3, see GUIDOTTI at ¶ 0031).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of GUIDOTTI and HE teaches the method of claim 4. The combination teaches that the cleaning gas includes a gas containing at least one halogen compound selected from a halogen compound group consisting of ClF3, HF, and NF3 (see GUIDOTTI at ¶ 0031).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of GUIDOTTI and HE teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches that the heating film (e.g., TiN) is a compound containing a metal (e.g., titanium) and N (see GUIDOTTI at ¶ 0028, metal nitride).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of GUIDOTTI and HE teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches that the substrate processing is a film forming process of forming a film on a substrate (see GUIDOTTI at ¶¶ 0002-03, 0027, when depositing films on the substrate, those films are also deposited on the interior surfaces of the chamber).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of GUIDOTTI and HE teaches the method of claim 7. The combination teaches the film formed by the film forming process is a zirconium oxide film or a hafnium oxide film (when depositing films on the substrate, those films are also deposited on the interior surfaces of the chamber, see GUIDOTTI at ¶¶ 0002-03, 0027), wherein the residue or material deposit includes ZrO2 or HfO2 (see GUIDOTTI at ¶ 0028).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of GUIDOTTI and HE (as applied to Claim 1 above), in further view of HIROCHI et al. (US Patent 9018689).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of GUIDOTTI and HE teaches the method of claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches forming the heating film (TiN layer). The combination also teaches that it’s well known in the substrate processing art to clean the chamber at a fixed interval (see GUIDOTTI at ¶ 0003).
The combination does not explicitly teach the step of forming the heating film is performed “during a period after the processing is terminated.”
But it’s well known in the art to use the processing chamber to perform film deposition on a plurality of substrates, before the chamber gets cleaned. See HIROCHI at Fig. 2, col. 10 lines 13-30 (the steps of unloading a wafer and loading a subsequent wafer are repeated for several times before the chamber gets cleaned). This means that, when film deposition is performed on a second/third/fourth/etc. substrate, the processing on the first substrate has already terminated. In other words, HIROCHI teaches forming a film during a period after the processing (of an earlier substrate) is terminated.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of GUIDOTTI and HE such that film deposition is performed on a plurality of substrates before the chamber gets cleaned, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the chamber. GUIDOTTI already teaches that it’s well known in the art to clean the chamber at a fixed interval (see GUIDOTTI at ¶ 0003). And it’s also well known to use the processing chamber to perform film deposition on a plurality of substrates before the chamber gets cleaned, i.e., form a film during a period after the processing (of an earlier substrate) is terminated (see HIROCHI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art—made of record and not relied upon—are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Using a halogen compound gas (e.g., ClF3, HF, NF3) to remove metal nitride residues and metal oxide residues:
MORITA et al. (US PGPUB 20150368794) teaches using a halogen compound gas (e.g., ClF3, HF, NF3, see ¶ 0112) to remove metal nitride residues and metal oxide residues (see ¶¶ 0209, 0213, 0220, 0224, 0241) from a processing chamber.
HERRING et al. (US PGPUB 20030216041) teaches using a halogen compound gas (e.g., ClF3, HF, NF3, see claims 10, 19) to remove TiN residue and ZrO2 residue (see ¶ 0027) from a processing chamber.
Forming a metal nitride film on top of a metal oxide film:
CLARK et al. (US PGPUB 20200035493) teaches forming a metal nitride (e.g., TiN) film on top of a metal oxide film (see ¶¶ 0134, 0136, Fig. 6).
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 RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714