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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 3/12/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claim 13. Claims 1-5, 11-13, 15-26 are pending with claims 1-5, 11-12, 15-21 withdrawn from consideration due to an election of species requirement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are directed to newly added claim requirements that are specifically addressed hereinafter and thus the arguments are deemed moot.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pressure of the first portion (between 1 Torr to 700 Torr) and a pressure of the second portion (lower than the first portion and between 0.1 Torr to 100 Torr).
However, JP 159 discloses adjusting the pressure in the lines such that the lines include a pressure difference (see page 11) and therefore it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum pressure in the line section to control the flow of gases (i.e. gases flow from high pressure to lower pressure regions). Additionally, the examiner cites here Tseng, which discloses the adjusting the pressure in the exhaust pipe during cleaning such that the pressure in the chamber is higher than the pressure in the exhaust path (0048-0049) and discloses that doing such provides the benefits that the cleaning gases will not flow back to the process chamber. As such, JP 159 discloses the chamber pressure is normal (i.e. atmospheric) and Tseng discloses the relative pressure between the exhaust will have a direct effect on the gas flow and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a lower pressure, including those as claimed, in the exhaust path to reap the benefits of preventing the cleaning gas from flowing backwards to the chamber. The degree of pressure would be recognized a result effective variable directly affecting the process, too high a pressure difference will result in increased gas flow velocity and too low a pressure difference (or none at all) will result in the gas flow being stagnant. It would have been obvious to have determined the optimum pressure differential between the various sections to control the cleaning gas flow.
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2013153159, hereinafter JP 159 taken with 20170053783 by Tseng et al. and US Patent Application Publication 20200263295 by Miyahara et al. taken collectively with KR-100642528-B1, hereinafter KR 528.
JP 159 discloses a vapor phase growth method using a vapor phase growth apparatus including a reactor, an exhaust pump discharging a gas from the reactor, a pressure control valve adjusting a pressure in the reactor (242, see e.g. film formation process, pressure adjustment), and an exhaust pipe having a first portion provided between the reactor and the pressure control valve and a second portion provided between the pressure control valve and the exhaust pump (see e.g. Figure 2 and accompanying text),
JP 159 discloses a method comprising: loading a first substrate into the reactor, heating the first substrate to a predetermined temperature, supplying a process gas at a predetermined flow rate, and forming a silicon carbide film on a surface of the first substrate (“substrate loading process”, “temperature adjustment” and “film formation process”, silicon carbide is taught in “other embodiments of the present invention”) and depositing a by-product in at least the second portion by adjusting a pressure in the reactor to a predetermined pressure by controlling the pressure control valve (page 9, “knowledge obtained by the inventors” stating byproducts and unreacted components deposit in the exhaust); unloading the first substrate from the reactor (“substrate unloading process”, page 8); removing the by-product by supplying a gas including a gas containing fluorine (page 5, “ClF-3” or NF3) to at least the second portion by controlling a pressure in the exhaust pipe (“detailed of cleaning process”); and loading a second substrate into the reactor to form a silicon carbide film on a surface of the second substrate after the removing the by-product (inherent in the cleaning process and use of the process chamber). Additionally, JP 159 discloses the cleaning process to extend the lifetime of the chamber (see e.g. page 13) and adjusting the frequency of the cleaning steps with respect to processing steps (page 13) and therefore it would have been obvious to have, after cleaning, to use the chamber and deposit another layer of SiC.
JP 159 cleaning gas supply pipe and the cleaning gas is connected and supplied between the reactor and the abatement system to the exhaust pipe (abatement apparatus 248 on Figure 2)(Figure 2 and accompanying text). JP 159 discloses gas containing fluorine is chlorine trifluoride (page 5) from the cleaning gas supply pipe.
JP 159 discloses the contamination, reaction byproducts and unreacted gases are deposited within the exhaust and discloses using such for a SiC deposition and while the film includes carbon and therefore it would be inferred that the deposits include carbon, JP 159 fails to explicitly disclose the carbon comprising deposit in the exhaust. However, Tseng also discloses a Semiconductor processing, including depositing SiC on the substrate (0013) and cleaning an exhaust and disclose contaminants include materials that include carbon (see 0038) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to remove contaminants, including those that have carbon, as such would have been recognized as a material that deposits on the exhaust during SiC deposition.
Additionally, the examiner cites here Miyahara, who discloses the SiC deposition using precursors gases and discloses that the exhaust line include carbon materials that are removed by cleaning gases (0050) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to remove any carbon based by products in the exhaust line as JP 159 discloses removing byproducts in the exhaust line for SiC deposition and Miyahara discloses such by products include carbon materials.
JP 159 discloses a gas supply port connected to the reactor for supplying inert gas to the chamber (See Figure 2 and accompanying text, 300c); however, fails to disclose supplying inert gas to the chamber while supplying the cleaning gas. However, Miyahara, at 0050-0051, discloses supplying a cleaning gas to the exhaust line and supplying inert gas to the reaction tube and exhausted. Miyahara discloses the use of the inert gas to flow from the supply through the chamber prevents the cleaning gas from entering the reaction chamber during the cleaning of the exhaust. Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to have modified JP159 with Tseng to supply the inert gas during the exhaust line cleaning to reap the benefits of preventing the cleaning gas from entering the chamber.
As for the requirement of a storage portion and detaching the storage portion and by-products remaining are removed using a chemical solution, the examiner cites here KR 528, also in the art of semiconductor processing, including fabrication and thin film deposition (Background) and byproducts generated during the deposition and cleaning are exhausted through an exhaust line and depositing into the various exhaust components to cause problems such as device, shortening the lifespan and affecting the wafer process (Background). KR 528 discloses including a storage unit for collecting the various byproducts and discloses that as the reaction byproducts are collected the flow of the gas through the storage unit can become narrowed and affect the pressure control. KR 528 discloses separating the collecting device, i.e. storage unit (“By installing several trap units, if a certain amount of by-product is collected in one trap unit, it can be automatically switched to another trap unit which has already been cleaned”, see Tech-Problem). KR 528 discloses by-products with the storage portion are removed using a chemical solution to as to provide a storage unit to be reused for additional processing (i.e. prior to loading a second substrate into the chamber, here the detachment and cleaning will occur prior to deposition onto another substrate in the future, based on the use of the chamber for processing, and such another substrate can read on the broadly drafted second substrate), see page 17, stating “The process of supplying a certain amount of washing water into the water and maintaining the state for a set time (ie, 2-5 minutes) to dissolve the byproduct into the washing water” Therefore taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have included a storage portion to collect by-products and detaching the storage unit to clean with a chemical solution to achieve the benefits as outlined by KR 528.
Additionally, KR 528 discloses the utilization of the storage unit in the exhaust, detachment and cleaning as instantly claimed are known and predictable in the art in the semiconductor processing, including vapor deposition, and using such a known and predictable mechanism in the exhaust would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Additionally, 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 would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d.A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
As for the requirement of the pressure during the removal of the by-products, JP 159 discloses adjusting the pressure in the lines such that the lines include a pressure difference (see page 11) and therefore it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum pressure in the line sections to control the flow of gases (i.e. gases flow from high pressure to lower pressure regions). Additionally, the examiner cites here Tseng, which discloses the adjusting the pressure in the exhaust pipe during cleaning such that the pressure in the chamber is higher then the pressure in the exhaust path (0048-0049) and discloses that doing such provides the benefits that the cleaning gases will not flow back to the process chamber. As such, JP 159 discloses the chamber pressure is normal (i.e. atmospheric) and Tseng discloses the relative pressure between the exhaust will have a direct effect on the gas flow and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provides a lower pressure, including those as claimed, in the exhaust path to reap the benefits of preventing the cleaning gas from flowing backwards to the chamber. The degree of pressure would be recognized a result effective variable directly affecting the process, too high a pressure difference will result in increased gas flow velocity and too low a pressure difference (or none at all) will result in the gas flow being stagnant. It would have been obvious to have determined the optimum pressure differential between the various sections to control the cleaning gas flow.
Here, the determination of the optimum pressure, including those as claimed, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation to properly control the flow of gases through the exhaust. P 159 discloses adjusting the pressure in the lines such that the lines include a pressure difference (see page 11) and therefore it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum pressure in the line sections to control the flow of gases (i.e. gases flow from high pressure to lower pressure regions).
Claim 22: JP 159 discloses gas containing fluorine is chlorine trifluoride (Page 5)
Claim 23: JP 159 discloses the vapor phase growth apparatus further includes an abatement system (abatement apparatus 248 on Figure 2, page 11, Figure 2 and accompanying text), the exhaust pipe has a third portion provided between the exhaust pump and the abatement system (abatement apparatus 248 on Figure 2, see Figure 2), and when supplying a gas including the gas containing fluorine in the removing the by-product.
JP 159 fails to disclose a pressure in the third portion is controlled to be 95% or more of atmospheric pressure and be a negative pressure with respect to the atmospheric pressure. However, JP 159 discloses adjusting the pressure in the lines such that the lines include a pressure difference (see page 11) and therefore it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum pressure in the line section to control the flow of gases (i.e. gases flow from high pressure to lower pressure regions). Additionally, the examiner cites here Tseng, which discloses the adjusting the pressure in the exhaust pipe during cleaning such that the pressure in the chamber is higher then the pressure in the exhaust path (0048-0049) and discloses that doing such provides the benefits that the cleaning gases will not flow back to the process chamber. As such, JP 159 discloses the chamber pressure is normal (i.e. atmospheric) and Tseng discloses the relative pressure between the exhaust will have a direct effect on the gas flow and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provides a lower pressure, including those as claimed, in the exhaust path to reap the benefits of preventing the cleaning gas from flowing backwards to the chamber. The degree of pressure would be recognized a result effective variable directly affecting the process, too high a pressure difference will result in increased gas flow velocity and too low a pressure difference (or none at all) will result in the gas flow being stagnant. It would have been obvious to have determined the optimum pressure differential between the various sections to control the cleaning gas flow.
Claim 24: JP 159 discloses adjusting the opening degree of the valve (page 9) and such can reasonably be considered to be “based” on a pressure in the first portion as such is designed to prevent the backflow of gases.
Claim 25: JP 159 discloses dichlorosilane (page 3)
Claim 26: JP 159 discloses an abatement system (abatement apparatus 248 on Figure 2) and cleaning gas supply pipe and the cleaning gas is connected and supplied between the pump and the abatement system (abatement apparatus 248 on Figure 2, Figure 2 and accompanying text). JP 159 discloses gas containing fluorine is chlorine trifluoride (page 5).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights