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 1-5 and 11 in the reply filed on 10/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09/03/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The references listed on IDS mailed on 09/03/2025 are considered with exception of the Korean Office Action mailed on June 25, 2025, because no English translation has been provided for this reference.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20140001023 to Lee (hereinafter “Lee”, see attached English translation) in view of US 2002/0189636 to Sun (hereinafter “Sun”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a method for dry-cleaning an aluminum nitride (AlN) heater for semiconductor fabrication equipment, comprising the step of introducing a fluorine-based NF3 gas into the chamber in a radical form, wherein aluminum fluoride is generated in the AlN heater by the NF3 gas used for cleaning the chamber cleaning after a process (English translation page 2, lines 8-10, and 21-22).
Lee does not teach the steps of determining a laser to be used for the AlN heater, determining laser control factors required for cleaning the AlN heater with respect to the laser to be used determined in the step of determining the laser to be used, and cleaning the AlN heater by laser irradiation based on the laser control factors determined in the step of determining the laser control factors.
Sun teaches a method for cleaning a process chamber (abstract). Sun teaches that residues generated by cleaning gases are often formed by the use of fluoridated compounds in certain cleaning processes, and that residues such as aluminum fluoride are formed on the interior surfaces of the chamber and the chamber's components [0011]. Sun teaches the steps of introducing at least one fluorine-containing cleaning gas to the process chamber, or at least one fluorine-containing precursor gas to a remote chamber, activating the fluorine-containing precursor gas in the remote chamber to generate reactive species and introducing the reactive species into the process chamber, and applying at least one high power density laser beam having a wavelength range from about 190 nm to about 10 µm to the process chamber, wherein the high power density laser beam assists in the dissociation of the fluorine-containing cleaning gas or the reactive species in the process chamber, thereby achieving cleaning activity of the fluorine-containing cleaning gas in the process chamber [0011, 0021, and 0043]. Moreover, Sun teaches that the selection of the source of irradiation used depends upon the desired radiation energy and wavelength, wherein the preferred wavelength depends on the molecular species being removed and the resonance states of such species [0049]. Furthermore, Sun teaches that depending upon the application, the light energy from the laser sources may range from deep ultraviolet to infrared, with corresponding wavelengths from 193 nm to 10 µm ([0049], and table 1 of Sun).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lee with the steps of determining a laser to be used for the AlN heater, determining laser control factors required for cleaning the AlN heater with respect to the laser to be used determined in the step of determining the laser to be used, and cleaning the AlN heater by laser irradiation based on the laser control factors determined in the step of determining the laser control factors, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Sun teaches that it is effective to cleaning the interior surfaces of a chamber and chamber's components by laser irradiation based on laser control factors determined to prevent the formation or ensure the removal of residues such as aluminum fluoride formed on the interior surfaces of the chamber and the chamber's components by cleaning gases ([0011, and 0049], and table 1), wherein the selection of the source of irradiation used depends upon the desired radiation energy and wavelength, and on the molecular species being removed and the resonance states of such species [0049], and that the light energy from the laser sources may range from deep ultraviolet to infrared, with corresponding wavelengths from 193 nm to 10 µm ([0049], and table 1 of Sun).
Regarding claim 2, Lee/Sun teaches that the laser to be used can have a wavelength range from about 190 nm to about 10 µm, lasers such as ArF pulsed (193 wavelength) (UV laser), and CO2 laser (10600 wavelength) (infrared laser) ([0011] and table 1 of Sun).
Regarding claim 3, Lee/Sun teaches that the laser to be used can have a wavelength range from about 190 nm to about 10 µm, laser such as CO2 laser (10600 wavelength) (infrared laser) ([0011] and table 1 of Sun).
However, Lee/Sun does not teach that the step of determining the laser control factors determines a frequency of 1 kHz to 1,000 kHz, a power of 50 W to 1,000 W, a scan speed of 1,000 mm/s to 50,000 mm/s, and an output density satisfying the claimed equation.
The frequency of the laser is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the frequency is too low, it risks insufficient prevention or removal of contaminants/residues, while if the frequency is too high, it risks safety and equipment damage. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate frequency of the laser with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
In addition, the power of the laser is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the power is too low, it risks insufficient prevention or removal of contaminants/residues, while if the power is too high, it risks safety and equipment damage. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate power of the laser with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Moreover, the scan speed of the laser is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the scan speed is too low, it risks longer processing times, while if the scan speed is too high, it risks insufficient or incomplete material processing, risking the prevention or removal of contaminants/residues. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate scan speed of the laser with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Furthermore, the output density of the laser is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the output density is too low, it risks insufficient prevention or removal of contaminants/residues, while if the output density is too high, it risks safety and equipment damage. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate output density of the laser with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 4, Lee/Sun teaches that the laser to be used can have a wavelength range from about 190 nm to about 10 µm, laser such as ArF laser (193 wavelength) (UV laser) ([0011] and table 1 of Sun).
However, Lee/Sun does not teach that the step of determining the laser control factors determines a frequency of 1 kHz to 1,000 kHz, a power of 0.1 W to 100 W, a scan speed of 1,000 mm/s to 50,000 mm/s, and an output density satisfying the claimed equation.
The frequency of the laser is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the frequency is too low, it risks insufficient prevention or removal of contaminants/residues, while if the frequency is too high, it risks safety and equipment damage. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate frequency of the laser with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
In addition, the power of the laser is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the power is too low, it risks insufficient prevention or removal of contaminants/residues, while if the power is too high, it risks safety and equipment damage. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate power of the laser with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Moreover, the scan speed of the laser is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the scan speed is too low, it risks longer processing times, while if the scan speed is too high, it risks insufficient or incomplete material processing, risking the prevention or removal of contaminants/residues. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate scan speed of the laser with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Furthermore, the output density of the laser is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the output density is too low, it risks insufficient prevention or removal of contaminants/residues, while if the output density is too high, it risks safety and equipment damage. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate output density of the laser with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 5, Lee/Sun does not teach that the output density is 0.3 × 10-3 to 1.2 × 106 kW/cm2.
However, the output density of the laser is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the output density is too low, it risks insufficient prevention or removal of contaminants/residues, while if the output density is too high, it risks safety and equipment damage. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate output density of the laser with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 11, Lee/Sun does not teach that the output density is 0.3 × 10-3 to 1.2 × 106 kW/cm2.
However, the output density of the laser is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the output density is too low, it risks insufficient prevention or removal of contaminants/residues, while if the output density is too high, it risks safety and equipment damage. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate output density of the laser with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLYN I RIVERA-CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)270-7680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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.
/A.I.R/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714