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
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamhankar et al (US 5,417,742) in view of Yang et al (US 5,976,222), further in view of Siegele et al ‘321 (US 2010/0089321) (newly cited) or DICKINSON et al) US 2016/0089630) (newly cited) or Sommer et al (US 2013/0023126) (newly cited).
.Regarding claim 1, Tamhankar et al disclose a system for removing perfluorocarbons from gas streams wherein a chamber is cleaned by introducing a perfluorocarbon and oxygen into the chamber under plasma conditions, and wherein the perfluorocarbons not converted in the reactor are subjected to a pressure swing adsorption process and removed from the effluent and recycled. (See col. 2, lines 13-59.) The difference between the system disclosed by Tamhankar et al, and that recited in claims 1, 3 and 8-12 , is that Tamhankar et al do not disclose a chemical adsorption filter upstream or downstream of the PSA filter, along with a remote plasma source. Yang et al disclose a system for recovering perfluorinated compounds from the exhaust of semiconductor manufacture (see the Abstract), and teach in the paragraph bridging columns 7 and 8 that the adsorption system 32 can use carbon, polymeric or zeolitic adsorbents, which would be chemical adsorbents. It would be obvious from Yang et al to provide a chemical adsorption filter upstream or downstream of the PSA filter of Tamhankar et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Tamhankar et al disclose in col. 4, lines 44-49 that various gas treatment units such as filters may be located in the system between units C and D, between units D and E, or in line 14, to remove particulates and soluble components from the system. One would appreciate that the carbon, polymeric or zeolitic adsorbents disclosed by Yang et al would be suitable as the chemical filters of Tamhankar et al, since the system of Yang et al is directed to removing perfluorinated compounds from a gas stream, which is analogous to the system of Tamhankar. It would be further obvious from Sommer et al or DICKINSON et al or Siegele et al ‘321 to include a remote plasma source in the system of Tamhankar et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Tamhankar et al teach at col. 2, lines 39-43 that the cleaning process takes place under plasma conditions, and Sommer et al DICKSON et al and Siegele et al ‘321 all establish the conventionality of providing remote plasmas, as opposed to a plasma within the chamber) to provide plasma conditions for gas purification. (See Paragraph [0055] of Siegele et al ‘321, Paragraph [0006] of DICKENSON et al, and Paragraph [0022] of Sommer et al.)
Regarding claim 3, Tamhankar et al disclose in Table 1 that C2F6 is the fluorocarbon which is removed.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Tamhankar et al disclose at col. 4, lines 44-49 that the additional treatment unit can be in the form of a filter or solvent wash scrubber. The carbon, polymeric or zeolitic adsorbents disclosed at col. 9, lines 16-20 of Yang et al would typically be in the form of granules.
Regarding claim 10, it would be obvious to remove SiF4 in the process of Tamhankar et al, since Yang et al include non-carbon containing compounds as “fluorochemicals” at col. 5, lines 16-29. It would also be expected that the plasma would form fluorine radicals.
Regarding claim 11, it would be obvious to provide at least about 95% of fluorine gas in the filtered exhaust, since Yang et al teach at col. 6, lines 51-57 that the process can be adjusted depending upon the amount of purity desired.
Regarding claim 12, it would be obvious to provide a second chemical adsorption filter downstream of the PSA filter of Tamhankar et al, since Tamhankar et al suggest at col. 4, lines 44-49 that more than one additional filter can be employed.
Claim 2 is rejected over Tamhankar et al in view of Yang et al, further in view of Siegele et al ‘321 or DICKINSON et al or Sommer et al, as applied to claim 1 above, even further in view of FR2955867A1. It would be even further obvious from FR2955867A1 to employ barium fluoride, magnesium fluoride or sodium fluoride as the chemical adsorbent material. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since FR2955867A1 discloses in the paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7 of the English translation that silicon tetrafluorine reacts with solid adsorbents of barium, magnesium and sodium fluorides, and one would appreciate from such teaching that these fluorides would be suitable chemical adsorbents in the process of Tamhankar et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, that the claims recite a “remote pl;asma source”, which is described in the specification as “a remote plasma source (RPS) that generates plasma at a remote location and delivers the externally generated plasma to the process chamber 101” is not convincing, since DICKINSON et al, Sommer et al and Siegele et al ‘321 would suggest such feature at the aforementioned passages.
Claims 4-7 are objected to as based on a rejected parent claim, and would be allowed if written in independent form.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: There is no teaching, disclosure or suggestion in either Tamhankar et al (US 5,417,742) or Yang et al (US 5,976,222) to include a radical sensor to measure a concentration of fluoride radicals in the process chamber, and a controller to adjust one or more settings of at least one of the remote plasma source or the process chamber based on the measured concentration of fluorine radials in the process chamber. Nor would there be any motivation (other than impermissible hindsight) to provide such radical sensor and controller. Accordingly claims 4-7 are not rejected over Tamhankar et al in view of Yang et al, further in view of Sommer et al or DICKINSON et al or Siegele et al ‘321.
Siegele et al ‘038 (US 2003/0098038) and NEUBER et al (US 2011/0023908) are made of record for disclosing remote plasma source for gas purification. (See claim 3 of Siegele et al ‘038, and Paragraph [0013] of NEUBER et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights