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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) The “positioned a predetermined distance” of Claims 2, 9 and 13 should be “positioned at a predetermined distance”.
(2) The “wherein the memory stores instructions, which when executed by the processor cause the processor to” of Claims 6, 12 and 16 would have a better form if amended to be:
“wherein the memory stores instructions, and the controller configured to execute the processor to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim interpretation
(1) In regards to the “simultaneously, sequentially, or in varying order” of Claim 17, “at a same frequency or at plurality of different frequencies” of Claim 18, “simultaneously” of Claim 19, and “sequentially” of Claim 19;
The features above are related with an operation caused by use of the claimed apparatus, thus they are intended use of an apparatus.
Emphasized again, the applicants claim an apparatus. In a processing apparatus, processing either simultaneously or sequentially, and further, processing either with same frequency or with different frequencies, are mere different use of the processing apparatus, and does not change the structure itself of the apparatus. The features do not add a patentable weight to the claimed processing apparatus, see the MPEP citations below.
Consequently, when an apparatus of a prior art has the recited structural components, such as the pump and oscillator, the apparatus is considered being capable of operating simultaneously or sequentially and/or with same frequency or different frequency.
MPEP citations:
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (See MPEP 2106; Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409). When apparatus is capable of performing such functions, it is considered to meet the claim limitations. Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (See MPEP 2111.02, 2115; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (See MPEP 2112.01; In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433 (CCPA 1977). It has further been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). While features of an apparatus may be described either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus MUST be distinguished from prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP §2114).
A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (See MPEP §2114).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) The “a microwave generator” of independent Claims is not clear.
According to the applicants’ disclosure,
The paragraph [0018] of the published instant application discloses “a microwave generator 128 configured to generate and transmit one or more microwave frequencies to the oscillators 122A-C”, and further [0032] discloses “the microwave generator 338 to generate a microwave of a preselected frequency (e.g., within 1 kHz-10000 kHz)”.
It is well-known that the microwave frequency is typically defined as between 300 MHz (300,000 kHz) and 300 GHz.
Thus, it is not clear how the “microwave generator” generating the much lower frequency (within 1 kHz-10000 kHz) can be defined as a microwave generator.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of all of followings:
Regardless of the “wave” type,
First, when a generator generates a frequency in the known microwave frequency range (300 MHz-300 GHz), it will be considered meeting the limitation.
Second, when a frequency generator generates a frequency in the applicants’ frequency ranges (within 1 kHz-10000 kHz), it also will be considered meeting the limitation.
(2) Claim 9 recites the “at a preselected frequency” twice. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The secondly recited limitation will be examined inclusive of “at the preselected frequency”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chien et al. (US 20170066021, hereafter ‘021).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘021 teaches:
a chamber 104 which retains a cleaning solution 106 (Fig. 1A, [0015]), and cleaning chemicals can be employed, which leads to lower surface etching ([0016], the claimed “An etch apparatus, comprising: a chamber comprising an inner wall and an outer wall, the inner wall defining a cavity disposed within the chamber”);
transducers 114 ([0015]), and A transducer is configured to transform the electrical signal to a mechanical wave of pressure and displacement (abstract, the claimed “at least one oscillator configured to impart a vibration to the inner wall of the chamber”);
a gigasonic frequency generator 110 produces an electrical signal 112 corresponding to a frequency in a gigahertz range. In some embodiments, the frequency can include sub-giga hertz frequencies of 100 MHz to 999 MHz, frequencies of up to 10 GHz, and other gigahertz frequencies ([0015], see the 112 rejection above, the claimed “and a microwave generator in communication with the at least one oscillator and configured to drive oscillation of the at least one oscillator to impart the vibration to the inner wall of the chamber”).
Regarding to Claim 2,
‘021 further teaches another of the transducers (e.g., second transducer 114b) can be positioned along a y-axis 152 running from top to bottom of a sidewall of the chamber 104 (Fig. 1B, [0023], the claimed “wherein the at least one oscillator is positioned a predetermined distance defining a gap from the outer wall”).
Regarding to Claim 5,
‘021 further teaches the wafers 102 are first loaded onto a wafer support 131 ([0018]), and A wafer 102 can also be a binary semiconductor substrate ([0019], the claimed “further comprising a wafer mount disposed inside the cavity and configured to retain a semiconductor wafer”).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett et al. (US 5367139, hereafter ‘139) in view of Ding et al. (Applied Physics Letter 110, 183701, hereafter ‘701).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘139 teaches:
The plasma reactor chamber 10 housed by wall 30 (Fig. 7, line 31 of col. 9), and operating an RF discharge in reactor 10 continuously until the etch or deposition step is completed (lines 6-7 of col. 13, the claimed “An etch apparatus, comprising: a chamber comprising an inner wall and an outer wall, the inner wall defining a cavity disposed within the chamber”);
transducers 61 and 62 (Fig. 6, lines 36-37 of col. 16), and FIGS. 5, 6 and 7 illustrate features of this invention relating to use of mechanical vibrations to remove contamination from a reactor chamber (lines 43-46 of col. 15, the claimed “at least one oscillator configured to impart a vibration to the inner wall of the chamber”);
a power supply 50 and lead lines 51 for acoustic transducer 61 and a power supply 52 and acoustic lines 53 for acoustic transducer 62 (lines 24-26 of col. 16, the claimed “and a generator in communication with the at least one oscillator and configured to drive oscillation of the at least one oscillator to impart the vibration to the inner wall of the chamber”).
The acoustic transducer of ‘139 generates an ultrasonic stress, which is an acoustic wave, but it is silent what power source is used to activate the transducers, thus ‘139 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 1: and a microwave generator in communication with the at least one oscillator and configured to drive oscillation of the at least one oscillator to impart the vibration to the inner wall of the chamber.
‘701 is analogous art in the field of ultrasonic waves generating transducer (1st paragraph of left side of page 183701-1, similar to the acoustic transducer of ‘139). ‘701 teaches Previously, we found that the piezoelectric transducer (PT) with the pulsed microwave excitation can generate ultrasonic waves (1st paragraph of left side of page 183701-1).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have been adopted the microwave, as a power source to activate the transducers of ‘139, for its suitability as known power source, with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding to Claim 5,
‘139 further teaches each wafer 32 on electrode 12 (line 21 of col. 13, the claimed “further comprising a wafer mount disposed inside the cavity and configured to retain a semiconductor wafer”).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘139 and ‘701, as being applied to Claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Chien et al. (US 20170066021, hereafter ‘021).
Regarding to Claim 2,
Fig. 6 of ‘139 shows acoustic transducer 61 or 62 is positioned (the claimed “wherein the at least one oscillator is positioned a predetermined distance from the outer wall”).
‘139 and ‘701 do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 2: wherein the at least one oscillator is positioned a predetermined distance defining a gap from the outer wall.
‘021 is analogous art in the field of transducer (abstract). ‘021 teaches Meanwhile, another of the transducers (e.g., second transducer 114b) can be positioned along a y-axis 152 running from top to bottom of a sidewall of the chamber 104 (Fig. 1B, [0023]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have been positioned the transducer of ‘139, with a predetermined distance defining a gap from the outer wall, for the purpose of providing easy position flexibility.
Regarding to Claim 3,
‘139 teaches transducers 61 and 62 (Fig. 6, lines 36-37 of col. 16), and FIGS. 5, 6 and 7 illustrate features of this invention relating to use of mechanical vibrations to remove contamination from a reactor chamber (lines 43-46 of col. 15, the claimed “wherein the at least one oscillator is configured to vibrate the chamber to remove at least one particulate from the inner wall”).
Regarding to Claim 4,
‘139 further teaches Rapid gas flow out of the tool into the exhaust line also carries off particles and/or flakes away from the interior tool surfaces of walls 30, 64 and 65 (lines 1-3 of col. 17, the claimed “further comprising: a gas inlet configured to enable a flow of gas into the cavity; and a pump coupled to an outlet in fluid communication with the cavity, the pump configured to remove the gas and at least one particulate from the cavity”).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘139 and ‘701, as being applied to Claim 1 rejection above, further in view of MATSUI et al. (US 20200126829, hereafter ‘829).
Regarding to Claim 6,
It is well-known in the art that overall operations of a processing apparatus is automatically controlled by a controller having a processor in communication with a memory storing a process recipe, see also Fig. 3 of ‘021 or Fig. 2 of ‘829;
Specifically, ‘829 evidences that A control unit 100 is provided to control an overall operation of the plasma processing apparatus 1 (Figs. 1-2, [0033]), and The CPU 103 controls an overall plasma processing apparatus 1 based on the basic program stored in the ROM 104. The CPU 103 controls a predetermined process such as an etching process for the wafer W in conformity with a procedure of the recipe stored in the RAM 105. The CPU 103 executes a cleaning process for the processing container 2 at a timing properly determined based on a maintenance control process ([0037]);
Consequently, the microwave generator of ‘139 and ‘701 would have been controlled by a controller having a processor in communication with memory (the claimed “and a controller in communication with the microwave generator and configured to control the microwave generator, the controller comprising a processor in communication with memory, wherein the memory stores instructions, which when executed by the processor cause the processor to”).
‘139 and ‘701 do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 6: further comprising: at least one sensor positioned adjacent the outer wall and configured to sense a frequency of vibration during operation of the at least one oscillator; and a controller in communication with the microwave generator and configured to control the microwave generator, the controller comprising a processor in communication with memory, wherein the memory stores instructions, which when executed by the processor cause the processor to: receive an output from the at least one sensor indicative of the frequency of vibration of the at least one oscillator; and responsive to the output, adjust the microwave generator to alter a frequency of the oscillation of the at least one oscillator.
‘139 clearly teaches the tool is subjected to ultrasonic frequencies where the transducers 61 and 62 are ultrasonic transducers. These frequencies may be matched to critical frequencies of the deposition material (such as quartz) (lines 35-39 of col. 16).
‘829 is analogous art in the field of processing device (abstract). ‘829 teaches dispose multiple AE sensors 108 on the outer wall… in order to enable the vibration generated inside the processing container 2 to be accurately detected (Fig. 1, [0029]), and The result obtained by the analyzation unit 18 is reported to the process execution unit 21. The process execution unit 21 controls a desired plasma process inside the processing container 2 in accordance with the recipe 132 stored in the memory unit 20. Further, the process execution unit 21 controls cleaning which is executed in the plasma processing apparatus 1 in response to the analyzation result obtained in the analyzation unit 18. The process execution unit 21 may control to conduct to conduct cleaning immediately or at a predetermined timing in response to the analyzation result obtained in the analyzation unit 18 ([0059]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added vibration detecting sensors, to the chamber of ‘139, and then to have configured the controller of ‘139 so to: receive reports from the sensors, to analyze the reports, then to control the transducers of ‘139 in response to the analyzation result, such as adjusting the microwave generator to alter the frequency, for the purpose of providing accurate frequencies, when the detected vibration frequency is not within the desired range.
Regarding to Claim 7,
Emphasized again, it is well-known in the art that overall operations of a processing apparatus is automatically controlled by a controller having a processor in communication with a memory storing a process recipe, see also Fig. 3 of ‘021 or Fig. 2 of ‘829.
Specifically, ‘829 evidences that A control unit 100 is provided to control an overall operation of the plasma processing apparatus 1 (Figs. 1-2, [0033]), and The CPU 103 controls an overall plasma processing apparatus 1 based on the basic program stored in the ROM 104. The CPU 103 controls a predetermined process such as an etching process for the wafer W in conformity with a procedure of the recipe stored in the RAM 105. The CPU 103 executes a cleaning process for the processing container 2 at a timing properly determined based on a maintenance control process ([0037]).
Consequently, the microwave generator of ‘139 and ‘701 would have been controlled by a controller having a processor in communication with memory (the claimed “further comprising: a controller in communication with the microwave generator and configured to control the microwave generator, the controller comprising a processor in communication with memory”);
Polymer etching and generation of polymers as etch by-products are widely acknowledged in the art (note the “polymer etching” is an intended use of the claimed apparatus and the “etch by-products” is not an applicants’ invention), thus the etching recipe stored in the memory would have included processing parameters to removal of the etch by-product generated during the etching process of ‘139 (the claimed “wherein the memory stores at least one recipe corresponding to a polymer used during an associated etch process by the chamber”);
‘139 teaches the tool is subjected to ultrasonic frequencies where the transducers 61 and 62 are ultrasonic transducers. These frequencies may be matched to critical frequencies of the deposition material (lines 35-39 of col. 16, thus the transducers would have been controlled by a program including the recipe for the transducer operation, the claimed “and at least one program associated with the at least one recipe corresponding to an operation of the at least one oscillator at a preselected frequency for a predetermined period of time”).
Regarding to Claim 8,
‘829 further teaches the result obtained by the analyzation unit 18 is reported to the process execution unit 21. The process execution unit 21 controls a desired plasma process inside the processing container 2 in accordance with the recipe 132 stored in the memory unit 20. Further, the process execution unit 21 controls cleaning which is executed in the plasma processing apparatus 1 in response to the analyzation result obtained in the analyzation unit 18 ([0059], the claimed “wherein the memory further stores instructions for determining a recipe used in a previous etch process, retrieving a program corresponding to the determined recipe, and operating the at least one oscillator in accordance with the retrieved program”).
Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘139 in view of ‘829, ‘021 and ‘701.
Regarding to Claim 9, ‘139 teaches:
The plasma reactor chamber 10 housed by wall 30 (Fig. 7, line 31 of col. 9), the etch or deposition step (lines 6-7 of col. 13), and FIGS. 5, 6 and 7 illustrate features of this invention relating to use of mechanical vibrations to remove contamination from a reactor chamber (lines 43-46 of col. 15, the claimed “A system for removal of particulates from an etch process chamber, comprising: a chamber comprising an inner wall and an outer wall, the inner wall defining a cavity disposed within the chamber”);
As discussed in the claims 6-7 rejection with ‘829 above, overall operations of a processing apparatus of ‘139 would have been automatically controlled by a controller having a processor in communication with a memory storing a process recipe (the claimed “a controller comprising a processor in communication with memory”);
transducers 61 and 62 (Fig. 6, lines 36-37 of col. 16, the claimed “at least one oscillator positioned a predetermined distance from the outer wall”);
a power supply 50 and lead lines 51 for acoustic transducer 61 and a power supply 52 and acoustic lines 53 for acoustic transducer 62 (lines 24-26 of col. 16, note the power supply is controlled by the controller, the claimed “and a generator in communication with the processor and the at least one oscillator, the generator configured to operate the at least one oscillator at a preselected frequency”);
Polymer etching and generation of polymers as etch by-products are widely acknowledged in the art (note the “polymer etching” is an intended use of the claimed apparatus and the “etch by-products” is not an applicants’ invention), thus the etching recipe stored in the memory would have included processing parameters to removal of the etch by-product generated during the etching process of ‘139 (the claimed “wherein the memory stores at least one recipe corresponding to a polymer used during an associated etch process by the chamber”);
the tool is subjected to ultrasonic frequencies where the transducers 61 and 62 are ultrasonic transducers. These frequencies may be matched to critical frequencies of the deposition material (lines 35-39 of col. 16, thus the transducers would have been controlled by a program including the recipe for the transducer operation, the claimed “and at least one program associated with the at least one recipe corresponding to an operation of the at least one oscillator at a preselected frequency for a predetermined period of time”).
The acoustic transducer of ‘139 generates an ultrasonic stress, which is an acoustic wave, but it is silent what power source is used to activate the transducers, thus ‘139 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 9: (9A) at least one oscillator positioned a predetermined distance defining a gap from the outer wall,
(9B) and a microwave generator in communication with the processor and the at least one oscillator, the microwave generator configured to operate the at least one oscillator at a preselected frequency.
In regards to the limitation of 9A:
The teaching of 9A was discussed in the claim 2 rejection with ‘021 above, thus it is rejected for substantially the same reason as the claim 2 rejection above.
In regards to the limitation of 9B:
The teaching of 9B was discussed in the claim 1 rejection with ‘701 above, thus it is rejected for substantially the same reason as the claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding to Claim 10,
‘139 further teaches Rapid gas flow out of the tool into the exhaust line also carries off particles and/or flakes away from the interior tool surfaces of walls 30, 64 and 65 (lines 1-3 of col. 17, note the pump in the exhaust line is also controlled by the controller, the claimed “further comprising: a gas inlet configured to enable a flow of gas into the cavity; and a pump in communication with the controller and coupled to an outlet in fluid communication with the cavity, the pump configured to remove the gas and at least one particulate from the cavity”).
Regarding to Claims 11-12,
The features of the claims 11-12 are same as the feature of the claim 6, and the teaching was discussed in the claim 6 rejection with ‘829 above, thus it is rejected for substantially the same reason as the claim 6 rejection above (the claimed “further comprising at least one sensor positioned adjacent the outer wall and configured to sense a frequency of vibration during operation of the at least one oscillator” of Claim 11, and “wherein the memory stores instructions, which when executed by the processor cause the processor to: receive an output from the at least one sensor indicative of the frequency of vibration of the at least one oscillator; and responsive to the output, adjusting the microwave generator to alter the selected frequency of vibration of the at least one oscillator” of Claim 12).
Regarding to Claim 13, ‘139 teaches:
The plasma reactor chamber 10 housed by wall 30 (Fig. 7, line 31 of col. 9), the etch or deposition step (lines 6-7 of col. 13), and FIGS. 5, 6 and 7 illustrate features of this invention relating to use of mechanical vibrations to remove contamination from a reactor chamber (lines 43-46 of col. 15, the claimed “A system for removal of particulates from an etch process chamber, comprising: a chamber comprising an inner wall and an outer wall, the inner wall defining a cavity disposed within the chamber”);
As discussed in the claims 6-7 rejection with ‘829 above, overall operations of a processing apparatus of ‘139 would have been automatically controlled by a controller having a processor in communication with a memory storing a process recipe (the claimed “a controller comprising a processor in communication with memory”);
transducers 61 and 62 (Fig. 6, lines 36-37 of col. 16, the claimed “at least one oscillator positioned a predetermined distance from the outer wall”);
a power supply 50 and lead lines 51 for acoustic transducer 61 and a power supply 52 and acoustic lines 53 for acoustic transducer 62 (lines 24-26 of col. 16), and stress induction as illustrated by these embodiments can provide efficient removal of deposition material on tool surfaces (lines 6-9 of col. 15, note the power supply is controlled by the controller, the claimed “a generator in communication with the processor and the at least one oscillator, the generator configured to operate the at least one oscillator at a preselected frequency to vibrate the inner wall to remove particulates from the inner wall generated from an etch process”);
Rapid gas flow out of the tool into the exhaust line also carries off particles and/or flakes away from the interior tool surfaces of walls 30, 64 and 65 (lines 1-3 of col. 17, the claimed “and a pump in fluid communication with the cavity defined by the inner wall of the chamber, the pump configured to remove gas and the removed particulates from the inner wall within the cavity”);
Polymer etching and generation of polymers as etch by-products are widely acknowledged in the art (note the “polymer etching” is an intended use of the claimed apparatus and the “etch by-products” is not an applicants’ invention), thus the etching recipe stored in the memory would have included processing parameters to removal of the etch by-product generated during the etching process of ‘139 (the claimed “wherein the memory stores at least one recipe corresponding to a polymer used during an associated etch process by the chamber”);
the tool is subjected to ultrasonic frequencies where the transducers 61 and 62 are ultrasonic transducers. These frequencies may be matched to critical frequencies of the deposition material (lines 35-39 of col. 16, thus the transducers would have been controlled by a program including the recipe for the transducer operation for the contamination removal, the claimed “and at least one program associated with the at least one recipe corresponding to at least one of an operation of the at least one oscillator at a preselected frequency for a predetermined period of time and operation of the pump”).
The acoustic transducer of ‘139 generates an ultrasonic stress, which is an acoustic wave, but it is silent what power source is used to activate the transducers, thus ‘139 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 13: (13A) at least one oscillator positioned a predetermined distance defining a gap from the outer wall,
(13B) a microwave generator in communication with the processor and the at least one oscillator, the microwave generator configured to operate the at least one oscillator at a preselected frequency to vibrate the inner wall to remove particulates from the inner wall generated from an etch process.
In regards to the limitation of 13A:
The teaching of 13A was discussed in the claim 2 rejection with ‘021 above, thus it is rejected for substantially the same reason as the claim 2 rejection above.
In regards to the limitation of 13B:
The teaching of 13B was discussed in the claim 1 rejection with ‘701 above, thus it is rejected for substantially the same reason as the claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding to Claim 14,
‘139 further teaches Rapid gas flow out of the tool into the exhaust line also carries off particles and/or flakes away from the interior tool surfaces of walls 30, 64 and 65 (lines 1-3 of col. 17, note the pump in the exhaust line is also controlled by the controller, the claimed “further comprising: a gas inlet configured to enable a flow of gas into the cavity; and the pump in communication with the controller and coupled to an outlet in fluid communication with the cavity”).
Regarding to Claims 15-16,
The features of the claims 15-16 are same as the feature of the claim 6, and the teaching was discussed in the claim 6 rejection with ‘829 above, thus it is rejected for substantially the same reason as the claim 6 rejection above (the claimed “further comprising at least one sensor positioned adjacent the outer wall and configured to sense a frequency of vibration during operation of the at least one oscillator” of Claim 15, and “wherein the memory stores instructions, which when executed by the processor cause the processor to: receive an output from the at least one sensor indicative of the frequency of vibration of the at least one oscillator; and responsive to the output, adjusting the microwave generator to alter the selected frequency of vibration of the at least one oscillator” of Claim 16).
Regarding to Claims 17-18,
The transducers 34 are driven at the same frequency (lines 49-50 of col. 11, the claimed “wherein the at least one oscillator comprises a plurality of oscillators positioned around the outer wall, which are operated in accordance with the at least one program simultaneously, sequentially, or in varying order” of Claim 17, and “wherein the plurality of oscillators vibrate at a same frequency or at plurality of different frequencies” of Claim 18).
Regarding to Claims 19-20,
‘139 teaches the mechanical stress along with the gas shock wave enhances fracture of deposition films on the walls 30, 64 and 65 in FIGS. 6 and 7. Rapid gas flow out of the tool into the exhaust line also carries off particles and/or flakes away from the interior tool surfaces of walls 30, 64 and 65 (line 66 of col. 16 to line 3 of col. 17, note ‘139’s apparatus is capable of performing, while breaking the deposit, the gas flow by the pump can carry off the particles, OR after breaking the deposit, the gas flow by the pump can carry off the particles. It is merely set forth by modifying starting time for the gas flow by pump in the recipe, depending on an operator’s desired selection, the claimed “wherein the pump and the at least one oscillator operate simultaneously in accordance with the at least one program” of Claim 19, and “wherein the at least one oscillator and the pump operate sequentially in accordance with the at least one program” of Claim 20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied up is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, US Patent 5198122, lines 12-16 of col. 6, disclosing “microwave energy used to vibrate a piezoelectric crystal” and NPL “Ultrasonics 40 (2002) 419-426”, title, disclosing “Acoustic wave generation by microwaves”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm 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, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights