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 method claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 5/18/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the inert gas curtain". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kropewnicki et al. (US 6440864B1).
With respect to claims 1, 2, limitations b and c, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in one step since there is no limitation to perform them separately. Kropewnicki describes a substrate cleaning process comprising supporting a substrate in a chamber 75, providing a cleaning plasma containing O2, H2O, O3, He-O2, or claimed excited species including radicals and ions; NH3, N2, and a fluorine-containing gas of CF4, C2F6, C4F8, CHF3, or claimed etchant species; and an inert gas . The cleaning process can be performed in one or more steps such as a more aggressive first step and a less aggressive first steps with the gases above. One or more steps provide claimed limiations b and c (col. 6-col. 7, line 51; col. 9, line 54-col. 10; col. 11, 10-20; col. 12). The cleaning step removes etchant residues including polymeric or amorphous composition of species such as carbo, hydrocarbon or claimed organic residues; metal species or claimed non-organic residues (col. 6, line 11-29).
With respect to claims 3, 4, the plasma of process gases including the excited species O2, H2O, O3, He-O2 would comprise radicals and ions (col. 6, lines 55-60; col. 12, lines 27).
With respect to claim 5, the method further exhausts the spent process gas and etchant byproducts through exhaust pumps or claimed purging the chamber (col. 12, lines 29-36).
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2019/0019670A1).
With respect to claims 1-4, Lin describes a method for removal of oxide and carbon, and surface of dielectric materials or claimed organic and non-organic residue (abs.; para 16). The method comprises providing a substrate in a chamber on a susceptor 220 (para 21); providing an oxide conversion plasma including radicals of argon, hydrogen radicals of H2, NH3, H2O, and NF3, CF4, C2F6, C4F6, C4F8, COF2, SF6, WF6 or claimed excited species including radicals (para 23, 28-29); providing a carbon removal plasma including argon, hydrogen, and ammonia, oxygen radicals or claimed etchant species of a reducing species, oxidizing or oxygen containing species (para 32, 33).
With respect to claim 5, the method further includes removing the gaseous products from the reaction chamber or claimed purging the chamber (para 30, 31, 33).
With respect to claim 6, the method further includes repeating the oxide conversion, and carbon removal steps (para 25-27).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as applied to claim 6 above.
With respect to claim 7, Lin doesn’t teach the oxide conversion has a time period that is greater than a time period of the carbon removal step. However, a time period of a step would depend on a desired amount of oxide conversion and carbon removal. Therefore it would have been obvious and within the knowledge of one skilled in the art to provide an appropriate process time through routine experimentation for each step so that a desired amount of oxide conversion and carbon removal are processed with expected results.
With respect to claim 8, the method uses a remote plasma unit 140 or 240 to generate plasma for the chamber (para 19, 20, 24, 28).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Tong (US 2022/0122819A1).
With respect to claim 9, Lin doesn’t teach flowing an inert gas or inert gas curtain at a positive pressure from the remote plasma unit into the chamber. Tong teaches that inert gas curtain is known and used for prevent back diffusion into the remote plasma source (para 10, 11). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply inert gas curtain from the remote plasma source to the chamber in order to prevent back diffusion of the process gases into the plasma source.
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Tong further teaches to adjust a flow rate of the inert gas that prevents back diffusion of the process gases into the plasma source (para 11). It would have been obvious and within the knowledge of one skilled in the art to adjust the a time period for flowing the inert gas curtain to be less than or over the entire time of the carbon removal step or claimed second time period T2 as long as process gases do not back diffusion into the remote plasma source.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY VU NGUYEN DEO whose telephone number is (571)272-1462. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-272-3176. 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.
/DUY VU N DEO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713 6/11/2026
Prosecution Insights