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
Applicant's election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 10/17/2025 is acknowledged. Non-elected claims 11-20 are withdrawn.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6—as a method claim—contains two contradictory limitations:
“the boat comprises a plurality of substrate support members each of which supports a substrate” (lines 1-2), i.e., there are substrates present on the boat.
“when the boat is inserted into the process tube, the substrate is not on the boat” (line 5).
It’s unclear whether or not the cleaning method requires any substrates to present on the boat. Moreover, it’s unclear if the claim is requiring the substrates to be present at one time but absent at another time. Clarification is requested.
As a recommendation, lines 1-2 should be changed to read as follows:
the boat comprises a plurality of substrate support members each of which is configured to support a substrate
Claim 6 recites “the substrate” at line 5, but it’s unclear which substrate is being referred to. This is because the claim earlier recites “a plurality of substrate support members each of which supports a substrate” at lines 1-2, i.e., the boat supports a plurality of substrates. So it’s unclear which substrate out of the plurality of substrates is considered “the substrate.” Clarification is requested.
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.
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 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’MEARA et al. (US PGPUB 20060162861), in view of YAMAZAKI et al. (US PGPUB 20100035437).
Regarding Claim 1, O’MEARA teaches a substrate processing apparatus cleaning method (cleaning the apparatus shown in Figs. 1A-1B, see, e.g., ¶¶ 0051-52, 0074-75, claims 6-9, Figs. 2 & 4), wherein the substrate processing apparatus—e.g., a CVD/ALD system (see ¶ 0023)—comprises a process tube with a boat therein (see Fig. 1A, ¶ 0023, process tube 102 having boat 112; see Fig. 1B, ¶ 0029, process tube 25 having boat 35). O’MEARA teaches that the cleaning method involves removing hafnium-based deposits from the process tube/chamber (see ¶¶ 0010-12, 0036, 0038, 0051-52, 0069-72, Figs. 2 & 4, claims 8-9).
O’MEARA teaches removing, by performing a first removal process, a first material deposited in the process tube (a “hafnium removal process” of removing hafnium oxide (HfO2), see abstract, ¶¶ 0051-54, 0071, 0074, 0077, claims 8, 24, 34). O’MEARA teaches that the first removal process—e.g., removing hafnium oxide (HfO2)—comprises supplying the process tube with a first gas, wherein the first gas comprises a fluorine-based gas (using a fluorinated gas such as F2, NF3, HF to remove hafnium oxide, see ¶¶ 0036, 0051, 0054, 0074, claims 8, 24).
O’MEARA teaches removing, by performing a second removal process, a second material deposited in the process tube by the first removal process (removing a hafnium byproduct—e.g., hafnium fluoride (HfFx)—generated by said hafnium removal process, see abstract, Figs. 2 & 4, ¶¶ 0014-15, 0043, 0049, 0053, 0070-71, 0077, claim 1). O’MEARA teaches that the second removal process—e.g., removing hafnium fluoride (HfFx)—comprises supplying the process tube with a second gas, wherein the second gas comprises a chlorine-based gas (see id., supplying a chlorine-containing gas).
O’MEARA does not explicitly teach the step of “inserting a boat into a process tube.” But this is a well-understood, routine, and conventional step in chamber-cleaning methods. See YAMAZAKI at ¶¶ 0176, 0182-85. For example, YAMAZAKI teaches inserting an empty boat 217 (see ¶ 0176, without substrates) into a CVD/ALD process tube 204 to clean both the tube and the boat therein (see ¶¶ 0182-85).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify O’MEARA to incorporate a step of inserting the boat into the process tube, with reasonable expectation of cleaning both the boat and the process tube. First, by inserting the boat into the process tube, both the boat and the process tube can be cleaned; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate a step of inserting the boat into the process tube. Second, it’s already well known in the art to insert an empty boat into the CVD/ALD process tube for cleaning (see YAMAZAKI). 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 yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of O’MEARA and YAMAZAKI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination also teaches the fluorine-based gas comprises at least one of a nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) gas, a hydrogen fluoride (HF) gas (see O’MEARA at ¶¶ 0036, 0051, 0054, 0074, claims 8, 24).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of O’MEARA and YAMAZAKI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches that the first gas comprises a NF3 gas (as explained above); the first material comprises hafnium (IV) oxide (HfO2) (as explained above; see also O’MEARA at ¶ 0005); and the second material comprises hafnium fluoride (HfF4) (as explained above; see also O’MEARA at ¶ 0042).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of O’MEARA and YAMAZAKI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches that: the boat comprises a plurality of substrate support members each of which supports a substrate (see O’MEARA at Figs. 1A-1B, ¶¶ 0023, 0029); the plurality of substrate support members are vertically spaced apart from each other (see id.); and when the boat is inserted into the process tube, the substrate is not on the boat (see YAMAZAKI at Fig. 10, ¶¶ 0176, 0182-85, an empty boat 217 is loaded into the process tube 204 in order to perform process S80 of cleaning the interior of the process tube).
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU et al. (US PGPUB 20050108892), in view of YAMAZAKI et al. (US PGPUB 20100035437).
Regarding Claim 1, WU teaches a substrate processing apparatus cleaning method (see, e.g., abstract, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0012-14, 0019, 0045, example 3 in ¶¶ 0054-55, claims 1-24, using gases to clean a CVD/ALD chamber). In the substrate processing art, an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process is a type of chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process. See YAMAZAKI at ¶ 0099. Hereinafter, terms like “chamber,” “process chamber,” “reactor,” “deposition chamber,” “reaction chamber,” and “CVD/ALD chamber” will be used interchangeably to refer to a chamber useful for performing vapor deposition on a substrate.
WU’s cleaning method comprises: removing, by performing a first removal process, a first material deposited in the process chamber (see abstract, ¶¶ 0012-13, 0019, 0024-26, 0045, Tables 1-10, using first gas to react with a substance to be removed; see ¶¶ 0021-22, 0049, Tables 1-2, claim 8, the substance to be removed may be a metal oxide such as Al2O3 and HfO2). WU teaches wherein the first removal process comprises supplying the process chamber with a first gas (see, e.g., abstract, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0012-13, 0026, 0045, 0054, claims 1, 18, 24).
WU’s cleaning method comprises: removing, by performing a second removal process, a second material deposited in the process chamber by the first removal process (see abstract, ¶¶ 0012-13, 0019, 0024-24, 0045, removing a byproduct formed in the first removal process; see ¶ 0037, Tables 1-2, the byproduct may be B2O3). WU teaches wherein the second removal process comprises supplying the process chamber with a second gas (see, e.g., abstract, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0012-13, 0019, 0037, 0045, 0054, claims 1, 18, 24).
WU teaches that one of the first gas and the second gas comprises a chlorine-based gas (e.g., BCl3 gas, see ¶¶ 0026, 0054-55, Tables 1-2, 12), and the other of the first gas and the second gas comprises a fluorine-based gas (e.g., NF3 gas, see ¶¶ 0037, 0054-55, Tables 11-12).
WU does not explicitly teach that the process chamber—e.g., a reaction chamber for performing CVD/ALD (see ¶¶ 0019-20, 0041-42, 0044-45)—is in the shape of a “tube.” WU also does not explicitly teach the step of “inserting a boat into a process tube.”
But the conventional CVD/ALD chamber has the shape of a tube. See YAMAZAKI at Figs. 2-4, ¶ 0051. Moreover, it’s well known in the art to insert an empty boat (i.e., without substrates) into a CVD/ALD process tube to clean both the tube and the boat. For example, YAMAZAKI teaches inserting an empty boat 217 (see ¶ 0176, without substrates) into a CVD/ALD process tube 204 to clean both the tube and the boat (see ¶¶ 0182-85).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify WU’s method to (1) clean a CVD/ALD process chamber in the shape of a tube and (2) incorporate a step of inserting a boat into the process tube, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the CVD/ALD chamber.
First, changes in shape are considered obvious (see MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.) and it’s well known in the art that the conventional CVD/ALD chamber has the shape of a tube (see YAMAZAKI). 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 yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A. The process chamber—having the shape of a tube—still performs the same function of providing a space for the CVD/ALD process, thereby yielding predictable results.
Second, by inserting a boat into the process tube, both the boat and the process tube can be cleaned; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate a step of inserting a boat into the process tube. Moreover, it’s already well known in the art to insert an empty boat into the CVD/ALD process tube for cleaning (see YAMAZAKI). 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 yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of WU and YAMAZAKI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches that the chlorine-based gas comprises a boron trichloride (BCl3) gas (see WU at ¶¶ 0026, 0054-55, Tables 1-2, 12).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of WU and YAMAZAKI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches that: the first gas comprises a boron trichloride (BCl3) gas (see WU at ¶¶ 0026, 0054-55, Tables 1-2, 12); the first material comprises aluminum oxide (Al2O3) (see WU at ¶¶ 0021-22, 0049, Tables 1-2, claim 8); and the second material comprises boric oxide (B2O3) (see WU at Tables 1-2, ¶ 0037).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of WU and YAMAZAKI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches that the fluorine-based gas comprises a nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) gas (see WU at ¶¶ 0037, 0054-55, Tables 11-12).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of WU and YAMAZAKI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches that: the boat comprises a plurality of substrate support members each of which supports a substrate (see YAMAZAKI at Figs. 2-4, ¶ 0039); the plurality of substrate support members are vertically spaced apart from each other (see id.); and when the boat is inserted into the process tube, the substrate is not on the boat (see YAMAZAKI at Fig. 10, ¶¶ 0176, 0182-85, an empty boat 217 is loaded into the process tube 204 in order to perform process S80 of cleaning the interior of the process tube).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of WU and YAMAZAKI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches that the supplying the process tube with the first gas is performed for a first time length (see WU at ¶ 0046); the supplying the process tube with the second gas is performed for a second time length (see id.); and the first time length is greater than the second time length (see id.).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of WU and YAMAZAKI teaches the method of claim 7. As explained above, the combination teaches that the supplying the process tube with the first gas is performed for a first time length.
The combination does not explicitly teach that the first time length is “in a range of about 5 minutes to about 120 minutes.” But cleaning time is a result-effective variable (see WU at ¶ 0046, a higher amount of residue requires a longer cleaning time). Because cleaning time is result effective, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to discover—through routine experimentation—a workable or optimal “first time length” of cleaning with the first gas. See MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of WU and YAMAZAKI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches that the first removal process is performed at a first temperature of “up to 600℃” (see WU at ¶¶ 0040, 0042, 0044), which overlaps with the claimed range of “about 450°C to about 600°C.” Given this overlap with the range disclosed by the prior art, the claimed range is considered obvious. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Additionally, the temperature is a result-effective variable (see WU at ¶ 0044, higher temperatures can accelerate chemical reactions by overcoming an activation energy barrier; see also WU at ¶¶ 0040, 0042, Tables 1-2). Because temperature is result effective, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to discover—through routine experimentation —a workable or optimal temperature for the first removal process. See MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of O’MEARA and YAMAZAKI, as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of KOSHI et al. (US PGPUB 20230402281).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of O’MEARA and YAMAZAKI teaches the method of claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches that the method comprises two separate removal/cleaning processes: a first removal/cleaning process of supplying the process tube with the first gas (e.g., a fluorine-based cleaning gas) to remove a first material; and a second removal/cleaning process of supplying the process tube with the second gas (e.g., a chlorine-based cleaning gas) to remove a second material. As explained above, the second removal/cleaning process is performed after the first removal/cleaning process (see also O’MEARA at Figs. 2 & 4, ¶¶ 0049, 0071).
The combination does not explicitly teach a step of “supplying the process tube with a purge gas” that’s performed after the supplying the process tube with the first gas and before the supplying the process tube with the second gas.
But it’s well known in the art to finish a removal/cleaning process with a purging step of supplying a purge gas into the process tube. See KOSHI at Fig. 4, ¶ 0111. The purge gas helps remove cleaning gas and reaction byproducts from the process tube. See id. at ¶¶ 0111, 0113. Indeed, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that, by purging the cleaning gas from the process tube, the cleaning reaction in the process tube can be regulated. Moreover, many processes performed in a CVD process tube contain a purging step, especially as a transitional step from one process to another. See KOSHI at Fig. 4, ¶¶ 0080, 0088, 0145.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of O’MEARA and YAMAZAKI to incorporate a purging step of supplying a purge gas into the process tube (i.e., process tube 102/25 of O’MEARA) that’s performed after supplying the process tube with the first gas and before supplying the process tube with the second gas, with reasonable expectation of purging the process tube, for one or more reasons below:
First, the purge gas helps remove cleaning gas and reaction byproducts from the process tube; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate a purging step after supplying the process tube with the first gas.
Second, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that purging the cleaning gas from the process tube also helps regulate the cleaning reaction in the process tube; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate a purging step after supplying the process tube with the first gas, so as to regulate the first removal/ cleaning process.
Third, it’s well known in the art that many processes performed in a CVD process tube contain a purging step, especially as a transitional step from one process to another (see KOSHI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined those elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. The purging step as incorporated would still perform the same functions as before (e.g., transitioning from one process to another process), thereby yielding predictable results.
Fourth, it’s well known in the art to clean a process tube in two separate removal/cleaning processes (see O’MEARA), and it’s also well known to finish a removal/cleaning process with a purging step of supplying a purge gas into the process tube (see KOSHI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined those elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. The purging step as incorporated would still perform the same functions as before (e.g., removing cleaning gas and byproducts), thereby yielding predictable results.
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art references—made of record and not relied upon—are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Using gas to clean an empty boat inside the CVD reactor:
US PGPUB 20100087068 to ISHIBASHI et al. teaches inserting an empty boat 217 (i.e., without substrates, see ¶ 0060) into a CVD/ALD process tube 205 to clean both the tube and the boat therein (see ¶¶ 0059-60, 0066-67), wherein the boat 217 comprises a plurality of substrate support members that are vertically spaced apart from each other (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0032).
US PGPUB 20100167541 KATO teaches inserting an empty boat 217 (i.e., without substrates, see ¶ 0061) into a CVD/ALD process tube 203 to clean both the tube and the boat therein (see ¶ 0064), wherein the boat 217 comprises a plurality of substrate support members that are vertically spaced apart from each other (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0038).
US PGPUB 20080014758 CHOU et al. teaches inserting an empty boat 12 (i.e., without substrates) into a CVD/ALD process tube 4 to clean both the tube and the boat therein (see ¶¶ 0082, 0089), wherein the boat 12 comprises a plurality of substrate support members that are vertically spaced apart from each other (see Figs. 1-2, ¶ 0053).
US PGPUB 20090233454 OKADA et al. teaches inserting an empty boat 5 (i.e., without substrates) into a CVD process tube 1 to clean both the tube and the boat therein (see ¶ 0058), wherein the boat 5 comprises a plurality of substrate support members that are vertically spaced apart from each other (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0030).
US PGPUB 20250115993 HANASHIMA et al. teaches inserting an empty boat 217 (i.e., without substrates) into a CVD process tube 203 to clean both the tube and the boat therein (see ¶ 0086), wherein the boat 217 comprises a plurality of substrate support members that are vertically spaced apart from each other (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0038).
US PGPUB 20100189927 SATO et al. teaches inserting an empty boat 6 (i.e., without substrates) into a CVD process tube 2 to clean both the tube and the boat therein (see ¶¶ 0074-75), wherein the boat 6 comprises a plurality of substrate support members that are vertically spaced apart from each other (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0029).
US PGPUB 20020190024 EGUCHI et al. teaches inserting an empty boat 105 (i.e., without substrates) into a CVD process tube 101 to clean both the tube and the boat therein (see ¶¶ 0083-85, 0141-43), wherein the boat 105 comprises a plurality of substrate support members that are vertically spaced apart from each other (see Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714