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
Claims 1-2, 5-19 and 21-22 are pending
Claims 3-4 and 20 are canceled
Claims 12-14 and 16 have been amended
Application Status
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 17/037,165 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/037165, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Claim 14 recites a controller which controls both the cleaning process and an epitaxial deposition process Applicants specification only describes a single controller “controller 502 for controlling processes within the chamber 500” which is a cleaning chamber, para. 50-51 of the filed specification. The epitaxial deposition process is described in the specification as being performed in a chamber 602 distinct from a cleaning chamber, para. 56-59 of the filed specification. Therefore, there is not support for a controller of the epitaxial deposition chamber nor support for a controller that controls the processing of both a cleaning chamber and a deposition chamber.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3-20-26 and 5-17-24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The IDS filed 3-20-26 refers to 4 NPL documents that have been crossed out due to the copies provided not including any English translation and being illegible. These references have been crossed out.
The IDS filed 5-17-24 refers to a Taiwan Application office action dated June 10, 2021, which the examiner cannot find in any corresponding application. Application 17/037,165 contains two documents referenced in two separate IDS for a Taiwan Application office action dated June 10, 2022, and one document of a Taiwan Application office action dated Nov 29, 2021, however the examiner cannot find any Taiwan Application office action dated June 10, 2021 cited in app 17/037165 or any other corresponding application.
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 14 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “a second processing chamber, the controller is further configured to cause a process of forming an epitaxial layer on the substrate after the native oxide layer is removed from the substrate to be performed in the second processing chamber”. However, Applicants specification only describes a single controller “controller 502 for controlling processes within the chamber 500” which is a cleaning chamber. See para 50-51 of the filed specification. The specification does not describe any controller which is configured to control a system of multiple distinct processing chamber, and it is unclear how a controller that only requires the configuration to control a cleaning chamber can also have all the necessary configurations to control a second chamber for performing epitaxial deposition, a distinctly different process from a cleaning process. Further, the specification does not provide any description of a control device of the epitaxial deposition chamber as originally filed in app 14/338245 from which the instant application is a DIV of. Therefore, it is unclear what the metes and bounds are of the controller of claim 14.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez et al. US 2009/0029528 (US’528).
Regarding claim 1, US’528 teaches a process for cleaning a substrate (apparatus and method for forming a clean and damage free surface on a semiconductor substrate, Abstract), comprising:
removing carbon containing contaminants from a native oxide layer on a surface of a substrate by performing a reducing process using a hydrogen containing plasma (contaminations including carbon are formed within a chemically formed oxide layer, the etching can be performed by physical, chemical or a combination. In one embodiment, the etching gas comprises one or more lighter species that used to generate the low energy plasma to reduce or minimize any damage created on the substrate surface by physical etching processes. In one embodiment, a lighter gas species, such as helium (He), neon (Ne), hydrogen (H2), or combinations thereof may be added to an etching gas that contains other process gases, such as argon (Ar), para. 44-50, see fig. 3);
removing the native oxide layer from the substrate by performing an etch process using a fluorine containing plasma (in case of chemical etching, an etching gas may be delivered into the cleaning chamber and a plasma may be ignited to generate reactive species that chemically reacts with the material on the substrate. The etching gas may comprise chlorine, fluorine or other compounds that are suitable for the removal of the oxides formed on the substrate surface during step 220. In one embodiment, the etching gas comprises nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), chlorine ion (Cl-), and a carrier gas, such as argon, para. 44-50, see fig. 3).
US’528 does not teach an embodiment where the second removal process is different from the first or specifically that after removing carbon containing contaminants, removing the native oxide layer.
However, US’528 further teaches the etching process may be achieved by the use of physical, chemical, or a combination of physical and chemical etching techniques and the etching may be repeated one or more times until the substrate is cleaned (para. 48-61). Therefore, a hydrogen based etching, a low energy plasma which reduce or minimize any damage of the substrate, can be combined with an fluorine based etching step would have been an obvious combination of etching to utilize the benefits of both chemical and physical etching described by US’528 to remove the entire oxide layer. Such a process would remove a portion of the chemical oxide layer with a hydrogen based plasma and a second portion of the oxide layer with fluorine based plasma, each process would remove carbon containing contaminates and oxide.
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 of US’528 to include after removing carbon containing contaminants, removing the native oxide layer because US’528 teaches that a combination of chemical and physical etching processes may be utilized for the removal process and it is prima facie obvious to utilize two processes each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art see MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 2, the modified process of US’528 teaches the process for cleaning a substrate of claim 1. US’528 further teaches the hydrogen containing plasma is generated using H2 gas (para. 57).
Regarding claim 5, the modified process of US’528 teaches the process for cleaning a substrate of claim 1. US’528 further teaches wherein the fluorine containing plasma is generated using NF3 gas (para. 37-39).
Regarding claims 8-9, the modified process of US’528 teaches the process for cleaning a substrate of claim 1. US’528 further teaches wherein the hydrogen containing plasma process utilizes an inductively coupled plasma, with regard to claim 10 and wherein the hydrogen containing plasma process utilizes a capacitively coupled plasma, with regard to claim 11 (several different plasma generation techniques may be utilized in the hydrogen containing plasma process including in inductive coupled device (e.g., coil), capacitively coupled device (e.g., showerhead, microwave source), para. 53).
Regarding claim 10, the modified process of US’528 teaches the process for cleaning a substrate of claim 1. US’528 further teaches wherein removing the native oxide layer from the substrate comprises removing a native oxide of at least one of silicon (para. 33).
Regarding claim 11, the modified process of US’528 teaches the process for cleaning a substrate of claim 10. US’528 further teaches forming an epitaxial layer on the substrate after the native oxide layer is removed from the substrate (para. 62-64).
Regarding claim 12, the modified process of US’528 teaches the process for cleaning a substrate of claim 10. US’528 further teaches wherein the carbon containing contaminants are removed in a first processing chamber and the native oxide layer is removed in the first processing chamber (The cleaning chamber of the modified method of US’528 performs a combination of cleaning processes including the hydrogen based plasma and the fluorine based plasma, as discussed above, para. 48-50).
Claim 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’528 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dif et al. US 2007/0238302 (US’302).
Regarding claims 3-4, the modified process of US’528 teaches the process for cleaning a substrate of claim 1.
The modified process of US’528 does not teach wherein the hydrogen containing plasma is generated using NH3 gas, with regard to claim 3 and wherein the fluorine containing plasma is generated using a F2 gas, with regard to claim 4.
US’302 teaches a method is provided for oxide removal from a substrate (abstract). Silicon (Si)-containing films are used for a wide variety of applications in the semiconductor industry. Si-containing films include films such as epitaxial Si (para. 3). According to one embodiment of the invention, the etching gas contains F2 gas, an inert gas, and a reducing gas. The reducing gas can, for example, contain H2, H, or NH3, or other hydrogen-containing gases. The reducing gas can aid in the decomposition of F2 on the substrate at low substrate temperature (para. 41-42). Therefore US’302 teaches that NH3 is a known substitute for H2 and F2 is a known alternative fluorine source for the fluorine etching process of US’528
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the modified method of US’528 to include wherein the hydrogen containing plasma is generated using NH3 gas, with regard to claim 3 and wherein the fluorine containing plasma is generated using a F2 gas, with regard to claim 4 because US’302 teaches that they are known alternatives in the processing steps of US’528 and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (B).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’528 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ganguly et al US 2011/0065276 (US'276).
Regarding claims 6-7, the modified process of US’528 teaches the process for cleaning a substrate of claim 1.
The modified process of US’528 does not teach wherein the etch process further comprises: exposing the substrate to the fluorine containing plasma, producing solid by-products on the surface of the substrate; and raising the temperature of the substrate to remove the solid by-products from the surface of the substrate, with regard to claim 6 and wherein the temperature of the substrate is raised to 120 °C or more to remove the solid by-products from the surface of the substrate via sublimation, with regard to claim 7
US'276 teaches apparatus and methods for the manufacture of semiconductor devices suitable for narrow pitch applications and methods of fabrication thereof are described herein (abstract). US'276 further teaches aspects of the invention pertain to performing an oxidation process, an etching process and sublimation in a single chamber. One non-limiting, exemplary dry etch process may include ammonia or (NH3) or nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) gas, or an anhydrous hydrogen fluoride (HF) gas mixture with a remote plasma, which condenses on SiO2 at low temperatures (e.g., ~30°C.) and reacts to form a compound which can be sublimated at moderate temperature (e.g., >100°C.) to etch SiO2. Such an exemplary etch process can diminish over time and eventually saturate to a point where no further etching occurs unless portions of the compound are removed (for example, by the sublimation process described above) (para. 46-47). Therefore, US'276 teaches that etching processes using nitrogen trifluoride, such as those taught by US'528 can benefit from sublimation processes following the etching at temperatures above 100°C to prevent the etching from diminishing over time and clean the substrate of etch components.
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 modified method of US'528 to include wherein the etch process further comprises: exposing the substrate to the fluorine containing plasma, producing solid by- products on the surface of the substrate; and raising the temperature of the substrate to remove the solid by-products from the surface of the substrate, with regard to claim 6 and wherein the temperature of the substrate is raised to 120 °C or more to remove the solid by-products from the surface of the substrate via sublimation, with regard to claim 7 because US'276 teaches that etching processes using nitrogen trifluoride, such as those taught by US'528 can benefit from sublimation processes following the etching at temperatures above 100°C to prevent the etching from diminishing over time and clean the substrate of etch components and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A) and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
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.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Sanchez et al. US 2009/0029528 (US’528).
Regarding claim 13, US’528 teaches a processing system, comprising:
a first processing chamber (a system that contains a cleaning chamber that is adapted to expose a surface of substrate to a plasma cleaning process prior to forming an epitaxial layer thereon oxidation and etching steps are repeatedly performed on a substrate in the cleaning chamber to expose or create a clean surface on a substrate that can then have an epitaxial placed thereon, abstract); and
a controller configured to cause the process of claim 1 to be performed in the first processing chamber (In step 222, an etching process is then performed to remove the oxide formed in step 220. The etching process may be achieved by the use of physical, chemical, or a combination of physical and chemical etching techniques (para. 48). In one embodiment, the etching gas comprises one or more lighter species that used to generate the low energy plasma to reduce or minimize any damage created on the substrate surface by physical etching processes. In another embodiment, the etching gas substantially comprises argon, helium, and hydrogen gas. In another embodiment, the etching gas comprises argon and hydrogen (performing a reducing process using a hydrogen containing plasma in the first processing chamber) (para. 57). In case of chemical etching, an etching gas may be delivered into the cleaning chamber and a plasma may be ignited to generate reactive species that chemically reacts with the material on the substrate. The etching gas may comprise chlorine, fluorine or other compounds that are suitable for the removal of the oxides formed on the substrate surface during step 220. In one embodiment, the etching gas comprises nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) (removing the native oxide layer from the substrate by performing an etch process using a fluorine containing plasma in the first processing chamber), chlorine ion (Cl-), and a carrier gas, such as argon (para. 49). The process chamber assembly 193 also contains a gas delivery system 150 that is adapted to deliver one or more process gasses into the processing region 122.The gas delivery system is adapted to deliver a reactive gas, such as a silicon containing gas (e.g., silane), a hydrogen containing gas (e.g., H2), a germanium containing gas, a chlorine containing gas, an oxygen containing gas, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), a boron containing gas (e.g., diborane), and/or a phosphorous containing gas (e.g., phosphine) to name just a few. In one embodiment, the gas delivery system is adapted to deliver an inert gas, such as argon (Ar), helium (He), krypton (Kr) and/or nitrogen (N2) (para. 27). A carrier gas, such as argon, nitrogen, helium, hydrogen or oxygen, etc, may be delivered to the processing region of the cleaning chamber to aid the removal of the unwanted species and/or to assist in the etching process, or help initiating and/or stabilizing the plasma in the cleaning chamber (para. 38). Use of a controller 147 that controls the process timing, or scheduling, can improve the process repeatability and device yield (para. 64). The controller 147 is generally designed to facilitate the control and automation of the first cleaning chamber 100 and system 400 (FIG. 5) (para. 66). Therefore, US’528 teaches an apparatus that has all the necessary structure to perform a hydrogen plasma process which can clean the surface of a substrate and perform a fluorine containing plasma process that removes oxide. These steps can be repeatedly performed and combined to provide a clean surface)
The examiner notes that claim 1 of abandoned application 17/037165 is substantially similar in scope to the instant claims 13. The board of appeals affirmed the rejection of claim 1 on 5-6-26 and as a result the examiner is maintaining the above rejection for new claim 13 in the instant application.
The following restates the position stated in the examiners answer dated 2-17-23: The prior art teaches an apparatus that has all the necessary structure to perform a hydrogen plasma process which can clean the surface of a substrate and perform a fluorine containing plasma process that removes oxide. These steps can be repeatedly performed and combined to provide a clean surface. Therefore, the physical structure of the apparatus would be capable of performing the recited process steps. As discussed in the above rejections, the prior art teaches an apparatus that has all the necessary structure to perform a hydrogen plasma process which can clean the surface of a substrate and perform a fluorine containing plasma process that removes oxide. These steps can be repeatedly performed and combined to provide a clean surface which includes a hydrogen plasma process followed by a fluorine etching process. The processing system recited in claim 1 includes a processing chamber and a controller which is configured to cause a process to be performed. The configuration of the controller to perform the process reads as the inclusion of the materials or articles worked upon (i.e. the hydrogen plasma removing carbon from the native oxide and the fluorine plasma removing native oxide) and does not impart patentable structure to the claimed controller.
The following is the board of appeals findings dated 5-6-24: Claim 1 recites a system including a processor configured to cause a process that includes 1) performing a reducing process using a hydrogen containing plasma so as to remove carbon containing contaminants, and 2) performing an etch process using a fluorine containing plasma so as to removing the native oxide layer from the substrate in the first processing chamber. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). In this claim, "removing carbon containing contaminants" is a statement of intended purpose. The hydrogen containing plasma is used for the purpose of removing carbon containing contaminants. Similarly, "removing the native oxide layer from the substrate" is a statement of intended purpose. The fluorine containing plasma is used for the purpose of removing the native oxide layer from the substrate. Accordingly, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation, such terms are not limiting and may not be relied upon to distinguish over the prior art. Appellant concedes that "Sanchez describes that the oxide layer is removed using either a hydrogen containing plasma or a fluorine containing plasma." Appeal Br. 7. Appellant does not contest the Examiner's finding that the process of Sanchez is iterative. Final Act. 2-3 ("oxidation and etching steps are repeatedly performed on a substrate in the cleaning chamber."); Ans. 10 ("These steps can be repeatedly performed and combined to provide a clean surface."). Accordingly, Appellant has not rebutted the Examiner's finding that Sanchez teaches an apparatus configured to perform a process where hydrogen containing plasma and fluorine containing plasma are applied to the surface of a semiconductor substrate. As a consequence, Appellant has not shown error in the rejection.
Regarding claim 14, US’528 teaches the processing system of claim 13. US’528 further teaches a second processing chamber, wherein: the controller is further configured to cause a process of forming an epitaxial layer on the substrate after the native oxide layer is removed from the substrate to be performed in the second processing chamber (the cluster tool 400 comprises a cleaning chamber, such as the cleaning chamber 100 of FIG. 1, and two epitaxial chambers 407, 408, The controller 147 is generally designed to facilitate the control and automation of the first cleaning chamber 100 and system 400 (FIG. 5) and typically may include a central processing unit (CPU) (not shown), memory (not shown), and support circuits (or I/O) (not shown). The CPU may be one of any form of computer processors that are used in industrial settings for controlling various chamber processes and hardware (e.g., detectors, motors, fluid delivery hardware, etc.) and monitor the system and chamber processes (e.g., substrate position, process time, detector signal, etc.). The memory is connected to the CPU, and may be one or more of a readily available memory, such as random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), floppy disk, hard disk, or any other form of digital storage, local or remote. Software instructions and data can be coded and stored within the memory for instructing the CPU. para. 65-69)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 3, 8-9 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 9683308.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim recites:
a step of “removing carbon containing contaminants from a native oxide layer on a surface of a substrate by performing a reducing process using a hydrogen containing plasma” which is substantially similar to “removing a first portion of carbon containing contaminants from the surface of the substrate, wherein the first portion of the carbon containing contaminants are removed by a hydrogen containing plasma process” recited in U.S. Patent No. 9683308
a step of “after removing carbon containing contaminants, removing the native oxide layer from the substrate by performing an etch process using a fluorine containing plasma” which is substantially similar “then cleaning the surface of the substrate by use of a fluorine containing plasma etch process in a second processing chamber” recited in U.S. Patent No. 9683308
The instant claim 3 recites substantially the same limitations of claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 9683308.
The instant claim 8 recites substantially the same limitations of claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 9683308.
The instant claim 9 recites substantially the same limitations of claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 9683308.
The instant claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9683308.
Claim 1 and 8-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-6 of U.S. Patent No. 10428441.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim recites:
a step of “removing carbon containing contaminants from a native oxide layer on a surface of a substrate by performing a reducing process using a hydrogen containing plasma” which is substantially similar to “forming a contaminant free surface comprising a native oxide layer by exposing a surface of a substrate to an ammonia containing plasma to remove carbon containing contaminants from the surface of the substrate in a first processing chamber” recited in U.S. Patent No. 10428441
a step of “after removing carbon containing contaminants, removing the native oxide layer from the substrate by performing an etch process using a fluorine containing plasma” which is substantially similar “removing the native oxide layer from the substrate by performing an etch process on the substrate in the second processing chamber” recited in U.S. Patent No. 10428441
The instant claim 8 recites substantially the same limitations of claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 10428441.
The instant claim 9 recites substantially the same limitations of claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10428441.
Claim 1 and 8-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 10837122.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim recites:
a step of “removing carbon containing contaminants from a native oxide layer on a surface of a substrate by performing a reducing process using a hydrogen containing plasma” which is substantially similar to “forming a surface on a substrate comprising a native oxide layer free from carbon containing contaminants by performing a reducing process comprising forming a hydrogen containing plasma in a processing chamber to remove the carbon containing contaminants” recited in U.S. Patent No. 10837122
a step of “after removing carbon containing contaminants, removing the native oxide layer from the substrate by performing an etch process using a fluorine containing plasma” which is substantially similar “removing the native oxide layer by performing an etch process comprising forming a fluorine containing plasma in the processing chamber” recited in U.S. Patent No. 10837122
The instant claim 8 recites substantially the same limitations of claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10837122.
The instant claim 9 recites substantially the same limitations of claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 10837122.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on 571-270-3176. 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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights