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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-22, in the reply filed on 1/22/2026 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.
Claims 1-22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether "a second cleaning gas mixture", as recited in line 11, is the same or different from " a second cleaning gas mixture" in line 8 of claim 1. Claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by "20@ % carbon". Claim 8 is indefinite because "the ratio" and "the flow rate" lacks positive antecedent basis. Claims 10 and 12 are indefinite because "the flow rate" lacks positive antecedent basis. Claims 14-16 are indefinite because 500 mTorr is equivalent to 66.66Pa and 5000 mTorr is equivalent to 666.7Pa. Re claims 14-16, applicant is claiming 66700Pa and 667000Pa, which are incorrect conversions. Claim 17 is indefinite because it is unclear what applicant considers as high frequency. Claim 22 is indefinite because it is unclear what the skilled artisan would consider as a pre-decomposition chamber treatment, as the limitations are broadly interpreted to read on any type of treatment.
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) 1-19 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by San et al. (US6767836).
Re claim 1, San et al. teach a method of cleaning a chamber of a plasma processing device (i.e. CVD reactor, col. 2, lines 40-45) to remove depositions formed after the plasma processing device has been used to deposit a dielectric material (col. 2, lines 40-50, col. 3, lines 30-35) comprising silicon and carbon, the method comprising introducing a first cleaning gas mixture into the chamber through a first gas inlet 14 (Fig. 5, col.10, lines 1-15), the first cleaning gas mixture comprising a first oxygen containing component and an inert gas (col. 10, lines 1-10), generating a first plasma in the chamber (col. 10, lines 1-15), which teaches that oxygen dissociates in the plasma chamber 4 into reactive species (i.e. in-situ oxygen plasma cleaning), introducing a second cleaning gas mixture comprising a fluorine-containing component (NF3, col. 10, lines 36-65), into a remote plasma source 10, generating a second plasma comprising fluorine radicals (col. 10, lines 45-50), performing a second cleaning step by allowing the fluorine radicals from the second plasma to enter the chamber and introducing a third cleaning gas mixture (pre-mixed oxygen containing gas of oxygen and argon, col. 1, lines 38-40), at the same time as the fluorine radicals, wherein the third cleaning gas mixture comprises a second oxygen containing component (col. 10, lines 35-55). Re claim 2, refer to col. 10, lines 40-50 which teaches introducing oxygen mixed with argon first, followed by the introduction of NF3 to form fluorine reactive radicals. Re claim 3, refer to col. 9-10 bridging which teaches SiC (silicon carbide). Re claim 4, in view of the indefinite the limitations are met as it's unclear what applicant is trying to claim. Re claims 5-7, refer to col. 10, lines 20-25 and 35-45. Re claim 8-9, applicant is directed to the tables recited in cols. 5-6, wherein NF3 has a flow rate of 5.0 slm to O2 having a flow rate of 0.1-3.0 slm, which falls within applicant's claimed range. Re claims 10-13, 1slm is equivalent to 1000 sccm. Col. 5-6 bridging teaches NF3 having a flow rate of 0.2-5.0 slm, which is equivalent to 200 to 5000sccm, which reads on the claimed flow rates of fluorine containing component of claims 10-11. Re claims 12-13, applicant is direction to col. 5-6 bridging which teaches 0.1-3.0 slm, which is equivalent to 100-3000sccm of O2. Re claims 14-15, applicant is claiming a pressure of 500mTorr, which is equivalent to 67 Pa, applicant is directed to col. 5, lines 15-25. Re claim 16, applicant is directed to col. 5, lines 60-65, which teaches pressures of 10-1350Pa, which is within applicant's claimed range. Re claim 17, refer to col. 4, lines 15-20 for example. Re claim 18, refer to col. 4, lines 45-50 which teaches RF power within the claimed range. Re claim 19, refer to col. 4, lines 35-50. Re claim 21, the limitations are met as the claim broadly reads on generating a plasma outside of the chamber. Applicant is directed to col. 5, lines 40-45 which teaches that the oxygen fluorine plasma step, an initial plasma maybe generated in the plasma chamber prior to being introduced into the CVD reactor. Re claim 22, the limitations are met in view of Fig. 1A. Specifically, after the fluorine plasma cleaning step, the process is repeated and another wafer is loaded and film is deposited on the wafer (step 140), which reads on a pre-deposition chamber treatment step.
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 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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over San et al. (US 6767836) in view of Nowak et al. (US 2003/0010355A1).
San et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of determining an endpoint detection. Nowak et al. teach cleaning semiconductor processing equipment by introducing precursor gases comprising NF3 to form fluorine cleaning radicals (paragraph 28). Paragraph 39 teaches an endpoint detector 180 can be used to determine the completion of the cleaning process by detecting the contamination levels as the cleaning reactions proceed (paragraph 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of San et al., to include an endpoint detector, as taught by Nowak et al., for purposes of determining the completion of the cleaning process.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang et al. teach in situ plasma cleaning. Fang et al. teach plasma cleaning of a deposition chamber. Yonemoto et al. teach a plasma processing method. Takagi et al. teach a plurality of plasma cleaning steps. Lakshmanan et al. teach using CF4. Chen et al. teach cleaning a plasma chamber with NF3. Shimizu et al. teach using O2 and fluorine for cleaning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc
Prosecution Insights