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 .
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) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 6444137 to Collins et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2007/0123012 to Walther et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Collins teaches a system Fig. 1, comprising: a process chamber 11 configured to receive a substrate 5 for processing, a surface of the substrate having a region of silicon dioxide (Claims 17-19), the region of silicon dioxide having an underlying silicon layer (Claim 19); a gas source G1, G2, G3 for supplying a gas into the process chamber; an RF coil 30 for inductively coupling power into the gas in the process chamber, to generate a plasma, the plasma including a plurality of energetic atoms (Col. 9 lines 27-50); wherein one or more of the plurality of energetic atoms are directed to the surface of the substrate to selectively etch the region of silicon oxide, to the exclusion of the underlying silicon layer (Col. 6 line 64-Col. 29 line 5; Claims 1-19).
Collins does not expressly teach the gas is deuterium to form a deuterium plasma.
Walther teaches that the plasma for processing a silicon oxide over a silicon substrate [0060] can use a deuterium source gas, which is changed into a plasma with 10-5keV [0042], [0013-0063].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a gas source analogous to that of Collins with a gas source of deuterium gas, as taught by Walthers as a suitable gas for plasma treatment of a silicon/silicon oxide substrate, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 1.
In regards to Claim 2, Collins teaches at least some of the plurality of energetic deuterium atoms are generated from vibrational excitation during electron impact in the deuterium plasma, as implicitly taught by the plasma/energized atoms formed from the RF coil. Additionally, this is considered a functional limitation, as there are no structural limitations present to determine who the consumable or processing materials are acted upon.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Collins in view of Walther is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Collins in view of Walther would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to generate energetic deuterium atoms, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Collins in view of Walther and that of the claim.
In regards to Claim 3, Collins in view of Walther teach at least some of the plurality of energetic deuterium atoms are generated from charge exchange collisions in the deuterium plasma, as implicitly taught by the plasma/energized atoms formed from the RF coil. Additionally, this is considered a functional limitation, as there are no structural limitations present to determine who the consumable or processing materials are acted upon.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Collins in view of Walther is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Collins in view of Walther would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to generate energetic deuterium atoms, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Collins in view of Walther and that of the claim.
In regards to Claim 4, Collins in view of Walther teach the plurality of energetic deuterium atoms are generated with approximately 0.15 to 30 eV energy [0042].
In regards to Claim 5, Collins teaches a vacuum source configured to maintain the process chamber at a pressure of approximately 1 to 50 mTorr, 2-20 mtorr (Col. 10 lines 16-25, Col. 25 lines 1-12).
In regards to Claim 6, Collins teaches an RF power source configured to apply RF power to the RF coil at approximately 50 to 5000 Watts (1500 watts, Col. 25 lines 1-12).
In regards to Claim 7, Collins teaches a chuck/holder 32 (as broadly recited), disposed in the process chamber and configured to support the substrate; an RF power source 41/42 configured to apply a bias power to the chuck of approximately 1000 watts (Col. 26 lines 25-37).
Collins does not expressly teach a bias of 5-100 watts.
However, this is a functional limitation. As the functionality of the bias power exists in the apparatus, applying a lower amount of wattage, is considered capable within the bias power source, without structural limitations otherwise. Thus, as it is capable of supplying 1000 watts of bias power, it would also be capable of suppling 5-100 watts. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Collins in view of Walther is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Collins in view of Walther would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to supply a bias of 5-100 watts, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Collins in view of Walther and that of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. United States Patent No. 6926934 to Koike et al and United States Patent No. 5711998 which teaches deuterium plasma.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights