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.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anglin et al. (US 2020/0126757) and further in view of Chow et al. (US 6,872,322).
Regarding Claim 1: Anglin teaches a method of in-situ cleaning a vessel of an ion beam system, the method comprising, via the ion beam system: maintaining a plasma at a relatively low RF power and a relatively low gas flow; turning off any grid bias (turning beam optics to zero volts [0052]; and after turning off any grid bias, increasing the RF power up to 5kW and supplying the etchant gas at an optimized flow rate [0007-0009, 0014, 0050-0053, 0059, 0061].
Anglin does not expressly disclose maintaining a plasma at an initial low RF power and an initial low gas flow or the gas flow range as claimed. However, Chow teaches a method of cleaning a plasma etching chamber comprising during maintaining the plasma etching chamber with plasma at RF power of 200-800 watts and N2 gas flow of 40 sccm, adding CF4 cleaning gas flow of 80 sccm and cleaning the wall of the chamber, wherein the cleaning causes significantly less corrosion damage to the plasma etching chamber than a conventional in situ plasma cleaning due to the plasma in the chamber (col. 11, ll. 62-64). Therefore, 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 Anglin by maintaining a plasma at an initial low RF power and gas flow in order to prevent erosive damage to the chamber from the plasma energy, as suggested by Chow.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3: Anglin and Chow teach the elements of Claim 1. Chow recites RF power and gas flow ranges overlapping the claimed ranges. Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5: Anglin and Chow teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Anglin teaches increasing the RF power over a short time, which overlaps with the claimed range. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). Though Anglin does not expressly disclose increasing the power for at least 30 seconds but no more than 4 hours, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the duration in order to ensure sufficient cleaning without overetching.
Regarding Claim 6: Anglin further teaches the method is used between and first substrate and a second substrate without breaking vacuum [0051, 0057].
Regarding Claim 7: Anglin teaches a method of in situ cleaning of a vessel of an ion beam system comprising, the method comprising: transitioning the system from a processing mode to a cleaning mode (reads on transitioning to E-mode from H-mode; i.e., lower plasma density) increasing plasma density after turning off any grid bias; and increasing RF power and impinging energized ions on deposits of an inner wall of the vessel [0007-0009, 0014, 0036, 0050-0053, 0057].
Anglin does not expressly disclose increasing plasma potential. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase plasma potential since Anglin expressly disclose increasing plasma density [0062] in order to enhance the cleaning of the desired components in the chamber without overetching to other components.
Regarding Claims 8 -12: Anglin teaches that the transition step includes increasing the RF power and optimizing the etchant gas flow of [0008-0009, 0043-0045, 0050-0052]. Though Anglin does not expressly disclose the gas flow and RF power ranges as claimed, it has been held that It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). 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 Anglin by optimizing the claimed variables in order to discover the optimum ranges for enhanced cleaning.
Regarding Claim 13: Anglin further teaches the method is done between processing a first substrate and second substrate and without breaking a vacuum of the system [0051, 0057].
Regarding Claim 14 and 15: Anglin teaches cleaning a vessel of an ion beam system ions onto a coating on an inner wall of the vessel in E-mode with ions sputtering the inner wall of the vessel [0007-0009, 0014, 0036, 0050-0053]. Anglin does not expressly disclose the deposits as metal; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove metal deposits as they are well known contaminants in such systems.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17: Anglin teaches increasing the RF power and optimizing the etchant gas flow of [0008-0009, 0043-0045, 0050-0052]. Though Anglin does not expressly disclose the gas flow and RF power ranges as claimed, it has been held that It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). 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 Anglin by optimizing the claimed variables in order to discover the optimum ranges for enhanced cleaning.
Regarding Claim 18: Anglin further teaches the method is done between processing a first substrate and second substrate and without breaking a vacuum of the system [0051, 0057].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM EST.
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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714