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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the prior art, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 12 is withdrawn due to amendments. The 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 18 is maintained as claim 18 reduces or ceases a flow of a shaft purge but the shaft purge is established per the current language to be a physical part of a chamber body, when one of ordinary skill in the art would consider a purge to be a recited step. Thus the claim language is still confusing and indefinite. New grounds of rejection are due to amendments.
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 18 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 18 reduces or ceases a flow of a shaft purge but the shaft purge is established per the current language to be a physical part of a chamber body, when one of ordinary skill in the art would consider a purge to be a recited 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 10 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajbafvala et al. (US 2021/0292902 A1; hereafter Kaj) in view of Comita et al. (US 6042654 A)
As to claim 1, Kaj teaches a material layer deposition method, comprising: flowing a silicon-containing material layer precursor through a chamber body (step 106, paras 0047-0048); forming a silicon-containing accretion within the chamber body (para 0005-0006); introducing a chlorine (Cl2) gas; etching at least a portion of the silicon-containing accretion using the chlorine (Cl2) gas-containing fill (para 0056); and removing the chlorine (Cl2) gas-containing fill and a silicon-containing etchant product from the chamber body (exhaust, para 0077). Kaj does not teach that the chlorine gas fill is ‘impounded’ within the chamber body by fluidly separating the chamber from an exhaust source. Kaj, however, does teach having the chlorine gas present in the chamber at 1 atm in para 0042, indicating that the exhaust source is not pulling a strong vacuum or is isolated and not pulling a vacuum at all and thus the gas could be impounded as claimed.
Comita et al. teaches a similar process with a chlorine cleaning gas (Fig. 2) where a throttle valve is present in between the chamber and exhaust (col 5 line 64- col 6 line 7) in order to control the chamber pressure to achieve advantageous results. The throttle valve includes separating the exhaust as needed to maintain the pressure, including atmospheric pressure, in this section, thus impounding the gas as desired. The amount of chlorine gas/flow rate/time impounded varies so that the chlorine has a sufficient time to ensure the removal of all unwanted by products (col. 7 line 67- col. 8 line 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kaj to include impounding the chlorine gas as taught by Comita in order to achieve advantageous results.
As to claim 2, Kaj teaches supporting a substrate within the chamber body prior to flowing the silicon-containing material layer precursor through the chamber body; exposing the substrate to the silicon-containing precursor during the flowing of the silicon-containing material layer precursor through the chamber body; depositing a silicon-containing material layer onto the substrate using the silicon-containing material layer precursor (steps 104-106 in Fig. 1, paras 0047-0053); and removing the substrate from the chamber body prior to introducing the chlorine (Cl2) gas-containing fill into the chamber body (Steps 108,110 in Fig. 1).
As to claim 3, hydrogen may be used as a carrier gas for the silicon containing material in Kaj para 0037-0039.
As to claim 4, as broadly claimed, Kaj increases the flow of chlorine from zero, fitting the ‘about 5 torr’ limitation to about 100 torr in para 0058.
As to claim 7, Comita uses a throttle valve for the exhaust that closes to fluidly separate the exhaust source during chlorine introduction in col 5 line 64- col 6 line 7. Gases are purged as claimed in Comita Fig. 2, with nitrogen used as an inert gas in col 7 lines 55-65.
As to claim 8, this inherently occurs as broadly claimed in Kaj as turning on the chlorine gas would be increasing a pressure within the chamber body and it would be increased to a target pressure as the pressure increase would not be immediate, as broadly claimed. Further, Comita teaches a target pressure in the sections above.
As to claim 10, Kaj teaches rotation of the susceptor in para 0074.
As to claim 16, Comita mixes a nitrogen and chlorine gas in col 7 lines 55-65.
As to claim 17, Comita et al. teaches a chlorine cleaning gas (Fig. 2) where a valve is present in between the chamber and exhaust (col 5 line 64- col 6 line 7) in order to control the chamber pressure to achieve advantageous results. Comita recognizes the flow rate as a result effective variable as it varies so that the chlorine has a sufficient time to ensure the removal of all unwanted by products (col. 7 line 67- col. 8 line 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the chamber pressure by valve in between chamber and exhaust to achieve advantageous results by routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art, absent evidence commensurate in scope with the claims. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 18, Comita shows the apparatus as claimed in Fig. 1 (126) with a rotatable shaft/substrate as in col. 1 lines 15-50 that would also be cut off from gas when the rest of the apparatus is cut off as it is fluidly connected. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaj to include the shaft and tube as claimed as taught by Comita as Comita shows the art recognized suitability and utility of this type of construction at least as broadly claimed.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaj in view of Comita et al., in further view of Sandhu et al. (US 6749717 B1).
Kaj and Comita are discussed above and do not include a laminar flow and turbulent flow for the reactants and cleaning gases respectively. Sandhu et al. teaches a reactant flow in Fig. 1 coming from the top of the chamber, which one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to be laminar, and a cleaning gas coming from the side of the chamber 14 which one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to be turbulent to produce a uniform coating on a substrate and a chamber that is fully cleaned in col 7 lines 10-25.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kaj and Comita to include a laminar flow and turbulent flow for the reactants and cleaning gases respectively as taught by Sandhu in order to produce a uniform coating on a substrate and a chamber that is fully cleaned.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zojaji et al. (US 2006/0169669 A1; hereafter Zoj) in view of Comita et al. (US 6042654 A)
As to claim 1, Zoj teaches a material layer deposition method, comprising: flowing a silicon-containing material layer precursor through a chamber body (paras 0041-0042); forming a silicon-containing accretion within the chamber body (para 0053); introducing a chlorine (Cl2) gas-containing fill into the chamber body; etching at least a portion of the silicon-containing accretion using the chlorine (Cl2) gas-containing fill (para 0053, chlorine as an etching gas 0054); and removing the chlorine (Cl2) gas-containing fill and a silicon-containing etchant product from the chamber body (vacuum pressure, para 0057). Zoj does not teach that the chlorine gas fill is ‘impounded’ within the chamber body by fluidly separating the chamber from an exhaust source. Zoj, however, does teach having the chlorine gas present in the chamber at atmospheric pressure (760 torr) in para 0041, indicating that the exhaust source is not pulling a strong vacuum or is isolated and not pulling a vacuum at all and thus the gas could be impounded as claimed.
Comita et al. teaches a similar process with a chlorine cleaning gas (Fig. 2) where a throttle valve is present in between the chamber and exhaust (col 5 line 64- col 6 line 7) in order to control the chamber pressure to achieve advantageous results. The throttle valve includes separating the exhaust as needed to maintain the pressure, including atmospheric pressure, in this section, thus impounding the gas as desired. The amount of chlorine gas/flow rate/time impounded varies so that the chlorine has a sufficient time to ensure the removal of all unwanted by products (col. 7 line 67- col. 8 line 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Zoj to include impounding the chlorine gas as taught by Comita in order to achieve advantageous results.
As to claim 2, Zoj teaches supporting a substrate within the chamber body prior to flowing the silicon-containing material layer precursor through the chamber body; exposing the substrate to the silicon-containing precursor during the flowing of the silicon-containing material layer precursor through the chamber body; depositing a silicon-containing material layer onto the substrate using the silicon-containing material layer precursor (paras 0041-0042, Fig. 5); and removing the substrate from the chamber body prior to introducing the chlorine (Cl2) gas-containing fill into the chamber body (para 0054).
As to claim 3, Zoj includes hydrogen as a carrier gas with its chlorine cleaning gas in para 0060.
As to claim 4, as broadly claimed, Zoj increases the flow of chlorine from zero, fitting the ‘about 5 torr’ limitation to about 100 torr in para 0057.
As to claims 5-6, Zoj teaches cleaning sensitive surfaces within a chamber body such as quartz or silicon carbide in para 0056.
As to claim 7, Zoj includes flowing nitrogen (N2) gas through an interior of the chamber body; purging an interior of the chamber body with the nitrogen (N2) gas (step 525, Fig. 5, para 0060 as a carrier gas). Comita uses a throttle valve for the exhaust that closes to fluidly separate the exhaust source during chlorine introduction in col 5 line 64- col 6 line 7. Gases are purged as claimed in Comita Fig. 2, with nitrogen used as an inert gas in col 7 lines 55-65.
As to claim 8, this inherently occurs in Zoj as broadly claimed as turning on the chlorine gas would be increasing a pressure within the chamber body and it would be increased to a target pressure as the pressure increase would not be immediate, as broadly claimed.
As to claim 13, Zoj maintains the claimed difference in temperature during the cleaning process in para 0057.
As to claims 11 and 14-15, Zoj includes ‘about’ the claimed temperature of the chamber walls and susceptor in para 0057, as maintaining temperature during this time will necessarily include increases and decreases as broadly claimed.
As to claim 16, Zoj includes nitrogen with chlorine in paras 0057-0060.
As to claim 17, Comita et al. teaches a chlorine cleaning gas (Fig. 2) where a valve is present in between the chamber and exhaust (col 5 line 64- col 6 line 7) in order to control the chamber pressure to achieve advantageous results. Comita recognizes the flow rate as a result effective variable as it varies so that the chlorine has a sufficient time to ensure the removal of all unwanted by products (col. 7 line 67- col. 8 line 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the chamber pressure by valve in between chamber and exhaust to achieve advantageous results by routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art, absent evidence commensurate in scope with the claims. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 18, Comita shows the apparatus as claimed in Fig. 1 (126) with a rotatable shaft/substrate as in col. 1 lines 15-50 that would also be cut off from gas when the rest of the apparatus is cut off as it is fluidly connected. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaj to include the shaft and tube as claimed as taught by Comita as Comita shows the art recognized suitability and utility of this type of construction at least as broadly claimed.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoj in view of Comita et al., in further view of Sandhu et al. (US 6749717 B1).
Zoj and Comita are discussed above and do not include a laminar flow and turbulent flow for the reactants and cleaning gases respectively. Sandhu et al. teaches a reactant flow in Fig. 1 coming from the top of the chamber, which one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to be laminar, and a cleaning gas coming from the side of the chamber 14 which one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to be turbulent to produce a uniform coating on a substrate and a chamber that is fully cleaned in col 7 lines 10-25.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Zoj and Comita to include a laminar flow and turbulent flow for the reactants and cleaning gases respectively as taught by Sandhu in order to produce a uniform coating on a substrate and a chamber that is fully cleaned.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoj in view of Kaj.
As to claim 10, Zoj does not teach susceptor rotation. Kaj teaches processing methods that include both coating and cleaning as described above and that the substrate may be rotated during such processes in para 0074. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Zoj to include rotating the susceptor as taught by Kaj as Kaj teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Though Zoj teaches keeping both the walls of the chamber and susceptor cool as discussed above, Zoj does not teach varying the rates at which they are kept cool. Comita teaches that as temperature is increased, the chlorine radicals are more effective (Fig. 3) and thus could potentially cause more damage, but does not discuss limiting the temperature nor the effectiveness of the radicals solely on the substrate support.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights