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 1-16 in the reply filed on 2/11/2026 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 1-16 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 for the following reasons. The preamble recites a method of "cleaning a reaction chamber". The claim positively recites etching the reaction chamber, however the claim fails to recite a step of cleaning the chamber. Claim 9 is indefinite because "the top" and "the bottom" lacks positive antecedent basis. Claim 16 is indefinite because "the duration" and "the flow rate" lack positive antecedent basis.
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) 1-5, 7-10, 12-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeh et al. (US2019/0136373A1).
Re claim 1, Yeh et al. teach a method of cleaning a reaction chamber (i.e. CVD apparatus) by providing a cleaning gas from a cleaning gas source (16) and feeding a first cleaning gas flow P1 through a first inlet 110 and a second cleaning gas flow through a second inlet (112, 17) into the reaction chamber 11 for etching the reaction chamber, wherein the first and second gas flows enter the reaction chamber from different directions (P1,P2), and activating the cleaning gas before etching (abstract, Fig. 11, steps 1001-1003, paragraphs 3, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 49). The limitations of etching are inherently met since the prior art of Yeh et al. is performing the same steps using the same cleaning gas as the instantly claimed invention. Re claim 2, refer to paragraph 15. Re claims 3-4, refer to paragraph 61, which teaches the flow through the inlets can be done at the same time or in sequence. Re claim 5, refer to paragraph 31. Re claims 7-9 , refer to Fig. 1. Re claim 8, refer to element 17 for example. Re claim 10, refer to paragraphs25, 27-28 the CVD chamber can be used to deposit material on a substrate positioned on a substrate support, wherein the gas is deposited via the gas distribution showerhead via inlet 110. Re claims 12 and 14, refer to element 15 of Fig. 1. Re claim 13, refer to paragraph 28, wherein plasma is formed in a plasma formation unit (showerhead 13 and 14) integrated into the reaction chamber. Re claim 16, refer to paragraphs 30 which teaches a mass flow controller or pressure controller to control the flow rate of the cleaning plasmas.
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) 6, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US2019/0136373A1).
Yeh et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the gases being different. In the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, since paragraph 31 teaches a Markush group of conventional gases used for cleaning the chamber, it would have been well within the level of the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use different cleaning gases, depending upon the type and amount of contaminants present in the chamber. Yeh et al. fail to teach repeating the cleaning process. However, in the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been well within the level of the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have repeatedly performing the cleaning of the reaction chamber, dependent on the amount and type of contaminants, until the desired level of cleanliness has been achieved.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US2019/0136373A1) in view of Won et al. (US2005/0170196A1).
Yeh et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of forming a plasma used for substrate processing in the same plasma formation unit. Yeh et al. teach forming a plasma for activating a cleaning gas (refer to the abstract, Fig. 1, elements 15 and 14). Won et al. teach a method of cleaning a reaction chamber by introducing a cleaning gas and activating a plasma (paragraph 30), and further reaches forming a deposition layer during the processing of a substrate using the same plasma formation unit. 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 Yeh et al. to include the same plasma formation unit, as taught by Won et al. for purposes of forming deposition layers during the CVD processing of the substrate surface.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim teaches a plurality of delivery ports. Yoshida et al., Miya et al., teach a plasma etching apparatus. Kawamura et al. teach cleaning the substrate. Lin et al. teach remote plasma source inside and exterior to chamber. Ashraf et al. teach plasma etching. Himbele et al. teach a plasma processing apparatus. Blomberg et al. is applicant's own publication.
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