DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US2019/0136373A1) and further in view of Wing et al. (US 6277235 A1, cited by applicant in IDS of 3/25/2025).
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.
Yeh et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the cleaning gas flowing into the reaction chamber from below through a substrate support. Wing et al. teach flowing of cleaning gas below the reaction chamber, and through the substrate support 106 (Fig. 1) for purposes of cleaning reaction chamber and components present therein (abstract). 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 introducing a cleaning gas below the reaction chamber and through the substrate support, as taught by Wing et al., for purposes of performing the same function of cleaning the reaction chamber and components therein. Additionally, the limitations of flowing the gas below the chamber and through the substrate support, is neither novel and/or unobvious, as a) Yeh et al. teach that the location, number, size and shape of the gas outlet holes can be changed or adjusted according to actual needs (paragraph 45), b)the prior art of Wing et al., has been cited in applicant's IDS of 3/25/2025 and c) the concept is well known in the art, as further evidenced by Bonifield et al. (US4512283).
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 claim 6, 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. 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 claim 11, 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. 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(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US2019/0136373A1) view of Wing et al. (US 6277235 A1, cited by applicant in IDS of 3/25/2025) and further in view of Won et al. (US2005/0170196A1).
Yeh et al. in view of Wing 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 modified 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.
Response to Arguments
6. The rejection of the claims, under 112, second paragraph is withdrawn in view of arguments presented by applicant.
7. The rejection of the claims as being anticipated by Yeh et al. is withdrawn in view of the newly amended claims. The newly amended limitations are taught by Wing et al. for the reasons set forth above. Additionally, flowing cleaning gas through the substrate support at the bottom of the reaction chamber, is not considered as patentable subject matter, as the concept is neither novel nor unobvious for the reasons recited above. Applicant's arguments directed towards improved cleaning efficiency and gas distribution are not persuasive as it is not commensurate in scope with the instantly claimed invention.
8. The rejection of the claims as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. in view of Won et al. is maintained for the reasons set forth above.
9. 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.
10. 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