DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to communication received on 3/2/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of AIA 35 U.S.C. code not present in this action can be found in previous office actions dated 1/2/26.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-10 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/2/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 11-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. USPGPub 2005/0214454 hereinafter YANG in view of Yamazawa et al. US Patent Number 8,642,442 hereinafter YAMAZAWA.
As for claim 11, YANG teaches “The method includes providing a repellant coating layer having a hydrophobic or hydrophilic polarity on the interior surfaces of a process chamber and using a cleaning agent having a polarity opposite that of the repellant coating layer to clean the chamber” (abstract, lines 5-10), and “A gas distribution plate or "showerhead"l4 is provided in the top of the chamber 10 for the introduction of process gases from a gas panel 16 into the chamber interior 13, by actuation of a control unit 18” (paragraph 31, lines 4-7), wherein the showerhead forms an interior surface of the chamber, i.e. A shower head coating method.
YANG further teaches “the repellent coating layer for the interior surfaces of the chamber is silicon (Si).” (paragraph 28, lines 2-4) and “Next, as shown in step S2, the coating layer gas is introduced into the chamber interior 13 typically through the showerhead 14, at a flow rate of typically about 300 sccm” (paragraph 33, lines 10-13), i.e. a coating layer forming step of vaporizing the precursor to form a coating layer on a shower head disposed so as to face the substrate.
YANG is silent on a precursor application step of applying a precursor to a substrate; a placement step of placing the substrate coated with the precursor in a processing space in a chamber; a heat/pressure application step of applying heat and pressure to the substrate coated with the precursor.
Examiner does note that YANG also teaches a step of applying cleaning solution to the interior of the chamber (paragraph 35) using the same showerhead introduction as all other process gases which interacts with the interior of the chamber (paragraph 36).
YAMAZAWA teaches “A cleaning substrate that can prevent a decrease in the operating rate of a substrate processing apparatus. The cleaning substrate that cleans the interior of a chamber in the substrate processing apparatus has a removal mechanism that removes foreign matter in the chamber” (abstract).
YAMAZAWA further teaches “According to the cleaning process in FIGS. 9A and 9B, after the cleaning substrate 64 having the bag 61 that entirely covers the cleaning agent 60 that cleans deposit in the chamber 17… helium gas is supplied at high pressure into the gap between the cleaning substrate 64 and the susceptor… the cleaning agent 60 inside the bag 61 scatters into the chamber 17. The cleaning agent 60 that has scattered into the chamber 17 becomes attached to deposit in the chamber 17 and cleans the deposit” (column 15, lines 8-21). Examiner notes that the claim does not limit the amount of heat or pressure applied, and thereby, YAMAZAWA teaches a… application step of applying a solution to a substrate; a placement step of placing the substrate coated with the solution in a processing space in a chamber; a heat/pressure application step of applying heat and pressure to the substrate coated with the precursor as illustrated in the above quotation.
YAMAZAWA further teaches “Thus, the interior of the processing chamber can be easily cleaned to a desired level, and hence the time period required for maintenance can be shortened. As a result, the time period for which the operation of the substrate processing apparatus is stopped can be shortened, and hence a decrease in the operating rate of the substrate processing apparatus can be prevented” (column 2, lines 16-22), i.e. wherein a method of applying a solution to the interior of a chamber using a substrate application method prevents a decrease in the operating rate of the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the substrate application method of providing the precursor in the process of YANG such that it includes precursor application step of applying a precursor to a substrate; a placement step of placing the substrate coated with the precursor in a processing space in a chamber; a heat/pressure application step of applying heat and pressure to the substrate coated with the precursor because YANG teaches that using such a method to apply a solution to the interior of a chamber prevents decreases on operation of the machine.
YANG further teaches “wherein said providing a repellent coating layer on said interior surfaces of said process chamber comprises the steps of setting said process chamber at a temperature of from about 500 degrees C. to about 700 degrees C” (paragraph 13) as a means to form the Si from the precursor introduced into the chamber, i.e. a film quality improvement step of heating the shower head to apply heat to the coating layer.
As for claim 12, YANG teaches “In one embodiment, silane (SiH4) is used as the precursor source gas for deposition of a silicon repellent coating layer on the interior chamber surfaces” (paragraph 30, lines 1-3), i.e. wherein the precursor in the precursor application step comprises silane or siloxane.
As for claim 13, YANG further teaches “In one embodiment, silane (SiH4) is used as the precursor source gas for deposition of a silicon repellent coating layer on the interior chamber surfaces” (paragraph 30, lines 1-3), i.e. wherein the precursor comprising silane is a precursor represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
204
234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R1, R2, R3, and R4 each is independently selected from the group consisting of H, OH, and a C1-C6 alkyl or alkenyl group, and n is in a range of 1 to 2,000 (1 ≤ n ≤ 2,000).
As for claim 15, YANG is silent on the substrate coated with the precursor.
YAMAZAWA further teaches “According to the cleaning process in FIGS. 9A and 9B, after the cleaning substrate 64 having the bag 61 that entirely covers the cleaning agent 60 that cleans deposit in the chamber 17… helium gas is supplied at high pressure into the gap between the cleaning substrate 64 and the susceptor… the cleaning agent 60 inside the bag 61 scatters into the chamber 17. The cleaning agent 60 that has scattered into the chamber 17 becomes attached to deposit in the chamber 17 and cleans the deposit” (column 15, lines 8-21), wherein it shows the substrate being placed into the chamber faces the top of the chamber.
YAMAZAWA further teaches “Thus, the interior of the processing chamber can be easily cleaned to a desired level, and hence the time period required for maintenance can be shortened. As a result, the time period for which the operation of the substrate processing apparatus is stopped can be shortened, and hence a decrease in the operating rate of the substrate processing apparatus can be prevented” (column 2, lines 16-22), i.e. wherein a method of applying a solution to the interior of a chamber using a substrate application method prevents a decrease in the operating rate of the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the substrate application method of providing the precursor in the process of YANG such that it includes wherein the placement step comprises a movement step of moving the substrate coated with the precursor to a position facing the shower head because YANG teaches that using such a method to apply a solution to the interior of a chamber prevents decreases on operation of the machine.
As for claim 16, YANG teaches “the chamber 10 is set at a temperature of typically from about 500 degrees C. to about 700 degrees C. and a pressure of typically from about 10 Torr to about 760 Torr, or 1 atmosphere” (paragraph 33, lines 7-10), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein, in the heat/pressure application step, the heat applied to the substrate ranges from 200 °C to 500 °C, and the pressure applied to the substrate ranges from normal pressure to 0.01 torr. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
As for claim 17, YANG teaches “In one embodiment, in which the repellent coating layer 30 is silicon (Si), the coating layer gas is silane (SiH4)” (paragraph 33, lines 13-15), i.e. wherein the coating layer formed in the coating layer forming step is a silicon film.
As for claim 18, YANG teaches “the repellent coating layer 30 preferably has a thickness 31 of typically from about 2 μm to about 10 μm” (paragraph 33, lines 22-24), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein the coating layer has a thickness of 1 μm to 1 mm.
As for claim 19, YANG teaches “the chamber 10 is set at a temperature of typically from about 500 degrees C. to about 700 degrees C. and a pressure of typically from about 10 Torr to about 760 Torr, or 1 atmosphere” (paragraph 33, lines 7-10), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein, in the film quality improvement step, the coating layer is heated to 200 °C to 500 °C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. USPGPub 2005/0214454 hereinafter YANG and Yamazawa et al. US Patent Number 8,642,442 hereinafter YAMAZAWA as applied to claim 11, further in view of Dhas et al. US PGPub 2015/0203967 hereinafter DHAS.
As for claim 14, YANG and YAMAZAWA are silent on wherein the precursor comprising siloxane is a precursor represented by Formula 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
176
242
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein R1, R2, R3, and R4 each is independently selected from the group consisting of H, OH, and a C1-C6 alkyl or alkenyl group, and n is a range of 1 to 2,000 (1 ≤ n ≤ 2,000).
DHAS teaches “The embodiments herein present methods and apparatus for
depositing film on substrates” (abstract, line 1-2).
DHAS teaches “The embodiments herein may be practiced with a variety of reactants. It is expected that the disclosed embodiments will be particularly beneficial in any case where a liquid reactant is vaporized/atomized before delivery in a gaseous state to a reaction chamber, or more generally, where a reactant process gas is likely to condense if it comes into contact with a cold surface/area. Examples of reactants that may benefit from the disclosed embodiments include, but are not limited to, TEOS, cyclic and non-cyclic TEOS variants such as tetramethoxysilane (TMOS), fluorotriethoxysilane (FTES), Trimethylsilane (TMS)… hexamethyldisiloxane (HMDSO)… methyltrimethoxysilane (MTMOS), tetramethyldisiloxane (TMDSO)… dimethyltetramethoxydisiloxane (DMTMODSO)… tetraethoxydimethyldisiloxane (TEODMDSO)… tetramethyldiethoxydisiloxane (TMDEODSO)… n general, other likely precursor candidates include various liquid siloxanes (linear and cyclic) and silanes” (paragraph 81), i.e. wherein siloxanes and silanes are known equivalents in the processes for producing silicon films and wherein DHAS teaches examples that fall within wherein the precursor comprising siloxane is a precursor represented by Formula 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
176
242
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein R1, R2, R3, and R4 each is independently selected from the group consisting of H, OH, and a C1-C6 alkyl or alkenyl group, and n is a range of 1 to 2,000 (1 ≤ n ≤ 2,000).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a wherein the precursor comprising siloxane is a precursor represented by Formula 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
176
242
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein R1, R2, R3, and R4 each is independently selected from the group consisting of H, OH, and a C1-C6 alkyl or alkenyl group, and n is a range of 1 to 2,000 (1 ≤ n ≤ 2,000) in the process of YANG and YAMAZAWA because DHAS teaches that such precursors were known equivalents to the silanes taught by YANG in producing silicon-containing films.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN A DAGENAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1114. The examiner can normally be reached 8-12 and 1-5.
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, Dah Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/KRISTEN A DAGENAIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights