DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Information Disclosure Statements
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/30/24 and 01/23/25 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 6 of paragraph [0002] of the instant specification, --a-- should be inserted at the end of the line, after the word "called". On the last line of paragraph [0046], the word "or" should be changed to --and--. On the penultimate line of paragraph [0049], the word "immaturely" should be changed to --prematurely--. On the second line of paragraph [0054], the comma after the second occurrence of "space" should be deleted. On the last line of paragraph [0054], the word "to" should be changed to --in--. On the second line of paragraph [0057], the comma after the second occurrence of "space" should be deleted, and note that the same deletion should be made on the second line of paragraph [0060]. On the last line of paragraph [0060], the word "to" should again be changed to --in--. On the last line of paragraph [0068], "this example" should be changed to --these examples--, and note that the same change should also be made on the last line of paragraph [0072]. On the penultimate line of paragraph [0081], the comma after the word "then" should be deleted, and on line 6 of paragraph [0087], --a-- should be inserted before "flame".
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to because in figure 1 of the instant drawings, blank box 1 needs to be labeled "substrate processing apparatus" and black box 315 needs to be labeled "power generating device". In figures 2 and 3 of the instant drawings, blank box 315 needs to be labeled "power generating device" in instant figures 4 through 6, blank box GS needs to be labeled "fluid supplying part" and blank box 2 needs to be labeled "vacuum pump".
Applicant should note MPEP 608.02(b), subsection II, which indicates that drawing figures should be objected to by the examiner for the situation where unlabeled rectangular boxes shown in the drawings have not been provided with descriptive text labels (note form paragraph 6.22 where the first "Examiner Note" reads as follows: "In bracket 1, insert the reason for the objection, for example, --the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels--". Moreover, applicant should note 37 CFR 1.83(a) which also indicates that each of the rectangular boxes shown in the drawing figures should be illustrated in the form of a labeled rectangular box. Applicant should also note that if the blank boxes are too small to fit the text labels inside these boxes, the text labels can be provided outside of the boxes with a line pointing to the box (as shown, for example, in figure 2 of USPAP 2002/0159276, i.e., blank box 18 with a text label “Oscillator” outside the box 18 with a line pointing thereto).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 5 of claim 1, the comma after the word "generator" should be changed to a semicolon (i.e., so as to be consistent with the use of semicolons at the end of lines 2, 3 and 4 of claim 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 13, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0246094.
As to claims 1, 5 and 7, Park discloses, in figure 2,
a scrubber, comprising:
a plasma processing unit (the claimed plasma processing unit can be read on the combination of Park's component 23 together with electrodes 222 and the space between electrodes 222) including a plasma generator (the claimed plasma generator can be read on electrodes 222 together with the space therebetween);
a power supply (the claimed power supply can be read on the unillustrated but inherent power supply used for operating the figure 2 scrubber of Park);
a combustion processing unit (the claimed combustion processing unit can be read on the combination of burner 22 and combustion chamber 24) including a combustor (the claimed combustor can be read on burner 22) configured to form a flame;
a connection conduit configured to supply a waste gas to the plasma generator (the claimed connection conduit is the inherent but unillustrated connection conduit connected between Park's figure 2 scrubber and the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus referred to in paragraph [0004] of this reference); and
a back end processing unit (the claimed back end processing unit can be read on water reserve tank 3) connected to the combustion processing unit,
wherein the plasma generator is configured to form plasma using the waste gas (inherently during operation of the Park figure 2 scrubber, the above-noted plasma generator forms plasma using the waste gas provided to the scrubber via inlet holes 224), and
the plasma processing unit is configured to provide a first reaction space in which the plasma is formed, and the combustion processing unit is configured to provide a second reaction space in which the flame is formed (inherently during the operation of Park's figure 2 scrubber, the above-noted plasma processing unit provides a first reaction space in which the plasma is formed and the above-noted combustion processing unit provides a second reaction space, i.e., the first reaction space is between and below electrodes 222 and the second reaction space is the space below the first reaction space, where the flame is produced by burner 22).
As to claim 2, note that Park's first and second reaction spaces are overlapped with each other, similar to applicant's first and second reaction spaces shown in figure 2 of the instant drawings.
As to claim 3, note that the claimed first reaction space can be interpreted as the just the space between electrodes 222 (not below these two electrodes), and the claimed second reaction space can be interpreted as just the lower portion of the space within combustion chamber 24, in which case the first and second reaction spaces would be “spaced apart from each other” and thus anticipate the limitation of claim 3.
As to claims 13, 14, 18 and 20, the limitations of these method claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claim 1 (the steps of preparing and processing a substrate in a substrate processing apparatus, as noted above, will be inherent in the semiconductor manufacturing processes described by Park in paragraph [0004] of this reference).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, supra.
As to claim 6, note that figure 2 of Park discloses the claimed air supply pipe and fuel supply pipe (they are the unillustrated supply pipes coupled to the air injection holes 223 and fuel injection hole 225, respectively), and although Park does not disclose an inhibitor supply pipe between the plasma generator and the combustor for supplying a recombination inhibitor, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to use an inhibitor supply pipe for supplying a recombination inhibitor to be mixed with the waste gas output from a substrate processing system, one example of this well-known concept being shown in figure 1 of Gschwandtner, note inhibitor supply pipe 6 for supplying a recombination inhibitor to be mixed with waste gas 3 (the motivation for including such an inhibitor supply pipe for supplying an inhibitor in the Park figure 2 scrubber is to provide the advantage of breaking down toxic fluorine gas, for the situation where fluorine gas is supplied into the Park figure 2 scrubber).
As to claim 8, although Park does not indicate that the plasma generator comprises the specific types recited in this claim, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art who would have easily recognized that any type of well-known plasma generator could obviously be used to form the plasma generator of Park, i.e., an arc plasma device, a dielectric barrier discharge plasma device, a microwave plasma device, a pulsed corona discharge plasma device, an inductively coupled plasma device, or a capacitively coupled plasma device.
As to claim 9, the limitations of this claim are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claim 1, again note that the claimed substrate processing apparatus will be inherent in the semiconductor manufacturing devices disclosed in paragraph [0004] of Park, and the claimed vacuum pump, vacuum conduit and connection conduit would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because these components were old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, of which fact official notice is taken by the examiner.
As to claim 11, as noted above, the use of an inhibitor supply pipe between the plasma generator and combustor of Park would have been obvious for the purpose of supplying a recombination inhibitor, as taught by Gschwandtner, and the claimed wet processing device or heat-exchanging cooling device can be read on the water reserve tank 3 shown in figure 2 of Park.
As to claim 12, the specific substrate processing apparatus recited in this claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the disclosure by Park at paragraph [0004], i.e., before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, substrate processing apparatuses were known to typically comprise one or more of a substrate etching apparatus, a substrate deposition apparatus, a substrate polishing apparatus and a substrate cleaning apparatus.
As to claims 15 and 16, note that the recombination inhibitor disclosed by Gschwandtner comprises hydrogen (see paragraph [0010] of this reference) and the waste gas comprises fluorine (see paragraph [0009] of this reference), and the claimed ratio would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a routine design expedient, the reason being that it has long been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 19, as noted above, the plasma generator in Park's figure 2 scrubber inherently generates a plasma using the waste gas injected into inlet holes 224, and the specific electric power would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a routine design expedient, as noted above it has long been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
8. Claims 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0134281.
As to claim 13, treating the waste gas output from a substrate processing apparatus also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of what is indicated in paragraph [0004] of Chan, note the disclosures in this paragraph that known ways of treating waste gas output from a substrate processing apparatus include combustion type, plasma type and wet type, and any person having ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that any two or more of these different types could be combined together to treat the waste gas output from a substrate processing apparatus (the motivation for combining two or more of these different types of waste gas treatment would be to obtain the maximum removal of the harmful chemicals from the waste gas).
As to claims 15 and 16, treating the waste gas using a plasma generator which includes a recombination inhibitor and a plasma to decompose the waste gas would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the above-noted teaching by Chan when taken in view of the above-noted teaching by Gschwandtner.
As to claim 17, any person having ordinary skill in the art also would have easily recognized that the plasma treating and combustion treating of the waste gas output from a substrate processing apparatus could obviously be performed in any order desired, i.e., it would have been obvious to try the different types of treating in different orders, for example, performing first plasma treatment and then combustion treatment or, alternatively, first combustion treatment and then plasma treatment.
As to claim 18, the use of a back-end processing unit will be inherent when combustion type, plasma type and wet type of waste gas treatment are performed in this order.
As to claim 19, as noted above the specific electric power recited in this claim also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a routine design expedient, as noted above it has long been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 20, using plasma treatment and combustion treatment with overlapping first and second reaction spaces would have been obvious from the above-noted teaching in Chan when modified by the above-noted teaching in Park.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 4 and 10 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record, including Park, Gschwandtner and Chan, discloses or suggests the scrubber of claim 3 with the further limitation of a baffle between the above-noted first and second reaction spaces, as recited in claim 4, nor does any of the prior art of record, including Park, Gschwandtner and Chan, disclose or suggest the substrate processing system of claim 9 with the further limitation that the power supply is connected to the substrate processing apparatus and is configured to receive an electrical signal from the substrate processing apparatus, as recited in claim 10.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Figure 1 of Hartung et al (USP 5,900,217) discloses a scrubber which treats waste gas output from a plasma processing apparatus using combustion treatment, but does not include any plasma treatment. Fabian et al (USP 7,438,869) discloses a scrubber which treats waste gas output from a plasma processing apparatus using plasma treatment, but does not disclose any combustion treatment.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, LINCOLN DONOVAN can be reached at (571)272-1988. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842 January 22, 2026