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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9 February 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 17/099,454 and 18/954,712 fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Examiner is unable to locate corresponding disclosure of “simultaneously supply the second process gas to the interior volume through the first opening or a second opening in the first side wall” or “simultaneously supplying the second process gas to the interior volume through the gas inlet opening in the first side wall”. Accordingly, claims 7 and 18 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications. Still, the claims have been examined as written to the best of Examiner’s ability. See below in response to Arguments for further and updated analysis in response to Applicant’s most recent submissions.
Specification
The specification amendments have been entered based on the original claims filed in the instant application on 16 December 2024. However, the issue of priority still remains as now there is subject matter in the claims and the specification that was not in the parent applications. The present application appears to be a continuation-in-part. Applicant is requested to update the status of the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the a ring (in Fig. 5) must be shown and labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Presently, claims 8-10 and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to previously nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in a previous reply.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: claims 1, 4, 13 and 15: radiant heat source which has been interpreted as a lamp and equivalents thereto as set forth, e.g., in the specification at para. 58; claims 1 and 13: plasma source which has been interpreted as a remote, inductively coupled plasma source or a remote, microwave plasma source and equivalents thereto as set forth, e.g., in the specification at para. 53.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Applicant is invited to address any differences between the claims that render the claim objection improper. Examiner was unable to find any.
Additional Claim Interpretations
Simultaneous causation of two processing steps has been interpreted as inclusive of two steps of supplying or flowing first and second gases overlapping in time in a single chamber as first filed in original claims of the instant application. Additionally, see above related issues regarding priority.
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.
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, 11, 13-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0368796 to Li et al. in view of JP Pub. No. H0729827 to Jinriki et al.
Regarding claims 1 and 13: Li et al. disclose a system for processing substrates substantially as claimed and comprising: a processing chamber (e.g. Fig. 1, 100) comprising: an interior volume (110) disposed between a plurality of chamber walls, wherein the plurality of chamber walls comprise an upper wall (top of 104), a lower wall (bottom of 104), a first side wall (one of 134) and a second side wall (the other one of 134) ; and the interior volume is disposed between the first side wall and the second side wall; a substrate support (112) positioned within the interior volume and between the upper and lower wall; a ring (140) disposed outwardly of the substrate support; a first inlet opening (190 and 136a) formed in the first side wall at a first level above the ring; a second inlet opening (192 and 136b) formed in the first side wall at a second level above the ring, the first inlet opening formed in the first side wall above the second inlet opening; a first array of radiant heat sources (118B) positioned to deliver electromagnetic radiation to the substrate support through the lower wall; and an exhaust system (see, e.g., para. 30) including a pump (not shown) and an outlet opening (137) formed in the second side wall, wherein a plasma may be generated comprising a first process gas such that the substrate processing system is operable to supply radicals generated in the plasma to the interior volume through the first inlet opening; and wherein the second inlet opening formed in the first side wall is operable to flow a second process gas to the interior volume. Also see, e.g., abstract and paras. 21-30.
However, Li et al. fails to explicitly disclose a plasma source for generating the plasma comprising an inlet and an outlet, wherein the inlet is coupled to the first inlet opening formed in the first side wall of the processing chamber.
Jinriki et al. disclose a system comprising, inter alia: a processing chamber (Fig. 1, 101) with an interior volume; a gas inlet opening (e.g., 12 and 23); a remote inductively-coupled or microwave plasma source (15 and 16) comprising an inlet (e.g. adjacent ) and an outlet (e.g. adjacent to 17), wherein the outlet is coupled to the gas inlet opening of the processing chamber, wherein the plasma source is operable to generate a plasma comprising a first gas and supply radicals generated in the plasma to the interior volume through the outlet of the plasma source. The aforementioned system arrangement is provided for the purpose of providing a system capable preventing the decomposition of gas which is not desirable for a thin film / surface treatment, and to remove the unnecessary elements. As a result, it is possible to prevent the contamination of impurities, which has been a problem in conventional thin film / surface treatment of semiconductor substrates, and to favorably realize high quality film formation and clean surface treatment (see, e.g., translation).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided modified Li et al. having a plasma source comprising an inlet and an outlet, wherein the outlet is coupled to a gas inlet of the processing chamber, and the plasma source is operable to generate a plasma comprising the first gas and supply radicals generated in the plasma to the interior volume through the outlet of the plasma source in order to prevent the decomposition of gas which is not desirable for a thin film / surface treatment, and to remove the unnecessary elements. As a result, it is possible to prevent the contamination of impurities, which has been a problem in conventional thin film / surface treatment of semiconductor substrates, and to favorably realize high quality film formation and clean surface treatment as taught by Jinkri et al.
With respect to claims 2 and 14, Li et al. disclose the processing chamber further comprises a liner (132A-H) disposed between the first side wall and the interior volume, and between the interior volume and the second side wall. Li et al. fails to explicitly disclose the liner made of quartz. However, elsewhere in Li et al., other bounding features of the inner volume are disclosed as made of quartz. Additionally, it is noted that the courts have ruled that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have used quartz as a construction material for the liner.
With respect to claim 3, in modified Li et al., the outlet of the plasma source is in fluid communication with the interior volume through the first inlet opening and an opening formed in the quartz liner.
With respect to claims 4 and 15, in modified Li et al., Li et al. disclose a second array of radiant heat sources (118A) positioned to deliver electromagnetic radiation to the substrate support through the upper wall.
With respect to claims 11 and 20, in modified Li et al., Winkler et al. disclose the plasma source comprises an inductive plasma source (see, e.g., para. 24). Regarding the process gas that may be used during an intended use of the system, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); and expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). It is also noted Winkler disclose the first process gas may comprise argon (see, e.g., para. 24).
With respect to claims 16 and 17, which are drawn to process gas that may be used during an intended use of the system, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); and expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). It is also noted Winkler disclose the first process gas may comprise hydrogen (see, e.g., para. 26).
With respect to claim 19, in modified Li et al., Li et al. disclose the upper wall and the lower wall may comprise quartz (see, e.g., para. 23).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Li et al. as applied to claims 1-4, 11, 13-17 and 19-20 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0017227 to Fu et al.
Modified Li et al. disclose the system substantially as claimed and as described above.
Additionally, with respect to claim 5, which is drawn to the identity of the process gas that may be used during an intended use of the system, the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); and expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
However, modified Li et al. fail to providing one or more magnets disposed along the conduit to filter charged particles in the radicals.
Fu et al. teach providing a conduit (Fig. 2, 61) between a plasma source and an inlet opening to a processing chamber; and one or more magnets (63-64) disposed along the conduit to project a magnetic field across the conduit for the purpose of filtering charged particles in radicals (see, e.g., paras. 18 and 23).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided modified Li et al. and one or more magnets disposed along the conduit to project a magnetic field across the conduit in order to filter charged particles in radicals as taught by Fu et al.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Li et al. as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 11, 13-17 and 19-20 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,000,062 to Clafin et al. and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0103907 to Chu et al.
Modified Li et al. disclose the system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Li et al. fail to disclose simultaneously causing a flow of the first process gas from the outlet of the plasma source to/over an upper or lower surface of the substrate support and supplying the second process gas to the interior volume through, either -- claim 7 the first inlet opening or the second inlet opening, or claim 18 the first inlet opening -- formed in the first side wall, wherein simultaneous causation of the two steps is considered inclusive of their performance in a single chamber and wherein the first process gas flowing from the outlet of the plasma source comprises hydrogen radicals, and the second process gas comprises a silicon precursor.
Clafin et al. teach a method including simultaneously (i.e. in a single chamber, 26) causing a flow of a first process gas (comprising hydrogen) from the outlet of a plasma source (12) to a surface of a substrate support (32) and supplying a second process gas (comprising silicon) to an interior volume (34) through a gas inlet opening (e.g., from 24) formed in a first side wall and wherein the first process gas flowing from the outlet of the plasma source comprises hydrogen radicals, and the second process gas comprises a silicon precursor for the purpose of enabling production of a high quality film on a variety of substrate materials using, stable, commercially available precursors (see, e.g., column 2, row 51- column 3, row 67 and column 4, row 60 through column 6, row 3). Additionally, Examiner notes that the first gas and the second gas are configured to be mixed in the single interaction chamber (i.e. they are explicitly disclosed to be in the single chamber at a same time).
Chu et al. discloses a substrate processing system may comprise a controller (250) configured for controlling the operations of the substrate processing system and comprising instructions that, when executed: control flows of various precursor gases and purge gases from gas sources, during different operations of a substrate process sequence (see, e.g., paras. 66-68)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in modified Li et al. the controller comprising instructions that, when executed, simultaneously causing a flow of the first process gas from the outlet of the plasma source to a surface of the substrate support and supplying the second process gas to the interior volume through the gas inlet opening formed in the first side wall and wherein the first process gas flowing from the outlet of the plasma source comprises hydrogen radicals, and the second process gas comprises a silicon precursor in order to enable production of a high quality film on a variety of substrate materials using, stable, commercially available precursors as taught by Claflin et al. and Chu et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed regarding support for priority have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Neither the abstract, nor Fig. 5 of 17/099,454 or features of 18/954,712 appear to provide support for “simultaneously supply” as claimed, wherein simultaneous supply corresponds to a timing of a second process gas and a first process gas. There is no indication that the direction of gas flow signified by the “arrows” corresponds to any specific timing. Therefore, Examiner continues to find that the priority claimed is not set forth in the aforementioned applications for claims related thereto. Regarding the amended specification, the specification has been entered based on the claims of the instant application as originally filed. However, importantly, entry of the amendment does not change the deficiency in priority.
Regarding claim interpretation, a resistive heater is not considered a radiant heat source as claimed, nor is there any evidence that the generically referenced resistive heater delivers electromagnetic radiation or is arranged as necessitated by the claim. Similarly, Examiner is not clear on Applicant’s point regarding in-situ generation of hydrogen radicals, since the claim language requires the plasma and radicals to be generated before entering the process chamber.
The prior art rejections have been modified to address claim amendments and to more simply and clearly address the features at issue as they are known to those of ordinary skill in the art. However, Examiner does not agree that the disclosures of previously relied upon prior art references as applied to the previous claim set were insufficient, or, more specifically, that the teachings of Winkler et al. and Chu et al. references were incompatible as previously relied upon.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Pub. No. 2009/0067006 disclose an epitaxy system comprising a remote plasma source and gas sources introduces through a sidewall of a processing chamber. USP Pub. No. 2012/0270384 and 2012/0240853 disclose a substrate processing apparatus with vertically arranged gas openings above a ring in a sidewall of a process chamber and/or plasma gas introduction from the sidewall.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights