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 amendment filed 06/26/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 11 and 12 are withdrawn. Claims 13 and 14 are new.
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.
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 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2022049557 to Tokyo Electron Ltd. (“Tokyo”, and note the attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Tokyo teaches a plasma purge method (translation, abstract) comprising: (A) activating and supplying a first process gas including N2 into a processing chamber (translation, page 4, para beginning “A gas injector”, page 6, para beginning “The gas injector 45”); and (B) activating and supplying gasses including H2 and O2 into the processing chamber (translation, page 8, para beginning “The H 2 / O 2 plasma purge step”).
Tokyo discloses performing step (A) at a lower pressure than step (B) (translation, claims 1 and 4) and wherein (A) and (B) are performed a plurality of times (translation, page 7, para beginning “In the plasma purging”), but does not explicitly teach the method wherein raising and lowering of a pressure inside the processing chamber is repeated in each of (A) and (B). Nor does Tokyo explicitly teach that the H2 and O2 are supplied by a single second gas. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Tokyo method wherein the step (A) pressure is lowered from that of a prior step (B) performance in order to perform step (A), and then raised in order to prepare for another step (B) performance, and wherein the step (B) pressure is raised from that of a prior step (A) performance in order to perform step (B), and then lowered in order to prepare for another step (A) performance, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to save time. Further, it is noted that there are only three possibilities in the processing chamber pressure: 1) lower it, 2) raise it and 3) keep it the same, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try raising and/or lowering the pressure, wherein raising and lowering of a pressure inside the processing chamber is repeated in each of (A) and (B), through routine experimentation, with predictable results.
Further, Tokyo discloses supplying the H2 and O2 in close proximity to each other (note, e.g., Fig. 1), such that it can be reasonably expected that the H2 and O2 gasses will mix into a single mixed gas, or second process gas. Further, it is noted that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
Regarding claim 4, Tokyo does not explicitly teach the method wherein each of (A) and (B) includes maintaining the pressure inside the processing chamber constant after repeating the raising and lowering of the pressure inside the processing chamber. However, lacking a teaching to change a pressure after the raising and lowering, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to perform the Tokyo method wherein each of (A) and (B) includes maintaining the pressure inside the processing chamber constant after repeating the raising and lowering of the pressure inside the processing chamber, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance process control. Further, it is noted that there are only three possibilities: 1) raise the pressure, 2) lower the pressure and 3) maintain a constant pressure, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Tokyo method wherein each of (A) and (B) includes maintaining the pressure inside the processing chamber constant after repeating the raising and lowering of the pressure inside the processing chamber, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, Tokyo does not explicitly teach the method wherein the repeating the raising and lowering of the pressure inside the processing chamber is performed for a period longer than a period of the maintaining the pressure inside the processing chamber constant. However, there are only three possibilities: 1) repeating step is longer, 2) repeating step is shorter, and 3) repeating step is the same as the maintaining step, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to perform the Tokyo method wherein each of (A) and (B) includes maintaining the pressure inside the processing chamber constant after repeating the raising and lowering of the pressure inside the processing chamber, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Tokyo discloses a method wherein (A) and (B) are performed in this order (translation, claims 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 7, Tokyo discloses a method wherein (A) and (B) are performed a plurality of times (translation, page 7, para beginning “In the plasma purging”).
Regarding claim 8, Tokyo discloses method wherein the first process gas and the second process gas are activated by plasma (translation, abstract, page 6, para beginning “The gas injector”, page 8, last full para).
Regarding claim 9, Tokyo discloses a method wherein microwaves are supplied for plasma formation (translation, page 4, para beginning “The plasma forming unit”), but does not explicitly teach the method wherein a power of microwave for generating the plasma in (B) is greater than a power of the microwave for generating the plasma in (A). However, there are only three possibilities: 1) power for (B) is higher, 2) power for (B) is lower, and 3) power for (B) is the same as for (A), and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Tokyo method wherein a power of microwave for generating the plasma in (B) is greater than a power of the microwave for generating the plasma in (A), with predictable results.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2022049557 to Tokyo Electron Ltd. (“Tokyo”, and note the attached translation) in view of JP 2015105410 to Kokusai Denki Electric Inc. (“Kokusai”, and note the attached translation).
Regarding claim 2, Tokyo does not explicitly teach the method wherein: the raising of the pressure inside the processing chamber increases the pressure stepwise, and the lowering of the pressure inside the processing chamber decreases the pressure stepwise. However, stepwise adjustment of pressure was known in the art as advantageously inhibiting displacement of substrates (see, e.g., Kokusai at, inter alia, translation, page 11, last full para), and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Tokyo method as was known wherein the raising of the pressure inside the processing chamber increases the pressure stepwise, and the lowering of the pressure inside the processing chamber decreases the pressure stepwise, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to inhibit displacement of substrates.
Regarding claim 3, Tokyo/Kokusai does not explicitly teach the method wherein a pressure oscillation in (B) is larger than a pressure oscillation in (A). However, Tokyo discloses performing step (A) at a lower pressure than step (B) (translation, claims 1 and 4). Thus, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to perform the Tokyo/Kokusai method wherein a pressure oscillation in (B) is larger than a pressure oscillation in (A), with a reasonable expectation of success, in view of the disclosure to perform step (B) at a greater pressure. Further, there are only three possibilities: 1) step (A) oscillation is lower, 2) step (A) oscillation is higher, and 3) step (A) oscillation is the same as that of step (B), and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Tokyo/Kokusai method wherein a pressure oscillation in (B) is larger than a pressure oscillation in (A) with predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 13 and 14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art reference is JP 2022049557 to Tokyo Electron Ltd. The prior art references of record, taken alone or in combination, do not anticipate or suggest fairly the limitations of wherein (A) and (B) are performed after cleaning an inside of the processing chamber and before accommodating a substrate inside the processing chamber to perform a substrate processing, in combination with the other method steps as instantly recited. Upon further search no other prior art has been located at the date of this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to modify the Tokyo method to perform a process of raising a lowering of the pressure inside the processing chamber, much less repeating such a process in which each of (A) activating and supplying a first process gas including N2 into the processing chamber, and (B) activating and supplying a second process gas including H2 and O2 into the processing chamber since, it is alleged, Tokyo discloses an example wherein the pressure inside the processing chamber is maintained constant while supplying N2, H2 and O2 (remarks, page 2, last para), applicant’s attention is directed to the Office action mailed 05/12/2026, page 5, last para, wherein it states, “… it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Tokyo method wherein the step (A) pressure is lowered from that of a prior step (B) performance in order to perform step (A), and then raised in order to prepare for another step (B) performance, and wherein the step (B) pressure is raised from that of a prior step (A) performance in order to perform step (B), and then lowered in order to prepare for another step (A) performance, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to save time. Further, it is noted that there are only three possibilities in the processing chamber pressure: 1) lower it, 2) raise it and 3) keep it the same, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try raising and/or lowering the pressure, wherein raising and lowering of a pressure inside the processing chamber is repeated in each of (A) and (B), through routine experimentation, with predictable results.”
Regarding applicant’s assertion that the result of two gasses mixing with each other in a region would be considerably different than a case were a single gas including the two gasses is supplied to the region (remarks, page 3, first full para), it is not clear what way(s) that that would be. Applicant is reminded that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. MPEP 2145.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights