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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 7, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2021/000160) in view of Samura (U.S. PGPUB No. 2012/0210873).
I. Regarding claims 1, 6 and 7, Mochizuki teaches a method of manufacturing a gas barrier film (abstract) comprising: forming an inorganic layer on a surface of a support by a roll-to-roll process (Figure 6) using a device comprising a film formation chamber where the layer is formed on the support using a film formation drum facing a film formation electrode (Figure 6) by dual frequency capacitively coupled plasma CVD (0125) by supplying power to the drum and electrode (0161-0162 and 0173), and an unwinding chamber where the support is fed from a support roll to the film formation chamber and wound in a roll shape and the unwinding chamber separated from the film formation chamber by a partition wall (Figure 6); supplying monosilane gas, ammonia gas, and hydrogen gas at a fixed amount to the film formation chamber at a fixed flow rate to form the inorganic layer on the support (Example 2, 0216-0218); and exhausting gas from the film formation chamber (0177), wherein as the gas is exhausted the exhaust amount of exhaust gas will necessarily increase over time during the formation process and the amount of gas added, being reacted and removed will stay constant to maintain the monosilane in a fixed rate during points in the film formation process. Mochizuki also teaches a ratio of the flow rate of hydrogen gas to monosilane gas is 7 or greater. Mochizuki fails to teach a step of detoxifying or a step of supplying an inert gas.
However, Samura teaches detoxifying exhaust gas from a semiconductor manufacturing process (abstract), where the exhausted gas includes monosilane (abstract) and is adsorbed in a separation unit (abstract). Samura further teaches that inert gas is also supplied at a position downstream from a detoxifying treatment step (see Figure 1) such that the hydrogen gas concentration in the emitted gas to the atmosphere is less than 4% (0060). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mochizuki’s process by including a detoxifying treatment step of detoxifying the exhaust gas as disclosed by Samura. One would have been motivated to make this modification to eliminate both toxic monosilane gas and explosive hydrogen gas from being released to the environment during Mochizuki’s process.
II. Regarding claims 3, 19 and 20, Mochizuki in view of Samura teach all the limitations of claims 1, 19 and 20 (see above), but fail to explicitly teach a pressure in the unwinding chamber is decreased over time. However, Mochizuki in view of Samura do teach a vacuum exhaust unit connected to the unwinding section for reducing the pressure in the unwinding section (see Mochizuki at 0169) to a pressure which does not affect the pressure in the film formation chamber (Mochizuki at 0169). Furthermore, as gas is consumed in the film formation chamber, the pressure in the chamber will fluctuate up and down. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mochizuki in view of Samura’s process by having the pressure in the unwinding chamber decrease and/or increase during the formation of the inorganic layer using Mochizuki in view of Samura’s vacuum exhaust unit. One would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent the pressure in the unwinding section from altering the pressure in the film formation section as the pressure in that section fluctuates.
2. Claim(s) 2, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki in view of Samura as applied to claims 1 and 3, and further in view of Strahm et al. (“Optimization of the microcrystalline silicon deposition efficiency”).
Regarding claims 2, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 17, Mochizuki in view of Samura make obvious the process of claims 1, 3, 10, 13 and 14 (see above), but fail to teach the concentration of monosilane at the start of film formation is normalized to 1 and the exhaust amount of gas is increased during film formation to keep the concentration of monosilane between 0.9-1.1, and also fails to teach decreasing the power supplied to the film formation electrode.
However, Strahm teaches a film formation process using monosilane (abstract). Further Strahm makes clear that silane gas utilization efficiency in a plasma film formation process is a function of both electrode power (1st column, page 1199) as well as exhausting amount of gas (2nd column, page 1200). Furthermore, as the silane rate is kept constant in Mochizuki in view of Samura’s process, it would be necessary to adjust exhaust rate and power to continue to provide uniform deposition as the silane is consumed during the film formation process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mochizuki in view of Samura’s process by increasing the exhaust gas amount and decreasing power to the electrode over time. One would have been motivated to make this modification to keep the concentration of silane consistent in the film formation chamber to ensure a uniform deposition process from start to finish.
3. Claim(s) 5, 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki in view of Samura as applied to claims 1 and 3, and further in view of Hardwick et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5320817).
I. Regarding claims 5 and 18, Mochizuki in view of Samura make obvious claims 1 and 3 (see above), including removing toxic chemicals from the exhaust gas using an adsorption agent (see Samura at 0066-0067), but fail to teach the adsorption agent is a porous material.
However, Hardwick teaches cleaning exhaust gas containing silane and ammonia (abstract) using a compound on a porous support (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mochizuki in view of Samura’s process by using a porous substrate to support Mochizuki in view of Samura’s adsorption agent. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Hardwick teaches that the use of a porous support improves the efficiency of scrubbing (column 7, lines 3-4).
II. Regarding claim 8, Mochizuki in view of Samura make obvious claim 1, including removing toxic chemicals from the exhaust gas using an adsorption agent (see Samura at 0066-0067), but fail to teach where a monosilane in the detoxified gas is detected by a detector and then the film formation and the exhausting are stopped.
However, Hardwick teaches cleaning exhaust gas containing silane and ammonia (abstract) and also teaches utilizing a detector to detect silane in the detoxified exhaust gas (column 9, lines 61-67 and column 10, lines 13-17) to allow for changing the scrubber (which would necessarily require stopping of the gas exhaust and the manufacturing process). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mochizuki in view of Samura’s process by detecting monosilane gas after the detoxification step by a detector such that Mochizuki in view of Samura’s process steps can be stopped to prevent toxic gas being released into the atmosphere when the adsorbent material is full and unable to capture anymore toxic gas.
4. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki in view of Samura and further in view of Hardwick as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Kim (U.S. Pat. No. 5997824).
Regarding claim 9, Mochizuki in view of Samura and further in view of Hardwick make obvious claim 8, including the introduction of inert gas upstream, but fail to teach or suggest a second detoxifying unit to detoxify the exhaust gas, a flow channel switching unit that switches a flow channel of the exhaust gas between the normal exhaust flow channel and the second detoxifying unit downstream of the detector and wherein in a state where no monosilane is detected the flow channel switching unit switches the flow channel of the exhaust gas to the normal exhaust flow channel and where monosilane is detected the switch switches the flow to the second detoxifying unit.
However, Kim teaches a gas detoxification process (abstract) which includes a first detoxification unit (the burner), a second detoxification unit (the adsorbent device) (see abstract and Figure 9), and a flow channel switching unit (element 54) that switches the flow channel to a normal exhaust line or to the second detoxification unit (Figure 6 and column 8, lines 53-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mochizuki in view of Samura and further in view of Hardwick’s process to include a second detoxifying unit after Mochizuki in view of Samura and further in view of Hardwick’s detector and a flow switching unit such that when monosilane is detected in the detoxified exhaust gas a switch can then be moved such that the gas flows to the second detoxifying unit rather than through a normal exhaust path to atmosphere as disclosed by Kim. One would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent toxic gases from being released into the atmosphere when the adsorbent material in the first detoxification unit is no longer able to trap more monosilane.
5. Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki in view of Samura and further in view of Strahm as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hardwick.
I. Regarding claim 12, Mochizuki in view of Samura make obvious claim 2, including removing toxic chemicals from the exhaust gas using an adsorption agent (see Samura at 0066-0067), but fail to teach the adsorption agent is a porous material.
However, Hardwick teaches cleaning exhaust gas containing silane and ammonia (abstract) using a compound on a porous support (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mochizuki in view of Samura and further in view of Strahm’s process by using a porous substrate to support Mochizuki in view of Samura and further in view of Strahm’s adsorption agent. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Hardwick teaches that the use of a porous support improves the efficiency of scrubbing (column 7, lines 3-4).
II. Regarding claim 15, Mochizuki in view of Samura and further in view of Strahm make obvious claim 2, including removing toxic chemicals from the exhaust gas using an adsorption agent (see Samura at 0066-0067), but fail to teach where a monosilane in the detoxified gas is detected by a detector and then the film formation and the exhausting are stopped.
However, Hardwick teaches cleaning exhaust gas containing silane and ammonia (abstract) and also teaches utilizing a detector to detect silane in the detoxified exhaust gas (column 9, lines 61-67 and column 10, lines 13-17) to allow for changing the scrubber (which would necessarily require stopping of the gas exhaust and the manufacturing process). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mochizuki in view of Samura and further in view of Strahm’s process by detecting monosilane gas after the detoxification step by a detector such that Mochizuki in view of Samura and further in view of Strahm’s process steps can be stopped to prevent toxic gas being released into the atmosphere when the adsorbent material is full and unable to capture anymore toxic gas.
6. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki in view of Samura and further in view of Strahm and further in view of Hardwick as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 16, Mochizuki in view of Samura and further in view of Strahm and further in view of Hardwick make obvious claim 15, including the introduction of inert gas upstream, but fail to teach or suggest a second detoxifying unit to detoxify the exhaust gas, a flow channel switching unit that switches a flow channel of the exhaust gas between the normal exhaust flow channel and the second detoxifying unit downstream of the detector and wherein in a state where no monosilane is detected the flow channel switching unit switches the flow channel of the exhaust gas to the normal exhaust flow channel and where monosilane is detected the switch switches the flow to the second detoxifying unit and inert gas is introduced.
However, Kim teaches a gas detoxification process (abstract) which includes a first detoxification unit (the burner), a second detoxification unit (the adsorbent device) (see abstract and Figure 9), and a flow channel switching unit (element 54) that switches the flow channel to a normal exhaust line or to the second detoxification unit (Figure 6 and column 8, lines 53-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mochizuki in view of Samura and further in view of Strahm and further in view of Hardwick’s process to include a second detoxifying unit after Mochizuki in view of Samura and further in view of Strahm and further in view of Hardwick’s detector and a flow switching unit such that when monosilane is detected in the detoxified exhaust gas a switch can then be moved such that the gas flows to the second detoxifying unit rather than through a normal exhaust path to atmosphere as disclosed by Kim. One would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent toxic gases from being released into the atmosphere when the adsorbent material in the first detoxification unit is no longer able to trap more monosilane.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
September 15, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights