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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A1 in the 7/29/2026 Reply is hereby acknowledged. Claims 10-11, directed to non-elected Species A2, are withdrawn. Claims 1-9 and 12-18 are examined on the merits.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 12-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 6-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,400,842 (hereinafter “Conflicting Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in this application are broader than the claims in the Conflicting Patent. In particular:
the subject matter of Claim 1 is found in Claim 1 of the Conflicting Patent;
the subject matter of Claim 2 is found in Claim 2 of the Conflicting Patent;
the subject matter of Claim 3 is found in Claim 3 of the Conflicting Patent;
the subject matter of Claim 4 is found in Claim 6 of the Conflicting Patent (Claim 6 recites that the cleaning steps are “performed sequentially for a plurality of cycles,” which means a Ru-cleaning step occurs after a noble metal-cleaning step);
the subject matter of Claim 7 is found in Claim 1 of the Conflicting Patent;
the subject matter of Claim 8 is found in Claim 1 of the Conflicting Patent;
the subject matter of Claim 9 is found in Claim 6 of the Conflicting Patent;
the subject matter of Claim 12 is found in Claim 7 of the Conflicting Patent;
the subject matter of Claim 13 is found in Claim 8 of the Conflicting Patent;
the subject matter of Claim 14 is found in Claim 9 of the Conflicting Patent;
the subject matter of Claim 15 is found in Claim 10 of the Conflicting Patent;
the subject matter of Claim 16 is found in Claim 1 of the Conflicting Patent;
the subject matter of Claim 17 is found in Claim 1 of the Conflicting Patent;
the subject matter of Claim 18 is found in Claim 1 of the Conflicting Patent.
Claims 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,400,842 (“Conflicting Patent”) in view of TAN et al. (US PGPUB 20150280113). As explained above, the subject matter of Claim 4 of this application is found in Claim 6 of the Conflicting Patent.
Claim 5 of this application further limits the subject matter of Claim 4 by reciting “the solvent is an organic solvent,” but this is already taught by TAN (see ¶¶ 0006, 0025, acetonitrile as the solvent for SOCl2/pyridine).
Claim 6 of this application further limits the subject matter of Claim 5 by reciting “the organic solvent is at least one of acetonitrile, dimethyl sulfoxide, and dimethyl-formamide,” but this is already taught by TAN (see ¶¶ 0006, 0025, acetonitrile as the solvent for SOCl2/pyridine).
The 35 USC § 121 Safe Harbor does not apply in this case, because the claims filed in this application are not commensurate with the 07/22/2024 Restriction Requirement in the Parent Application 18/258,926. For example, none of Claims 1, 17, and 18 of this application have the same scope as non-elected Claim 17 of the Parent Application. As another example, none of Claims 1, 17, and 18 of this application have the same scope as non-elected Claim 21 of the Parent Application.
Claim Objections
For consistency, Claim 4 should be amended as follows:
…wherein the exposing the residue to the Ru cleaning composition occurs after the exposing the residue to the noble metal cleaning composition.
In Claim 8’s third line: “a silicon oxide wet cleaning solution” should be changed to “the silicon oxide wet cleaning solution” for consistency with the rest of the claim.
In Claim 9’s third line: “a silicon oxide wet cleaning solution” should be changed to “the silicon oxide wet cleaning solution” for consistency with the rest of the claim.
For Claim 15, the language should clarify that the passivating solution comprises one or more chemicals selected from a group of chemicals. For example:
wherein the passivating solution comprises at least one [[of]] selected from a group consisting of [[amines]] amine, alcohol, glycol, and acetone.
For consistency, Claim 16 should be amended as follows:
… wherein the exposing the residue to the Ru cleaning composition occurs before the exposing the residue to the noble metal cleaning composition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8’s first two lines recites “the exposing the at least one surface of the component to the Ru cleaning composition”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because Claim 1 recites “exposing the residue to a Ru cleaning composition.”
Claim 9’s first two lines recites “the exposing the at least one surface of the component to the Ru cleaning composition”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because Claim 1 recites “exposing the residue to a Ru cleaning composition.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14, which depends on Claim 7, recites “wherein the passivating solution comprises an organic solvent.” But this limitation is already recited in Claim 7. Thus, Claim 14 fails to further limit the subject matter of Claim 7.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAN et al. (US PGPUB 20150280113, hereinafter “TAN-113”), in view of NAKAHARA et al. (Japanese Publication JP2001284317A, as translated by Espacenet) and YING et al. (US PGPUB 20030013314).
Regarding Claim 1, TAN-113 teaches a method of etching or removing metals (including noble metals) from a surface of a substrate (see abstract, ¶¶ 0004-07) in a semiconductor processing chamber (chamber 349, see ¶ 0016, Fig. 3). For example, TAN-113 teaches removing or etching ruthenium (Ru) (see abstract, ¶¶ 0004-06) and a noble metal such as platinum (Pt) (see ¶¶ 0006, 0025). The metals (including noble metals) on the substrate are etched/removed in the processing chamber (see Figs. 2A-2G, abstract, ¶¶ 0014, 0021, 0025).
TAN-113 teaches that the ruthenium (Ru) is exposed to a Ru-cleaning composition comprising at least one of hypochlorite and O3 based chemistries (see abstract, ¶¶ 0004, 0014, 0021, 0026, claim 1), wherein the Ru-cleaning composition removes the Ru (see id.).
TAN-113 teaches that the noble metal (e.g., platinum) is exposed to a noble metal-cleaning composition comprising thionyl chloride (SOCl2) and pyridine in a solvent such as acetonitrile (see ¶¶ 0006, 0025), wherein the noble metal-cleaning composition removes the noble metal (see id.).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand or reasonably expect that TAN-113’s process of etching metals (including noble metals) on the substrate would generate metal residues in the processing chamber such that the chamber needs to be cleaned periodically. That’s because it’s widely recognized in the substrate-processing art that etching a substrate can generate residues in the processing chamber such that the chamber needs to be cleaned periodically (see NAKAHARA at ¶¶ 0011, 0027, 0105; see also YING at ¶ 0012). Indeed, etching metals (including noble metals) would generate metal residues during the etch process, which means the chamber needs to be cleaned (see YING at ¶ 0012).
TAN-113 does not explicitly teach “cleaning residue comprising ruthenium (Ru) residue and noble metal residue on at least one surface of a component of a semiconductor processing chamber,” wherein the Ru residue is exposed to TAN-113’s Ru-cleaning composition to remove the Ru residue and the noble metal residue is exposed to TAN-113’s noble metal-cleaning composition to remove the noble metal residue.
But it’s already known in the prior art that etching metals (including noble metals) on a substrate would generate metal residues in the processing chamber such that the chamber needs to be cleaned periodically (as explained above). Additionally, it’s already known in the prior art to use the same composition for both substrate processing and chamber cleaning. See NAKAHARA. In particular, NAKAHARA teaches using a O3-based chemistry for both substrate processing (see ¶ 0027; see also ¶¶ 0041-43, 0055-58, 0072-73, 0077, using O3 to etch or remove ruthenium on a wafer) and chamber cleaning (see ¶¶ 0027, 0105-08; see also ¶¶ 0064, 0088, 0092, 0095, 0097, using O3 to remove Ru residue from the chamber). In other words, a composition that’s effective for etching or removing a particular material on the substrate is also effective for removing a residue of that material accumulated inside the chamber. By cleaning the chamber, contamination of chamber components can be reduced or prevented, thereby increasing manufacturing yield (see NAKAHARA at ¶¶ 0011, 0027, 0064, 0068, 0096, 0101, 0108).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify TAN-113 to use TAN-113’s Ru-cleaning composition (e.g., hypochlorite and/or O3 based chemistries) and TAN-113’s noble metal-cleaning composition (e.g., SOCl2 and pyridine in a solvent like acetonitrile) to clean the chamber (including a component therein), with reasonable expectation of reducing contamination, for several reasons.
First, TAN-113’s process of etching metals (including noble metals) would generate metal residues in the processing chamber such that the chamber (including a component therein) needs to be cleaned periodically. By cleaning the chamber, contamination of chamber components can be reduced or prevented, thereby increasing manufacturing yield. Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to clean the chamber—which has metal residues, including noble metal residues—using compositions effective at removing those metal residues, such as TAN-113’s Ru-cleaning composition (e.g., hypochlorite and/or O3 based chemistries) and TAN-113’s noble metal-cleaning composition (e.g., SOCl2 and pyridine in a solvent like acetonitrile).
Second, it’s already known in the prior art to etch metals (including noble metals) on a substrate in a processing chamber (see TAN-113), wherein the metal-etching process would generate metal residues in the chamber such that the chamber needs to be cleaned periodically (see NAKAHARA; see YING). It’s also already known in the prior art to use the same composition for both substrate etching and chamber cleaning (see NAKAHARA), since the composition is still removing the same material, whether it be from a substrate or from a chamber component. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could've combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of TAN-113, NAKAHARA, and YING: the compositions used to etch the substrate would also be used to clean the interior of the processing chamber (including a surface of a component of the chamber). This includes:
Using TAN-113’s Ru-cleaning composition (e.g., hypochlorite and/or O3 based chemistries) to clean ruthenium (Ru) residue on the surface of the component of the chamber by exposing the residue to the Ru-cleaning composition, wherein the Ru-cleaning composition removes the Ru residue;
Using TAN-113’s noble metal-cleaning composition (e.g., SOCl2 and pyridine in a solvent like acetonitrile) to clean noble metal residue on the surface of the component of the chamber by exposing the residue to the noble metal-cleaning composition, wherein the noble metal-cleaning composition removes the noble metal residue.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of TAN-113, NAKAHARA, and YING teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches the Ru-cleaning composition further comprises ammonia (see TAN-113 at ¶ 0021).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of TAN-113, NAKAHARA, and YING (as applied to Claim 1), in further view of TAN (US PGPUB 20020066466, hereinafter “TAN-466”).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of TAN-113, NAKAHARA, and YING teaches the method of claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches exposing the residue to the Ru-cleaning composition, which comprises an O3-based chemistry. The combination also teaches that the O3-based chemistry is in gas phase (O3 gas, see NAKAHARA at ¶¶ 0027, 0088, 0092, 0097, 0100-02, 0108).
The combination does not explicitly teach “immersing the component in a bath of” the Ru-cleaning composition.
But it’s already known in the prior art to clean a component of a semiconductor processing chamber using a cleaning composition in either gas phase or liquid phase (see TAN-466 at ¶¶ 0008-09, 0024, claim 30); when liquid phase is used, the component is immersed in a liquid bath of said cleaning composition (see TAN-466 at Fig. 3A, ¶ 0026).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of TAN-113, NAKAHARA, and YING to clean a component of the chamber by immersing the component in a bath of the Ru-cleaning composition (i.e., O3-based chemistry in liquid phase), with reasonable expectation of cleaning the component. It’s already known in the prior art to clean a component of a semiconductor processing chamber using a cleaning composition in either gas phase or liquid phase, wherein the component is immersed in a liquid bath of the cleaning composition (see TAN-466). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
Claims 7, 12-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of TAN-113, NAKAHARA, and YING (as applied to Claim 1), in further view of BAO et al. (US PGPUB 20100218788).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of TAN-113, NAKAHARA, and YING teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination teaches forming an insulating cap layer (layer 272) comprising silicon oxide (SiO2) (see TAN-113 ¶ 0023, Fig. 2E), wherein the insulating cap layer is subsequently etched (see TAN-113 at Fig. 2F, ¶¶ 0024-25). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand or reasonably expect silicon oxide (SiO2) residue to exist in the processing chamber (as explained above).
The combination does not explicitly teach: “exposing the residue to a silicon oxide wet clean solution comprising an acid and a passivating solution comprising an organic solvent, wherein the acid removes the silicon oxide residue and wherein the passivating solution passivates at least one surface of the component.”
But it’s already known in the prior art to remove residues from a surface of a component of a semiconductor processing chamber (see BAO at abstract, ¶¶ 0003, 0007, 0016); wherein the residue comprises a silicon oxide residue (see BAO at ¶¶ 0019, 0028, claims 4-5); wherein the residue is exposed to a silicon oxide wet clean solution comprising an acid and a passivating solution comprising an organic solvent (see BAO at abstract, ¶¶ 0018, 0022, using a cleaning solution comprising HF and ethylene glycol); wherein the acid removes the silicon oxide residue (see BAO at ¶¶ 0006, 0018, 0032, the acid removes residues); and wherein the passivating solution passivates a surface of the component (see BAO at ¶ 0023).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of TAN-113, NAKAHARA, and YING to incorporate a step of exposing the residue to a silicon oxide wet clean solution comprising an acid and a passivating solution comprising an organic solvent (wherein the acid removes the silicon oxide residue and wherein the passivating solution passivates a surface of the component), with reasonable expectation of removing silicon oxide residues. It’s already known in the prior art to remove residues from a surface of a component of a semiconductor processing chamber; wherein the residue comprises a silicon oxide residue, and the residue is exposed to a silicon oxide wet clean solution comprising an acid (for removing the silicon oxide residue) and a passivating solution comprising an organic solvent (for passivating a surface of the component). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of TAN-113, NAKAHARA, YING, and BAO teaches the method of claim 7. The combination teaches wherein the acid of the silicon oxide wet clean solution comprises hydrofluoric acid (HF) (see BAO at abstract, ¶¶ 0018, 0022); moreover, the acid can also comprise ammonium fluoride (NH4F) (see id.).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of TAN-113, NAKAHARA, YING, and BAO teaches the method of claim 12. The combination teaches the passivating solution comprises ethylene glycol and/or propylene glycol (see BAO at abstract, ¶¶ 0018, 0022-23).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of TAN-113, NAKAHARA, YING, and BAO teaches the method of claim 12. The combination teaches the passivating solution comprises an organic solvent (see BAO at abstract, ¶¶ 0008, 0018, 0022-23, claim 1).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of TAN-113, NAKAHARA, YING, and BAO teaches the method of claim 12. The combination teaches the passivating solution comprises at least one of an alcohol and a glycol (see BAO at abstract, ¶¶ 0008, 0018, 0022-23, claim 1).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of TAN-113, NAKAHARA, and YING teaches a method of cleaning residue comprising ruthenium (Ru) residue on a surface of a component of a semiconductor processing chamber, the method comprising: exposing the residue to a Ru cleaning composition comprising at least one of hypochlorite and O3 based chemistries, wherein the Ru cleaning composition removes the Ru residue (as explained above).
The combination teaches forming an insulating cap layer (layer 272) comprising silicon oxide (SiO2) (see TAN-113 ¶ 0023, Fig. 2E), wherein the insulating cap layer is subsequently etched (see TAN-113 at Fig. 2F, ¶¶ 0024-25). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand or reasonably expect silicon oxide (SiO2) residue to exist in the processing chamber (as explained above).
The combination does not explicitly teach: “exposing the residue to a silicon oxide wet clean solution comprising an acid and a passivating solution comprising an organic solvent, wherein the acid removes the silicon oxide residue and wherein the passivating solution passivates at least one surface of the component.”
But it’s already known in the prior art to remove residues from a surface of a component of a semiconductor processing chamber (see BAO at abstract, ¶¶ 0003, 0007, 0016); wherein the residue comprises a silicon oxide residue (see BAO at ¶¶ 0019, 0028, claims 4-5); wherein the residue is exposed to a silicon oxide wet clean solution comprising an acid and a passivating solution comprising an organic solvent (see BAO at abstract, ¶¶ 0018, 0022, using a cleaning solution comprising HF and ethylene glycol); wherein the acid removes the silicon oxide residue (see BAO at ¶¶ 0006, 0018, 0032, the acid removes residues); and wherein the passivating solution passivates a surface of the component (see BAO at ¶ 0023).
As explained above, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of TAN-113, NAKAHARA, and YING to incorporate a step of exposing the residue to a silicon oxide wet clean solution comprising an acid and a passivating solution comprising an organic solvent (wherein the acid removes the silicon oxide residue and wherein the passivating solution passivates a surface of the component), with reasonable expectation of removing silicon oxide residues.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of TAN-113, NAKAHARA, and YING teaches a method of cleaning residue comprising noble metal residue on a surface of a component of a semiconductor processing chamber, the method comprising: exposing the residue to a noble metal cleaning composition comprising thionyl chloride and pyridine in a solvent, wherein the noble metal cleaning composition removes the noble metal residue (as explained above).
The combination teaches forming an insulating cap layer (layer 272) comprising silicon oxide (SiO2) (see TAN-113 ¶ 0023, Fig. 2E), wherein the insulating cap layer is subsequently etched (see TAN-113 at Fig. 2F, ¶¶ 0024-25). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand or reasonably expect silicon oxide (SiO2) residue to exist in the processing chamber (as explained above).
The combination does not explicitly teach: “exposing the residue to a silicon oxide wet clean solution comprising an acid and a passivating solution comprising an organic solvent, wherein the acid removes the silicon oxide residue and wherein the passivating solution passivates at least one surface of the component.”
But it’s already known in the prior art to remove residues from a surface of a component of a semiconductor processing chamber (see BAO at abstract, ¶¶ 0003, 0007, 0016); wherein the residue comprises a silicon oxide residue (see BAO at ¶¶ 0019, 0028, claims 4-5); wherein the residue is exposed to a silicon oxide wet clean solution comprising an acid and a passivating solution comprising an organic solvent (see BAO at abstract, ¶¶ 0018, 0022, using a cleaning solution comprising HF and ethylene glycol); wherein the acid removes the silicon oxide residue (see BAO at ¶¶ 0006, 0018, 0032, the acid removes residues); and wherein the passivating solution passivates a surface of the component (see BAO at ¶ 0023).
As explained above, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of TAN-113, NAKAHARA, and YING to incorporate a step of exposing the residue to a silicon oxide wet clean solution comprising an acid and a passivating solution comprising an organic solvent (wherein the acid removes the silicon oxide residue and wherein the passivating solution passivates a surface of the component), with reasonable expectation of removing silicon oxide residues.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of TAN-113, NAKAHARA, YING, and BAO (as applied to claim 7 above), in further view of SCHERER et al. (US PGPUB 20220203410).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of TAN-113, NAKAHARA, YING, and BAO teaches the method of claim 7. As explained above, the combination teaches: exposing the surface of the component to the Ru-cleaning composition; exposing the residue to the noble metal-cleaning composition; and exposing the residue to the silicon oxide wet clean solution.
The combination does not explicitly teach that the three exposing steps are performed sequentially. But it’s already known in the prior art to apply different cleaning liquids to a target surface either sequentially or simultaneously. See SCHERER at ¶ 0041.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of TAN-113, NAKAHARA, YING, and BAO to perform the three exposing steps sequentially, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the chamber component. It’s already known in the prior art to apply different cleaning liquids to a target surface either sequentially or simultaneously (see SCHERER). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of TAN-113, NAKAHARA, YING, and BAO teaches the method of claim 7. As explained above, the combination teaches: exposing the surface of the component to the Ru-cleaning composition; exposing the residue to the noble metal-cleaning composition; and exposing the residue to the silicon oxide wet clean solution.
The combination does not explicitly teach that the three exposing steps are performed sequentially for a plurality of cycles. But it’s already known in the prior art to apply different cleaning liquids to a target surface sequentially or simultaneously. See SCHERER at ¶ 0041. Also, it’s already known in the prior art to repeat cleaning steps. See BAO at ¶ 0027.
As explained above, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of TAN-113, NAKAHARA, YING, and BAO to perform the three exposing steps sequentially, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the chamber component.
Additionally, it would’ve been obvious to perform the exposing steps sequentially for a plurality of cycles. It’s already known in the prior art to repeat cleaning steps (see BAO). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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 on (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.
/RICHARD Z. ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights