DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on May 16, 2025. Claims 1, 8, 25, and 26 are amended.
The applicant contends:
(1) The cited prior art does not disclose a “rear cooling chamber…coupled to the processing gas supply providing processing gas flow and pressure” thereto “so as to enhance heat conduction,” as independent claims 1 and 8 now require. Although the Office has previously cited Valle to address this content, this reference is directed to a method of infiltrating carbon fibers. Thus, because Valle’s teachings are not germane to the claimed subject matter, one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated by Valle to modify a film deposition apparatus (p. 8).
(2) Claim 1 requires the apparatus to supply the same gas to both the rear cooling chamber and the plasma processing chamber. Because Valle does not execute plasma processing, the reference cannot satisfy this stipulation, by definition (p. 9).
In response,
(1) The examiner observes that this concern is external to the scope of the combination. To summarize, briefly, Valle discloses an in-line deposition system comprising a rear cooling station (37) situated downstream of a processing chamber (36) so as to reduce the temperature of the article worked upon [0114]. This configuration, of course, is analogous in organization and function to Zenitani’s rear cooling chamber (8). Valle further suggests supplying “inert gas” to each chamber within the in-line system and contemplates an economical means by which to perform this provision: a single gas source (400) coupled to each chamber via conduits ([0087]; Fig. 1).
As would be apparent to one of ordinary skill, availing a single inert gas source rather than dedicated sources for each chamber decreases material costs and improves the efficiency of fluid provision. Critically, these advantages obtain independently of the type of deposition transpiring within the processing chamber. Although Applicant emphasizes that Valle executes infiltration within the processing chamber while the primary reference performs sputtering, this distinction is not germane to the efficacy of Valle’s mechanism of inert gas distribution. As such, the means of inert gas distribution and the means of article processing can be theoretically decoupled, i.e., one can appreciate the value of the former and use it as a template for the reconfiguration Zenitani’s means of inert gas distribution without being logically compelled to incorporate any aspect of the latter.
(2) The examiner disagrees. For the reasons elaborated directly above, as motivated by the deliverances of Valle, it has been found obvious to endow the composite prior art apparatus with a source for supplying inert gas to at least the plasma processing and rear cooling chambers for purge operations. Admittedly, Valle does not offer guidance as to the inert gas type, but it should be noted that Fujinaga has previously nominated the inert gas of argon to sustain a plasma within the processing chamber [0062]. The subsequent decision to use argon as the system-wide purge gas is simply common sense, as this would obviate the need to construct yet another gas delivery network to the processing chamber.
To illustrate this point, consider an alternative scenario in which it was decided to use nitrogen as the purge gas. Although this satisfies Valle’s criterion of “inert,” it would also demand the construction of a second supply network to deliver the nitrogen to the processing chamber in addition to Fujinaga’s preexisting argon supply network. Yet if argon were selected, no modification to the processing chamber is needed, as the already existing argon supply network can be selectively deployed by the operator for purging operations. As can now be seen, the fact that Valle does not perform a plasma operation is irrelevant to the selection criterion for determining the gas type which ought to charge the purge source coupled to the plasma processing and rear cooling chambers.
The rejections are maintained.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 22, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clerkx et al., US 2011/0206485, in view of Zenitani, US 2012/0295028, Fujinaga et al., US 2017/0204510, Iwabuchi, US 2006/0245852, and Valle, US 2014/0072710.
Claim 1: Clerkx discloses an in-line substrate processing system for conveying a substrate on a carrier (108) through a plurality of modules including a front buffer module (802), a loadlock chamber (804), a vacuum processing chamber (808), a rear buffer module (810), and a cooling module (812) ([0049]; Fig. 8). Further, a linear track comprising at least one monorail (102) extends through each of the aforementioned modules, whereby carriers traverse the track via the engagement of wheels (Fig. 1; [0015]). Clerkx also provides a carrier exchange station positioned in an atmospheric environment comprising a movable platform, said platform containing track segments which selectively align with the main monorail to facilitate the substitution of carriers ([0048]; Fig. 7).
Clerkx, though, is silent regarding the precise nodes of connection between the various modules. Zenitani, similarly, describes an in-line system comprising a conveyor which translates a carrier through a series of stations. As with Clerkx, these stations cooperate to deposit coatings on the substrate; as such, the configuration of Zenitani’s stations can be readily adapted within Clerkx’s apparatus. Figure 1 of Zenitani limns the following:
A vacuum processing chamber (4) having a first opening on a first wall and a second opening on a second wall opposite the first, and a gate valve (11) on the first opening (Fig. 1);
A front buffer chamber (3) having an attachment wall attached to the first wall of the processing chamber, and having a gate valve (11) on an entrance wall opposite the attachment wall [0028];
A loadlock chamber (2) attached to the entrance wall of the front buffer module, and having a gate valve (11) positioned on an exterior wall [0027];
A rear buffer chamber (7) attached to the second wall of the processing chamber and having an opening match the second opening on a first side thereof and a gate valve (11) on a second side opposite the first side;
A rear cooling chamber (8) attached to the second side of the rear buffer module;
It would have been obvious to organize Clerkx’s modules in accordance with this paradigm to promote the objective of film deposition, as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Although both Clerkx and Zenitani contemplate sputtering operations within the processing chamber, neither reference stipulates this to be a plasma process, as claim 1 and 8 require. Fujinaga, however, avails electrodes to generate a plasma within the presence of an ionized argon gas in order to enhance a sputtering process [0062; 0077-80, 0085]. It would have been obvious to adopt this enhanced method, as applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Separately, Zenitani provides cooling pipes (21) within the cooling module rather than the claimed structure of “cooling plates” (Fig. 9, [0051]). The reference is also silent regarding the load lock’s capacity to cool. In supplementation, Iwabuchi teaches a loadlock chamber comprising upper (111) and lower (112) cooling plates for reducing substrate temperature at an accelerated rate [0044]. The examiner understands this disclosure to ratify two conclusions.
First, Iwabuchi establishes that cooling plates are equivalent to cooling pipes for the purpose of regulating temperature within a chamber, whereby the selection of either is obvious over the other. Thus, it would have been obvious to avail cooling plates rather than pipes, as the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Second, Iwabuchi demonstrates that endowing the load lock with the capacity to regulate substrate temperature contributes to the objective of substrate processing. Thus, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to integrate cooling devices within the load lock of the composite prior art apparatus.
Lastly, the prior art cited thus far is silent regarding the claimed feature of a “processing gas supply” feeding the processing chamber and the rear cooling module. Valle, however, discloses an in-line apparatus comprising a series of chambers (33, 36, 37) separated by a gate valve (38) (Fig. 1). As with Clerkx, the final chamber is a cooling station (37) [0114]. In addition, Valle couples a gas supply (400) to each chamber to purge their environment with an “inert gas” [0087]. Although Valle does not specify the compound, it should be recalled that Fujinaga uses argon as the processing gas within the sputtering chamber. And because argon is also inert, this gas can be provided to the additional chambers within the system, per Valle’s articulated criterion. As one of ordinary skill would appreciate, employing a single gas to satisfy both purge and processing functions optimizes system economy. It would have been obvious, then, to couple the chambers within Clerkx’s array to an argon source to provide gas flow and pressure.
Claim 3: Figure 7 of Clerkx appears to show two monorail segments (702, 704) rather than the claimed number of four, but this embodiment can be attained simply by replicating Clerkx’s existing segments. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Claim 4: The region preceding Clerkx’s carrier exchange station (700) may be taken as a “substrate loading station.”
Claim 5: The mere act of providing a controller to govern operations previously stewarded by the operator would have been obvious, as it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art (In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192).
Claims 6, 9: As shown by Figure 1, Zenitani’s processing chamber comprises at least two deposition modules (4, 6).
Claim 8: The rejection of claim 1, above, substantially addresses these limitations. In addition, Zenitani’s processing chamber has a first gate valve (11) on a first wall (~4) and a second gate valve on a second wall (~7) opposite the first wall, whereby said processing chamber encompasses both a processing zone (4) commencing at the first wall and a buffer zone (7) terminating at the second wall (Fig. 1). Both zones are of sufficient size to accommodate a carrier.
Claim 22: Clerkx teaches a sputtering chamber [0049].
Claims 25-26: The argon gas source can be given any title arbitrarily, including “precursor gas.”
Claims 7, 10, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clerkx in view of Zenitani, Fujinaga, Valle, and Iwabuchi, and in further view of Flint et al., US 4,749,465.
Claims 7, 10: Clerkx suggests the act of sputtering but does not address the matter of etching [0049]. Flint, though, attests that sputtering “action can be reversed to etch away material from the surface of objects” (1, 19-22). The reference discloses an in-line system comprising five sputtering stations which can alternately deposit or etch depending on the instant application (8, 9-25). It would have been obvious to integrate the capacity for etching within Clerkx’s system to selectively remove material as needed.
Claim 24: Figure 2 of Flint depicts a two-sided sputtering process. It would have been obvious to simultaneously coat both substrate sides to enhance productivity.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clerkx in view of Zenitani, Fujinaga, Valle, and Iwabuchi, and in further view of Eristoff et al., US 2010/0024731.
Clerkx’s system orients the substrate horizontally rather than vertically. Eristoff, however, avails a carrier to orient a substrate uprightly and, in turn, uses a linear motor (226) to convey the carrier through an in-line series of sputtering stations ([0029], Figs. 1-2). The examiner considers these two carrier paradigms to be equivalent means by which to translate a substrate through a linear series of sputtering stations, whereby the selection of either alternative would have been obvious to the skilled artisan.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Lee et al., US 2007/0137793. Lee discloses an in-line sputtering system comprising a loadlock (220), a front buffer module (230), a vacuum process chamber (240), and a rear buffer module (250), whereby a linear track traverses the entirety of the system (Fig. 3; [0039]).
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 extension fee 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 NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. 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.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/PARVIZ HASSANZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1716