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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/28/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 88 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 88, the limitation “at least one of said first electric potential, of said second electric potential, of an electric potential difference between said first electric potential and said second electric potential” should be amended to read “at least one of said first electric potential, said second electric potential, and an electric potential difference between said first electric potential and said second electric potential”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and thus the rejections are withdrawn.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 76-90 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 76, the limitation “a reaction space” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this reaction space is intended to refer to the reaction space recited in claim 73 or a different reaction space.
In claim 79, the limitation “connected to a reference electric potential, as to system ground potential” is indefinite because the phrase “as to” is analogous to the phrase “such as” and thus it is unclear whether the limitation following “as to” is required as part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
In claims 80 and 86, the limitation “said opening” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is intended to refer to the opening in claim 73, one of the “at least one opening” in claim 76, each of the “at least one opening” or a different opening altogether.
In claim 82 and 83, the limitation “its inner surface” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because there is not a previously defined “inner surface” defined and therefore it is unclear what inner surface is being referred to.
In claim 83, the limitation “connected to an electric reference potential, as on system ground potential” is indefinite because the phrase “as on” is analogous to the phrase “such as” and thus it is unclear whether the limitation following “as on” is required as part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
In claim 86, the limitation “the lines of sight” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because there is no previous definition of “lines of sight” and therefore it is unclear what which lines of sight from the substrate carrier are being referred to.
In claim 87, the limitation “connected to an electric reference potential, as to system ground potential” is indefinite because the phrase “as to” is analogous to the phrase “such as” and thus it is unclear whether the limitation following “as to” is required as part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
In claim 88, the limitations “said first plasma electrode” and “said second plasma electrode” are indefinite because it is unclear which of the “at least one first and at least one second plasma electrode” are intended to be referred to.
In claim 90, the limitation “said electric potential difference between first and said second plasma electrodes” is indefinite both because claim 88 refers to an electric potential difference between the first and second electric potential, not the electrodes, and because it is unclear which of the “at least one first and at least one second electrode” are being referred to, especially because the claim only recites “said second” and not “said first”.
Claims 77-78, 81, 84-85, and 89 are indefinite by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 73, 75-81, and 83-86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betz (US 5656141 A) in view of Krassnitzer (US 20080099039 A1).
Regarding claim 73, Betz (US 5656141 A) teaches a vacuum plasma treatment apparatus for coating substrates comprising a vacuum chamber 2 (vacuum recipient), a substrate carrier 30 located in a reaction space within the vacuum chamber where a plasma cloud 28 is formed, and a sputtering source having a second plasma 60 generated between an anode tube 38 (counter electrode) and a sputtering cathode (target electrode) that may be used in place of an electron beam evaporator 37 each mounted in the vacuum chamber to sputter material 33 toward a substrate, wherein the plasma may be generated by providing the electron beam evaporator or target cathode at different potential than the anode tube by means of a bias power unit 42 and power lines (58, 59) without direct connection to ground, thus making the power source floating (floating electric plasma supply source connected to the target electrode and counter electrode to establish a difference of electric potential between the target cathode and the counter electrode), and wherein the anode 38 (counter electrode) is enclosed in a dark space shield 3 (housing) at a distance from the anode 38 and having an opening exposed to the reaction space and configured to allow plasma 60 to establish between the target electrode and the counter electrode (Abstract, col 2 line 1-15, col 2 line 54-59, col 3 line 45-52, col 5 line 1-20; Figure). The dark space shield 3 (housing) of Betz avoids undesired plasmas on the outside of the source 29 and allows electrons to pass through openings in the shield and the anode tube 38 is insulated with respect to the apparatus (col 2 line 1-15, col 3 line 20-25, col 3 line 45-52, col 5 line 15-32), thus indicating that the dark space shield is electrically isolated from the anode tube.
Alternatively, Betz fails to explicitly teach a floating electric plasma supply and that the housing is electrically isolated from the counter electrode. However, Krassnitzer (US 20080099039 A1), in the analogous art of plasma treatment, teaches that an electric supply circuit including a supply source 19 connected to an anode 9 and cathode 5 for generating a plasma between them may be operated on floating electric potential, wherein the anode is surrounded by a confinement 11 (housing) and the confinement is electrically isolated from the anode (Abstract, para 0015, 0075, 0085; Fig. 1). Because Krassnitzer teaches that such power supply and confinement arrangements were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the anode and cathode of Betz with a floating power supply and electrically isolate the anode of Betz from the housing/dark space shield with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have 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 (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 75, the combination of Betz and Krassnitzer teaches the counter electrode is an anode 38 (Betz Abstract; Figure).
Regarding claim 76, the combination of Betz and Krassnitzer teaches the anode 38 (counter electrode) is enclosed in a dark space shield 3 (housing) in the vacuum chamber 2 (vacuum recipient), the housing being distant/separate from and electrically isolated from the counter electrode and having at least one opening in the center of the housing exposed to a reaction space in the vacuum recipient and tailored to allow the plasma 60 to establish between the counter electrode and the target electrode (Betz col 2 line 1-15, col 3 line 20-25, col 3 line 45-52, col 5 line 1-32, Figure; Krassnitzer para 0075).
Regarding claim 77, the combination of Betz and Krassnitzer teaches cooling pipes and passages (8, 13, 22, 24, 39, 40) within the shield 3 (housing) (col 3 line 20-34, col 4 line 46-58), thus capable of cooling at least the inside of the housing.
Regarding claim 78, the combination of Betz and Krassnitzer teaches cooling pipes and passages (8, 13, 22, 24, 39, 40) for transporting water (channel arrangement for a cooling medium) within the shield 3 (housing) (col 3 line 20-34, col 4 line 46-58).
Regarding claim 79, Krassnitzer teaches that the confinement (housing) is operated at a floating electric potential and that the confinement may be at least partially made of a metal (metallic material) (Krassnitzer para 0018, 0075). Because Krassnitzer teaches that such confinements/housings were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the dark space shield housing of Betz out of a metallic material and with a floating electric potential with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have 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 (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 80, Krassnitzer teaches that the confinement (housing) may be at least partially or entirely dielectric (Krassnitzer para 0018, 0075). Because Krassnitzer teaches that such confinements/housings were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the dark space shield housing of Betz out of a dielectric material with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have 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 (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 81, the combination of Betz and Krassnitzer teaches that the confinement (housing) may be entirely dielectric Krassnitzer para 0018, 0075) and therefore the opening would be included as a part of the dielectric material.
Regarding claim 83, the combination of Betz and Krassnitzer teaches a cylindrical shielding tube 5 (shield) along a predominant part of the housing’s inner surface where the shield is made of a soft magnetic material (metallic material) and wherein the shield is at an anode potential, which is floating (operated in a floating manner or being connected to an electric reference potential) (Betz col 3 line 45-52, col 5 line 15-20, Figure; Krassnitzer claim 3).
Regarding claim 84, the combination of Betz and Krassnitzer teaches gas supply lines (20, 21) (working gas inlet) configured to supply (discharge) a process (working) gas into the dark space shield 3 (housing) within the vacuum chamber 2 (recipient) to form a plasma (Betz col 2 line 36-45, col 3 line 26-28; Figure) and necessarily connectable to a working gas reservoir.
Regarding claim 85, the combination of Betz and Krassnitzer teaches gas supply lines (20, 21) (working gas inlet) configured to supply (discharge) a process (working) gas into the dark space shield 3 (housing) within the vacuum chamber 2 (recipient) to form a plasma, wherein the working gas inlet is defined as consisting of the gas supply lines (20, 21) connected to the inside of the housing (Betz col 2 line 36-45, col 3 line 26-28; Figure).
Regarding claim 86, the combination of Betz and Krassnitzer teaches the anode 38 body is hidden from at least some lines of sight from the substrate holder 30 (carrier) by the dark space shield 3 (housing) (Betz Figure).
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 10-11, 16-25, 40, 47-48, and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betz (US 5656141 A) in view of Krassnitzer (US 20080099039 A1), as applied to claim 73 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20100064971 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Betz and Krassnitzer fails to explicitly teach the counter electrode comprises an electrode body with an outer, patterned surface comprising first surface areas non-contributing to a plasma electrode effect and being of a metallic material or of a dielectric material and second surface areas being plasma electrode effective and being of a metallic material or a surface of a dielectric material deposited on metallic material, said metallic material of said first surface areas and/or said metallic material whereon said dielectric layer is deposited being connected to said electric plasma supply source. However, Lee (US 20100064971 A1), in the analogous art of plasma generation, teaches a plasma generator for depositing a thin film on a substrate (para 0002, 0036), wherein a voltage is applied between first (501) and second (502, 504) electrodes to generate plasma at regions where a protruding thread 512 (patterned surface comprising second surface areas being plasma electrode effective) on the first electrode overlaps with the second electrodes and not forming a plasma where the protruding threads are not located (first surface areas noncontributing to the plasma electrode effect) (para 0004-0005, 0034, 0041-0042; Fig. 5A), and wherein the plasma electrodes may be made of metallic material or a metal coated with a dielectric coating (para 0032) and thus the first and second surface areas would be made of a metallic or dielectric material and the metallic material would be connected to the plasma supply source. Because Lee teaches that such electrode shapes and materials were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the anode (electrode) tube of Betz out of a metallic material and having a patterned surface as described by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have 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 (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee teaches the counter electrode is metallic (Lee para 0032) and therefore at least some of the second surface areas and at least some of the first surface areas are metallic surface areas.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee teaches the counter electrode may be metal or a metal coated with a dielectric coating and the protruding threads 312 (contributing second surfaces) and the platform 311 (non-contributing first surfaces) are made of different materials (Lee para 0032; Fig. 3A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the protruding threads metallic and the platform a metal coated with a dielectric.
Alternatively, Lee teaches that the entire electrode may be made of a metal coated with a dielectric coating (para 0032), resulting in a platform (first surfaces) with a dielectric surface and protruding threads (second surfaces) with a metallic surface beneath a dielectric surface.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee teaches the electrode may be made of metal coated with a dielectric coating and the protruding threads 312 (contributing second surfaces) and the platform 311 (non-contributing first surfaces) are made of the same materials (Lee para 0032; Fig. 3A), resulting in the threads and platform both having dielectric material surface areas.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee teaches the anode/electrode body extends along a straight axis (Betz Figure; Lee Fig. 3A)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee teaches the protruding thread 312 (geometric locus) surrounding the platform 311 (body) of the electrode has a polygonal cross-section (Lee para 0031; Fig. 3A)
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee teaches the electrode body extends along an axis and the platform 311 (first surface areas) comprise a groove around the axis in between protruding threads 312 (Lee para 0031; Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee teaches the groove of the platform 311 (first surface areas) is helical around the axis (Lee Fig. 3A)
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee teaches the protruding threads 312 (second surface areas) form a spiral (helical) shape around an axis of the electrode body (Lee para 0031; Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee teaches the protruding threads 312 (helical area) may be metallic threads (wire) formed on the surface of the platform 311 (Lee para 0031-0032; Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee fails to explicitly teach the helical wire is free-standing. However, Lee teaches that the plasma generator may include a spiral electrode 602 (free standing helical wire) spaced apart from another electrode 601 (first electrode) to generate the plasma between the electrode 601 and the spiral electrode 602 as an alternative embodiment to providing a spiral protruding thread on the electrode (para 0046-0047; Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the electrode having a spiral protruding thread for a spiral electrode/anode spaced apart from another electrode to generate plasma between the two electrodes because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee teaches the platform 311 (first surface areas) are interspaces between protruding threads 312 (projecting webs) (Lee para 0032; Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee teaches the platform 311 (first surface areas) and protruding threads 312 (second surface areas) may be made of metal materials and the protruding threads may comprise four protruding threads and may be spaced apart at the same or different intervals (Lee para 0032-0033; Fig. 3A), thus resulting in multiple metallic protruding threads (mutually spaced metallic material plates) surrounding the platform surfaces in the interspaces.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee teaches the platform 311 (first surface areas) may be made of a different material than the protruding threads 312 (second surface areas) and the materials may be metals or dielectric coatings on metal structures (Lee para 0032; Fig. 3A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any combination of different materials described in Lee for the platform and protruding threads of the first electrode with a reasonable expectation of success, including a dielectric coating on the platform and protruding threads made of a metallic material such that the platform would comprise a dielectric layer sandwiched between the metallic threads (material plates).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee teaches the electrode/anode may be cooled (Betz col 3 line 20-34, col 4 line 46-58; Lee para 0052, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee teaches the electrode/anode may be cooled through a channel 713 in the platform 711 (said body comprises a channel arrangement for a cooling medium) (Betz col 3 line 20-34, col 4 line 46-58; Lee para 0052, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee teaches the anode 38 body is hidden from at least some lines of sight from the substrate holder 30 (carrier) by the dark space shield 3 (housing) (Betz Figure).
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee teaches the vacuum chamber 2 (recipient) has a reactive gas inlet 19 (Betz col 2 line 60-65; Figure) that is necessarily connectable to a reactive gas reservoir.
Regarding claim 48, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee teaches the reactive gas may be oxygen (Betz col 2 line 60-65).
Regarding claim 72, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee teaches the counter electrode may be metal or a metal coated with a dielectric coating and the protruding threads 312 (contributing second surfaces) and the platform 311 (non-contributing first surfaces) are made of different materials (Lee para 0032; Fig. 3A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the protruding threads metallic and the platform a metal coated with a dielectric.
Alternatively, Lee teaches that the entire first electrode may be made of a metal coated with a dielectric coating (para 0032), resulting in a platform (first surfaces) with a dielectric surface and protruding threads (second surfaces) with a metallic surface beneath a dielectric surface.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betz (US 5656141 A) in view of Krassnitzer (US 20080099039 A1) and Lee (US 20100064971 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Savas (US 20120225218 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee fails to explicitly teach the electrode is surrounded by a geometric locus body having a tapering cross-section contour. However, Savas (US 20120225218 A1), in the analogous art of thin film deposition, teaches that the electrodes (211, 212) for forming the plasma may have a sloping surface such that the gap is smaller farther from the substrate so that the electrodes will have a higher power density in the region with the narrower gap than in the larger gap so that the reactant gas is activated with higher rate than the precursor gas introduced closer to the substrate (para 0026; Fig. 2B).
Because Savas teaches that such sloped/tapered electrodes were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a sloped/tapered anode in the apparatus of Betz in view of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have 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 (MPEP 2143(A)). The tapered electrode of Betz in view of Lee and Savas would result in the protruding threads 312 (geometric locus body) tapering along with the body of the electrode and having a tapering cross section contour (Lee para 0031; Fig. 3A).
Claim(s) 26 and 65-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betz (US 5656141 A) in view of Krassnitzer (US 20080099039 A1) and Lee (US 20100064971 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Galewski (US 20180202046 A1).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee fails to explicitly teach an impedance element interconnected between a metallic material part of said body of said counter electrode and a part of said apparatus operated on an electric reference potential. However, Galewski (US 20180202046 A1), in the analogous art of coating substrates, teaches electrodes (E1, E2), with reactive gas passing through a gap between the electrodes (para 0049; Fig. 2), that have inductors (impedance elements) shunted to ground (part of said apparatus operated on an electric reference potential) for creating a change in phase of the waveform at each electrode and thus controlling the power density of the plasma (para 0056, 0069-0070; Fig. 6).
Lee teaches the voltage applied to the electrodes may be controlled by controlling the on and off times of the pulses (para 0027-0028) and the electrodes may comprise metallic materials (para 0032). Therefore, because Galewski teaches that such inductors were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include inductors connected to ground and each electrode for controlling the power density of the plasma with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have 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 (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 65, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, Lee, and Galewski teaches the reference potential connected to the electrodes through the inductor is a ground potential (Galewski para 0069-0070).
Regarding claim 66, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, Lee, and Galewski teaches that the protruding threads 312 (contributing second surface areas) are made of metal coated with a dielectric coating/layer (Lee para 0032; Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 67, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, Lee, and Galewski teaches that the platform 311 (first surface areas) may be made of a metal or conductive silicon coated with a dielectric (Lee para 0032; Fig. 3A) and therefore the outer/exposed surface of the platform (first surface areas) would be made of a dielectric material.
Regarding claim 68, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, Lee, and Galewski teaches plasma is generated at the region where a protruding thread 512 (second surface areas) of the first electrode overlaps with second electrodes and not forming a plasma in recessed areas 511 (first surface areas) where the protruding threads are not located (Lee para 0034, 0041-0042; Fig. 5A) and therefore the first surface areas are configured as recesses and no dark space is present adjacent to the first surface areas because no plasma is formed in those areas.
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betz (US 5656141 A) in view of Krassnitzer (US 20080099039 A1) and Lee (US 20100064971 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baek (US 20150123541 A1).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee fails to explicitly teach a negative feedback control loop for controlling at least one of an electric potential of the counter electrode, an electric potential of the target electrode, or the difference of electric potential between the target electrode and the counter electrode. However, Baek (US 20150123541 A1), in the analogous art of film deposition, teaches reducing particle generation in a process chamber by monitoring the voltage at the top electrode while generating a plasma between a top electrode and bottom electrode and adjusting the potential difference between the top and/or bottom electrode and the plasma based upon a (negative) feedback signal generated from the measurements of voltage in order to prevent unwanted particle generation on the substrate surface and obtain a higher process yield using a power controller (para 0006-0007, 0009, 0034). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the potential difference between the target and counter electrodes and plasma of Betz in order to prevent unwanted particle generation from the plasma and improve process yield. As a result, the feedback control of Betz in view of Baek would be capable of controlling at least one of an electric potential of the counter electrode, an electric potential of the target electrode, and the difference of electric potential between the target electrode and the counter electrode.
Claim(s) 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betz (US 5656141 A) in view of Krassnitzer (US 20080099039 A1) and Lee (US 20100064971 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stahr (US 20090121604 A1).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee fails to explicitly teach a shutter being of dielectric material. However, Stahr (US 20090121604 A1), in the analogous art of thin film deposition, teaches a shield (shutter) for restricting the space between electrodes in which plasma is ignited and controlling the potential distribution, wherein the shield is movable and may be made of a non-conducting (dielectric) material (para 0014-0018). Betz teaches guiding plasma to generate a suitable density distribution (col 2 line 60-65). Because Stahr teaches that such shields were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a shield to further control the distribution of the plasma with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have 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 (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claim(s) 46 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betz (US 5656141 A) in view of Krassnitzer (US 20080099039 A1) and Lee (US 20100064971 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 48 above, and further in view of Sferlazzo (US 20070209932 A1).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee fails to explicitly teach the target electrode is silicon. However, Sferlazzo (US 20070209932 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches the use of a magnetron 34 with a sputtering target 36 to direct sputtered material corresponding to a sputtering target to a desired deposition zone, wherein the target may be semiconductive and be a material from Groups 1-15 of the periodic table, which includes silicon (para 0012-0013, 0026-0027; Fig. 2, 4). Because Sferlazzo teaches that such sputtering materials were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a silicon target as the target electrode with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have 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 (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 49, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee fails to explicitly teach the target electrode is silicon. However, Sferlazzo (US 20070209932 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches the use of a magnetron 34 with a sputtering target 36 to direct sputtered material corresponding to a sputtering target to a desired deposition zone, wherein the target may be semiconductive and be a material from Groups 1-15 of the periodic table, which includes silicon (para 0012-0013, 0026-0027; Fig. 2, 4). Because Sferlazzo teaches that such sputtering materials were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a silicon target as the target electrode with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have 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 (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claim(s) 53-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betz (US 5656141 A) in view of Krassnitzer (US 20080099039 A1) and Lee (US 20100064971 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sferlazzo (US 20070209932 A1) and Pelleymounter (US 20180108520 A1).
Regarding claim 53, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Lee teaches a substrate holder 30 (conveyor) rotatable around an axis and holding multiple substrates (31, 31’), where the anode 38 (counter electrode) is provided coaxially to the rotation axis (Betz col 4 line 1-6, claim 1, 6; Figure). The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach a multitude of substrate carriers equidistant from said axis, more than one vacuum treatment stations aligned with a conveying path of said substrate carriers, at least two of said more than one vacuum treatment stations each including a target electrode, the counter electrode being a common counter electrode for at least two vacuum treatment stations. However, Sferlazzo (US 20070209932 A1), in the analogous art of thin film deposition, teaches that two or more sputterable targets (more than one vacuum treatment stations each comprising a target electrode) may be provided with the same material such as to provide a backup target after one target becomes worn, thereby reducing interruptions in productivity (para 0035), wherein a magnetron 34 is used with a sputtering target 36 to direct sputtered material corresponding to a sputtering target to a desired deposition zone (para 0026-0027; Fig. 2, 4). Furthermore, Pelleymounter (US 20180108520 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that sputtering may be performed with a three electrode system including a first magnetron and its associated target (1102, 1103), a second magnetron and its associated target (1104, 1105), and a shared anode (1108) (para 0044, 0049, 0053; Fig. 7, 11). Betz teaches forming a plasma 60 between an anode 38 and a sputtering target source 37 (Figure).
Because Sferlazzo and Pelleymounter teach that such target arrangements were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange two sputtering targets, as described by Pelleymounter, of the same material and each having a magnetron on opposite sides of the anode of Betz to improve productivity with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have 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 (MPEP 2143(A)).
Furthermore, Sferlazzo teaches a substrate holder 72 (carrier) supporting a substrate 12 and attached to an arm 68 that rotates about an axis 16 to intersect deposition zones 50, wherein a transport mechanism 66 (substrate conveyor) may include multiple arms for carrying multiple substrates through the deposition zones, wherein the arms are driven to move by a processor 76 (conveyor drivingly rotatable around an axis and comprising a multitude of substrate carriers) (para 0029-0030; Fig. 2-3). Sferlazzo also teaches the arm rotates the substrate holders to intersect deposition zones 50 (vacuum treatment stations aligned with the conveying path of said substrate carriers) each corresponding to a sputtering target 36 (para 0030, 0037). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the substrate holder arrangement of Betz with the substrate carrier/conveyor arrangement of Sferlazzo, wherein multiple substrates are rotated past the sputtering targets, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of supporting multiple substrates for deposition. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Additionally, because each arm and substrate holder is to pass through the target deposition zones, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make each arm of the same length (carriers equidistant from the axis) so that the substrates may be coated by the sputtering targets.
Regarding claim 54, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, Lee, Sferlazzo, and Pelleymounter teaches the vacuum treatment stations comprise at least two magnetron sputtering stations with a common counter electrode/anode (Pelleymounter Fig. 7, 11).
Regarding claim 55, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, Lee, Sferlazzo, and Pelleymounter teaches each of the two targets may be the same material (Sferlazzo para 0036) and the material may be chosen from the elements of group 1-15 of the periodic table, which includes silicon (para 0012). Because Sferlazzo teaches that such sputtering materials were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silicon targets as the target electrodes with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have 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 (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 56, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, Lee, Sferlazzo, and Pelleymounter teaches a reactive gas inlet 19 (Betz Figure) that is necessarily in flow communication with the magnetron sputter stations and connectable to a gas reservoir containing hydrogen and a gas reservoir containing oxygen.
Regarding claim 57, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, Lee, Sferlazzo, and Pelleymounter teaches the transport mechanism 66 (conveyor) is signaled to rotate by an electrical signal from a processor 76, which necessitates a drive for driving the conveyor, wherein the conveyor can be rotated 360 degrees (Sferlazzo para 0029-0030, 0037; Fig. 2-3). The aforementioned combination also teaches magnetron sputter sources (Sferlazzo Fig. 2; Pelleymounter Fig. 7, 11), as described in the rejection of claim 53.
The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the substrate conveyor is continuously driven by said drive at least for one 360° rotation and said magnetron sputter sources are continuously sputter enabled at least during said one 360° rotation. However, the limitation merely states the intended use of the apparatus. 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. See MPEP 2114(II). The aforementioned combination teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, which is necessarily capable of rotating the substrate table continuously for at least one 360° rotation while sputter sources are continuously sputter enabled.
Claim(s) 74 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betz (US 5656141 A) in view of Krassnitzer (US 20080099039 A1), as applied to claim 73 above, and further in view of Sferlazzo (US 20070209932 A1).
Regarding claim 74, the combination of Betz and Krassnitzer teaches the sputtering source comprises a HF or DC sputtering cathode (Betz col 2 line 54-59) but fails to explicitly teach the sputtering source is a magnetron sputtering source. However, Sferlazzo (US 20070209932 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches the use of a magnetron 34, such as a RF or DC magnetron, with a sputtering target 36 to direct sputtered material corresponding to a sputtering target to a desired deposition zone (para 0012-0013, 0026-0027, 0032; Fig. 2, 4). Because Sferlazzo teaches that such magnetrons were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include magnetrons with sputtering target of Betz to better control the sputtering process with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have 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 (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claim(s) 82 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betz (US 5656141 A) in view of Krassnitzer (US 20080099039 A1), as applied to claim 76 above, and further in view of Liu (US 20030168168 A1).
Regarding claim 82, the combination of Betz and Krassnitzer teaches a cylindrical shielding tube 5 along a predominant part of the housing’s inner surface (Betz col 3 line 45-52; Figure) but fails to explicitly teach the shield is a maintenance replacement part. However, Liu (US 20030168168 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that dark space shields (housing) and other shields may be replaced when performing maintenance on the chamber (para 0019-0020). Because Liu teaches that such replacement methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the dark space shield (housing) and cylindrical shielding tube of Betz during maintenance, thus making the housing and shield maintenance replacement parts, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have 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 (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claim(s) 86 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betz (US 5656141 A) in view of Krassnitzer (US 20080099039 A1), as applied to claim 76 above, and further in view of Hagmann (US 20150318151 A1).
Regarding claim 86, the combination of Betz and Krassnitzer fails to explicitly teach an electrode body being hidden from lines of sight from said substrate carrier by means of said housing or by means of a stationary or adjustable shutter across said opening of said housing. However, Hagmann (US 20150318151 A1), in the analogous art of plasma generation, teaches that an anode opening 11 may be closed by a screen 9a (adjustable shutter across said opening of said housing) (para 0012, 0022, 0042; Fig. 1). Additionally, Betz teaches an openable and closable shutter 62 (Figure). Because Hagmann teaches that such screen/shutters were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a shutter attached for closing the opening of anode when not in use, thus hiding the electrode body being hidden from lines of sight from the substrate carrier, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have 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 (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claim(s) 87 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betz (US 5656141 A) in view of Krassnitzer (US 20080099039 A1) and Hagmann (US 20150318151 A1), as applied to claim 86 above, and further in view of Gegenwart (US 5334298 A).
Regarding claim 87, the combination of Betz, Krassnitzer, and Hagmann fails to explicitly teach the shutter being of a metallic material and electrically operated in a floating manner or connected to an electric reference potential. However, the combination of Betz and Hagmann teaches a shutter connected to the dark space shield 3 (housing) (Betz Figure; Hagmann Fig. 1). Additionally, Gegenwart (US 5334298 A), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that a dark space shield may be metallic and insulated/floating with respect to other components (electrically operated in a floating manner) (col 4 line 30-38). Because Gegenwart teaches that such dark space shields were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the dark space shield (housing) and associated screen/shutter out of a metallic material wherein the shield and shutter are floating relative to other components with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have 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 (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claim(s) 88-90 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betz (US 5656141 A) in view of Baek (US 20150123541 A1).
Regarding claim 88, Betz (US 5656141 A) teaches a vacuum plasma treatment apparatus for coating substrates comprising a vacuum chamber 2 (vacuum recipient), a substrate carrier 30 located within the vacuum chamber, and a sputtering source having a second plasma 60 generated between an anode tube 38 (first plasma electrode) and a sputtering cathode or electron beam evaporator 37 (second plasma electrode) each mounted in the vacuum chamber to deposit material 33 toward a substrate, wherein the plasma may be generated by providing the electron beam evaporator or target cathode at different potential than the anode tube by means of a bias power unit 42 and power lines (58, 59) without direct connection to ground, thus making the power source floating (connectable to an electric plasma supply source arrangement establishing a first electric potential to said first plasma electrode and a second electric potential to said second plasma electrode), and wherein the potentials may be independently controlled by the multiple power sources (35, 42) (Abstract, col 1 line 50-60, col 2 line 1-15, col 2 line 54-59, col 3 line 45-67, col 5 line 1-20; Figure).
Betz fails to explicitly teach said first and said second electric potentials being both independently variable with respect to a system ground potential and further comprising a negative feedback control loop for controlling at least one of said first electric potential, of said second electric potential, of an electric potential difference between said first electric potential and said second electric potential. However, Baek (US 20150123541 A1), in the analogous art of film deposition, teaches reducing particle generation in a process chamber by monitoring the voltage at the top electrode while generating a plasma between a top electrode and bottom electrode and adjusting the potential differe