DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to communication received on 8/3/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of AIA 35 U.S.C. code not present in this action can be found in previous office actions dated 5/25/23, 10/4/23, 3/14/24, 9/25/24, 4/1/25, 9/16/25, and 4/7/26..
Examiner notes that all claim language is italicized for ease of reading, and the rejection headings as bolded and each claim intro is underlined for ease of navigation.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/3/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 is written as follows: "wherein using the layer thickness measuring device to determine the layer thickness detects changes in the efficiency".
Applicant provided the following language from the Specification for support:
"Since the efficiency can also change, this may be taken into consideration. Therefore a layer thickness measuring device 20 is additionally arranged in the treatment line 2 downstream of the coating device 16, by means of which the coating is checked".
These are not the same subject matter. The measuring device is still being used to detect layer thickness changes, and then that value is used to determine changes in efficiency. The measuring device does not detect changes in the efficiency, it detects a coating thickness and that value is used to calculate/determine a change in the efficiency.
For purposes of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted to mean wherein using the layer thickness measuring device to detect the layer thickness determines changes in the efficiency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Arezzo et al. US Patent Number 6,335,053 hereinafter AREZZO in view of Dykeman et al. US Patent Number 3,397,672 hereinafter DYKEMAN and Lemelson US Patent Number 5,871,805 hereinafter LEMELSON on claims 10-14 and 16-17 are maintained. The rejection is updated below to meet the amended claims. Further, Claim(s) 18, 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arezzo et al. US Patent Number 6,335,053 hereinafter AREZZO in view of Dykeman et al. US Patent Number 3,397,672 hereinafter DYKEMAN and Lemelson US Patent Number 5,871,805 hereinafter LEMELSON as applied to claim 10 and 16.
As for claim 10, AREZZO teaches "A process for the continuous production of coated metallic bands obtained by physical phase vapor deposition includes the following steps carried out on a band, eventually coated with zinc or its alloys, in motion and maintained in a vacuum environment... depositing a zinc layer on the metallic band" (abstract, lines 8) and "The zinc layer deposited on the band by physical phase vapor deposition" (column 3, lines 25-26), i.e. A physical vapor deposition (PVD) metal strip by means of a metallic substrate in a strip coating system wherein; the coating is carried out according to the principle of PVD.
ARREZO is silent on the layer thickness is set via the parameters of the strip speed, measured in mis, and the vaporization rate, measured in g/s by:
PNG
media_image1.png
74
186
media_image1.png
Greyscale
S(T) is the vaporization rate, bis a width of the metal strip, measured in m, Vstrip is the strip speed, E(b,v,t) is an efficiency, and dMe is the layer thickness, measured in g/m2... defining the strip speed Vstrip as
E
b
,
v
,
t
*
S
(
T
)
b
*
d
M
e
.
Examiner notes that the equation defining strip speed is the same as the first equation, just solved for a different variable. As a result, these limitations are actually identical in subject matter.
LEM ELSON teaches "A method for computerized control of vapor deposition processes, including chemical vapor deposition and electron beam physical vapor deposition processes, uses optical imaging sensors and/or laser interferometers or infrared ellipsometers focused on the substrate being coated" (abstract, lines 1-5).
Furthermore, LEMELSON describes the process of developing a mathematical model (column 7, lines 66, column 8, line 24) for calculating the desired thickness and process results.
LEMELSON also teaches "Next, one or more of a variety of optimization algorithms known to those skilled in the art is used by the computer to predict values of the objective function(s) that would result from step changes by predetermined amounts in the controlled variables. The computer model then selects the best of the group of predicted outcomes from among the series of changes surveyed ("best" in the sense of, e.g., minimizing or maximizing one or more objective functions chosen beforehand based on the goal of the operation). The control points for the controlled variables are then adjusted to reflect the values predicted for the best outcome, and the process of measurement, prediction and correction is repeated. This adaptive control process continues until the predetermined coating specifications have been met, or until the mathematical model indicates that further improvement in the objective function is not possible." (column 10, lines 3-19), i.e. wherein specific values are chosen and monitored during a process of operation using a computer which would inherently involve storing the values so they may be used in the model for over the time period of operation.
LEMELSON teaches "During coater operation, the computer is used as follows to optimize coating properties. A predetermined mathematical model of the coating process which takes account of the effect of pertinent process variables on a selected group of coating properties is used as a basis for calculations. The process variables may include reactant gas flowrates, reactor, and substrate temperature profiles and heat input rates" (column 7, lines 46-52), i.e. wherein parameters are monitored and used to develop a mathematical model.
LEMELSON further teaches "More specifically, one or more visible, infrared and/or laser light based or other radiation-based imaging systems are used to scan the substrate being coated ( or an appropriate test blank that is simultaneously exposed to the same conditions as the substrate) and to measure critical coating parameters, which may include coating thickness" (column 4, lines 55-61 ), and "The objective functions may include average coating thickness" (column 14, lines 22-23) wherein the coating thickness averaged over the strip area is a parameter used in its mathematical model, i.e. b is the width of the metal strip and dMe is the layer thickness, measured substrate to a preceding substrate.
Examiner notes that LEMELSON does not list all of the variables that can be used to calculate the mathematical model for controlling the process, but does generically state that "Alternatively or additionally, a multivariable linearized mathematical model may be created by establishing steady state operation near a set of conditions thought to be moderately suitable, and then perturbing the controlled variables (temperatures, flowrates, etc.) one at a time by a small amount away from the initial condition while measuring the effect on the controlled variables used as inputs for the objective function (thickness, stress, growth rate, etc.)" ( column 8, lines 4-12), i.e. wherein adjusting the vaporization rate based upon a target layer thickness by adjusting the parameters.
DYKEMAN teaches "The invention relates to a control system for adjusting the several conditions involved in the continuous coating of strip material in a vacuum, by deposition of metal vapor thereon, according to the speed of travel of the strip" (column 1 , lines 27-30) wherein a vaporization rate is adjusted according to strip speed such that they are both parameters used to control coating of the strip, i.e. vaporization rate and strip speed.
DYKEMAN also teaches "the system may be set up in advance for a specific desired coating thickness to be applied to strip of a certain width at a given speed of travel" (column 6, lines 8-10), i.e. wherein the desired coating thickness is based on a width of the strip.
DYKEMAN further teaches "It is the object of our invention to control both the total power applied to the surface of the metal in the crucible and the distribution of power among the several guns to provide a pre-selected curve of rate of metal vaporization along the length of the crucible (i.e., transversely of the strip), and to control the rate of supplying make-up metal to the crucibles in accordance with strip speed and to produce on the strip a coating of uniform thickness longitudinally and transversely thereof" (column 1, lines 52-59), wherein the uniformity of the coating being applied to the substrate is based on the vaporization rate and the strip speed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to develop a mathematical model such as the one in the claim based on the S(T) vaporization rate, bis the width of the metal strip ... Vstrip is the strip speed, E(b, v,t) is an efficiency, and dMe is the layer thickness ... a change in the layer thickness of a following metal strip to a preceding metal strips because DYKEMAN teaches that vaporization rate, width of the strip, and strip speed can be used to control the layer thickness applied, and LEMELSON teaches that the average coating thickness can be optimized and specifically controlled by developing a mathematical model based on a variety of variables that control coating thickness. As currently written, the claim appears to be an application of the process laid out by LEMELSON to produce a mathematical model for controlling a system like the one used in AREZZO.
Examiner also points out that there are no limitations on how that model is used (i.e. using what materials, or what speeds, or what widths, to generate what thickness etc.) to define a process beyond the mere presence of the mathematical model, how it is translated in the computer, and very broad claiming of process steps.
Further, Examiner points out that the Court in Gottschalk v. Benson "held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle"); Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) and further "An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer" Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1366, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). While this claim does not fall within a judicial exception, that is only because of the presence of the limitation for adjusting the vaporization rate based upon a target layer thickness simultaneously with a proportional change in the strip speed. as it provides structure for the process (by implying control mechanisms, process conditions and steps) to advance it beyond limiting the invention to a particular technological environment.
In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the units used in the equation. It is the position of the examiner that the criticality on the units does not provide patentable distinction as the use of metric appears to incidental absent evidence.
AREZZO is silent on adjusting the vaporization rate simultaneously with a proportional change in the strip speed wherein a change of the layer thickness of a following metal strip relative to a preceding metal strip is implemented directly independently of a thermal vaporization process.
LEMELSON teaches "providing a control point which is compared with a predetermined, desired thickness profile to generate an objective function that is used to adaptively control the CVD process" (column 5, lines 24-27), i.e. wherein the system is adjusted based upon a target layer thickness and "The control points for the controlled variables are then adjusted to reflect the values predicted for the best outcome, and the process of measurement, prediction and correction is repeated" (column 10, lines 12- 15), i.e. wherein multiple variable are adjusted at once or simultaneously.
DYKEMAN teaches "The invention relates to a control system for adjusting the several conditions involved in the continuous coating of strip material in a vacuum, by deposition of metal vapor thereon, according to the speed of travel of the strip" (column 1 , lines 27-30).
DYKEMAN further teaches "It is the object of our invention to control both the total power applied to the surface of the metal in the crucible and the distribution of power among the several guns to provide a pre-selected curve of rate of metal vaporization along the length of the crucible (i.e., transversely of the strip), and to control the rate of supplying make-up metal to the crucibles in accordance with strip speed and to produce on the strip a coating of uniform thickness longitudinally and transversely thereof" (column 1, lines 52-59), DYKEMAN also describes that its measurements and adjustments take place over a period of time using a timer during measurement and adjustment (column 5, lines 9-35) and "A third control function exercised by controller 25 is to vary the rate at which wire-feed mechanism 21. operates. For this purpose, a controller 55 (such as Type "C" Basic Electronic Governor made by Linde Div., Union Carbide Corporation) varies the speed of motor 56 driving wire-feed pinch rolls 57'' (column 4, lines 53-58), i.e. adjusting the vaporization rate simultaneously with a proportional change in the strip speed wherein a change of the layer thickness of a following metal strip relative to a preceding metal strip is implemented directly independently of a thermal vaporization process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include adjusting the vaporization rate simultaneously with a proportional change in the strip speed based upon a target layer thickness wherein a change of the layer thickness of a following metal strip relative to a preceding metal strip is implemented directly independently of a thermal vaporization process in the process of AREZZO because DYKEMAN teaches that such a process allows for tight control of coating thickness during a continuous process.
As for claim 11, AREZZO is silent on control.
DYKEMANN teaches "As explained above, timer 65 effects the delay between corrections to servo 59 by servo 60, so as to make the delay proportional to line speed" (column 5, lines 49-52), i.e. wherein changing the vaporization rate and the strip speed at fixed time intervals.
DYKEMAN teaches "A simple electron-gun device is desirable because the gun must work in an atmosphere that would contaminate the electrode structure of more complex guns. Wide-range control, however, has prior to our invention required control grids and accessory electrodes incorporated in the more complex guns to vary current flow and maintain focus of 10 the electron beam on the object to be heated" (column 2, lines 3-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the control method of DYKEMAN in the PVD process of AREZZO because DYKEMAN teaches that its control process allows for simplistic control of the deposited thickness on the web.
As for claim 12, AREZZO is silent on changing parameters of the following strip relative to the preceding metal strip via the value pairs of the vaporization rate and the strip speed per time interval.
DYKEMAN further teaches "It is the object of our invention to control both the total power applied to the surface of the metal in the crucible and the distribution of power among the several guns to provide a pre-selected curve of rate of metal vaporization along the length of the crucible (i.e., transversely of the strip), and to control the rate of supplying make-up metal to the crucibles in accordance with strip speed and to produce on the strip a coating of uniform thickness longitudinally and transversely thereof" (column 1, lines 52-59), DYKEMAN also describes that its measurements and adjustments take place over a period of time using a timer during measurement and adjustment (column 5, lines 9-35) and "A third control function exercised by controller 25 is to vary the rate at which wire-feed mechanism 21. operates. For this purpose, a controller 55 (such as Type "C" Basic Electronic Governor made by Linde Div., Union Carbide Corporation) varies the speed of motor 56 driving wire-feed pinch rolls 57'' (column 4, lines 53-58), i.e. changing parameters of the following strip relative to the preceding metal strip via the value pairs of the vaporization rate and the strip speed per time interval.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the control method of DYKEMAN in the PVD process of AREZZO because DYKEMAN teaches that its control process allows for simplistic control of the deposited thickness on the web.
As for claim 13, AREZZO is silent on calculating the value pairs based on known changes in an area to be coated.
LEMELSON teaches "Alternatively or additionally, a multivariable linearized mathematical model may be created by establishing steady state operation near a set of conditions thought to be moderately suitable, and then perturbing the controlled variables (temperatures, flowrates, etc.) one at a time by a small amount away from the initial condition while measuring the effect on the controlled variables used as inputs for the objective function (thickness, stress, growth rate, etc.)" (column 8, lines 4-12) and "One advantage of embodiments of my invention that make use of laser interferometric thickness measurements in 40 conjunction with visible light TV microscopy monitoring of coating thickness is that the uncertainty about what integer multiple of thickness is being observed is eliminated ... For example, if a profile of varying thickness is desired, the laser light absorption measurements at various points on the surface provide a direct measurement of thickness which can be compared with the desired profile during the coating operation and especially as the desired thickness is approached." (column 6, lines 38-54), i.e. calculating the value pairs based on known changes in an area to be coated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include calculating the value pairs based on known changes in an area to be coated in the process of AREZZO because LEMELSON teaches that such a process allows for uncertainty about the thickness to be eliminated and ensure a desired thickness is achieved.
As for claim 14, AREZZO teaches "A process for the continuous production of coated metallic bands obtained by physical phase vapor deposition includes the following steps carried out on a band, eventually coated with zinc or its alloys, in motion and maintained in a vacuum environment. .. depositing a zinc layer on the metallic band" (abstract, lines 8) and "steel metallic band" (column 4, lines 45-46), i.e. wherein the metal strip comprises a steel strip and the metallic substrate comprises zinc.
As for claim 16, AREZZO is silent on control.
DYKEMANN teaches "coating thickness gages 23 (such as the "Quantrol" Analyzer made by Applied Research Laboratories, Inc., Glendale, Calif.) measure the thickness of the coating applied to one side of the strip" (column 3, lines 2-6), i.e. wherein a layer thickness measuring device is used to determine the layer thickness.
DYKEMAN teaches "A simple electron-gun device is desirable because the gun must work in an atmosphere that would contaminate the electrode structure of more complex guns. Wide-range control, however, has prior to our invention required control grids and accessory electrodes incorporated in the more complex guns to vary current flow and maintain focus of 10 the electron beam on the object to be heated" (column 2, lines 3-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the control method of DYKEMAN in the PVD process of AREZZO because DYKEMAN teaches that its control process allows for simplistic control of the deposited thickness on the web.
As for claim 17, AREZZO is silent on calculating the value pairs based on known changes in a layer thickness to be coated.
LEMELSON teaches "Alternatively or additionally, a multivariable linearized mathematical model may be created by establishing steady state operation near a set of conditions thought to be moderately suitable, and then perturbing the controlled variables (temperatures, flowrates, etc.) one at a time by a small amount away from the initial condition while measuring the effect on the controlled variables used as inputs for the objective function (thickness, stress, growth rate, etc.)" ( column 8, lines 4-12) and "One advantage of embodiments of my invention that make use of laser interferometric thickness measurements in 40 conjunction with visible light TV microscopy monitoring of coating thickness is that the uncertainty about what integer multiple of thickness is being observed is eliminated ... For example, if a profile of varying thickness is desired, the laser light absorption measurements at various points on the surface provide a direct measurement of thickness which can be compared with the desired profile during the coating operation and especially as the desired thickness is approached." (column 6, lines 38-54), i.e. calculating the value pairs based on known changes in a layer thickness to be coated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include calculating the value pairs based on known changes in a layer thickness to be coated in the process of AREZZO because LEMELSON teaches that such a process allows for uncertainty about the thickness to be eliminated and ensure a desired thickness is achieved.
As for claim 18, AREZZO is silent on wherein implementing the change of the layer thickness directly independently of a thermal vaporization process involves predictive adjustment of the vaporization rate while changing the layer thickness.
LEMELSON teaches “In any event, a predetermined mathematical model relates the predicted effects of changes in those process parameters on one or more objective functions” (column 7, lines 59-62), i.e. wherein implementing the change of the layer thickness directly independently of a thermal vaporization process involves predictive adjustment of the vaporization rate while changing the layer thickness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein implementing the change of the layer thickness directly independently of a thermal vaporization process involves predictive adjustment of the vaporization rate while changing the layer thickness in the process of AREZZO because LEMELSON teaches that such a process allows for uncertainty about the thickness to be eliminated and ensure a desired thickness is achieved.
As for claim 20, AREZZO is silent on wherein using the layer thickness measuring device to determine the layer thickness results in determination of a correction value.
LEMELSON teaches “The control points for the controlled variables are then adjusted to reflect the values predicted for the best outcome, and the process of 15 measurement, prediction and correction is repeated. This adaptive control process continues until the predetermined coating specifications have been met, or until the mathematical model indicates that further improvement in the objective function is not possible” (column 10, lines 11-19), i.e. wherein implementing the change of the layer thickness directly independently of a thermal vaporization process involves predictive adjustment of the vaporization rate while changing the layer thickness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein implementing the change of the layer thickness directly independently of a thermal vaporization process involves predictive adjustment of the vaporization rate while changing the layer thickness in the process of AREZZO because LEMELSON teaches that such a process allows for uncertainty about the thickness to be eliminated and ensure a desired thickness is achieved.
As for claim 21, AREZZO is silent on wherein the correction value corresponds to a ratio between a measured layer thickness and a target layer thickness.
LEMELSON teaches “For example, if a profile of varying thickness is desired, the laser light absorption measurements at various points on the surface provide a direct measurement of thickness which can be compared with the desired profile during the coating operation and especially as the desired thickness is approached.” (column 6, lines 49-54), i.e. wherein the correction value corresponds to a ratio between a measured layer thickness and a target layer thickness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein implementing the change of the layer thickness directly independently of a thermal vaporization process involves predictive adjustment of the vaporization rate while changing the layer thickness in the process of AREZZO because LEMELSON teaches that such a process allows for uncertainty about the thickness to be eliminated and ensure a desired thickness is achieved.
As for claim 22, AREZZO is silent on wherein adjustment of the strip speed is correlated to the correction value.
LEMELSON teaches “The control points for the controlled variables are then adjusted to reflect the values predicted for the best outcome, and the process of 15 measurement, prediction and correction is repeated. This adaptive control process continues until the predetermined coating specifications have been met, or until the mathematical model indicates that further improvement in the objective function is not possible” (column 10, lines 11-19), i.e. wherein adjustment of a parameter is correlated to the correction value.
DYKEMAN teaches "The invention relates to a control system for adjusting the several conditions involved in the continuous coating of strip material in a vacuum, by deposition of metal vapor thereon, according to the speed of travel of the strip" (column 1, lines 27-30) wherein a vaporization rate is adjusted according to strip speed such that they are both parameters used to control coating of the strip, i.e. vaporization rate and strip speed.
DYKEMAN further teaches "It is the object of our invention to control both the total power applied to the surface of the metal in the crucible and the distribution of power among the several guns to provide a pre-selected curve of rate of metal vaporization along the length of the crucible (i.e., transversely of the strip), and to control the rate of supplying make-up metal to the crucibles in accordance with strip speed and to produce on the strip a coating of uniform thickness longitudinally and transversely thereof" (column 1, lines 52-59), wherein the uniformity of the coating being applied to the substrate is based on the vaporization rate and the strip speed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to develop a mathematical model such as the one in the claim based on the wherein adjustment of the strip speed is correlated to the correction value because DYKEMAN teaches that vaporization rate, width of the strip, and strip speed can be used to control the layer thickness applied, and LEMELSON teaches that the average coating thickness can be optimized and specifically controlled by developing a mathematical model based on a variety of variables that control coating thickness.
As for claim 23, AREZZO teaches “the coated metallic bands are obtained by physical phase vapor deposition comprising the following steps carried out on a band, eventually coated with zinc or its alloys” (column 2, lines 33-36) “the zinc coating deposited by PVD” (column 3, lines 39-40), and “The elements or their compounds layer is deposited by a PVD evaporation process… in such position to allow the coating of both the band sides” (column 4, lines 33-41) i.e. the metal strip is coated on both sides with a zinc layer.
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Arezzo et al. US Patent Number 6,335,053 hereinafter AREZZO in view of Dykeman et al. US Patent Number 3,397,672 hereinafter DYKEMAN and Lemelson US Patent Number 5,871,805 hereinafter LEMELSON as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Besser et al. US Patent Number 6,610,181 hereinafter BESSER on claim 15 is maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience.
As for claim 15, AREZZO is silent on control.
DYKEMAN and LEMELSON is silent on wherein the change of the desired target layer thickness and/or the width change of the following strip to the preceding metal strip is at least 10%.
BESSEER teaches "The present invention is directed to a method of controlling the formation of metal layers" (abstract, lines 1-2) and "Sputter deposition, or physical vapor deposition (PVD ), is widely used for forming thin layers of metal" (column 1, lines 35-36).
BESSER teaches "Alternatively, the thickness of the metal layer may be 15 determined using an elliposometer or an opto-acoustic method. However, these test wafers are relatively expensive, and thickness variations outside of acceptable limits may not be determined until well after additional wafers have been produced. As a result, the additional wafers may have to be 20 scrapped if the deposition process is producing metal layers having a thickness outside of an acceptable range. Even if it is determined that the metal film on the product wafer had a thickness outside of an acceptable range, it is extremely difficult to change this thickness once the metal film is 25 removed from the low-vacuum, low-pressure, multichamber environment of commonly employed deposition systems" (column 2, lines 14-27), wherein thicknesses exist in an acceptable range the produces the desired product rather than a single acceptable fixed point.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine an acceptable range for the thickness applied in DYKEMAN, LEMELSON and AREZZO. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in a known process if ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arezzo et al. US Patent Number 6,335,053 hereinafter AREZZO in view of Dykeman et al. US Patent Number 3,397,672 hereinafter DYKEMAN and Lemelson US Patent Number 5,871,805 hereinafter LEMELSON as applied to claim 10 and 16 above, and further in view of Wadley et al. US PGpub 2017/0268095 hereinafter WADLEY.
As for claim 19, AREZZO is silent on control.
LEMELSON further teaches "More specifically, one or more visible, infrared and/or laser light based or other radiation-based imaging systems are used to scan the substrate being coated ( or an appropriate test blank that is simultaneously exposed to the same conditions as the substrate) and to measure critical coating parameters, which may include coating thickness" (column 4, lines 55-61 ), and "The objective functions may include average coating thickness" (column 14, lines 22-23).
LEMELSON is silent on the efficiency.
WADLEY teaches “A method and system of depositing a coating on a substrate and/or simulating depositing a coating on a substrate” (abstract) and “The presently described subject matter is directed to a method and system comprising or consisting of conducting simulations of depositing coatings on rotated substrates yielding multiple variables that subsequently govern a thickness and structure variation across the rotated substrate, and comparing the simulations of deposition on rotated substrate with depositions performed using an electron beam-physical vapor deposition (EP-DVD) method” (paragraph 22).
WADLEY further teaches “During analysis of the simulation results, each convex and concave substrate surface was divided into forty grid regions. Each region on the concave surfaces had a width of 1.06 mm. The regions on the (longer) convex surface were 1.14 mm wide. As a surrogate for coating thickness, a local deposition efficiency for each surface region was determined. The local deposition efficiency was calculated as the number of atoms deposited in each region divided by the total number of atoms emitted from the vapor source. Summation of the deposition efficiency along the entire substrate results in the total fraction of emitted vapor that was deposited on the substrate.” (paragraph 332), i.e. wherein efficiency and thickness are parameters that can used as surrogates for each other in calculations and mathematical simulations of processes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein using the layer thickness measuring device to determine the layer thickness detects changes in the efficiency in the process of AREZZO because LEMELSON teaches that such a process allows for uncertainty about the thickness to be eliminated and ensure a desired thickness is achieved and WADLEY teaches that efficiency is a useful surrogate for thickness when evaluating a coating process. It is a prima facie case of obviousness to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MEPE 2143. I. B.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are summarized and addressed below:
(a) Applicant alleges that Examiner rejected the limitation of "implemented directly independently of a thermal vaporization process" without articulating reasoning required to establish a prima facie obviousness.
Examiner disagrees. As shown in the rejection above, DYKEMAN teaches how to adjust the thickness of the coating by varying the speed of the strip using controllers and measurements that are independent of the controllers and measurements used to monitor the physical vapor deposition. Adjusting the speed directly changes the thickness and does independent of the physical vapor deposition as neither the heat, gas flow rate, etc. needs to change to effect this affect.
Merely because Examiner relied upon the words of DYKEMAN to explain the direct and independent implementation doesn't mean that reasoning was not there, especially since Examiner directly related the claim language to those teachings in DYKEMAN.
Applicant's argument here is not persuasive as it fails to consider the direct teachings of DYKEMAN which address those limitations.
(b) Applicant asserts that LEMELSON teaches chemical vapor deposition and DYKEMAN teaches electron guns which are different processes.
Examiner respectfully points out that LEMELSON explicitly states "A method for computerized control of vapor deposition processes, including chemical vapor deposition and electron beam physical vapor deposition processes" (abstract, lines 1-3).
Applicant's argument is not persuasive as it fails to consider all of LEMELSON's teachings, including those that are directly related to the same process as DYKEMAN
(c) Applicant alleges DYKEMAN does not adjust the vaporization rate based a target layer thickness at the same time as the strip speed is adjusted.
Examiner agrees, which was why the rejection was based on multiple references. It is LEMELSON that teaches adjusting multiple parameters simultaneously.
For reference LEMELSON explicitly states "It is still another object of this invention to provide means for simultaneously and adaptively controlling all pertinent process parameters of EBPVD and/or CVD coaters in order to optimize one or more desired characteristics of the coatings produced" (column 5, lines 10-14). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN A DAGENAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1114. The examiner can normally be reached 8-12 and 1-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dah Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRISTEN A DAGENAIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
