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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO99/22043) in view of Tzeng et al. (USPGPub 2019/0164804).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-4, Lee teaches that it is known to place a part (Fig. 9) and a deposition regulator (958, for example) in a chamber wherein the gas is dispersed from the inlet substantially transverse to the deposition surface and to disperse a gas into the chamber to deposit a parylene coating (see Precursors and Polymers, section C) from para-xylene where the deposition regulator (dispersion plate) is provided “to adjust the distribution and homogeneity of the intermediates” (see section 4) which would inherently promote uniform layer thickness of coating. The teachings of Lee are as shown above. Lee fails to teach the use of a deposition regulator that is considered to be an annular ring and located as claimed. However, Tzeng teaches that it is known to provide vapor deposition devices for wafer processing with a focus ring that is ring shaped and provided adjacent to the substrate holder and extending therefrom (Fig. 2C) wherein the focus ring reduces the non-uniformity in wafer etch rates caused by non-uniform gas distribution across the wafer. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the focus ring of Tzeng in the invention of Lee in order to control the etching uniformity in the invention of Lee as guided by Lee.
Regarding claim 12, Lee further teaches that the scale of the wafer employed can be 20cm (see section B1) Given this and the scale drawings of Tzeng (see Fig. 1), if the annular ring of Tzeng were employed in the invention of Lee, the ring would extend a distance similar to that claimed. Further the Court has long held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches wherein the temperatures employed are within the range claimed (see section 4).
Regarding claim 7, the teachings of Lee in view of Tzeng are as shown above. Lee in view of Tzeng is silent as to the specific coating thickness variation across the surface. However, Lee in general is drawn to improvements in overall uniformity of thickness of coatings provided (see Section D) wherein uniformity thickness is improved by correcting flow patterns of precursors and depositing in a plurality of stations that may have coating flow variations. Therefore Lee’s generally preferred coating thickness variation would be zero. Therefore in the absence of criticality of the specific range of the current claims, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the coating thickness variation of Lee to the lowest number possible using optimized flow patterns variation and optimized numbers of multi-station coating as guided by Lee in order control overall coating quality in Lee. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regrading claim 8, because the wafers of Lee are shown to be 20cm (see section B1) and coating thickness variation limitation is generally shown to be desirable across the entire surface of substrate, the general teachings of Lee would guide one to improve coating thickness variation over the entire surface and length (diameter) of the substrate.
Regrading claim 9, Lee further teaches wherein multiple parallel plates may be opposite the surface onto which coating is deposited (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 10, without guidance that the holes of the gas dispersion plate of Lee necessarily be of varied size, it is reasonably implied that they are of the same size and shape.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, given the scale of the wafer of Lee and the scale of the drawings of Lee, the dimensions of the invention of Lee would read upon the current claim.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO99/22043) in view of Tzeng et al. (USPGPub 2019/0164804) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7-13 and 15 above and further in view of Beard et al. (WO01/20318) and Kiesel et al. (EP1801563)
Regarding claims 5-6 and 14, the teachings of Lee in view of Tzeng are as shown above. Lee in view of Tzeng fails to teach wherein comprises a reflector as claimed. However, Beard teaches that components or layers of Fabry Perot inferometer sensing devices comprising reflective surfaces may be formed using parylene polymerization processes (pg. 8, line 16 through pg. 10, line 7). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the process of Lee in view of Tzeng to form parylene coating on Fabry Perot inferometer refractors as use of a known parylene deposition method applied to a known Fabry Perot inferometer parts production method wherein the method comprises the formation of parylene layers ready for improvement and wherein the results would have been predictable based on the teachings of Beard. The teachings of Lee in view of Tzeng and further in view of Beard are as shown above. Lee in view of Tzeng and further in view of Beard fails to teach wherein the deposited layers are employed as reflectors opposite one another as claimed and wherein the coating is sandwiched as claimed in claim 14. However, Kiesel teaches that interferometers such as that described wherein the coating in sandwiched between two reflective surfaces were known at the time of invention. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the process of Lee in view of Tzeng and further in view of Beard for forming parylene layers as layers within Fabry Perot interferometers to improve similar Fabry Perot interferometers in the same way.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO99/22043) in view of Tzeng et al. (USPGPub 2019/0164804) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7-13 and 15 above and further in view of Miyaska et al. (US55510146).
Regarding claim 17, the teachings of Lee in view of Tzeng are as shown above. Lee in view of Tzeng fails to teach wherein the part to be coated is placed on a turntable. However, Miyaska teaches that it is known to use turntables to rotate parts within CVD chambers to provide both more locations for parts within for holding and placing parts and to provide a uniform temperature between substrates coated, presumably increasing overall coating uniformity (see Example 8). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the turntables of Miyaska in the CVD process of Lee in view of Tzeng in order to provide the additional support surfaces for parts to be coated on and to provide uniform coating temperatures across a plurality of substrates as is done by Miyaska. Further the use of the turntables of Miyaska in the method of Lee would be considered a use of a known part holding methodology for CVD coating in a known CVD coating method ready for improvement wherein the results of the use of turntables in the process of Lee would be predictable based upon the teachings of Miyaska.
Response to Arguments
The applicants’ arguments are generally moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The applicant largely argues against the modification of the Lee with Fang. However, the Fang referenced is no longer being employed in the currently provided rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717