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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 25, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusheh (US 2011/0100408) in view of Saito (US 4,721,553).
Regarding claim 1, Kusheh teaches a method of manufacturing an electronic component comprising a substrate, the method comprising:
providing a substrate; generating a plasma; confining the plasma in a space between the substrate and the sputter target; generating sputtered material from the sputter target using the plasma; and depositing the sputtered material directly on the substrate as a semiconducting crystalline layer (superlattice); wherein the method is performed a plurality of times in order to deposit multiple semiconducting crystalline layers (Fig. 4j, [0125-0130]) wherein different target materials are used for the deposition of each adjacent layer [0129].
Kusheh does not teach a plasma remote from a sputter target using a plurality of antennae; wherein the confining is performed by a plurality of electromagnets located on opposite sides of the space such that each of the plurality of antennae has at least one of the plurality of electromagnets positioned proximate thereto, wherein the plasma has a shape wherein a length and width of the shape are greater than the thickness, wherein the length and width of the plasma are in a same direction as a length and width, respectively, of the substrate.
Saito generates a plasma remote from the sputtering target using a plurality of antennae (conductor plate 12, fig. 6) teaches a sputtering target 1 wherein a remote plasma (plasma generating portion 26, fig. 4, col. 7, ln. 30-40) is focusing and confined in a space between the substrate 4 and target 1 (Fig. 4 and 6) wherein the confining is performed by a plurality of electromagnets (24, 25, fig. 4; 14, 15, Fig. 5 and 6)) located on opposite sides of the space such that each of the plurality of antennae (12) has at least one of the plurality of electromagnets (Fig. 6) positioned proximate thereto, wherein the plasma has a shape wherein a length and width of the shape are greater than the thickness, wherein the length and width of the plasma are in a same direction as a length and width, respectively, of the substrate (1, col. 8, ln. 40-50)).
The Examiner notes the shape of the substrate is not required. Saito teaches a circular substrate wherein the plasmas length and width are in the same direction as the circular substrate shown in figures 4, 5 and 6. The plasma found in Kushesh also would provide a plasma with the same length and width of the its web substrate. Saito’s plasma is confined in the direction between substrate and target which reads on the claimed “thickness”.
Saito teaches a plasma generated remotely from the target to increase its density and number of ions as without increasing the energy for impinging ions, (col. 7, ln. 58-61) making it possible to optimize sputtering conditions (col. 8, ln. 50-55). Kusheh recognizes the need for additional ions because it contemplates use of an ion beam assist deposition of its sputtered quantum well [0126]. Therefore Saito provides a method of enhancing the known method of Kusheh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement with predictable results.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Kusheh by generating a plasma remote from the sputter target suing a plurality of antennae; confining and focusing the plasma in a space between the substrate and the sputter target wherein the confining is performed by a plurality of electromagnets located on opposite sides of the space such that each of the plurality of antennae has at least one of the plurality of electromagnets positioned proximate thereto, wherein the plasma has a shape wherein a length and width of the shape are greater than the thickness, wherein the length and width of the plasma are in a same direction as a length and width, respectively, of the substrate, as taught by Saito, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement with predictable results and because it would increase the number of ions without increasing the energy for impinging ions reducing thermal shock on the target surface (col. 7, ln. 58-62).
Regarding claim 2, Kusheh teaches a flexible substrate of silicon of Kapton [0054] for use in web coating machine. Therefore Kusheh requires the substrate to be flexible.
Regarding claim 4, Kusheh teaches the method comprises using differing parameters for the deposition of each adjacent layer [0128]
Regarding claim 8, Kusheh teaches depositing a first semiconducting crystalline layer (silicon) directly onto the substrate then depositing a second semiconducting crystalline layer (Si, SiGe) on the first semiconducting crystalline layer (Fig. 4j).
Regarding claim 9, Kushesh teaches a third semiconducting crystalline layer onto a first crystalline layer or onto a second crystalline layer or onto the substrate (Fig. 4j, [0051]).
Regarding Claim 10, Kusheh teaches at least one layer of semiconducting material comprises, aluminum, silicon or gallium nitride (Fig. 4j, [0129]).
Regarding Claim 11, Kusheh teaches at least one layer of materials is doped n-type or p-type, or is an intrinsic semiconductor ([0129]).
Regarding Claim 12, Kusheh teach at least one layer of material is doped p-type, and the dopant material used to dope at least one layer of semiconducting material comprises at least one of boron ([0129]).
Regarding Claim 13, Kusheh teach at least one layer of material is doped n-type, and the dopant material used to dope at least one layer of semiconducting material comprise antimony [0129].
Regarding Claim 14, Kusheh teaches wherein the method comprises doping any of the semiconducting layers of material with germanium (SiGe, Fig. 4j).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusheh and Saito as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jorgenson (WO 2017/205815).
Regarding claim 30, Kusheh does not teach each semiconducting crystalline layer, independently, is a layer comprising at least one element selected from lithium, aluminum, cadmium, dysprosium, indium, copper, gallium, or yttrium.
Jorgenson teaches sputtering each semiconducting crystalline layer, independently, is a layer comprising at least one element selected from aluminum, indium, copper, gallium, ([0058], [0071], [0139], fig. 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify each semiconducting crystalline layer of Kusheh by providing each semiconducting crystalline layer, independently, is a layer comprising at least one element selected from lithium, aluminum, cadmium, dysprosium, indium, copper, gallium, or yttrium, as taught by Jorgenson, because it would provide a cost effective epitaxial materials of high quality ([0022-0023]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, James Lin can be reached on 571 272 8902. 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.
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794