DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 06/17/2026. Claims 1-11, 13-17, 19-24 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1-2, 7, 10, 21, 24 have been amended; claims 12, 18 cancelled.
With respect to Claim Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim Objections set forth in the Final Office Action dated 04/20/2026.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation set forth in the Final Office Action dated 04/20/2026.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections set forth in the Final Office Action dated 04/20/2026.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection in light of RCE. Specifically, the previously cited prior art Tanaka (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0160096 A1) is no longer applied in any rejections in this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“transport system which is capable of displacing the part or parts with different shapes in the first chamber” in claim 1 (lines 3-4), claim 24 (lines 3-4), and “transport system is capable of displacing the part or parts in a manner such that two successive treatment zones are contiguous” in claim 11 (lines 2-3). This limitation uses generic placeholder “system” (Prong A); the term “system” is modified by functional language “which is capable of displacing the part or parts with different shapes in the first chamber” / “is capable of displacing the part or parts in a manner such that two successive treatment zones are contiguous” (Prong B); and the term “system” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “transport system” will be interpreted as “a carriage, a roller conveyor, a conveyor belt” or “turntable, turrets” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification on page 3, lines 7-9: “The transport system comprises a turntable intended to support one or more parts. The transport system comprises turrets mounted on the turntable and intended to receive one or more parts.”, and lines 14-16: “The transport system comprises a longitudinal transport device intended to support one or more parts. The device may be a carriage, a roller conveyor, a conveyor belt, or any other suitable means.”.
“device for correcting a path and/or a shape of a laser beam” in claim 1 (lines 6-7), claim 21 (line 6), claim 24 (line 6). This limitation uses generic placeholder “device” (Prong A); the term “device” is modified by functional language “for correcting a path and/or a shape of a laser beam” (Prong B); and the term “device” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-11, 13-17, 19-24 are 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 1 (lines 6-7), claim 21 (line 6), claim 24 (line 6) recites the limitation “device for correcting a path and/or a shape of a laser beam”. Claim limitation “device for correcting a path and/or a shape of a laser beam” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See the Claim Interpretation section above.
The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function. See Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
If there is no disclosure of structure, material or acts for performing the recited function, the claim fails to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The disclosure of the structure (or material or acts) may be implicit or inherent in the specification if it would have been clear to those skilled in the art what structure (or material or acts) corresponds to the means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation. See id. at 1380, 53 USPQ2d at 1229; In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946-47, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, "[a] bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure" in the context of a means plus function limitation. Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Disclosure that an invention "may be controlled by known differential pressure, valving and control equipment" was not a disclosure of any structure corresponding to the claimed "control means for operating [a] valving " and the claim was held indefinite).
Whether a claim reciting an element in means- (or step-) plus-function language fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because the specification does not disclose adequate structure (or material or acts) for performing the recited function is closely related to the question of whether the specification meets the description requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See In re Noll, 545 F.2d 141, 149, 191 USPQ 721, 727 (CCPA 1976) (unless the means-plus-function language is itself unclear, a claim limitation written in means-plus- function language meets the definiteness requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, so long as the specification meets the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph).
The invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not exempt an applicant from compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs. See Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1195, 29 USPQ2d at 1850; In re Knowlton, 481 F.2d 1357, 1366, 178 USPQ 486, 493 (CCPA 1973) ("[The sixth paragraph of section 112] cannot be read as creating an exception either to the description requirement of the first paragraph … or to the definiteness requirement found in the second paragraph of section 112. Means-plus-function language can be used in the claims, but the claims must still accurately define the invention.").
In this case, the specification of the Instant Application describes: “Figures 17 and 18 illustrate the advantage of providing the laser system (60) with a device for correcting the trajectory, focussing or shape. In particular, the device may be used in the treatment of parts (2) which do not have a surface which is orthogonal with respect to the beam (62). Figure 17 shows a beam (62), projected onto a surface of the part (2) which is not orthogonal to the direction of the beam (2). To facilitate comprehension, the beam (62) is shown to be parallel and of circular section. It can be seen in Figure 18 that the spot (68) resulting from projection of the beam (62) onto the part (2) is not a circle, but an ellipse. This is problematic, in particular if the purpose of the laser treatment is to obtain texturing comprising circular cavities. In this context, the correction device can be used to modify the shape of the laser beam (62) in order, as in this example, to correct the deformation induced by the surface. The laser system (60) may include a shaping module upstream of the correction device, for example in order to obtain predetermined non- circular structures.” on page 12, lines 15-27. However, the structure of the “device for correcting a path and/or a shape of a laser beam” is not described in the specification. Furthermore, the drawings of the Instant Application use an elliptical shape to represent the focusing and correcting device 65 in Figs.1, 3, 5; it is not clear whether the elliptical shape represents a lens since the Specification does not mention any structure associated with the focusing and correcting device 65; even if the elliptical shape 65 means a lens, it is unclear whether the focusing and correcting device 65 comprises a regular lens, or any other specific type of lens that is capable of correcting a path and/or a shape of a laser beam, or a lens with other optical components [but not illustrated] that are capable of correcting a path and/or a shape of a laser beam. Therefore, the specification and drawings of the Instant Application do not describe and illustrate what structure(s) define the “device for correcting a path and/or a shape of a laser beam”. Rather, the specification merely repeats substantially the claimed language. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised as to what structures correspond to the claimed function. As a result of this deficiency, claims 1, 21, 24 contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-11, 13-17, 19-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependent on claim 1.
Claims 22-23 are rejected by virtue of their dependent on claim 21.
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 1-11, 13-17, 19-24 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.
Claim 1 (lines 6-7), claim 21 (line 6), claim 24 (line 6) recites the limitation “device for correcting a path and/or a shape of a laser beam”. Claim limitation “device for correcting a path and/or a shape of a laser beam” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See the Claim Interpretation section above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. the specification of the Instant Application describes: “Figures 17 and 18 illustrate the advantage of providing the laser system (60) with a device for correcting the trajectory, focussing or shape. In particular, the device may be used in the treatment of parts (2) which do not have a surface which is orthogonal with respect to the beam (62). Figure 17 shows a beam (62), projected onto a surface of the part (2) which is not orthogonal to the direction of the beam (2). To facilitate comprehension, the beam (62) is shown to be parallel and of circular section. It can be seen in Figure 18 that the spot (68) resulting from projection of the beam (62) onto the part (2) is not a circle, but an ellipse. This is problematic, in particular if the purpose of the laser treatment is to obtain texturing comprising circular cavities. In this context, the correction device can be used to modify the shape of the laser beam (62) in order, as in this example, to correct the deformation induced by the surface. The laser system (60) may include a shaping module upstream of the correction device, for example in order to obtain predetermined non- circular structures.” on page 12, lines 15-27. However, the structure of the “device for correcting a path and/or a shape of a laser beam” is not described in the specification. Furthermore, the drawings of the Instant Application use an elliptical shape to represent the focusing and correcting device 65 in Figs.1, 3, 5; it is not clear whether the elliptical shape represents a lens since the Specification does not mention any structure associated with the focusing and correcting device 65; even if the elliptical shape 65 means a lens, it is unclear whether the focusing and correcting device 65 comprises a regular lens, or any other specific type of lens that is capable of correcting a path and/or a shape of a laser beam, or a lens with other optical components [but not illustrated] that are capable of correcting a path and/or a shape of a laser beam. Therefore, the specification and drawings of the Instant Application do not describe and illustrate what structure(s) define the “device for correcting a path and/or a shape of a laser beam”. Rather, the specification merely repeats substantially the claimed language. It is unclear how to determine the functional equivalents. Therefore, claims 1, 21, 24 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-11, 13-17, 19-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependent on claim 1.
Claims 22-23 are rejected by virtue of their dependent on claim 21.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, 19, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieder (WO 2009141411 A1, previously cited) in view of Elliott et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0296258 A1, newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Wieder discloses a machine (apparatus 1, Wieder Figs.1 & 3) (it is noted that Wieder on page 14 line 14 discloses: “Fig. 3 shows a part of the embodiment shown in fig. 1 in a side view”) for treating a part or parts of different shapes (the Wieder apparatus 1 is capable of treating parts of different shapes because Wieder Fig.3 shows the substrate 26 in chamber 9, the substrate 26 with semiconductor layer 51 in chamber 10, and the substrate 26 with layer areas 48 and trenches 49 in chamber 11; these have different shapes), comprising:
a first chamber (chambers 5 to 20, Wieder Fig.1) (Wieder on page 9 lines 2-4 discloses: “The apparatus 1 comprises 16 chambers which are disposed one after the other along the transport path 2. Accordingly, during operation the substrates to be treated in the apparatus 1 are moved through the chambers 5 to 20 successively.”; furthermore, Wieder on page 5 lines 16-21 discloses: “According to the simple and effective design of the present invention, a transfer opening may be present in the chamber walls of adjacent treating chambers to allow simple transfer from the substrate from one treating chamber to the other. Through this common opening of adjacent treating chambers the common transport path may extend.”; therefore, chambers 5-20 are first chamber since they are connected and there is a transfer opening in the chamber walls of adjacent treating chambers to allow simple transfer from the substrate from one treating chamber to the other);
a vacuum system (vacuum pump 44, Wieder Fig.3) (it is noted that Wieder on page 14 line 14 discloses: “Fig. 3 shows a part of the embodiment shown in fig. 1 in a side view”);
treatment systems (treatment systems includes plasma generating system comprising electrode 35, RF power supply 36, gas supply 37; vacuum deposition system comprising vacuum pump 38; and laser device 41; Wieder Fig.3), including a plasma generating system (plasma generating system includes electrode 35, RF power supply 36, gas supply 37 as shown in Wieder Fig.3 because Wieder on page 14 lines 28-34 to page 15 lines 1-2 discloses: “The treating chamber 9 shown in fig. 3 is a chamber designed as a chamber for carrying out a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition PECVD. For this purpose, an electrode 35 connected to an RF (radio frequency) power supply 36 is disposed in the chamber. As the counter electrode the substrate carrier 25 carrying substrate 26 may be used. The carrier 25 is therefore grounded. Due to the RF power supply applied to the electrode 35, a plasma may be ignited between the electrode 35 and the substrate 26 when the process gas like argon is introduced through the gas supply 27 to the treating chamber 9. In addition, reactive gases like silane, disilane or trimethylboron for depositing a semiconductor layer may be introduced to the gas supply 37.”) and/or a vacuum deposition system (vacuum pump 38, Wieder Fig.3); and
a transport system (transport system includes transport path 2, two tracks 3 & 4, and substrate carrier 25 as shown in Wieder Figs.1 & 3 because Wieder on page 8 lines 29-32 discloses: “The apparatus 1 shown in fig. 1 comprises a transport path 2 along which the substrates to be treated are moved through the apparatus 1. For this purpose, a transport path 2 may comprise two tracks 3 and 4 which may support a substrate carrier on which the substrates may be supported during movement through the apparatus 1. Accordingly, the substrate carrier may be designed such that the substrate carrier is movable in a gliding way along the tracks 3 and 4.”) which is capable of displacing the part or parts (Wieder Fig.3 shows the transport system is capable of displacing the part or parts because Wieder Fig.3 shows the carrier 25 supports the substrate 26 in chamber 9, the substrate 26 with semiconductor layer 51 in chamber 10, and the substrate 26 with layer areas 48 and trenches 49 in chamber 11) with different shapes (Wieder discloses different shapes of parts can be displaced in the chambers 5 to 20 because Wieder Fig.3 shows the substrate 26 in chamber 9, the substrate 26 with semiconductor layer 51 in chamber 10, and the substrate 26 with layer areas 48 and trenches 49 in chamber 11; these have different shapes) in the first chamber (chambers 9 to 11 of the first chamber 5-20, Wieder Fig.3);
characterized in that the treatment systems (treatment systems includes plasma generating system comprising electrode 35, RF power supply 36, gas supply 37; vacuum deposition system comprising vacuum pump 38; and laser device 41; Wieder Fig.3) include a laser system (laser device 41, Wieder Fig.3) which is designed to treat the part or parts (substrate 26 with semiconductor layer 51, Wieder Fig.3) disposed in the first chamber (chamber 10 of the first chamber 5-20, Wieder Fig.3) (Wieder on page 15 lines 12-14 discloses: “The laser device 41 produces a focused laser beam 42 which is directed to the surface of the substrate 26 or the layer 51, respectively.”).
Wieder does not explicitly disclose:
the laser system comprises a device for correcting a path and/or a shape of a laser beam.
Elliott teaches a laser system (Elliott Fig.1):
the laser system (as shown in Elliott Fig.1) comprises a device (optics module 16, Elliott Fig.1) for correcting a path and/or a shape of a laser beam (laser beam 14, Elliott Fig.1) (It is noted that the limitation “a path and/or a shape” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Elliott teaches the optics module 16 for correcting the shape of the laser beam 14 because Elliott Par.0055 teaches: “the optics module 16 includes three cylinder lenses with theta adjustment to correct the beam shape”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wieder, by adding optics module for correcting shape of laser beam, as taught by Elliott, in order to homogenize and shape the laser beam before it reaches the substrate to provide a more uniform laser energy distribution across the substrate, thereby reducing localized intensity variations, improving beam focus and beam profile, producing more uniform scribe widths and depths, minimizing defects caused by hot spots, and improving the quality of laser patterning across the substrate.
Regarding claim 2, Wieder in view of Elliott teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Wieder also discloses:
the treatment systems (treatment systems include plasma generating system comprising electrode 35, RF power supply 36, gas supply 37; vacuum deposition system comprising vacuum pump 38; and laser device 41; Wieder Fig.3) can be used selectively for the treatment of the part or parts (substrate 26 in chamber 9, the substrate 26 with semiconductor layer 51 in chamber 10, and the substrate 26 with layer areas 48 and trenches 49 in chamber 11; Wieder Fig.3), either separately from one another or simultaneously with one or more of the other treatment systems (It is noted that the limitation “either separately from one another or simultaneously with one or more of the other treatment systems” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Wieder discloses the treatment systems can be used selectively for the treatment of the part or parts either separately from one another or simultaneously with one or more of the other treatment systems).
Regarding claim 3, Wieder in view of Elliott teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Wieder also discloses:
a sequence of use of the treatment systems (treatment systems includes plasma generating system comprising electrode 35, RF power supply 36, gas supply 37; vacuum deposition system comprising vacuum pump 38; and laser device 41; Wieder Fig.3) can be set, with a variable order of use and/or a variable number of uses (It is noted that the limitation “a variable order of use and/or a variable number of uses” is in alternative form. In this case, Wieder discloses sequence of use of the treatment systems can be set with a variable number of uses because Wieder Claim 11 on page 25 discloses: wherein a sputter deposition chamber for depositing transparent conductive oxide TCO, a laser chamber for patterning the TCO layer, several CVD chambers for depositing semiconductor layers followed by one common laser chamber at the end of a row of several CVD chambers for patterning a layer stack or several laser chambers each after a CVD chamber for patterning each single layer deposited by the CVD chambers and a sputter deposition layer for depositing a back contact layer are provided for.”. It is noted that the deposition step is the plasma generating step in a vacuum condition chamber, the laser is used for the laser patterning step. Therefore, Wieder discloses sequence of use of the treatment systems can be set with a variable number of uses.).
Regarding claim 4, Wieder in view of Elliott teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Wieder also discloses:
the machine (apparatus 1, Wieder Fig.1) comprises a protection system (window 43, chambers walls 28 with shutter 50 and chamber wall 32, Wieder Fig.3) (it is noted that Wieder on page 14 line 14 discloses: “Fig. 3 shows a part of the embodiment shown in fig. 1 in a side view”) for the laser system (laser device 41, Wieder Fig.3).
Regarding claim 7, Wieder in view of Elliott teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 4, Wieder also discloses:
the protection system (window 43, chambers walls 28 with shutter 50 and chamber wall 32, Wieder Fig.3) comprises internal walls (chambers walls 28 with shutter 50 and chamber wall 32, Wieder Fig.3) which optically isolate the path of the laser beam (laser beam 42, Wieder Fig.3) originating from the laser system (laser device 41, Wieder Fig.3) from a remainder (chambers 5-8 and 11-20, Wieder Figs.1 & 3) of the first chamber (chambers 5-20, Wieder Fig.1), and which protects from fluxes originating from the treatment systems (treatment systems includes plasma generating system comprising electrode 35, RF power supply 36, gas supply 37; vacuum deposition system comprising vacuum pump 38; and laser device 41; Wieder Fig.3) (it is noted that the treatment systems includes plasma generating system comprising electrode 35, RF power supply 36, gas supply 37; vacuum deposition system comprising vacuum pump 38; and laser device 41 as shown in Wieder Fig.3; therefore, the treatment systems are at chambers 9 and 10; thus, the chambers walls 28 with shutter 50 and chamber wall 32 protect the chambers 5-8 and 11-20 from fluxes originating from the treatment systems in chambers 9-10).
Regarding claim 9, Wieder in view of Elliott teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Wieder does not explicitly teach:
the laser system comprises a pulsed laser source.
Elliott teaches a laser system (Elliott Fig.1):
the laser system (as shown in Elliott Fig.1) comprises a pulsed laser source (laser source 12, Elliott Fig.1) (laser source 12 is pulsed laser source because Elliott Par.0053 teaches: “the plenum reactor system 10 includes radiation source 12, for example, a ten-watt solid state laser 12, that is capable of generating radiation in the range of 266-1065 nm in a beam 14”, and Elliott Par.0046 teaches: “there is provided a compact plenum reactor with a compact laser optical system including a solid state laser with pulse energies in the range of 0.1 um to 2.0 millijoules”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Wieder laser source (see Wieder laser device 41 in Wieder Fig.3) with the Elliott laser source (see the Elliott laser source 12 in Elliott Fig.1), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of producing the laser beam in order to manufacture the semiconductor substrate. MPEP 2143 I (B). Furthermore, the pulsed laser beam provides advantage for semiconductor patterning due to the ability of delivering high-energy bursts with minimal heat, which prevents damage to delicate semiconductor materials. Thus, it allows cleaner, more precise cuts and features than continuous wave laser.
Regarding claim 10, Wieder in view of Elliott teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Wieder also discloses:
the laser beam (laser beam 42, Wieder Fig.3) can be orientated with an oblique or orthogonal incidence onto the part or parts (substrate 26 with semiconductor layer 51 in chamber 10, Wieder Fig.3) (It is noted that the limitation “oblique or orthogonal” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Wieder Fig.3 shows that the laser beam 42 is orientated with an oblique incidence onto substrate 26 with semiconductor layer 51).
Regarding claim 11, Wieder in view of Elliott teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Wieder also discloses:
the transport system (transport system includes transport path 2, two tracks 3 & 4, and substrate carrier 25 as shown in Wieder Figs.1 & 3) is capable of displacing the part or parts (substrate 26 with layer areas 48 and trenches 49 in chamber 11, Wieder Fig.3) in a manner such that two successive treatment zones (two successive treatment zones are layer area 48 and trench 49 in chamber 11, Wieder Fig.3) are contiguous (Wieder Fig.3 shows layer area 48 and trench 49 are contiguous).
Regarding claim 19, Wieder in view of Elliott teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Wieder also discloses:
the transport system (transport system includes transport path 2, two tracks 3 & 4, and substrate carrier 25 as shown in Wieder Figs.1 & 3) comprises a longitudinal transport device (transport path 2, two tracks 3 & 4, and substrate carrier 25 as shown in Wieder Figs.1 & 3) intended to support one or more parts (substrate 26, Wieder Fig.3) (Wieder on page 8 lines 29-32 discloses: “The apparatus 1 shown in fig. 1 comprises a transport path 2 along which the substrates to be treated are moved through the apparatus 1. For this purpose, a transport path 2 may comprise two tracks 3 and 4 which may support a substrate carrier on which the substrates may be supported during movement through the apparatus 1. Accordingly, the substrate carrier may be designed such that the substrate carrier is movable in a gliding way along the tracks 3 and 4.”).
Regarding claim 21, Wieder discloses a method for treatment of a part or parts having different shapes (Wieder Fig.3 shows the substrate 26 in chamber 9, the substrate 26 with semiconductor layer 51 in chamber 10, and the substrate 26 with layer areas 48 and trenches 49 in chamber 11; these have different shapes), the method comprising:
a step for vacuuming a first chamber (chamber 9, Wieder Fig.3) in which the part or parts (substrate 26, Wieder Fig.3) is/are located (Wieder on page 12 lines 14-16 discloses: “the whole apparatus 1 comprising treating chambers 6 to 19 is operated under technical vacuum conditions. Accordingly, means for producing such a vacuum (not shown) are provided for.” and Wieder on page 15 lines 4-6 discloses: “In order to achieve technical vacuum conditions a vacuum pump 38 which is serving for the adjacent chambers 9 and 10 is provided. The vacuum pump 38 is connected to the chambers 9 and 10 by conducting pipes 39 and 40.”; therefore, Wieder discloses step for vacuuming chamber 9 in which the substrate 26 is located, as shown in Wieder Fig.3), then a combination of following steps:
a step for laser treatment (laser treatment is performed by the laser device 41 in chamber 10, Wieder Fig.3) of the part or parts (substrate 26, Wieder Fig.3) (Wieder on page 15 lines 12-14 discloses: “The laser device 41 produces a focused laser beam 42 which is directed to the surface of the substrate 26 or the layer 51, respectively.”) using a laser system (laser device 41, Wieder Fig.3), and
a step for low pressure plasma treatment (plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition PECVD in chamber 12, Wieder Fig.3 & as indicated by Wieder on page 11 lines 15-18. Specifically, Wieder on page 11 lines 15-18 discloses: “The deposition chambers 9, 12 and 15 are used to deposite semiconductor layers by chemical vapor deposition CVD or especially plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition PECVD in order to form a photovoltaic structure.”) of the part or parts (substrate 26, Wieder Fig.3) (Wieder on page 14 lines 28-34 discloses: “The treating chamber 9 shown in fig. 3 is a chamber designed as a chamber for carrying out a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition PECVD. For this purpose, an electrode 35 connected to an RF (radio frequency) power supply 36 is disposed in the chamber. As the counter electrode the substrate carrier 25 carrying substrate 26 may be used. The carrier 25 is therefore grounded. Due to the RF power supply applied to the electrode 35, a plasma may be ignited between the electrode 35 and the substrate 26 when the process gas like argon is introduced through the gas supply 27 to the treating chamber 9.”), and/or
a step for carrying out vacuum deposition (vacuum deposition is carried out when the process gas like argon is introduced through the gas supply 37 to the vacuum chamber 9, which the process gas is then ionized by RF power supply 36 to form plasma, Wieder Fig.3 & Wieder on page 14 lines 28-34) onto one or more of the parts (substrate 26, Wieder Fig.3);
characterized in that the steps a), b), c), and d) (steps a), b), c), and d), as cited and explained above) are carried out in a machine (apparatus 1, Wieder Fig.1) (it is noted that Wieder on page 14 line 14 discloses: “Fig. 3 shows a part of the embodiment shown in fig. 1 in a side view”) which has been adapted to treat parts having different shapes (the Wieder apparatus 1 is adapted to treat parts having different shapes because Wieder Fig.3 shows the substrate 26 in chamber 9, the substrate 26 with semiconductor layer 51 in chamber 10, and the substrate 26 with layer areas 48 and trenches 49 in chamber 11; these have different shapes).
Wieder does not explicitly disclose:
the laser system comprises a device for correcting a path and/or a shape of a laser beam.
Elliott teaches a laser system (Elliott Fig.1):
the laser system (as shown in Elliott Fig.1) comprises a device (optics module 16, Elliott Fig.1) for correcting a path and/or a shape of a laser beam (laser beam 14, Elliott Fig.1) (It is noted that the limitation “a path and/or a shape” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Elliott teaches the optics module 16 for correcting the shape of the laser beam 14 because Elliott Par.0055 teaches: “the optics module 16 includes three cylinder lenses with theta adjustment to correct the beam shape”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wieder, by adding optics module for correcting shape of laser beam, as taught by Elliott, in order to homogenize and shape the laser beam before it reaches the substrate to provide a more uniform laser energy distribution across the substrate, thereby reducing localized intensity variations, improving beam focus and beam profile, producing more uniform scribe widths and depths, minimizing defects caused by hot spots, and improving the quality of laser patterning across the substrate.
Regarding claim 22, Wieder in view of Elliott teaches the method as set forth in claim 21, Wieder also discloses:
steps b), c) and d) (step b) laser treatment in chamber 10, step c) plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition PECVD in chamber 12, and step d) vacuum deposition in chamber 9, as shown in Wieder Fig.3 and as cited and explained in the rejections of claim 21 above) are carried out selectively in order to treat the part or parts (substrate 26, Wieder Fig.3), either separately from any of steps a), b), c), and d) or simultaneously with one or more of any of steps a), b), c), and d) (It is noted that the limitation “either separately from any of steps a), b), c), and d) or simultaneously with one or more of any of steps a), b), c), and d)” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Wieder discloses step b) laser treatment in chamber 10, step c) plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition PECVD in chamber 12, and step d) vacuum deposition in chamber 9 are carried out simultaneously with one or more of the other steps, which is step a) of vacuuming the chamber 9).
Regarding claim 23, Wieder in view of Elliott teaches the method as set forth in claim 21, Wieder also discloses:
the steps b), c), d) (step b) is laser treatment, step c) is plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition PECVD, and step d) is vacuum deposition, as shown in Wieder Fig.3 and as cited and explained in the rejections of claim 21 above) or combinations thereof are carried out in accordance with a sequence of use which can be set, with a variable order of use and/or a variable number of uses (It is noted that the limitation “with a variable order of use and/or a variable number of uses” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Wieder discloses steps b), c), d) carried out in accordance with a sequence of use which can be set with a variable number of uses because Wieder Claim 11 on page 25 discloses: “wherein a sputter deposition chamber for depositing transparent conductive oxide TCO, a laser chamber for patterning the TCO layer, several CVD chambers for depositing semiconductor layers followed by one common laser chamber at the end of a row of several CVD chambers for patterning a layer stack or several laser chambers each after a CVD chamber for patterning each single layer deposited by the CVD chambers and a sputter deposition layer for depositing a back contact layer are provided for.”. It is noted that the deposition step is the plasma generating step in a vacuum condition chamber, the laser is used for the laser patterning step. Therefore, Wieder discloses sequence of use of the steps b), c), d) can be set with a variable number of uses.).
Claims 5-6, 8, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieder (WO 2009141411 A1, previously cited) in view of Elliott et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0296258 A1, newly cited), and further in view of Kojima et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,622,567 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Wieder in view of Elliott teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 4, Wieder also discloses:
the protection system (window 43, chambers walls 28 with shutter 50 and chamber wall 32, Wieder Fig.3) comprises a cover (window 43, Wieder Fig.3) in front of the laser system (laser device 41, Wieder Fig.3).
Wieder in view of Elliott does not explicitly teach:
the cover can be moved in front of the laser system
Kojima teaches a laser system (Kojima Fig.139) comprising:
a cover (window 4235, Kojima Fig.139) can be moved in front of the laser system (Kojima Fig.139 shows that the laser beam 16 is coming from the left side of the window 4235; thus, the window 4235 is in front of the laser system. Kojima Col.88 lines 20-26 teaches the window 4235 can be moved in parallel or rotated; thus, Kojima teaches the window 4235 can be moved in front of the laser system) (Kojima Col.88 lines 20-26 teaches: “FIG. 139 shows an embodiment in which the window 4235 is made large enough with respect to the size of laser beam 16, and a mechanism for changing the area of laser beam transmission of the window is provided. When a portion of the window 4235 is tarnished, the window is moved in parallel or rotated so that the laser beam passes through a clear surface of the window.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wieder in view of Elliott, by making the window rotatable, as taught by Kojima, in order to change the area of laser beam transmission of the window when portion of the window is tarnished, thus, the laser beam would be able to pass through a clear surface of the window, as recognized by Kojima [Kojima Col.88 lines 20-26]. Therefore, the modification would improve the quality of laser patterning for semiconductor.
Regarding claim 6, Wieder in view of Elliott teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 4, but does not teach:
the protection system comprises a transparent film running in front of the laser system.
Kojima teaches a laser system (Kojima Fig.135) comprising:
the protection system (protection system comprises window 7 and second window 4231, Kojima Fig.135) comprises a transparent film (second window 4231, Kojima Fig.135) (Kojima Col.87 lines 30-33 teaches: “A thin window may be used as window 4231 since it is not necessary to keep chamber 1 airtight by this window. Quartz, CaF2, MgF2 or a Teflon sheet may be used as the material of the window.”; it is noted that quartz is transparent; thus, the second window 4231 is transparent film) running in front of the laser system (Kojima Fig.135 shows that the laser beam 16 is coming from the left side of the window 7 and the second window 4231; thus, the second window 4231 is in front of the laser system. Furthermore, Kojima Col.87 lines 36-37 teaches the second window 4231 is movable; thus, Kojima teaches the second window 4231 running in front of the laser system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wieder in view of Elliott, by adding transparent film running in front of the laser system and position the transparent film below the Wieder window 43, as taught by Kojima, in order to limit the area of contamination; furthermore, the modification would also make the laser beam passes through the clear area of the second window constantly by having a running transparent film in front of the laser system, as recognized by Kojima [Kojima Col.88 lines 20-26]. Therefore, the modification would improve the quality of laser patterning for semiconductor.
Regarding claim 8, Wieder in view of Elliott teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 4, but does not teach:
the protection system comprises a second chamber fixed to a wall of the first chamber and formed between a window of the laser system and the parts to be treated, this second chamber being provided with an aperture facing the parts in order to define an aperture angle of less than 45 degrees between the window and the first chamber.
Kojima teaches a laser system (Kojima Fig.70) comprising:
the protection system (protective system includes the second chamber, Kojima annotated Fig.70 below) comprises a second chamber (second chamber, Kojima annotated Fig.70 below) fixed to a wall of the first chamber (top wall of the chamber 1, Kojima Fig.70) and formed between a window (window 7, Kojima Fig.70) of the laser system (laser system includes the laser unit 10, lens 9 and window 7, Kojima Fig.70) and the parts (target 5, Kojima Fig.70) (it is noted that the primary reference Wieder already discloses plurality of parts are placed at treating area, as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 1 above) to be treated, this second chamber (second chamber, Kojima annotated Fig.70 below) being provided with an aperture (aperture, Kojima annotated Fig.70 below) facing the parts (target 5, Kojima Fig.70) (it is noted that the primary reference Wieder already discloses plurality of parts are placed at treating area, as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 1 above) in order to define an aperture angle between the window (window 7, Kojima Fig.70) and the first chamber (chamber 1, Kojima Fig.70).
PNG
media_image1.png
882
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wieder in view of Elliott, by adding second chamber fixed to a wall of the first chamber and formed between a window of the laser system and the parts to be treated, this second chamber being provided with an aperture facing the parts in order to define an aperture angle between the window and the first chamber, as taught by Kojima, in order to create a physical barrier to keep contaminants (such as dust, slag, debris, vapors) from contacting the optics and the window, thus, isolate the sensitive optical components from the debris, plasma plume, and fumes generated by the laser treating the material.
Wieder in view of Elliott and Kojima does not explicitly teach:
the aperture angle of less than 45 degrees between the window and the first chamber
Regarding the limitation that the aperture angle of less than 45 degrees between the window and the first chamber, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Kojima Fig.70 where the reference Kojima teaches certain aperture angle between the window and the first chamber), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, Kojima teaches certain aperture angle between the window and the first chamber, and having a specific aperture angle between the window and the first chamber is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the aperture angle between the window and the first chamber is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the aperture angle between the window and the first chamber changes the path of the laser beam entering the first chamber to treat parts, and also impacts the protective function for the optical components. An optimized aperture angle between the window and the first chamber ensures that the laser beam path can properly access the first chamber for treating parts, while simultaneously isolating sensitive optical components from the debris, plasma plume, and fumes generated during laser processing of the material. Accordingly, the aperture angle between the window and the first chamber is recognized in the art as a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Wieder in view of Elliott and Kojima aperture angle between the window and the first chamber to be less than 45 degrees as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Regarding claim 24, Wieder discloses a machine (apparatus 1, Wieder Figs.1 & 3) (it is noted that Wieder on page 14 line 14 discloses: “Fig. 3 shows a part of the embodiment shown in fig. 1 in a side view”) for treating a part or parts of different shapes (the Wieder apparatus 1 is capable of treating parts of different shapes because Wieder Fig.3 shows the substrate 26 in chamber 9, the substrate 26 with semiconductor layer 51 in chamber 10, and the substrate 26 with layer areas 48 and trenches 49 in chamber 11; these have different shapes), comprising:
a first chamber (chambers 5 to 20, Wieder Fig.1) (Wieder on page 9 lines 2-4 discloses: “The apparatus 1 comprises 16 chambers which are disposed one after the other along the transport path 2. Accordingly, during operation the substrates to be treated in the apparatus 1 are moved through the chambers 5 to 20 successively.”; furthermore, Wieder on page 5 lines 16-21 discloses: “According to the simple and effective design of the present invention, a transfer opening may be present in the chamber walls of adjacent treating chambers to allow simple transfer from the substrate from one treating chamber to the other. Through this common opening of adjacent treating chambers the common transport path may extend.”; therefore, chambers 5-20 are first chamber since they are connected and there is a transfer opening in the chamber walls of adjacent treating chambers to allow simple transfer from the substrate from one treating chamber to the other);
a vacuum system (vacuum pump 44, Wieder Fig.3) (it is noted that Wieder on page 14 line 14 discloses: “Fig. 3 shows a part of the embodiment shown in fig. 1 in a side view”);
treatment systems (treatment systems includes plasma generating system comprising electrode 35, RF power supply 36, gas supply 37; vacuum deposition system comprising vacuum pump 38; and laser device 41; Wieder Fig.3), including a plasma generating system (plasma generating system includes electrode 35, RF power supply 36, gas supply 37 as shown in Wieder Fig.3 because Wieder on page 14 lines 28-34 to page 15 lines 1-2 discloses: “The treating chamber 9 shown in fig. 3 is a chamber designed as a chamber for carrying out a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition PECVD. For this purpose, an electrode 35 connected to an RF (radio frequency) power supply 36 is disposed in the chamber. As the counter electrode the substrate carrier 25 carrying substrate 26 may be used. The carrier 25 is therefore grounded. Due to the RF power supply applied to the electrode 35, a plasma may be ignited between the electrode 35 and the substrate 26 when the process gas like argon is introduced through the gas supply 27 to the treating chamber 9. In addition, reactive gases like silane, disilane or trimethylboron for depositing a semiconductor layer may be introduced to the gas supply 37.”) and/or a vacuum deposition system (vacuum pump 38, Wieder Fig.3); and
a transport system (transport system includes transport path 2, two tracks 3 & 4, and substrate carrier 25 as shown in Wieder Figs.1 & 3 because Wieder on page 8 lines 29-32 discloses: “The apparatus 1 shown in fig. 1 comprises a transport path 2 along which the substrates to be treated are moved through the apparatus 1. For this purpose, a transport path 2 may comprise two tracks 3 and 4 which may support a substrate carrier on which the substrates may be supported during movement through the apparatus 1. Accordingly, the substrate carrier may be designed such that the substrate carrier is movable in a gliding way along the tracks 3 and 4.”) which is capable of displacing the part or parts (Wieder Fig.3 shows the transport system is capable of displacing the part or parts because Wieder Fig.3 shows the carrier 25 supports the substrate 26 in chamber 9, the substrate 26 with semiconductor layer 51 in chamber 10, and the substrate 26 with layer areas 48 and trenches 49 in chamber 11) with different shapes (Wieder discloses different shapes of parts can be displaced in the chambers 5 to 20 because Wieder Fig.3 shows the substrate 26 in chamber 9, the substrate 26 with semiconductor layer 51 in chamber 10, and the substrate 26 with layer areas 48 and trenches 49 in chamber 11; these have different shapes) in the first chamber (chambers 9 to 11 of the first chamber 5-20, Wieder Fig.3);
characterized in that the treatment systems (treatment systems includes plasma generating system comprising electrode 35, RF power supply 36, gas supply 37; vacuum deposition system comprising vacuum pump 38; and laser device 41; Wieder Fig.3) include a laser system (laser device 41, Wieder Fig.3) which is designed to treat the part or parts (substrate 26 with semiconductor layer 51, Wieder Fig.3) disposed in the first chamber (chamber 10 of the first chamber 5-20, Wieder Fig.3) (Wieder on page 15 lines 12-14 discloses: “The laser device 41 produces a focused laser beam 42 which is directed to the surface of the substrate 26 or the layer 51, respectively.”).
Wieder does not explicitly disclose:
a protection system for the laser system comprises a second chamber fixed to a wall of the first chamber and formed between a window of the laser system and the parts to be treated, this second chamber being provided with an aperture facing the parts in order to define an aperture angle of less than 45 degrees between the window and the first chamber;
the laser system comprises a device for correcting a path and/or a shape of a laser beam.
Elliott teaches a laser system (Elliott Fig.1):
the laser system (as shown in Elliott Fig.1) comprises a device (optics module 16, Elliott Fig.1) for correcting a path and/or a shape of a laser beam (laser beam 14, Elliott Fig.1) (It is noted that the limitation “a path and/or a shape” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Elliott teaches the optics module 16 for correcting the shape of the laser beam 14 because Elliott Par.0055 teaches: “the optics module 16 includes three cylinder lenses with theta adjustment to correct the beam shape”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wieder, by adding optics module for correcting shape of laser beam, as taught by Elliott, in order to homogenize and shape the laser beam before it reaches the substrate to provide a more uniform laser energy distribution across the substrate, thereby reducing localized intensity variations, improving beam focus and beam profile, producing more uniform scribe widths and depths, minimizing defects caused by hot spots, and improving the quality of laser patterning across the substrate.
Wieder in view of Elliott does not teach:
the protection system comprises a second chamber fixed to a wall of the first chamber and formed between a window of the laser system and the parts to be treated, this second chamber being provided with an aperture facing the parts in order to define an aperture angle of less than 45 degrees between the window and the first chamber.
Kojima teaches a laser system (Kojima Fig.70) comprising:
the protection system (protective system includes the second chamber, Kojima annotated Fig.70 below) comprises a second chamber (second chamber, Kojima annotated Fig.70 below) fixed to a wall of the first chamber (top wall of the chamber 1, Kojima Fig.70) and formed between a window (window 7, Kojima Fig.70) of the laser system (laser system includes the laser unit 10, lens 9 and window 7, Kojima Fig.70) and the parts (target 5, Kojima Fig.70) (it is noted that the primary reference Wieder already discloses plurality of parts are placed at treating area, as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 1 above) to be treated, this second chamber (second chamber, Kojima annotated Fig.70 below) being provided with an aperture (aperture, Kojima annotated Fig.70 below) facing the parts (target 5, Kojima Fig.70) (it is noted that the primary reference Wieder already discloses plurality of parts are placed at treating area, as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 1 above) in order to define an aperture angle between the window (window 7, Kojima Fig.70) and the first chamber (chamber 1, Kojima Fig.70).
PNG
media_image1.png
882
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wieder in view of Elliott, by adding second chamber fixed to a wall of the first chamber and formed between a window of the laser system and the parts to be treated, this second chamber being provided with an aperture facing the parts in order to define an aperture angle between the window and the first chamber, as taught by Kojima, in order to create a physical barrier to keep contaminants (such as dust, slag, debris, vapors) from contacting the optics and the window, thus, isolate the sensitive optical components from the debris, plasma plume, and fumes generated by the laser treating the material.
Wieder in view of Elliott and Kojima does not explicitly teach:
the aperture angle of less than 45 degrees between the window and the first chamber
Regarding the limitation that the aperture angle of less than 45 degrees between the window and the first chamber, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Kojima Fig.70 where the reference Kojima teaches certain aperture angle between the window and the first chamber), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, Kojima teaches certain aperture angle between the window and the first chamber, and having a specific aperture angle between the window and the first chamber is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the aperture angle between the window and the first chamber is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the aperture angle between the window and the first chamber changes the path of the laser beam entering the first chamber to treat parts, and also impacts the protective function for the optical components. An optimized aperture angle between the window and the first chamber ensures that the laser beam path can properly access the first chamber for treating part, while simultaneously isolating sensitive optical components from the debris, plasma plume, and fumes generated during laser processing of the material. Accordingly, the aperture angle between the window and the first chamber is recognized in the art as a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Wieder in view of Elliott and Kojima aperture angle between the window and the first chamber to be less than 45 degrees as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieder (WO 2009141411 A1, previously cited) in view of Elliott et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0296258 A1, newly cited), and further in view of Tanaka et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0184639 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 13, Wieder in view of Elliott teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
the transport system comprises a position-encoding device.
Tanaka discloses a machine (Tanaka Fig.5) comprising:
a transport system (transport stages 408 and 409, Tanaka Fig.5) comprises a position-encoding device (Tanaka Par.0070 teaches: “an encoder that can confirm the position is attached to the transport stages 408 and 409, and positioning information from the encoder is grasped by the computer 410.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wieder in view of Elliott, by adding encoder that can confirm the position to the Wieder substrate carrier, as taught by Tanaka, in order to detect and obtain the position information of the substrate so that the substrate processing system(s) would be able to process/perform work on the surface of the substrate precisely, as recognized by Tanaka [Tanaka, Par.0070].
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieder (WO 2009141411 A1, previously cited) in view of Elliott et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0296258 A1, newly cited), and further in view of Paisley et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0188687 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 14, Wieder in view of Elliott teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
the transport system comprises a turntable intended to support one or more parts.
Paisley teaches a substrate transport system (Paisley Figs.1, 11-12), wherein:
the transport system (transport system includes base member 150, main platter 130, satellite platters 180, spindle 140, and spindle posts 193; Paisley Figs.11-12) comprises a turntable (main platter 130, Paisley Fig.11) intended to support one or more parts (wafers 20, Paisley Fig.1) (Paisley Par.0028 teaches: “Three satellite platters 180 are mounted for rotation on the main platter 130 about respective spindle posts 193. The wafers 20 (FIG. 1) are mounted on the satellite platters 180.”, and Paisley Par.0044 teaches: “the main platter 130 can rotate freely about the spindle 140 about the axis L-L.”; therefore, the Paisley main platter 130 is a turntable intended to support wafers 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wieder in view of Elliott, by adding main platter, satellite platters, spindle, and spindle posts to the Wieder substrate carrier, as taught by Paisley, in order to support multiple substrates at the same time so that the process in each chamber can be performed on multiple substrates simultaneously. Thus, reducing costs and cycle times, maximizing equipment use, and streamlining the overall workflow. Therefore, increasing productivity of the system and manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 15, Wieder in view of Elliott and Paisley teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 14, Paisley also teaches:
the transport system (transport system includes base member 150, main platter 130, satellite platters 180, spindle 140, and spindle posts 193; Paisley Figs.11-12) comprises turrets (satellite platters 180, Paisley Figs.11-12; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14 above) (it is noted that the limitation “turrets” herein is being interpreted as “a pivoted and revolvable holder in a machine tool” – according to Merriam-Webster dictionary [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/turret, accessed on 07/07/2026]) mounted on the turntable (main platter 130, Paisley Fig.11; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14 above) and intended to receive one or more parts (wafers 20, Paisley Fig.1) (Paisley Par.0028 teaches: “Three satellite platters 180 are mounted for rotation on the main platter 130 about respective spindle posts 193. The wafers 20 (FIG. 1) are mounted on the satellite platters 180.”, and the rotation of the satellite platters 180 with respect to the main platter 130 is also shown in Paisley Fig.11).
Regarding claim 16, Wieder in view of Elliott and Paisley teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 15, Paisley also teaches:
the turrets (satellite platters 180, Paisley Figs.11-12; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14 above) are movable in rotation with respect to the turntable (main platter 130, Paisley Fig.11; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14 above) (Paisley Par.0028 teaches: “Three satellite platters 180 are mounted for rotation on the main platter 130 about respective spindle posts 193.”, and the rotation of the satellite platters 180 with respect to the main platter 130 is also shown in Paisley Fig.11).
Regarding claim 17, Wieder in view of Elliott and Paisley teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 14, Paisley also teaches:
the transport system (transport system includes base member 150, main platter 130, satellite platters 180, spindle 140, and spindle posts 193; Paisley Figs.11-12) comprises platens (satellite platters 180, Paisley Figs.11-12; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14 above) which are rotatably mounted on turrets (spindle posts 193, Paisley Figs.11-12; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14 above) and intended to support the parts (wafers 20, Paisley Fig.1) (Paisley Par.0028 teaches: “Three satellite platters 180 are mounted for rotation on the main platter 130 about respective spindle posts 193. The wafers 20 (FIG. 1) are mounted on the satellite platters 180.”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieder (WO 2009141411 A1, previously cited) in view of Elliott et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0296258 A1, newly cited), and further in view of Pierce (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0094939 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 20, Wieder in view of Elliott teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
the transport system comprises visual marks and an optical sensor which is capable of cooperating with the visual marks.
Pierce teaches a machine (Pierce Fig.1) comprising:
a transport system (conveyor belt 41, Pierce Fig.1) comprises visual marks (marks 47, Pierce Fig.1) and an optical sensor (sensors 30b & 30c, Pierce Fig.1; Pierce Par.0062 teaches sensors 30b & 30c are optical sensors) which is capable of cooperating with the visual marks (marks 47, Pierce Fig.1) (Pierce Par.0062 teaches: “Sensor 30 b and 30 c may, for example, be optical sensors that may detect a registration mark 47 on the surface of the conveyor belt 41.”).
Since the primary reference Wieder discloses “the substrate carrier may be designed such that the substrate carrier is movable in a gliding way along the tracks 3 and 4. However, other types of movement as well as other types of substrate carriers and transport means are conceivable.” on page 8 lines 31-34,
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Wieder tracks 3 and 4 with the Pierce conveyor system (see conveyor belt 41 in Pierce Fig.1), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of conveying substrate along longitudinal transport line. MPEP 2143 I (B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wieder in view of Elliott and Pierce, by adding visual marks to the conveyor belt and optical sensor which is capable of cooperating with the marks, as taught by Pierce, in order to detect position of the substrate on the conveyor line so that when the substrate is in designated position in each chamber, the system in each chamber can be automatically controlled to perform corresponding work on the substrate. Thus, increasing productivity and increasing accuracy in manufacturing substrate.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Bangert et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,899,635 B2) discloses a system for depositing one or more layers, particularly layers including organic materials therein. The system includes a load lock chamber for loading a substrate to be processed, a transfer chamber for transporting the substrate, a vacuum swing module provided between the load lock chamber and the transfer chamber, at least one deposition apparatus for depositing material in a vacuum chamber of the at least one deposition chamber, wherein the at least one deposition apparatus is connected to the transfer chamber; a further load lock chamber for unloading the substrate that has been processed, a further transfer chamber for transporting the substrate, a further vacuum swing module provided between the further load lock chamber and the further transfer chamber, and a carrier return track from the further vacuum swing module to the vacuum swing module, wherein the carrier return track is configured to transport the carrier under vacuum conditions and/or under a controlled inert atmosphere.
Vermeer et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,297,077 B2) discloses method of depositing an atomic layer on a substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 07/10/2026
Prosecution Insights