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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “therethrough” in lines 3 and 7 of page 27 and should recite “through the transparent window” and “through the gas supply unit” respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites “wherein the laser irradiation unit is disposed in upper and lower portions of the process chamber” and base claim 8 recites “wherein the laser irradiation unit is disposed outside the process chamber”. It is not clear how the laser irradiation unit can be both disposed outside of the process chamber and inside of the process chamber. Clarification is required.
Claim 9 recites “each of the upper and lower portions of the process chamber is formed of the transparent window so that the laser irradiated from the laser irradiation unit passes therethrough” and “a substrate support unit disposed between the transparent window of the lower portion of the process chamber and the substrate is formed of a transparent material so that the laser passing through the transparent window passes therethrough”. It is not clear if “therethrough” in each of these instances means through the upper transparent window, the lower transparent window or both. Clarification is required.
Claim 9 recites “the transparent window” in lines 15-16 of the page. It is not clear if this refers to the upper transparent window, the lower transparent window, either or both. Clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ponnekanti et al. (US 2011/0033638) in view of Seino et al.
Regarding claim 1, Ponnekanti discloses a substrate treating apparatus (Figure 1) comprising:
a process chamber (100) having a processing space (115) in which a substrate (150 in figure 1, 350 in figure 5A) is plasma-treated; and
a laser irradiation unit (Figure 5A, 512) irradiating the substrate to heat the substrate to reach a temperature (paragraph 91 describes the laser beam 520 heating the substrate 350) at which the substrate is plasma-treated (paragraph 88 describes plasma treatment).
Ponnekanti is silent on a plurality of lasers having different pulse widths.
Seino teaches plurality of lasers having different pulse widths (the first paragraph of the Experiment describes two lasers: a continuous wave laser and a pulse laser).
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 Ponnekanti’s invention to include plurality of lasers having different pulse widths in order to anneal the substrate while avoiding thermal damage as suggested and taught by Seino in the Summary.
Regarding claim 2, Ponnekanti in view of Seino teach the invention as claimed and described above. Seino further teaches wherein the laser irradiation unit is controlled to operate so that the plurality of the lasers having different pulse widths are irradiated to overlap for a certain period of time (the third paragraph of the Experiment describes the two lasers combining to form a single beam, i.e. operated at the same period of time).
Regarding claim 4, Ponnekanti in view of Seino teach the invention as claimed and described above. Seino further teaches wherein the laser irradiation unit includes:
a first irradiation unit (Figure 2, Near infrared CW laser) irradiating the substrate with a continuous wave (CW) laser (the first paragraph of the Experiment describes continuous wave laser) to preheat the substrate (described in the first paragraph of Results and Discussion); and
a second irradiation unit (Figure 2, pulse green laser) irradiating the substrate with a pulsed laser (the first paragraph of the Experiment describes a pulse laser).
Regarding claim 5, Ponnekanti in view of Seino teach the invention as claimed and described above. Seino further teaches wherein the first irradiation unit and the second irradiation unit are controlled to operate so that the CW laser and the pulsed laser are irradiated to overlap for a certain period of time (the third paragraph of the Experiment describes the two lasers combining to form a single beam, i.e. operated at the same period of time).
Regarding claim 7, Ponnekanti in view of Seino teach the invention as claimed and described above. Seino further teaches wherein the first irradiation unit is a laser diode or a fiber laser oscillator (paragraph 2 of the Experiment describes the CW laser as a diode laser), and the second irradiation unit is a green laser oscillator (paragraph 2 of the Experiment describes the pulsed laser as a green pulse laser).
Regarding claim 8, Ponnekanti in view of Seino teach the invention as claimed and described above. Ponnekanti further teaches wherein the laser irradiation unit is disposed outside the process chamber (Figure 5A shows the laser irradiation unit 512 is above the process chamber), and the process chamber includes a transparent window (516) through which the laser irradiated from the laser irradiation unit passes (paragraph 80).
Regarding claim 10, Ponnekanti in view of Seino teach the invention as claimed and described above. Ponnekanti further teaches further comprising:
a plasma generating unit (Figure 5A, electrode 180 and substrate support 112, and gas supply unit 174A and 174B) installed in the process chamber (Figure 5A) and generating plasma in the processing space (paragraph 41),
wherein the plasma generating unit includes:
a gas supply unit (174A and 174B) disposed in the process chamber (Figure 5A), supplying a treatment gas (gasses in 128 and 129) to the process chamber (Figure 5A), and functioning as a plasma generating electrode (paragraph 88, figure 5A shows the power connection to 174A); and
a substrate support unit (180 and 112) disposed in the process chamber (Figure 5A) to support the substrate (112 supports substrate 350) and functioning as a plasma generating electrode (180 acts as a plasma generating electrode).
Regarding claim 11, Ponnekanti discloses a substrate treating apparatus (Figure 1) comprising:
a process chamber (100) having a processing space (115) in which a substrate (150 in figure 1, 350 in figure 5A) is plasma-treated; and
a gas supply unit (174A and 174B) disposed in the process chamber (Figure 5A), supplying a treatment gas (gasses in 128 and 129) to the process chamber (Figure 5A), and functioning as a plasma generating electrode (paragraph 88, figure 5A shows the power connection to 174A);
a gas discharge unit (250B) formed on one side of the process chamber or the gas supply unit (Figure 5A shows the perforations 250B on the side of the gas supply unit 174A and 174B);
a substrate support unit (180 and 112) disposed in the process chamber (Figure 5A) to support the substrate (112 supports substrate 350) and functioning as a plasma generating electrode (180 acts as a plasma generating electrode); and
a laser irradiation unit (Figure 5A, 512) irradiating the substrate to heat the substrate to reach a temperature (paragraph 91 describes the laser beam 520 heating the substrate 350) at which the substrate is plasma-treated (paragraph 88 describes plasma treatment).
Ponnekanti is silent on a plurality of lasers having different pulse widths.
Seino teaches plurality of lasers having different pulse widths (the first paragraph of the Experiment describes two lasers: a continuous wave laser and a pulse laser).
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 Ponnekanti’s invention to include plurality of lasers having different pulse widths in order to anneal the substrate while avoiding thermal damage as suggested and taught by Seino in the Summary.
Regarding claim 12, Ponnekanti in view of Seino teach the invention as claimed and described above. Seino further teaches wherein the laser irradiation unit includes:
a first irradiation unit (Figure 2, Near infrared CW laser) irradiating the substrate with a continuous wave (CW) laser (the first paragraph of the Experiment describes continuous wave laser) to preheat the substrate (described in the first paragraph of Results and Discussion); and
a second irradiation unit (Figure 2, pulse green laser) irradiating the substrate with a pulsed laser (the first paragraph of the Experiment describes a pulse laser).
Regarding claim 13, Ponnekanti in view of Seino teach the invention as claimed and described above. Seino further teaches wherein the first irradiation unit and the second irradiation unit are controlled to operate so that the CW laser and the pulsed laser are irradiated to overlap for a certain period of time (the third paragraph of the Experiment describes the two lasers combining to form a single beam, i.e. operated at the same period of time).
Regarding claim 15, Ponnekanti in view of Seino teach the invention as claimed and described above. Seino further teaches wherein the first irradiation unit is a laser diode or a fiber laser oscillator (paragraph 2 of the Experiment describes the CW laser as a diode laser), and the second irradiation unit is a green laser oscillator (paragraph 2 of the Experiment describes the pulsed laser as a green pulse laser).
Regarding claim 17, Ponnekanti discloses a substrate treating method (Figure 1) comprising:
a substrate heating operation (Figure 5A, via laser beam 520) of irradiating a substrate (350) to heat the substrate to reach a temperature (paragraph 91 describes the laser beam 520 heating the substrate 350) at which the substrate is plasma-treated (paragraph 88 describes plasma treatment); and
a substrate treating operation of plasma-treating the substrate (paragraph 41).
Ponnekanti is silent on a plurality of lasers having different pulse widths.
Seino teaches plurality of lasers having different pulse widths (the first paragraph of the Experiment describes two lasers: a continuous wave laser and a pulse laser).
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 Ponnekanti’s invention to include plurality of lasers having different pulse widths in order to anneal the substrate while avoiding thermal damage as suggested and taught by Seino in the Summary.
Regarding claim 18, Ponnekanti in view of Seino teach the invention as claimed and described above. Seino further teaches wherein, in the substrate heating operation, the plurality of the lasers having different pulse widths are irradiated to overlap for a certain period of time (the third paragraph of the Experiment describes the two lasers combining to form a single beam, i.e. operated at the same period of time).
Regarding claim 20, Ponnekanti in view of Seino teach the invention as claimed and described above. Seino further teaches wherein the substrate heating operation includes:
a first irradiation operation (Figure 2, Near infrared CW laser) of irradiating the substrate with a continuous wave (CW) laser (the first paragraph of the Experiment describes continuous wave laser) to preheat the substrate (described in the first paragraph of Results and Discussion); and
a second irradiation operation (Figure 2, pulse green laser) of irradiating the substrate with a pulsed laser (the first paragraph of the Experiment describes a pulse laser).
Claims 3, 6, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ponnekanti et al. (US 2011/0033638) in view of Seino et al, and further in view of Karlsen et al. (US 2014/0263208).
Regarding claim 3, Ponnekanti in view of Seino teach all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except wherein the laser irradiation unit is controlled to operate so that the plurality of the lasers having different pulse widths are sequentially irradiated.
Karlsen teaches wherein the laser irradiation unit is controlled to operate so that the plurality of the lasers having different pulse widths are sequentially irradiated (paragraphs 3 and 9 describes the system sequentially providing beams of different pulse widths).
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 Ponnekanti in view of Seino’s invention to include wherein the laser irradiation unit is controlled to operate so that the plurality of the lasers having different pulse widths are sequentially irradiated in order to both weld and anneal the substrate as suggested and taught by Karlsen in paragraph 4.
Regarding claim 6, Ponnekanti in view of Seino teach all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except wherein the first irradiation unit and the second irradiation unit are controlled to operate so that the CW laser and the pulsed laser are sequentially irradiated.
Karlsen teaches wherein the first irradiation unit and the second irradiation unit are controlled to operate so that the CW laser and the pulsed laser are sequentially irradiated (paragraphs 3 and 9 describes the system sequentially providing beams of different pulse widths, i.e. sequentially operating the first irradiation unit and the second irradiation unit).
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 Ponnekanti in view of Seino’s invention to include wherein the first irradiation unit and the second irradiation unit are controlled to operate so that the CW laser and the pulsed laser are sequentially irradiated in order to both weld and anneal the substrate as suggested and taught by Karlsen in paragraph 4.
Regarding claim 14, Ponnekanti in view of Seino teach all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except wherein the first irradiation unit and the second irradiation unit are controlled to operate so that the CW laser and the pulsed laser are sequentially irradiated.
Karlsen teaches wherein the first irradiation unit and the second irradiation unit are controlled to operate so that the CW laser and the pulsed laser are sequentially irradiated paragraphs 3 and 9 describes the system sequentially providing beams of different pulse widths, i.e. sequentially operating the first irradiation unit and the second irradiation unit).
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 Ponnekanti in view of Seino’s invention to include wherein the first irradiation unit and the second irradiation unit are controlled to operate so that the CW laser and the pulsed laser are sequentially irradiated in order to both weld and anneal the substrate as suggested and taught by Karlsen in paragraph 4.
Regarding claim 19, Ponnekanti in view of Seino teach all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except wherein, in the substrate heating operation, the plurality of lasers having different pulse widths are sequentially irradiated.
Karlsen teaches wherein, in the substrate heating operation, the plurality of lasers having different pulse widths are sequentially irradiated (paragraphs 3 and 9 describes the system sequentially providing beams of different pulse widths, i.e. sequentially operating the first irradiation unit and the second irradiation unit).
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 Ponnekanti in view of Seino’s invention to include wherein, in the substrate heating operation, the plurality of lasers having different pulse widths are sequentially irradiated in order to both weld and anneal the substrate as suggested and taught by Karlsen in paragraph 4.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes that the 112 issues in claim 9 muddle the claim to such an extent that the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined; so no art rejection is given. Examiner cites deVilliers as this reference teaches a window in a lower portion of a process chamber shown in figure 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to anticipate and/or render obvious, either alone or in combination, the gas supply unit disposed between the transparent window and the substrate is formed of a transparent material so that the laser passing through the transparent window passes therethrough as described in claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katheryn Malatek whose telephone number is (571)272-5689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9 am - 6 pm.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/KATHERYN A MALATEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741