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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/13/2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 8/13/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
Applicant’s arguments on pg. 7 filed 8/13/2025 are persuasive and thus the objections to the specification are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented objections and thus the objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and thus the previously presented rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20100245973 A1) in view of Pradhan (US 20120275008 A1), Leahey (US 20130161183 A1), Masuno (US 20180016674 A1), Miyauchi (US 20150284842 A1), and Hollars (US 6488824 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang (US 20100245973 A1) teaches an integrated deposition system 800b that is continuous (linear) including an entry load lock chamber 802 and an exit load lock chamber 804 surrounding a series of deposition stations (processing sections), wherein sputtering from sputtering targets is used to deposit a series of layers (para 0100, 0103-0104, 0116, 0138, 0142; Fig. 8D). Wang also teaches a substrate 825 supported by a pallet 820 (substrate carrier) that can translate forward and backward through the integrated deposition system 800 via a track (transport system) (para 0139-0140; Fig. 8B).
Wang fails to explicitly teach at least one single-pass processing section and at least one multi-pass processing section. However, Pradhan (US 20120275008 A1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches an integrated deposition system for depositing an electrochromic layer and additional layers of the EC stack, such as the ion conducting layer, may be done in a continuous manner (single pass) rather than several passes with a sputtering target (para 0105, 0147) and a lithium deposition process may be performed while the substrate is moved forward and backward to make multiple passes (para 0163), wherein the integrated deposition system may have a series of connected modules/stations (para 0161, 0164). Wang also teaches that the lithium deposition may be performed by moving the substrate back and forth in front of the lithium target in order to slow the delivery of lithium and prevent accumulation of free metallic lithium on the surface of EC and IC layers formed in separate stations/modules (para 0121, 0139, 0142; Fig. 8D).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the IC and EC layer deposition methods/stations of Wang with the deposition methods/stations of Pradhan including deposition while moving the substrates continuously in a single direction (single pass processing sections) and to substitute the lithium deposition method/stations of Wang with the lithium deposition methods/stations of Pradhan including multiple passes of the substrates (multi pass processing sections) because these are substitutions of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Therefore, the combination of Wang and Pradhan results in a deposition system including two multi-pass lithium stations (807a, 807b) and at least one single pass layer deposition station (806b, 806c) between the multi-pass lithium stations (Wang Fig. 8D).
The combination of Wang and Pradhan fails to explicitly teach a plurality of substrate carriers and that the transport system transports the substrate carriers at multiple speeds independently controlled in different sections and chambers, the multiple speeds including at least three different motion speeds: a transport speed for transporting the substrate carrier into and out of a loadlock chamber, a first process speed, and a second process speed. However, Leahey (US 20130161183 A1), in the analogous art of in-line deposition, teaches a processing system having wheels for transporting a plurality of substrate carriers within the system, wherein different sections/chambers may be independently controlled to have different speeds in each section, such as a pass-by processing speed, or fast transport speed, such that chamber idle time is minimized and efficiency is increased (para 0014, 0017-0018, 0037, 0051). The combination of Wang and Pradhan teaches the substrates are moved back and forth in lithium stations and are moved continuously in the electrochromic layer deposition stations (Wang para 0121; Pradhan para 0105, 0147, 0163-0164). Additionally, Wang and Leahey both involve transferring substrate carriers along a track from an entry loadlock into a deposition chamber and to an exit loadlock (Wang para 0139; Leahey para 0036, 0045). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Wang in view of Pradhan to include multiple substrate carriers and independently controlled transport speeds in each chamber/section, as described by Leahey, in order to better control the deposition process, minimize downtime, and improve process throughput and efficiency.
The combination of Wang, Pradhan, and Leahey teaches transporting the substrate to and from a loadlock chamber (Wang para 0139), through a single-pass process section (Leahey para 0018, 0039), and through a multi-pass process section (Pradhan para 0163), wherein speed is controlled independently in each section, which inherently results in a transport speed for transporting the carrier into and out of the loadlock chambers, a first process speed for performing the single-pass deposition section, and a second process speed for performing the multi-pass deposition section.
The combination of Wang, Pradhan, and Leahey fails to explicitly teach the at least one multi-pass processing section comprises a sputtering arrangement and is configured to include front and rear buffer regions to house a single substrate carrier for performing a multi-pass processing. However, Masuno (US 20180016674 A1), in the analogous art of in-line deposition, teaches reciprocating a carrier 80 between a carrier-waiting region C1 and carrier-waiting region C2 (front and rear buffer regions) on opposite sides of sputtering targets (23A, 23B) to pass through a deposition region a plurality of times (para 0065, 0092; Fig. 2). Additionally, Wang teaches moving a substrate back and forth in front of a lithium target 830 (sputtering arrangement) in a deposition module 806 having space on each side of the sputtering target (para 0139; Fig. 8B). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lithium deposition module arrangement of Wang with the deposition module arrangement of Masuno including carrier waiting regions (front and rear buffer regions) on each side of the target because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of moving the substrate carrier past a target multiple times. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The combination of Wang, Pradhan, Leahey, and Masuno fails to explicitly teach the at least one single-pass chamber is configured to include multiple carriers arranged serially in a row for a single-pass of continuous processing. However, Miyauchi (US 20150284842 A1), in the analogous art of in-line sputtering, teaches a continuous film deposition chamber 21 having a plurality of stations (ST) between a space part 22 for loading and a space part 23 for unloading substrates from the deposition chamber, wherein substrates 43 mounted on substrate holders (carriers) are arranged serially in a row through the stations and are continuously conveyed (para 0070-0072, 0116, 0130, 0156; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include loading and unloading spaces at each end of the single pass processing stations to assist in the substrate transfer process and arranging multiple substrate carriers in a row through the processing stations to increase throughput by continuous deposition.
The previous combination of Wang, Pradhan, Leahey, Masuno, and Miyauchi fails to explicitly teach the multi-pass process section includes a sputtering magnetron arrangement and that the single-pass processing section includes one or more magnetron arrangements arranged along a carrier travel direction. However, Pradhan teaches that targets used for deposition of electrochromic devices may have an associated magnetic source (magnetron) to control the shape of plasmas and deposition profile, wherein each target may be a metal and may be supplied with a reactive oxygen gas (para 0148, 0152, 0155). Additionally, Miyauchi teaches that a deposition process may include a plurality of stations (ST) each having a target mechanism 61 comprising two magnetron sputter electrodes (62a, 62b) holding targets (63a, 63b) and a gas source for supplying an inert gas or a reactive gas, wherein each target may be made of the same metal material, and wherein the target mechanisms are arranged along the transport path of the substrate (para 0072-0073, 0076, 0081, 0084; Fig. 1-2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the electrochromic layer (IC and CE) and lithium sputtering targets of Wang with metal targets arranged in pairs of magnetron electrodes (magnetron arrangements) along the carrier travel direction each having the same target material, as described by Pradhan and Miyauchi, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The combination of Wang, Pradhan, Leahey, Masuno, and Miyauchi teaches that the plurality of substrate carriers are transferred continuously through the single-pass processing section such that the downtime is minimized (Leahey para 0014, 0037, 0051) and therefore the single-pass processing section includes multiple carriers arranged serially in a row along the transport direction and moved continuously in unison for a single-pass because the single-pass processing station includes deposition of both an IC layer and a CE layer (Wang Fig. 8D; Miyauchi para 0070-0072, 0116, 0130, 0156, Fig. 1). Alternatively, the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach multiple carriers arranged serially in a row and moving in unison at the first process speed for a single-pass of continuous processing. However, this limitation merely states the intended use of the apparatus. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). The aforementioned combination teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, which is necessarily capable of supplying multiple carriers arranged serially in a row for a single-pass of continuous processing, especially because the single-pass processing section includes the deposition of both an IC layer and a CE layer (Wang Fig. 8D).
The previous combination of Wang, Pradhan, Leahey, Masuno, and Miyauchi fails to explicitly teach an open slit without a gate valve is provided between each two of the processing sections. However, Wang teaches that the lithiation processes, which are performed in the multi-pass processing stations, may have an isolation valve or a controlled flow dynamic by differential pressures in the system, or a combination thereof (para 0122), thus indicating that a gate valve is not required when using a controlled flow dynamic by differential pressures. Additionally, Leahey teaches transport passages (534a, 534b) (open slits without gate valve) between sections of the chamber (para 0015, 0047; Fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention substitute isolation (gate) valves between multi-pass and single-pass sections/chambers with open slit passages between sections/chambers while using differential pressures to control flow because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The previous combination of Wang, Pradhan, Leahey, Masuno, and Miyauchi fails to explicitly teach the second process speed being faster than the first process speed. However, this limitation merely states the intended use of the apparatus. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). The aforementioned combination teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, which is necessarily capable of transporting the substrate carriers within the multi-pass section in a forward and reverse motion at a second speed faster than the first speed by controlling the deposition sections to operate at different speeds (Leahey para 0014, 0017-0018, 0037, 0051).
Alternatively, Pradhan teaches the speed of the substrate passing by the target assembly affects how much material is deposited on the substrate (para 0153), thus recognizing the translation speed as a result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum or workable ranges of translation speed in the single-pass and multi-pass sections by routine optimization, which can include a second speed in the multi-pass section that is faster than the first speed in the single-pass section. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
The previous combination of Wang, Pradhan, Leahey, Masuno, and Miyauchi teaches magnetron arrangements for forming the electrochromic layers (single-pass section) perform sputtering of metal targets by maintaining plasma with a reactive oxygen gas (Pradhan para 0141, 0148, 0152, 0155). The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach at least one of the magnetron arrangements include reactive gas injected between magnetrons of a paired magnetron such that pumping action consumes reactants within the reactive gas, reducing reactants outflow through at least one such open slit. However, Hollars (US 6488824 B1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches a pair of magnetron sputtering targets 29 where a reactive gas may be introduced at a position 95b between the paired magnetrons (col 13 line 48-67, col 14 line 1-4; Fig. 2c). Additionally, Pradhan teaches the electrochromic layers are deposited by sputtering a metal target in presence of oxygen (para 0043, 0155). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the electrochromic (IC and CE) depositing magnetron pair arrangement of Wang in view of Pradhan and Miyauchi (single-pass processing sections) with a paired magnetron arrangement having reactive gas injected between the targets, as described by Hollars, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Because the reactive gas is positioned between the targets, there would necessarily be a “pumping action” in which reactants are consumed by the growing film, thus reducing the reactant outflow through slits. Alternatively, Hollars teaches including pumps 62 coupled to each chamber where the film is deposited as the substrate moves between chambers and contamination due to mixing of process gases is limited by the vacuum pumps (col 19 line 31-56, col 22 line 1-55; Fig. 12-13). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include pumps, as described by Hollars, in the chambers of Wang in view of Leahey to prevent contamination of adjacent chambers by reactive/process gases. As a result, the outflow of reactive gas (reactants) through open slits would be reduced by pumping.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wang, Pradhan, Leahey, Masuno, Miyauchi, and Hollars teaches that the sputtering magnetron arrangements each comprise a dual magnetron sputtering system (two magnetrons arranged as a paired magnetron), wherein the targets are necessarily capable of forming overlapping and adjacent (abutting) sputtering cones/plumes within the effective area (Miyauchi para 0081, 0121, Fig. 2; Hollars Fig. 2c).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wang, Pradhan, Leahey, Masuno, Miyauchi, and Hollars teaches each of the paired magnetrons comprises a gas source (injector) for supplying a sputtering and/or reactive gas between the two magnetrons and targets of the paired magnetrons (Miyauchi para 0073, Fig. 2 - 65; Hollars Fig. 2c – 95b).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wang, Pradhan, Leahey, Masuno, Miyauchi, and Hollars teaches one lithium deposition station 807a (one multi-pass processing station) is positioned between the entry loadlock 802 and the IC and CE layer stations (806b, 806c) (single-pass processing section) and a second lithium deposition station 807b (second multi-pass processing section) is positioned between the single-pass processing section and the exit loadlock 804 (Wang para 0142; Fig. 8D).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wang, Pradhan, Leahey, Masuno, Miyauchi, and Hollars teaches reciprocating a carrier 80 between a carrier-waiting region C1 and carrier-waiting region C2 on opposite sides of sputtering targets (23A, 23B) in the multi-pass processing sections to pass through a deposition region a plurality of times (sufficiently long to enable the carrier to place a substrate completely ahead and behind a deposition area) (Masuno para 0065, 0092; Fig. 2), wherein the sputtering magnetron arrangements each comprise a dual magnetron sputtering system (leading magnetron and trailing magnetron), wherein the targets are necessarily capable of forming overlapping and adjacent sputtering cones/plumes within the effective area A (Miyauchi para 0081, 0121; Fig. 2), and therefore the multi-pass processing sections are sufficiently long to enable the substrate to be placed ahead or behind leading and trailing magnetron cones of deposition.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wang, Pradhan, Leahey, Masuno, Miyauchi, and Hollars fails to explicitly teach the transport system transports the plurality of substrate carriers within each of the at least one multi-pass section in a forward and reverse motion at a second speed that is different for each pass. However, this limitation merely states the intended use of the apparatus. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). The aforementioned combination teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, which is necessarily capable of transporting the plurality of substrate carriers within the single-pass section in unison at a first transport speed and transports the single carrier within the multi-pass section in a forward and reverse motion at a second speed that is different for each pass by controlling the transport speed (Leahey para 0014, 0017-0018, 0037, 0051).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wang, Pradhan, Leahey, Masuno, Miyauchi, and Hollars fails to explicitly teach the second process speed is configured such that the single carrier in the at least one multi-pass section traveling at the second speed can perform at least two forward and one reverse passes during the time that a carrier in the single-pass section traveling at the first process speed performs one pass. However, this limitation merely states the intended use of the apparatus. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). The aforementioned combination teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, which is necessarily capable of using a second speed configured such that the single carrier in the multi-pass section traveling at the second process speed can perform at least two forward and one reverse passes during the time that a carrier in the single-pass section traveling at the first process speed performs one pass.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wang, Pradhan, Leahey, Masuno, Miyauchi, and Hollars teaches the lithium stations (807a, 807b) (multi-pass stations) are each coupled to a separate chamber (806a, 808) that may be defined as buffer sections between the lithium stations and the load lock chambers (Wang Fig. 8d).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Wang, Pradhan, Leahey, Masuno, Miyauchi, and Hollars teaches the sputtering magnetron arrangements each comprise a dual magnetron sputtering system, wherein the targets (63a, 63b) of each of the two magnetrons in each pair are the same material (Miyauchi para 0081, 0084; Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20100245973 A1) in view of Pradhan (US 20120275008 A1), Miyauchi (US 20150284842 A1), Leahey (US 20130161183 A1), and Hollars (US 6488824 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Wang (US 20100245973 A1) teaches an integrated deposition system 800b that is continuous (linear processing system) including an entry load lock chamber 802 and an exit load lock chamber 804 surrounding a series of deposition stations (processing chambers), wherein sputtering from sputtering targets is used to deposit a series of layers (para 0100, 0103-0104, 0116, 0138, 0142; Fig. 8D). Wang also teaches a substrate 825 supported by a pallet 820 (substrate carrier) that can translate forward and backward through the integrated deposition system 800 via a track (transport system) (para 0139-0140; Fig. 8B).
Wang fails to explicitly teach one single-pass processing chamber and a first and second multi-pass processing chamber. However, Pradhan (US 20120275008 A1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches an integrated deposition system for depositing an electrochromic layer and additional layers of the EC stack, such as the ion conducting layer, may be done in a continuous manner (single pass) rather than several passes with a sputtering target (para 0105, 0147) and a lithium deposition process may be performed while the substrate is moved forward and backward to make multiple passes (para 0163), wherein the integrated deposition system may have a series of connected modules/stations (para 0161, 0164). Wang also teaches that the lithium deposition may be performed by moving the substrate back and forth in front of the lithium target in order to slow the delivery of lithium and prevent accumulation of free metallic lithium on the stack surface (para 0121) as well as that lithiation stations are isolated from other stations by valves (para 0122, 0137), thus separating the lithium stations into separate chambers from the IC and CE layer deposition stations.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the IC and EC layer deposition methods/stations of Wang with the electrochromic layer deposition methods/chamber of Pradhan including deposition while moving the substrates continuously in a single direction (single pass processing chamber) and to substitute the lithium deposition method/chambers of Wang with the lithium deposition methods/chambers of Pradhan including multiple passes of the substrates (first and second multi pass processing chambers) because these are substitutions of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Therefore, the combination of Wang and Pradhan results in a deposition system including two multi-pass lithium stations/chambers (807a, 807b), wherein one multi-pass chamber 807a is coupled to the entry loadlock 802 through the EC layer station 806a and the second multi-pass chamber 807b is coupled to the exit load lock 804 through a TCO layer station 808, and a single pass layer deposition station/chamber (806b, 806c) coupled to the multi-pass lithium chambers (Wang Fig. 8D).
The combination of Wang and Pradhan fails to explicitly teach the first and second multi-pass processing chambers each have a sputtering magnetron arrangement and are configured to house a single substrate carrier for performing a multi-pass processing and the single-pass chamber has a sputtering magnetron arrangement arranged along a carrier travel direction, the single-pass chamber configured to house multiple carriers arranged serially in a row and configured for a single-pass processing. However, Wang teaches moving a (single) substrate carrier 820 back and forth in front of a lithium target 830 (sputtering arrangement) (para 0139; Fig. 8B). Additionally, Pradhan teaches that targets used for deposition of electrochromic devices may have an associated magnetic source (magnetron) to control the shape of plasmas and deposition profile, wherein each target may be a metal and may be deposited with an oxygen reactive gas (para 0148, 0152, 0155). Furthermore, Miyauchi (US 20150284842 A1), in the analogous art of in-line sputtering, teaches that a deposition process may include a plurality of stations (ST) each having a target mechanism 61 comprising two magnetron sputter electrodes (62a, 62b) holding targets (63a, 63b) and a gas source for supplying an inert gas or a reactive gas, wherein each target may be made of the same metal material, and wherein the target mechanisms are arranged along the transport path of the substrates (para 0072-0073, 0076, 0081, 0084; Fig. 1-2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the electrochromic layer (IC and CE) and lithium sputtering targets of Wang with metal targets arranged in pairs of magnetron electrodes (magnetron arrangements) along the carrier travel direction each having the same target material, as described by Pradhan and Miyauchi, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The combination of Wang, Pradhan, and Miyauchi fails to explicitly teach the transport system transports the substrate carriers at multiple speeds independently controlled in different sections and chambers, the multiple speeds including at least three different motion speeds: a transport speed for transporting the substrate carrier into and out of the entry and exit loadlock chambers, a first process speed transporting multiple carriers arranged serially in a row and moving in unison for a single-pass of continuous processing, and a second process speed transporting the single carrier in each of the first and second multi-pass processing system, the second process speed being faster than the first process speed. However, Leahey (US 20130161183 A1), in the analogous art of in-line deposition, teaches a processing system having wheels for transporting a plurality of substrate carriers within the system, wherein different sections/chambers may be independently controlled to have different speeds in each section, such as a pass-by processing speed, or fast transport speed, such that chamber idle time is minimized and efficiency is increased (para 0014, 0017-0018, 0037, 0051). The combination of Wang and Pradhan teaches the substrates are moved back and forth in lithium stations and are moved continuously in the electrochromic layer deposition stations (Wang para 0121; Pradhan para 0105, 0147, 0163-0164). Additionally, Wang and Leahey both involve transferring substrate carriers along a track from an entry loadlock into a deposition chamber and to an exit loadlock (Wang para 0139; Leahey para 0036, 0045). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Wang in view of Pradhan to include multiple substrate carriers and independently controlled transport speeds in each chamber/section, as described by Leahey, in order to better control the deposition process, minimize downtime, and improve process throughput and efficiency.
The combination of Wang, Pradhan, Miyauchi, and Leahey teaches transporting the substrate to and from a loadlock chamber (Wang para 0139), through a single-pass process section (Leahey para 0018, 0039), and through a multi-pass process section (Pradhan para 0163), wherein speed is controlled independently in each section, which inherently results in a transport speed for transporting the carrier into and out of the loadlock chamber, a first process speed for performing the single-pass deposition sections, and a second process speed for performing the multi-pass deposition sections. Furthermore, multiple substrate carriers would be transferred sequentially through the IC and CE layer deposition stations (single-pass chamber) in unison and continuously (Wang Fig. 8D; Miyauchi para 0070-0072, 0116, 0130, 0156, Fig. 1). Alternatively, the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach multiple carriers arranged serially in a row and moving in unison at the first process speed for a single-pass of continuous processing. However, this limitation merely states the intended use of the apparatus. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). The aforementioned combination teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, which is necessarily capable of supplying multiple carriers arranged serially in a row for a single-pass of continuous processing, especially because the single-pass processing section includes the deposition of both an IC layer and a CE layer (Wang Fig. 8D).
The previous combination of Wang, Pradhan, Miyauchi, and Leahey fails to explicitly teach the second process speed being faster than the first process speed. However, this limitation merely states the intended use of the apparatus. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). The aforementioned combination teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, which is necessarily capable of transporting the substrate carriers within the multi-pass section in a forward and reverse motion at a second speed faster than the first speed by controlling the deposition sections to operate at different speeds (Leahey para 0014, 0017-0018, 0037, 0051).
Alternatively, Pradhan teaches the speed of the substrate passing by the target assembly affects how much material is deposited on the substrate (para 0153), thus recognizing the translation speed as a result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum or workable ranges of translation speed in the single-pass and multi-pass sections by routine optimization, which can include a second speed in the multi-pass section that is faster than the first speed in the single-pass section. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
The combination of Wang, Pradhan, Miyauchi, and Leahey teaches magnetron arrangements for forming the electrochromic layers (single-pass section) perform sputtering of metal targets by maintaining plasma with a reactive oxygen gas (Pradhan para 0141, 0148, 0152, 0155). The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach at least one of the magnetron arrangements include reactive gas injected between magnetrons of a paired magnetron such that pumping action consumes reactants within the reactive gas, reducing reactants outflow. However, Hollars (US 6488824 B1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches a pair of magnetron sputtering targets 29 where a reactive gas may be introduced at a position 95b between the paired magnetrons (col 13 line 48-67, col 14 line 1-4; Fig. 2c). Additionally, Pradhan teaches the electrochromic layers are deposited by sputtering a metal target in presence of oxygen (para 0043, 0155). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the electrochromic (IC and CE) depositing magnetron pair arrangement of Wang in view of Pradhan and Miyauchi (single-pass processing sections) with a paired magnetron arrangement having reactive gas injected between the targets, as described by Hollars, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Because the reactive gas is positioned between the targets, there would necessarily be a “pumping action” in which reactants are consumed by the growing film, thus reducing the reactant outflow between chambers. Alternatively, Hollars teaches including pumps 62 coupled to each chamber where the film is deposited as the substrate moves between chambers and contamination due to mixing of process gases is limited by the vacuum pumps (col 19 line 31-56, col 22 line 1-55; Fig. 12-13). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include pumps, as described by Hollars, in the chambers of Wang in view of Leahey to prevent contamination of adjacent chambers by reactive/process gases. As a result, the outflow of reactive gas (reactants) to adjacent chambers would be reduced by pumping.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Wang, Pradhan, Miyauchi, Leahey, and Hollars teaches each of the magnetron electrodes (62a, 62b) (paired magnetron) in each station are aligned along the substrate conveyance direction such that the carrier moves past a first magnetron and then a second magnetron of the paired magnetron (Miyauchi para 0070-0073; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, the c combination of Wang, Pradhan, Miyauchi, Leahey, and Hollars teaches each of the magnetron electrodes (62a, 62b) (paired magnetron) in each station are aligned along the substrate conveyance direction such that the carrier moves past a first magnetron and then a second magnetron (Miyauchi para 0070-0073; Fig. 2). The aforementioned combination also teaches depositing both an IC and CE layer in the single-pass chamber (Wang para 0142; Fig. 8D) and therefore the single-pass chamber includes at least two pairs of magnetrons (plurality of paired magnetrons) for depositing the two layers.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Wang, Pradhan, Miyauchi, Leahey, and Hollars teaches each paired magnetron comprises two targets made of the same metal material (Miyauchi para 0084).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Wang, Pradhan, Miyauchi, Leahey, and Hollars teaches each paired magnetron comprises two targets made of the same metal material (Miyauchi para 0084).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Wang, Pradhan, Miyauchi, Leahey, and Hollars teaches the track (transport system) for transporting substrates (Wang para 0139; Leahey para 0036, 0045), wherein the wheels in each section/chamber are independently controlled (Leahey para 0014, 0037, 0051). The previous combination fails to explicitly teach the transport system moves carriers in the first and second multi-pass chambers in speeds that are different for each pass. However, this limitation merely states the intended use of the apparatus. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). The aforementioned combination teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, which is necessarily capable of moving carriers in the first and second multi-pass chambers independently of each other in speeds that are different for each pass by controlling the transport speed (Leahey para 0014, 0017-0018, 0037, 0051).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20100245973 A1) in view of Pradhan (US 20120275008 A1), Miyauchi (US 20150284842 A1), Leahey (US 20130161183 A1), and Hollars (US 6488824 B1), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Bluck (US 20150170947 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Wang, Pradhan, Miyauchi, Leahey, and Hollars fails to explicitly teach a carrier placed within the single-pass chamber cannot be outside a cone of deposition of magnetrons within the single-pass chamber. However, Bluck (US 20150170947 A1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches several sputtering sources may be positioned back to back over the entire length of the chamber in the travel direction of the carrier, wherein the substrates are transferred linearly from chamber to chamber (para 0086-0087). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the target arrangement of Wang in view of Miyauchi and Hollars in the single-pass chamber with the target arrangement of Bluck having sputtering sources (paired magnetrons) along the entire length of the chamber because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of depositing films. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Because Bluck teaches that targets are arranged along the entire length of the chamber, carriers within the chamber necessarily must be within the cone of deposition of one of the targets at all positions (cannot be outside the cone of deposition).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20100245973 A1) in view of Pradhan (US 20120275008 A1), Miyauchi (US 20150284842 A1), Leahey (US 20130161183 A1), Hollars (US 6488824 B1), and Bluck (US 20150170947 A1), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Masuno (US 20180016674 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Wang, Pradhan, Miyauchi, Leahey, Hollars, and Bluck fails to explicitly teach each of the first and second multi-pass chambers is configured such that a carrier placed within the multi-pass chamber can be positioned outside a cone of deposition of magnetrons within the multi-pass chamber. However, Masuno (US 20180016674 A1), in the analogous art of in-line deposition, teaches reciprocating a carrier 80 between a carrier-waiting region C1 and carrier-waiting region C2 (can be positioned outside the cone of deposition) on opposite sides of sputtering targets (23A, 23B) to pass through a deposition region a plurality of times (para 0065, 0092; Fig. 2). Additionally, Wang teaches moving a substrate back and forth in front of a lithium target 830 (sputtering arrangement) in a deposition module 806 having space on each side of the sputtering target (para 0139; Fig. 8B). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lithium deposition module arrangement of Wang with the deposition module arrangement of Masuno including carrier waiting regions (can be placed outside a cone of deposition) on each side of the target because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of moving the substrate carrier past a target multiple times. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20100245973 A1) in view of Pradhan (US 20120275008 A1), Leahey (US 20130161183 A1), and Hollars (US 6488824 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Wang (US 20100245973 A1) teaches an integrated deposition system 800b including a series of deposition stations (chambers), wherein sputtering from sputtering targets is used to deposit a series of layers (sputtering system) (para 0100, 0103-0104, 0116, 0138, 0142; Fig. 8D). Wang also teaches a substrate 825 supported by a pallet 820 (substrate carrier) that can translate forward and backward (forward and reverse motions) through the integrated deposition system 800 via a track (transport mechanism) (para 0139-0140; Fig. 8B).
Wang fails to explicitly teach at least one single-pass chamber and at least one multi-pass chamber. However, Pradhan (US 20120275008 A1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches an integrated deposition system for depositing an electrochromic layer and additional layers of the EC stack, such as the ion conducting layer, may be done in a continuous manner (single pass) rather than several passes with a sputtering target (para 0105, 0147) and a lithium deposition process may be performed while the substrate is moved forward and backward to make multiple passes (para 0163), wherein the integrated deposition system may have a series of connected modules/stations (para 0164). Wang also teaches that the lithium deposition may be performed by moving the substrate back and forth in front of the lithium target in order to slow the delivery of lithium and prevent accumulation of free metallic lithium on the stack surface (para 0121) as well as that lithiation stations are isolated from other stations by valves (para 0122, 0137), thus separating the lithium stations into separate chambers from the IC and CE layer deposition stations.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the IC and EC layer deposition methods/stations of Wang with the deposition methods/stations of Pradhan including deposition while moving the substrates continuously in a single direction (single pass processing chamber) and to substitute the lithium deposition method/stations of Wang with the lithium deposition methods/stations of Pradhan including multiple passes of the substrates (multi pass processing chamber) because these are substitutions of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Therefore, the combination of Wang and Pradhan results in a deposition system including at least one multi-pass lithium stations/chambers (807a, 807b) capable of housing a single substrate pallet (carrier) 820 and at least one single pass layer deposition station/chamber (806b, 806c) coupled to the multi-pass lithium stations/chambers (Wang Fig. 8B, 8D).
The combination of Wang and Pradhan fails to explicitly teach the transport mechanism capable of operating different chambers at different speeds. However, Leahey (US 20130161183 A1), in the analogous art of in-line deposition, teaches a processing system having wheels for transporting a plurality of substrate carriers within the system, wherein different sections/chambers may be independently controlled to have different speeds in each section, such as a pass-by processing speed, or fast transport speed, such that chamber idle time is minimized and efficiency is increased (para 0014, 0037, 0051). The combination of Wang and Pradhan teaches the substrates are moved back and forth in lithium stations and are moved continuously in the electrochromic layer deposition stations (Wang para 0121; Pradhan para 0105, 0147, 0163-0164). Additionally, Wang and Leahey both involve transferring substrate carriers along a track (transport mechanism) (Wang para 0139; Leahey para 0036, 0045). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Wang in view of Pradhan to include multiple substrate carriers and independently controlled transport speeds in each chamber/section, as described by Leahey, in order to better control the deposition process, minimize downtime, and improve process throughput and efficiency.
The aforementioned combination of Wang, Pradhan, and Leahey fails to explicitly teach the transport mechanism transports the plurality of substrate carriers within the single-pass chamber in unison at a first transport speed and transports one single carrier at a time within the multi-pass chamber in forward and reverse motions at a second speed faster than the first speed. However, this limitation merely states the intended use of the apparatus. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). The aforementioned combination teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, which is necessarily capable of transporting the plurality of substrate carriers within the single-pass chamber in unison at a first transport speed and transporting one single carrier at a time within the multi-pass chamber in forward and reverse motions at a second speed faster than the first speed by controlling the deposition sections to operate at different speeds (Leahey para 0014, 0017-0018, 0037, 0051).
Alternatively, or in addition, the aforementioned combination teaches a plurality of substrates are transferred continuously through the single-pass processing section/chamber such that the downtime is minimized (Leahey para 0014, 0037, 0051) and therefore the single-pass processing section includes multiple carriers moved along the transport direction continuously and in unison for a single-pass because the single-pass processing station includes deposition of both an IC layer and a CE layer (Wang Fig. 8D), and wherein the multi-pass chamber is operated one substrate at a time because the substrate is moved back and forth past the target (Pradhan para 0163). Furthermore, Pradhan teaches the speed of the substrate passing by the target assembly affects how much material is deposited on the substrate (para 0153), thus recognizing the translation speed as a result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum or workable ranges of translation speed in the single-pass and multi-pass sections by routine optimization, which can include a second speed in the multi-pass section that is faster than the first speed in the single-pass section. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
The previous combination of Wang, Pradhan, and Leahey fails to explicitly teach an open slit without a gate valve is provided between each of the multi-pass processing sections and the single-pass processing section. However, Wang teaches that the lithiation processes, which are performed in the multi-pass processing stations, may have an isolation valve or a controlled flow dynamic by differential pressures in the system, or a combination thereof (para 0122), thus indicating that a gate valve is not required when using a controlled flow dynamic by differential pressures. Additionally, Leahey teaches transport passages (534a, 534b) (open slits without gate valve) between sections of the chamber (para 0015, 0047; Fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention substitute isolation (gate) valves between multi-pass and single-pass sections/chambers with open slit passages between sections/chambers while using differential pressures to control flow because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The combination of Wang, Pradhan, and Leahey teaches magnetron arrangements for forming the electrochromic layers (single-pass section) perform sputtering of metal targets by maintaining plasma with a reactive oxygen gas (Pradhan para 0141, 0148, 0152, 0155) but fails to explicitly teach at least one of the chambers comprising a sputtering magnetron arrangement to perform sputtering of a target by maintaining plasma with reactive gas injected between magnetrons of a paired magnetron such that pumping action consumes reactants within the reactive gas, reducing reactants outflow through at least one such open slit. However, Hollars (US 6488824 B1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches a pair of magnetron sputtering targets 29 where a reactive gas may be introduced at a position 95b between the paired magnetrons (col 13 line 48-67, col 14 line 1-4; Fig. 2c). Additionally, Pradhan teaches the electrochromic layers are deposited by sputtering a metal target in presence of oxygen (para 0043, 0155). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the electrochromic (IC and CE) depositing magnetron arrangement of Wang in view of Pradhan (single-pass processing sections) with a paired magnetron arrangement having reactive gas injected between the targets, as described by Hollars, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Because the reactive gas is positioned between the targets, there would necessarily be a “pumping action” in which reactants are consumed by the growing film, thus reducing the reactant outflow through slits. Alternatively, Hollars teaches including pumps 62 coupled to each chamber where the film is deposited as the substrate moves between chambers and contamination due to mixing of process gases is limited by the vacuum pumps (col 19 line 31-56, col 22 line 1-55; Fig. 12-13). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include pumps, as described by Hollars, in the chambers of Wang in view of Leahey to prevent contamination of adjacent chambers by reactive/process gases. As a result, the outflow of reactive gas (reactants) through open slits would be reduced by pumping.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Wang, Pradhan, Leahey, and Hollars fails to explicitly teach the second speed is configured such that the single carrier in any of the at least one multi-pass chamber traveling at the second speed can perform at least two forward and one reverse passes during the time that a carrier in the single-pass chamber traveling at the first transport speed performs one pass. However, this limitation merely states the intended use of the apparatus. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). The aforementioned combination teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, which is necessarily capable of using a second speed configured such that the single carrier in the multi-pass chamber traveling at the second speed can perform at least two forward and one reverse passes during the time that a carrier in the single-pass chamber traveling at the first transport speed performs one pass.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9-10, filed 8/13/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hollars (US 6488824 B1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. De Bosscher (US 20080264785 A1) teaches an alternative teaching of reactive gas introduced between two magnetrons in a single-pass chamber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794