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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-22, is acknowledged.
Claims 23-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/25/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 12, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarzl (US 2012/0069311) in view of Noda (US 2005/0011757).
Claims 1, 4-6:
Schwarzl teaches a method for manufacturing a reflector for EUV lithography (abstract). The reflector includes a capping layer of inert oxide over the multi-layer reflector (Id.). The capping layer is formed by reactive sputtering (Id.). The claim limitation “uninterrupted individualization of particles of a target material…by bombardment with ions of a working gas, with application of a discharge voltage for at least indirect ionization of the working gas” is taken to be a technical description of a sputtering process. It is desired that the capping layer has low defects such as non-uniformities, roughness, and aberrations [0023].
While Schwarzl does teach magnetron sputtering including multiple targets [0021], Schwarzl does not teach facing targets sputtering.
However, Noda teaches facing targets sputtering [0001] where the deposited film is free from damage due to plasma and uniform distribution [0016].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Schwarzl by facing targets sputtering. Noda establishes this is a suitable sputtering method involving multiple targets and has the further advantage of preventing damage due to plasma and improves uniformity.
It is noted that “at least virtually free of defects” is not given the specific definition of less than 11 defects/µm2 because [0031] is not sufficiently concrete due to the “may mean” and “for example” language.
Claim 2:
Schwarzl illustrates sharp boundries (Fig. 1).
Claims 3, 21-22:
Schwarzl teaches stoichiometric composition including alumina having a thickness of 1-5 nm [0021-0022].
Claim 12:
Noda teaches the paired targets are cathodes [0050]. The substrate is the anode.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarzl (US 2012/0069311) in view of Noda (US 2005/0011757) in view of Ueda (US 2010/0078309).
Previously cited prior art does not teach the damaging parameter and the magnetic trap. However, Ueda teaches a facing targets sputtering method where the facing targets approach reduces damage [0003] by forming a magnetic field to trap particles [0052]. The charged particles necessarily have a kinetic energy as a parameter of the sputtering process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement facing targets sputtering in the manner taught by Ueda because it is known to enable low temperature and low damage film formation.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarzl (US 2012/0069311) in view of Noda (US 2005/0011757) in view of Papasouliotis (US 2011/0309049).
Previously cited prior art does not explicitly teach remote plasma and pulsed plasma. However, Papasouliotis teaches methods for generating plasma including remote plasma [0050] and pulsed plasma [0054] for the purpose of plasma processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a remote plasma and pulsed plasma processing because Papasouliotis establishes they are suitable for plasma processing.
Claim(s) 13-15, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarzl (US 2012/0069311) in view of Noda (US 2005/0011757) in view of Yamaguchi (US 2003/0192778).
Claims 13-15:
Previously cited prior art does not teach Penning ionization. However, Yamaguch does teach the addition of Penning ionization in a sputtering process (abstract). This is a process that adds He gas as a secondary gas to assist in ionization [0035], thereby reducing the discharge voltage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Penning ionization to the sputtering process in order to reduce interparticle collisions [0008].
Claims 16-17:
Yamaguchi teaches thermalization (the sputtered particles colliding with the working gas) and adjusting the pressure of the working gas to reduce collisions with the sputtered particles [0031-0033].
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarzl (US 2012/0069311) in view of Noda (US 2005/0011757) in view of Kim (US 2017/0268112).
Previously cited prior art does not teach heating/melting the target. However, Kim teaches melting the target to provide increases in kinetic energy, energy latency, and/or flux density (abstract). This naturally leads to a reduction in discharge voltage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to melt the target in a sputtering process for the reasons taught by Kim.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarzl (US 2012/0069311) in view of Noda (US 2005/0011757) in view of Sone (US 6200431).
Previously cited prior art does not teach a mesh in the sputtering apparatus. However, Sone teaches an analogous grid plate 6 that has a predetermined potential and has the effect of decelerating ions of the working gas by electrical field (5:12-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a grid plate into the sputtering apparatus in order to separate the plasma and reactive gas in the manner taught by Sone so that a better thin film can be formed (6:55-56).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759