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 .
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.
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, 11, 16, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0110278; hereafter ‘278).
Claim 1: ‘278 is directed towards a method of forming an optical element on a substrate (see Figs. 1A, 1B, 9, & 12), the method including forming a first layer on the substrate such that the first layer includes a first material pattern (see Figs. 1A, 1B, 9, & 12) which includes a gradient region that is characterized by a smooth and monotonic variation in thickness along a first direction (see Fig. 6C; note that the first material pattern has regions which are characterized by a smooth and monotonic variation in thickness), wherein the first layer is formed by operations comprising:
providing a mask having a plurality of mask regions (see Fig. 12);
locating the mask between a material source and the substrate (see Fig. 12 and ¶s 50 & 89-94); and
directing a material flux from the material source through the plurality of mask regions to form the plurality of material patterns (see Fig. 12 and ¶a 89-94).
‘278 does not teach singulating the substrate after the process to produce multiple chips each including an optical element.
However, it is known in the art to produce multiple components on a single wafer in a single process and then dice the wafer to produce multiple individual chips with the deposited structure because it reduces process steps and increases throughput.
Applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice in the prior action, (the Official Notice that it is well known in the art to produce multiple components on a single wafer in a single process and then dice the wafer to produce multiple individual chips with the deposited structure because it reduces process steps and increases throughput) and therefore it has been taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to duplicate the process on a single wafer to produce multiple chips with the desired structures of ‘278 in individual chip regions and then wafer to produce multiple of the products because it is a well-recognized process in the art which reduces process time.
Claim 2: The mask is provided such that it includes a plurality of mask regions, each mask region comprising a series of openings distributed along the first direction and a series of barriers distributed along the first direction, wherein each barrier is located between a different pair of adjacent openings of the series thereof, and wherein each opening of the plurality of openings has an opening width along the first direction that is based on the position of that opening within the series of openings (see Fig. 3A).
Claim 3: Each barrier has a barrier width that is based on its position within the series of barriers (given that a shadow mask is used which is comprised of barriers and barrier widths and a pattern is deposited it is apparent that the barrier width is based on its position).
Claim 4: ‘278 does not teach that the opening widths and barrier widths change monotonically.
However, it does teach that the spacing and periodicity is based on the desired application (see ¶ 54).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a mask with the claimed pattern because ‘278 teaches that the pattern is a result effective variable and it is prima facie obvious to optimize result effective variables.
Additionally, it is prima facie obvious to change the shape and size of a feature. MPEP §2144.04(IV).
Claim 11: The first material pattern is formed on a first mirror disposed on the substrate, and wherein the method further includes forming a second mirror disposed on the first material pattern (the substrate is reflective and therefore reads on a first mirror, silicon substrate (claim 17) and the deposited material has a reflectivity and therefore will act as a mirror to same wavelength of light and thus reads on the second mirror).
Given that said process is a vapor deposition process, the claimed layer formed is technically composed of several individual layers and thus anticipates the first and second mirrors as claimed.
Claim 16: ‘278 is directed towards a method of forming an optical element (see Figs. 1A, 1B, 9, & 12), the method comprising:
providing a shadow mask (Fig. 12) having a plurality of openings that have a non-uniform opening-density along a first direction (see Fig. 2);
locating the shadow mask between a material source and a substrate (Fig. 12);
directing a material flux from the material source through the shadow mask to form a material pattern on the substrate (Fig. 12), the material pattern having a controlled variation in thickness (see Figs. 1A, 1B, 9, & 12).
As noted above, the formed material pattern is an optical element.
‘278 does not teach forming a plurality of patterns on the same substrate and singulating said material patterns.
However, it is known in the art to produce multiple components on a single wafer in a single process and then dice the wafer to produce multiple individual chips with the deposited structure because it reduces process steps and increases throughput.
Applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice in the prior action, (the Official Notice that it is well known in the art to produce multiple components on a single wafer in a single process and then dice the wafer to produce multiple individual chips with the deposited structure because it reduces process steps and increases throughput) and therefore it has been taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to duplicate the process on a single wafer to produce multiple chips with the desired structures of ‘278 in individual chip regions and then wafer to produce multiple of the products because it is a well-recognized process in the art which reduces process time.
Claim 17: The first material pattern is formed on a first mirror disposed on the substrate, and wherein the method further includes forming a second mirror disposed on the first material pattern (the substrate is reflective and therefore reads on a first mirror, silicon substrate (claim 17) and the deposited material has a reflectivity and therefore will act as a mirror to same wavelength of light and thus reads on the second mirror).
Given that said process is a vapor deposition process, the claimed layer formed is technically composed of several individual layers and thus anticipates the first and second mirrors as claimed.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘278 as applied above, and further in view of Singh et al. (US PG Pub 2009/0004836; hereafter ‘836).
Claim 5: ‘278 does not teach imparting relative movement between the mask and substrate.
However, ‘836, which is also directed towards vapor deposition (title & abstract) teaches that dithering the substrate can reduce or eliminate shadowing effects and can improve the uniformity of the vapor treatment process (¶ 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of ‘836 into the process of ‘278 such that the substrate is dithered and therefore relative motion is imparted between the mask and the substrate because it is recognized in the art to impart said motion and it would have predictably reduced or eliminated shadowing effects and improved the uniformity of the vapor treatment in the masked regions.
Claim 6: As discussed above, the relative motion is dithering.
Claim 7: ‘278 teaches the mask is provided such that it includes a plurality of mask regions, each mask region comprising a single opening having an opening width along the first direction (see Fig. 3A).
‘278 does not teach imparting relative movement between the mask and substrate.
However, ‘836, which is also directed towards vapor deposition (title & abstract) teaches that dithering the substrate can reduce or eliminate shadowing effects and can improve the uniformity of the vapor treatment process (¶ 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of ‘836 into the process of ‘278 such that the substrate is dithered and therefore relative motion is imparted between the mask and the substrate because it is recognized in the art to impart said motion and it would have predictably reduced or eliminated shadowing effects and improved the uniformity of the vapor treatment in the masked regions.
Claim 8: As discussed above, the motion is dithering (a back-and-forth motion).
The combination does not teach the relation of the relative motion to the size of the features.
However, it is prima facie obvious to change the shape and size of a feature. MPEP §2144.04(IV).
Claim 9: As discussed above, the relative motion is a back-and-forth motion and thus it is apparent that the combination discloses a stopping time during which the mask and the substrate are held fixed at each end of their relative motion when motion is reversed.
‘278 teaches that there is a second width feature along the first direction that is larger than the first width along the first direction (see Figs 3A-3C).
Additionally, it is prima facie obvious to change the shape and size of a feature. MPEP §2144.04(IV).
Claim 10: As discussed above, the relative motion is a back-and-forth motion and thus it is apparent that the combination discloses a stopping time during which the mask and the substrate are held fixed at each end of their relative motion when motion is reversed.
‘278 teaches that there is a second width feature along the first direction that is smaller than the first width along the first direction (see Figs 3A-3C).
Additionally, it is prima facie obvious to change the shape and size of a feature. MPEP §2144.04(IV).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s argument that ‘278 does not teach singulating the plurality of material patterns on a plurality of deposition sites; applicant is advised that the rejection of canceled claim 12 relied on the Official Notice that “it is well known in the art to produce multiple components on a single wafer in a single process and then dice the wafer to produce multiple individual chips with the deposited structure because it reduces process steps and increases throughput” and now amended claim 1 & 16 are rejected as being obvious in view of ‘278 with the applicant admitted prior art because applicant did not traverse the Official Notice. Applicant is advised that the combination of ‘278 with applicant admitted prior art is not dicing the single structure produced by ‘278 but instead producing multiple structures of ‘278 on a single wafer and then dicing said wafer to produce multiple of ‘278 patterns wherein each of the ‘278 patterns reproduced is an optical device.
In regards to applicant’s argument that ‘278 does not teach “first material pattern of the plurality thereof includes a gradient region that is characterized by a smooth and monotonic variation in thickness along a first direction” as recited in claim 1; the Office does not find this argument convincing because claim 1 recites “a first material pattern of the plurality therefore includes a gradient region that is characterized by a smooth and monotonic variation in thickness along a first direction” which only requires that a portion of the first material pattern be characterized by a smooth and monotonic variation in thickness and not the entire pattern as argued. As discussed above, ‘278 teaches this limitation because it includes a gradient region that is characterized by a smooth and monotonic variation in thickness – see Fig. 6C which teaches portions with monotonic and smooth variations in thickness.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights