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 .
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.
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 and 6 to 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (2009/0090852) in view of Samukawa et al (J. Vac Sci).
The Chen et al reference teaches a method and apparatus for neutral beam annealing, note, entire reference. There is a plasma chamber, figure 1, no 142 with an upper electrode, number 144. Surrounding the chamber is an induction coil, no 148, 146. Further, there is a second electrode not in the top surface of the chamber, no 186. There is an annealing chamber set below the plasma chamber, no 110. In the annealing chamber, there is a substrate and substrate support, no 120 and 125. The bottom side of the plasma chamber has a plurality of through holes, no 170 and 172. There are gas supply means and a pressure controller, no. 130. The sole difference between the instant claim and the prior art is the placement of the second electrode. However, the Samukawa et al reference teaches placing the second electrode on a neutral beam apparatus on the bottom surface with the through holes, note, fig 1b. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Chen et al reference by the teachings of the Samukawa et al reference to place the second electrode on the bottom surface in order to have a uniform plasma field which then affects the substrate in a uniform means.
With regards to claim 6, the Chen et al reference teaches using an inert gas as a second gas, note para 0028.
With regards to claim 7, the Chen et al reference teaches argon as the inert gas, note para 0028.
With regards to claim 8, the Chen et al reference teaches argon as the first gas, note para 0026.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (2009/0090852) in view of Samukawa et al (J. Vac Sci).
The Chen et al and Samukawa et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the voltage. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to operate the apparatus with 1 volt to the second electrode in the combined references in order to create the desired plasma strength.
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (2009/0090852) in view of Samukawa et al (J. Vac Sci).
The Chen et al and Samukawa et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claims in the type of second electrode. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to type of second electrode, floating or carbon place in the combined references in order to increase the efficiency of the electrode.
. Claim(s) 6 to 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (2009/0090852) in view of Samukawa et al (J. Vac Sci).
The Chen et al and Samukawa et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the voltage. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to operate the apparatus with 1 volt to the second electrode in the combined references in order to create the desired plasma strength.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (2009/0090852) in view of Samukawa et al (J. Vac Sci).
The Chen et al and Samukawa et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the deposition of a film and adjusting substrate height. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to operate deposit a film and then anneal the film in the combined references in order to create the desired properties in the annealing film. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to adjust the placement of the substrate in the combined references in order to place the substrate where the neutral beam with have the most affect.
Claims 2 and 3 are 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 does not teach nor render obvious the instant claims. There is no teaching in the art to have the formula set forth in the instant claims for the apparatus.
Examiner’s Remarks
The remaining reference are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art in neutral beam annealing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights