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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al, US 2009/0277781 A1, in view of Mehta et al, US 2024/0102150 A1.
Regrading claims 1 and 19, Nakamura et al teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a first sputtering chamber 1 configured to accommodate a substrate 12 therein; and a second chamber 2 including a heater 16 provided in an internal space thereof, wherein the first chamber comprises a substrate assembly 15 configured to fix the substrate 12, a target assembly 101 configured to fix a target 11 including a deposition material, and the second chamber 2 is configured to be provided with the substrate 12, and perform thermal treatment on the substrate. (Figure 1)
Nakamura et al differs from the present invention in that Nakamura et al does not teach that the first chamber does not include: a first ion gun configured to irradiate an ion beam onto the target to discharge deposition particles, which are ions of the deposition material, to the substrate, and a second ion gun configured to irradiate a hydrogen ion beam toward the substrate, wherein the second ion gun comprises a plasma generator configured to generate plasma, a container configured to accommodate the plasma, and a first grid electrode and a second grid electrode each configured to extract ions from the container.
Mehta et al teaches a sputtering chamber 102 that includes a substrate assembly 108 configured to fix the substrate 118, a target assembly 106 configured to fix a target 116 including a deposition material, a first ion gun 140 configured to irradiate an ion beam 110 onto the target 116 to discharge deposition particles 110, which are ions of the deposition material, to the substrate 118, and a second ion gun 130 configured to irradiate a hydrogen (Paragraph 0037) ion beam 134 toward the substrate 118, wherein the second ion gun 130 comprises a plasma generator (inductive coils shown as circles in the walls of the ion beam source 132 in Figure 1) configured to generate plasma, a container (outer walls of the ion beam source 132 in Figure 1) configured to accommodate the plasma, and a first grid electrode and a second grid electrode each configured to extract ions from the container (Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The motivation for replacing the sputtering source in the first chamber of Nakamura et al with the sputtering source of Mehta et al is to provide an alternate and equivalent sputtering source in the first chamber of Nakamura et al. Furthermore, it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the sputtering source in the first chamber of Nakamura et al with the sputtering source of Mehta et al.
Regarding claim 3, Mehta et al teaches that the second grid electrode receives a voltage (100-1500 V, paragraph 0046) which is higher than a voltage of the first grid electrode (floating, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Mehta et al teaches the second grid electrode is electrically insulated from the first grid electrode. (Figure 1, inherent or the electrodes would short)
Regarding claim 5, Mehta et al teaches that the first grid electrode is electrically floated. (Figure 1)
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Nakamura et al teaches that the heater is configured to supply heat to the substrate while maintaining a temperature of about 800 degrees C. (Paragraph 0039)
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Mehta et al teaches that the plasma generator is configured to receive a processing gas so as to generate the plasma, and the processing gas comprises hydrogen (H2), helium (He), oxygen (02), nitrogen (N2), argon (Ar), xenon (Xe), or a combination thereof. (Paragraph 0037)
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Mehta et al teaches the use of hydrogen, the specific volume ratio is an intended use of the apparatus. It has been held that: “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Emphasis in original) Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and 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 Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Also see MPEP 2114 Nakamura et al and Mehta et al teach all of the claimed structure and is capable of supplying the processing gas with a volume ratio of hydrogen (H2) of about 70% to about 100%.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Nakamura et al teaches that the first chamber 1 is configured to maintain a vacuum pressure of about 50 Pa (0.375 Torr) to about 0.01 Pa (7.5x10-5 Torr) which is included in about 101 Torr to about 10-9 Torr.
Regarding claim 11, Mehta et al teaches that the target comprises one of tungsten (W), ruthenium (Ru), tantalum (Ta), titanium (Ti), copper (Cu), molybdenum (Mo), cobalt (Co), silver (Ag), platinum (Pt), nickel (Ni), chromium (Cr), gold (Au), palladium (Pd), a metal alloy thereof, and metal nitride thereof. The Examiner notes that aluminum (Al), germanium (Ge), magnesium (Mg),hafnium (Hf), zinc (Zn), vanadium (V), zirconium (Zr), a metal alloy thereof, and metal nitride thereof are all well known in the art.
Claims 2, 6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al and Mehta et al as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 7-11 and 19 above, and further in view of Nishimoto, JP 2007-239031 A.
Nakamura et al and Mehta et al is discussed above and teaches: the second grid electrode is disposed apart from the first grid electrode and supplied a voltage of 100-1500 V, (Mehta et al paragraph 0046) which overlaps the range of about 60 V to about 1,000 V (claim 2, 20); the second grid electrode is disposed apart from the first grid electrode, receives with a voltage which is higher than a voltage of the first grid electrode, and is electrically insulated from the first grid electrode, and the first grid electrode is electrically floated (claim 20).
Nakamura et al and Mehta et al differ from the present invention in that they do not teach that the voltage is a positive voltage (claim 2); and each of the first grid electrode and the second grid electrode comprises at least one of a metal mesh, a carbon mesh, and a plated micro capillary (claim 6, 20).
Nishimoto teaches an ion beam source 13 that includes a grid 22a which is supplied with a positive high voltage of several hundred to several thousand volts; and that the grid is made of molybdenum or carbon mesh. (Figures 1-2)
The motivation for making the voltage supplied to the grid electrode of Nakamura et al and Mehta et al positive is to provide an alternate known voltage to the grid electrode of Nakamura et al and Mehta et al as taught Nishimoto. Furthermore, it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
The motivation for making the grid electrode of Nakamura et al and Mehta et al out of molybdenum or carbon is to provide a required but not disclosed material of construction as taught by Nishimoto. Furthermore, it has been held that: the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)); and reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious that selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle (325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to make the voltage supplied to the grid electrode of Nakamura et al and Mehta et al positive, and make the grid electrode of Nakamura et al and Mehta et al out of molybdenum or carbon as taught by Nishimoto.
Claims 12, 13, and 15-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al and Mehta et al as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 7-11 and 19 above, and further in view of Ramaswamy et al, US 2006/0264060 A1.
Nakamura et al and Mehta et al differ from the present invention in that they do not teach that the heater in the second chamber includes a laser source provided in an internal space thereof.
Ramaswamy et al teaches annealing light source that includes a beam source 120 includes laser light source and optics to produce a downwardly directed fan-shaped beam 124 that strikes the wafer 40 as a line beam 126. (Figure 1, Paragraph 0066)
The motivation for replacing the heater of Nakamura et al and Mehta et al with the laser of Ramaswamy et al is to provide an alternate and equivalent heater to anneal the substrate in the second chamber of Nakamura et al and Mehta et al.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the heater of Nakamura et al and Mehta et al with the laser of Ramaswamy et al.
Regarding claim 13, Nakamura et al and Mehta et al teach a support unit 15 configured to fix the substrate.
Regarding claim 13, Ramaswamy et al teaches a beam delivery optical structure disposed between the support unit and the laser source, and the beam delivery optical structure is configured to transfer light, irradiated from the laser source, to the substrate. (Figure 1, Paragraph 0066)
Regarding claim 15, Mehta et al teaches that the second ion gun further comprises a third grid electrode disposed apart from the second grid electrode. The specific voltage received by the third grid electrode is a function of the apparatus of Nakamura et al and Mehta et al, and it is capable of supplying a voltage to the third grid electrode which is lower than a voltage of the second grid electrode.
Regarding claim 16, Mehta et al teaches that the plasma generator is configured to receive a processing gas so as to generate the plasma, and the processing gas comprises hydrogen (H2), helium (He), oxygen (02), nitrogen (N2), argon (Ar), xenon (Xe), or a combination thereof. (Paragraph 0037)
Regarding claim 17, Mehta et al teaches the use of hydrogen, the specific volume ratio is an intended use of the apparatus. It has been held that: “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Emphasis in original) Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and 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 Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Also see MPEP 2114 Nakamura et al and Mehta et al teach all of the claimed structure and is capable of supplying the processing gas with a volume ratio of hydrogen (H2) of about 70% to about 100%.
Regarding claim 18, Mehta et al teaches that the target comprises one of tungsten (W), ruthenium (Ru), tantalum (Ta), titanium (Ti), copper (Cu), molybdenum (Mo), cobalt (Co), silver (Ag), platinum (Pt), nickel (Ni), chromium (Cr), gold (Au), palladium (Pd), a metal alloy thereof, and metal nitride thereof. The Examiner notes that aluminum (Al), germanium (Ge), magnesium (Mg),hafnium (Hf), zinc (Zn), vanadium (V), zirconium (Zr), a metal alloy thereof, and metal nitride thereof are all well known in the art.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al, Mehta et al, and Ramaswamy et al as applied to claims 12, 13, and 15-18 above, and further in view of Nishimoto, JP 2007-239031 A.
Nakamura et al, Mehta et al, and Ramaswamy et al is discussed above and teaches: the second grid electrode is disposed apart from the first grid electrode and supplied a voltage of 100-1500 V, (Mehta et al paragraph 0046) which overlaps the range of about 60 V to about 1,000 V.
Nakamura et al, Mehta et al, and Ramaswamy et al differ from the present invention in that they do not teach that the voltage is a positive voltage.
Nishimoto teaches an ion beam source 13 that includes a grid 22a which is supplied with a positive high voltage of several hundred to several thousand volts. (Figures 1-2)
The motivation for making the voltage supplied to the grid electrode of Nakamura et al, Mehta et al and Ramaswamy et al positive is to provide an alternate known voltage to the grid electrode of Nakamura et al, Mehta et al, and Ramaswamy et al as taught Nishimoto. Furthermore, it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to make the voltage supplied to the grid electrode of Nakamura et al, Mehta et al, and Ramaswamy et al positive as taught by Nishimoto.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. The following references also teach:
Sputtering chamber: US 20210404051 A1,
Ion gun structure: JP 2021018984 A, US 20160351377 A1, TW 201503211 A, JP 5555934 B2, JP 2013101851 A, WO 2008009898 A1, WO 0122470 A1
Annealing chamber: US 20130277207 A1
Material of construction of the grid: US 20240062996 A1
Laser annealing: JP 2021018984 A, US 20180308725 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights