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 .
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 11/21/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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to the claims have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and thus the rejections are withdrawn.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) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 20160312353 A1) in view of Ohno (NPL – “Plasma emission control of reactive sputtering process in mid-frequency mode with dual cathodes to deposit photocatalytic TiO2 films”).
Regarding claim 1, Murakami (US 20160312353 A1) teaches a film deposition apparatus comprising cathode units 103 (at least one first cathode and at least one second cathode) each having a target (first and second target) and configured to provide plasma in the vicinity of each target (first and second plasma) by being supplied with a power supply 107, wherein the plasma is to be monitored (plasma monitoring device) by a group of optical emission monitors 111 each having a collimator lens (first collimator group disposed corresponding to the first cathode) to detect the optical emission spectrum (first plasma spectrum) in the (first) plasma, wherein the apparatus also includes a first group of mass flow controllers (109, 110) for providing gases to the first and second cathode through gas pipes corresponding to the reactive gas mass flow controllers (first gas supply pipe group) and through a gas pipe corresponding to the inert gas mass flow controller (second gas pipe group), where the gas supply pipe groups (105, 108) are independently disposed in different locations such that one of the gas pipe groups is closer to one target than the other (first gas supply pipe group is closer to the at least one first cathode than the second gas supply pipe group is), and wherein the total number of collimator groups (111) is 1, the total number of cathodes (103) is 2, the total number of gas supply pipe groups (105, 108) is 2, and the number of mass flow controller groups (109, 110) is 1 (total number of collimator groups is less than a total number of cathodes, a total number of gas supply groups is equal to the total number of the cathodes, the total number of the gas supply pipe groups is greater than the total number of the collimator groups, and the total number of the gas supply pipe groups is greater than a total number of mass flow controller groups) (para 0036, 0039-0040, 0042-0047, 0049-0054, 0065, 0101; Fig. 1, 3). Murakami also teaches a controlling apparatus 130 (plasma emission monitor) that obtains data of the optical emission spectrum from the optical emission monitors and controls the flow rate of reactive gas provided by the mass flow controllers 110 according to the optical emission intensities (first plasma spectrum of the first plasma) monitored by the optical emission monitors 111 (para 0052-0053, 0065, 0072; Fig. 1). Additionally, because both the first and second cathode 103 are being provided with gas through both the first (105) and second (108) gas supply pipe groups, Murakami teaches the first cathode is provided gas from the first supply gas pipe group (105) and the second cathode is provided gas from the second supply gas group (108) (providing gas to first and second cathode through a first and second gas supply pipe group, respectively) (para 0042-0047; Fig. 1). Furthermore, Murakami teaches the two cathode targets 121 may each be made of silicon (material of the first target and the second target are the same) (para 0043, 0047, 0082, 0084, 0101; Fig. 1).
Alternatively, Murakami fails to explicitly teach the number of gas supply pipe groups is less than a total number of cathodes, greater than the total number of collimator groups, and greater than a total number of mass flow controller groups. However, Ohno (NPL), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches a pair of targets made of the same material having a plasma control unit connected to feed back systems of plasma emission intensity and separate argon gas flow inlets (pipe groups) connected to the same mass flow controller (MFC) (pg. 208; Fig. 1). 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 inert gas flow unit 108 and mass flow controller group 109 of Murakami with the inert/argon gas flow unit of Ohno including a single mass flow controller and two pipes/pipe groups each directed to a different target because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). As a result, the combination of Murakami and Ohno includes two cathodes/targets (Murakami Fig. 1 – 103), one collimator group (Murakami Fig. 1 – 111), two argon gas supply pipe groups (Ohno Fig. 1) where one of the gas supply pipe groups corresponds to each cathode and one of the pipe groups is closer to the first cathode than the other pipe group, where the claimed “gas supply pipe groups” may be defined as only referring to the inert gas pipe groups, and one mass flow controller (Ohno Fig. 1 – MFC).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Murakami and Ohno teaches the total number of collimator groups (111) is equal to 1 and the total number of cathodes (103) is equal to 2 (Murakami Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Murakami and Ohno teaches the total number of mass flow controller groups (109, 110) is equal to 1 and the total number of cathodes (103) is equal to 2 (number of mass flow controller groups is less than the total number of cathodes) (Murakami Fig. 1). Alternatively, Ohno teaches that the mass flow controller MFC is equal to 1 for a pair of (two) cathodes (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Murakami and Ohno teaches the total number of mass flow controller groups (109, 110) is equal to 1 and the total number of cathodes (103) is equal to 2 (Murakami Fig. 1). Alternatively, Ohno teaches that the mass flow controller MFC is equal to 1 for a pair of (two) cathodes (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Murakami and Ohno teaches that the optical emission (light) intensity is controlled so that it approaches a preset target optical emission intensity (Murakami Abstract, para 0015, 0103) but fails to explicitly teach a first light intensity of the first plasma of the first cathode is substantially the same as a second light intensity of the second plasma of the second cathode. However, the 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). Murakami teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, which is necessarily capable of forming a first and second plasma with substantially the same light intensity.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Murakami and Ohno teaches that the optical emission (light) intensity is controlled so that it approaches a preset target optical emission intensity (Murakami Abstract, para 0015, 0103) but fails to explicitly teach a difference between a first light intensity of the first plasma of the first cathode and a second light intensity of the second plasma of the second cathode is within 10%. However, the 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). Murakami teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, which is necessarily capable of forming a first and second plasma with light intensities within 10% of each other.
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 20160312353 A1) and Ohno (NPL – “Plasma emission control of reactive sputtering process in mid-frequency mode with dual cathodes to deposit photocatalytic TiO2 films”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanabe (US 20210005429 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Murakami and Ohno teaches that the optical emission (light) intensity is controlled so that it approaches a preset target optical emission intensity (Murakami Abstract, para 0015, 0057, 0103) but fails to explicitly teach a first light intensity of the first plasma of the first cathode is substantially the same as a second light intensity of the second plasma of the second cathode. However, Tanabe (US 20210005429 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches controlling the plasma (light) intensity near a first and second electrode/target to be equal (substantially the same) (para 0120, 0183; Fig. 26). Because Tanabe teaches that such plasma intensity control methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the plasma/light intensity of the targets of Murakami such that they both are at the same preset intensity (substantially the same) with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Murakami and Ohno teaches that the optical emission (light) intensity is controlled so that it approaches a preset target optical emission intensity (Murakami Abstract, para 0015, 0057, 0103) but fails to explicitly teach a difference between a first light intensity of the first plasma of the first cathode and a second light intensity of the second plasma of the second cathode is within 10%. However, Tanabe (US 20210005429 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches controlling the plasma (light) intensity near a first and second electrode/target to be equal (within 10%) (para 0120, 0183; Fig. 26). Because Tanabe teaches that such plasma intensity control methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the plasma/light intensity of the targets of Murakami such that they both are at the same preset intensity (within 10%) with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claim(s) 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 20160312353 A1) and Ohno (NPL – “Plasma emission control of reactive sputtering process in mid-frequency mode with dual cathodes to deposit photocatalytic TiO2 films”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okami (US 20220316049 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Murakami and Ohno fails to explicitly teach at least one third cathode having a third target and providing a third plasma, a second collimator group, disposed corresponding to the third cathode to detect a third light intensity of the third plasma of the third cathode, and a second mass flow controller group providing another gas to the third cathode through a third gas supply pipe group, wherein the first target material is different from the third target material and the total number of the collimator groups is less than the total number of cathodes. However, Okami (US 20220316049 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches depositing a SiO2 film using reactive sputtering from two SiC targets and then depositing a second layer using a pair of targets containing cesium and tungsten, wherein the oxygen partial pressure is controlled using a plasma emission monitor (para 0034, 0062, 0091, 0155-0157; Fig. 7-8). Additionally, Murakami teaches that a plurality of sets of the pair of cathode units may be disposed in the conveying direction and the pair of cathodes may be used to form a SiO2 layer (para 0043, 0047, 0049). Because Okami teaches that such cathode/target arrangements were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second pair of cathodes/targets (at least one third cathode having a third target and providing a third plasma) made of a cesium and tungsten material (wherein the first target is different from the third target) to deposit two layers with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Okami teaches that the oxygen concentration supplied to each pair of targets may be controlled by plasma emission monitoring (para 0034, 0079). Therefore, because Murakami teaches that such plasma emission monitor systems were operable, 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 a second group of optical emission monitors (111) (second collimator group) corresponding to the third cathode to detect a optical emission (light) intensity of the plasma of the third cathode and a second mass flow controller group (109, 110) for providing reactive and inert gas to the third and fourth cathode through a third gas supply pipe group and fourth gas supply pipe group, as with the first and second cathode of Murakami (Fig. 1), with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)). As a result, the combination of Murakami, Ohno, and Okami includes two pairs of cathodes (a total number of 4 cathodes) and a total of 2 collimator groups, with one associated with each pair of cathodes (total number of collimator groups is less than the total number of the cathodes).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Murakami, Ohno, and Okami teaches the total number of cathodes is 4 (greater than or equal to 3) and the total number of collimator groups (111) is equal to 2 (Okami para 0079, 0155-0157; Murakami Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Murakami, Ohno, and Okami teaches the total number of cathodes is 4 and the total number of mass flow controller groups (109, 110) is equal to 2 (total number of mass flow controller groups is less than the total number of the cathodes) (Okami para 0079, 0155-0157; Murakami Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Murakami, Ohno, and Okami teaches the total number of cathodes is 4 (greater than or equal to 3) and the total number of mass flow controller groups (109, 110) is equal to 2 (Okami para 0079, 0155-0157; Murakami Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that one skilled in the art would regard the cathode unit 103 as the same cathode unit rather than two cathodes and one skilled in the art would regard the reactive gas flow units 105 and inert gas flow unit 108 as the same group of gas flow units and thus only a first gas supply group. This argument is not persuasive because the cathode pair of Murakami can clearly be interpreted as two cathodes and the limitation of “gas supply pipe group” is broadly defined and could be interpreted in several different ways. Even if one skilled in the art would consider the gas flow units and cathodes of Murakami to be a single gas supply pipe group and single cathode, the elements of Murakami can also be reasonably interpreted as described in the rejection above.
Additionally, Ohno (NPL), as cited in the IDS filed 1/4/2024, has been included in the rejection as an alternative teaching of the claimed amounts of mass flow controller groups and gas supply pipe groups.
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 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