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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 23, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krisko (US 2006/0070869) in view of Moslehi (US 6,444,103) and Hartig (US 2006/0048708).
Regarding claim 1, Krisko teaches a deposition apparatus comprising:
a chamber (Fig. 12) in which an inner space is defined;
a movement device ([0055, 144c-144g, Fig. 12]) which moves a substrate to which a deposition material is provided;
and a deposition source (166a-166j) accommodated in the inner space, wherein the deposition source provides the deposition material, wherein the deposition source includes:
a first deposition source (166a) which performs a first deposition process while the substrate (12) is moved in a first direction by the movement device (144g);
and a second deposition source (166c) which performs a second deposition process on the substrate after the first deposition process (Fig. 12, [0055-0057]);
wherein the first deposition source includes a first target (166a), wherein the second deposition source includes a second target (166c);
wherein the second target includes a plurality of second targets (166c, 166d),
and wherein the chamber is a single chamber, and within the single chamber (2000, Fig. 12; [0055]), the first target has a number [of targets] less than a number of the second targets (pg. 7, [0055]).
Krisko does not teach a barrier including a first part and a second part, wherein the second part (86) moves in a direction opposite to the first direction and contact an outer wall of the chamber to seal the first deposition source before the second deposition process is performed.
Moslehi teaches a barrier (22 shutter, fig. 1 and 2) including a first part and a second part, wherein the second part (shutter, fig. 2) moves in a direction and contacts (24, col. 5, ln. 1-15) an outer side wall of the chamber (12, Fig. 2), through which a chamber inlet is defined, to seal the first deposition source (16 target; col. 5, ln. 31-35).
Moslehi does not teach the direction is opposite. However, the Examiner finds that a direction of a thing is analogous to the orientation of that thing and therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The Examiner takes the position that “before the second deposition process is performed” in functional language that the apparatus of Krisko in view of Moslehi would be capable of performing. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Krisko provides a basis framework for multiple target sputter up or sputter down systems. Moslehi like Krisko is disposed to provide first and second targets to effect sputtering onto a substrate. Moslehi has provided a modular sputtering shutter systems that is capable of being retrofit onto existing sputtering systems (col 3, ln. 45-55) to eliminate high costs. Therefore its well known in the art that Moselhi’s shutter is capable of being modified to fit other sputtering systems such as well-known systems taught by Krisko. Because Moslehi teaches shutters are operable in the sputtering art and modifiable it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the shutter of Moslehi in the sputtering system of Krisko 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.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the deposition source of Krisko by providing a barrier including a first part and a second part, wherein the second part moves in a direction opposite to the first direction and contacts an outer side wall of the chamber through which a chamber inlet is defined to seal the first deposition source, as taught by Moslehi, because it would create a barrier between the target and substrate eliminating the deposition of material from the target onto the substrate (col. 4, ln. 65-67).
Krisko does not explicitly teach each of the second targets includes a target material different from a target material of the first target, and wherein the chamber is a single chamber, and a number of the first target in the single chamber is less than a number of the second targets in the single chamber.
Hartig directed to a sputter up sputter down apparatus for forming a film by sputtering on architectural glazing. Hartig teaches a coating on the interior and exterior of the glass substrate by sputtering. Hartig teaches an exterior coating of silica and titania ( 411a, 441b). Hartig teaches an interior coating of a variety of materials. Each coating is provided by sputtering within the apparatus of figure 13a. Therefore the Examiner takes the position that sputter up target 134 provides either a silica or titania layer on the substrate and second targets 166 provide a zinc oxide and silver layer on the substrate’s interior surface. Therefore Hartig teach each of the second targets (166) includes a target material different from a target material of the first target (134), and wherein the chamber is a single chamber (Fig. 13a), and a number (1 target) of the first target (134) in the single chamber is less than a number (2 targets) of the second targets (166)in the single chamber ([0043], [0056], [0063] Fig. 13a, Fig. 6).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first and second targets of Krisko by providing each of the second targets includes a target material different from a target material of the first target, and wherein the chamber is a single chamber, and a number of the first target in the single chamber is less than a number of the second targets in the single chamber, as taught by Hartig, because it would provide a coating applied upwardly and downwardly in a single pass of the substrate to facilitate rapid and efficient coating of both major surfaces of the substrate [0007].
Regarding claim 2, Krisko teaches a first region (166a, 166b, 144g), in which the first deposition process is performed,
and a second region (166c, 166d, 144f), in which the second deposition process is performed, are defined in the inner space of the chamber,
and wherein the second region is adjacent to the first region in the first direction (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 3, Krisko teaches the substrate enters the inner space of the chamber through the chamber inlet (Fig. 12), and wherein the first region is adjacent to the chamber inlet [0051].
Regarding claim 11, Krisko teaches the second target (166d) has a cylindrical shape extending in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 13, Krisko teaches a third deposition source (166e) which performs a third deposition process while the substrate is moved in the first direction by the movement device after the second deposition process [0055].
Regarding claim 14, Krisko teaches a voltage application device which applies a power supply voltage to the first and second deposition sources [0052].
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krisko and Moslehi and Hartig as applied to claim 1 above in view of Choi (US 2014/0014921).
Regarding claim 4, Krisko does not teach the barrier is disposed between a first region and the second region.
Choi teach a barrier between the first region (120b) and the second region (120c).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first and second region of Krisko by providing a barrier between the first region and the second region, as taught by Choi, because it would block the other deposition sources [0155].
Regarding claim 5, Krisko does not teach the second part partially overlaps the first region and the second region on a plane.
Choi teaches the second part partially (142) overlaps the first region (120b) and the second region (120c) on a plane (Fig. 6c).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first and second region of Krisko by providing the second part partially (142) overlaps the first region (120b) and the second region (120c) on a plane (Fig. 6c), as taught by Choi, because it would block the other deposition sources [0155].
Regarding claim 6, Krisko does not teach the second part overlaps an entire portion of the first region on a plane to seal the first deposition source before the second deposition process is performed.
Moslehi teaches the second part (22, fig. 1 and 2) overlaps an entire portion of the first region (16) on a plane to seal the first deposition source (Fig. 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first and second regions of Krisko by providing the second part overlaps an entire portion of the first region on a plane to seal the first deposition source before the second deposition process is performed, as taught by Moslehi, because it would create a barrier between the target and substrate eliminating the deposition of material from the target onto the substrate (col. 4, ln. 65-67).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krisko and Moslehi and Hartig as applied to claim 1 above in view of Kato (JP 61-159571).
Regarding claim 9, Krisko teaches the first target (166c) has a rectangular cross-sectional shape, but does not teach the first target is disposed to be inclined with respect to the substrate.
Kato teach the first target is disposed to be inclined with respect to the substrate (dwg. 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first target of Krisko by providing it is disposed to be inclined with respect to the substrate, as taught by Kato, because it would eliminate non-uniformity on a substrate with a step part (Abstract).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krisko and Moslehi and Hartig as applied to claim 1 above in view of Hollars (US 6,365,010).
Regarding claim 10, Krisko does not teach a magnet or shielding layer.
Hollars teaches sputtering targets include a first magnet (36, Fig. 2b) and a shielding layer (30) disposed between the first target (29) and the first magnet (36, col. 10-11).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first target of Krisko by providing a first magnet (36, Fig. 2b) and a shielding layer (30) disposed between the first target (29) and the first magnet, as taught by Hollars, because it would provide a highly concentrated plasma density for rapid sputtering (col. 7, ln. 30-40).
Regarding claim 12, Krisko does not teach a rotary actuator or second magnet.
Hollars teaches the second deposition source further includes: a rotary actuator (24) which rotates the second target (29, Fig. 2b, 3a); and a second magnet (36) disposed inside the second target (col 10-11).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the second deposition source further includes: a rotary actuator which rotates the second target; and a second magnet disposed inside the second target, as taught by Hollars, because it would provide a highly concentrated plasma density for rapid sputtering (col. 7, ln. 30-40).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krisko and Moslehi and Hartig as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (EP 2290678).
Regarding claim 15, Krisko does not teach a substrate holder which fixes the substrate onto the second deposition source.
Yamamoto teach a substrate holder (3) which fixes the substrate (15) onto the second deposition source (8,9) because it would reliably hold the substrate and suppress generation of foreign particles on the target (pg. 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the substrate holder of Krisko by providing a substrate holder which fixes the substrate onto the second deposition source, as taught by Yamamoto, because it would reliably hold the substrate and suppress generation of foreign particles on the target (pg. 3).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krisko (US 2006/0070869) in view of Moslehi (US 6,444,103) and Choi (US 2014/0014921) and Hartig (US 2006/0048708).
Regarding claim 16, Krisko teaches a deposition method comprising:
providing a deposition apparatus, wherein the deposition apparatus includes a chamber, a deposition source disposed in an inner space of the chamber and including a first deposition source (166a) and a second deposition source (166c), a movement device (144a-g) which moves a substrate (12) to which a deposition material is provided (Fig. 12),
loading the substrate into the inner space of the chamber through the movement device (144a-g, Fig. 12);
performing a first deposition process using the first deposition source while the substrate moves in a first direction (silica, [0051]);
and performing a second deposition process using the second deposition source (titania, [0052])
wherein the substrate is in a same sealed space in the chamber when the first deposition process and the second deposition process are performed (Fig. 12);
wherein the first deposition source includes a first target (166a), and the second deposition source includes a second target (166c);
wherein the second target includes a plurality of second targets (166c, 166d),
wherein the chamber is a single chamber (2000, fig. 12, [0055]) and within the single chamber (2000, Fig. 12), the first target has a number [of targets] less than a number of the second targets (pg. 7, [0055]).
Krisko teaches a chamber inlet is defined beneath the first deposition source (166a, Fig. 12).
Krisko does not teach a substrate holder which fixes the substrate. Nor does it teach fixing the substrate to the substrate holder disposed over the second deposition source. Nor does it teach sealing the first deposition source by moving a part of the barrier in a direction opposite to the first direction and by making the part of the barrier in contact an outer wall of the chamber.
Moslehi directed to a sputtering apparatus teaches a barrier (22 shutter, fig. 1 and 2) sealing the first deposition source (16 target fig. 1) by moving a part of the barrier (22 shutter) in a direction and by making the part of the barrier (shutter, fig. 2) in contact an outer side wall (col. 5, ln. 1-15) of the chamber (12 Fig. 1 and 2), through which a chamber inlet is defined (col. 5, ln. 31-35).
Moslehi does not teach the direction is opposite. However, the Examiner finds that a direction of a thing is analogous to the orientation of that thing and therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Krisko provides a framework for multiple target sputter up or sputter down systems. Moslehi like Krisko is disposed to provide first and second targets to effect sputtering onto a substrate. Moslehi has provided a modular sputtering shutter system that is capable of being retrofit onto existing sputtering systems (col 3, ln. 45-55) to eliminate high costs. Therefore its well known in the art that Moselhi’s shutter is capable of being modified to fit other sputtering systems such as the well-known system taught by Krisko. Because Moslehi teaches shutters are operable and modifiable in the sputtering art it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the shutter of Moslehi in the sputtering system of Krisko 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.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the deposition source of Krisko by providing a barrier including a first part and a second part, wherein the second part moves in a direction opposite to the first direction and contacts an outer side wall of the chamber through which a chamber inlet is defined to seal the first deposition source, as taught by Moslehi, because it would create a barrier between the target and substrate eliminating the deposition of material from the target onto the substrate (col. 4, ln. 65-67).
Choi teaches a substrate holder (432, electrostatic chuck) which fixes the substrate (2, [0129-0130]). Choi teaches fixing the substrate (2)to the substrate holder (432) disposed over the second deposition source (120c, [0100]). Choi further teaches performing a second deposition process using the second deposition source (120c) after the substrate is fixed to the substrate holder (432).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Krisko by providing a substrate holder which fixes the substrate; fixing the substrate to the substrate holder disposed over the second deposition source and performing a second deposition process using the second deposition source after the substrate is fixed to the substrate holder, as taught by Choi, because it would form an organic layer or an inorganic layer of an organic thin film transistor and to form layers from various materials [0210].
Krisko does not explicitly teach each of the second targets includes a target material different from a target material of the first target, and wherein the chamber is a single chamber, and a number of the first target in the single chamber is less than a number of the second targets in the single chamber.
Hartig directed to a sputter up sputter down apparatus for forming a film by sputtering on architectural glazing. Hartig teaches a coating on the interior and exterior of the glass substrate by sputtering. Hartig teaches an exterior coating of silica and titania ( 411a, 441b). Hartig teaches an interior coating of a variety of materials. Each coating is provided by sputtering within the apparatus of figure 13a. Therefore the Examiner takes the position that sputter up target 134 provides either a silica or titania layer on the substrate and second targets 166 provide a zinc oxide and silver layer on the substrate’s interior surface. Therefore Hartig teach each of the second targets (166) includes a target material different from a target material of the first target (134), and wherein the chamber is a single chamber (Fig. 13a), and a number (1 target) of the first target (134) in the single chamber is less than a number (2 targets) of the second targets (166)in the single chamber ([0043], [0056], [0063] Fig. 13a, Fig. 6).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first and second targets of Krisko by providing each of the second targets includes a target material different from a target material of the first target, and wherein the chamber is a single chamber, and a number of the first target in the single chamber is less than a number of the second targets in the single chamber, as taught by Hartig, because it would provide a coating applied upwardly and downwardly in a single pass of the substrate to facilitate rapid and efficient coating of both major surfaces of the substrate [0007].
Regarding claim 17, Krisko teaches performing the first deposition process includes:
applying vacuum pressure to the inner space of the chamber; supplying a process gas into the inner space of the chamber; and applying a power supply voltage to the first deposition source [0051-0052].
Regarding claim 18, Krisko does not teach sealing the first deposition source using the barrier before the performing the second deposition process.
Choi teaches sealing the first deposition source is performed before the performing the second deposition process (FIG. 6b, 6c) because it would block the other deposition sources [0155].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the deposition apparatus of Krisko by sealing the first deposition source is performed before the performing the second deposition process, as taught by Choi, because it would block the other deposition sources [0155].
Regarding claim 19, Krisko teaches wherein a first deposition layer (silica, [0051]) is formed on the substrate by the first deposition process, wherein a second deposition layer is formed on the first deposition layer by the second deposition process (titania, [0052]), wherein the first deposition layer is thinner than the second deposition layer ([0051-0052],[0059-0060]).
Regarding claim 20, Krisko teaches the deposition source further includes a third deposition source, and wherein the deposition method further comprises performing a third deposition process using the third deposition source while the substrate moves in the first direction after the performing the second deposition process (two or more films deposited before titania film, [0052]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection set out above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 on 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.
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794