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, 2, 13, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashyap et al (2022/0327262) in view of Matthews (WO 2005062346).
The Kashyap et al reference teaches a method and apparatus of depositing a material onto a substrate, note, entire reference. A chamber is arranged with a chamber body and a substrate support inside. There is a means of delivering precursor gases, note, fig 1-3. There are heating elements above and below the substrate support, note, para 0037. The first step is to acquire a baseline recipe for the process. A first setting is determined at a first pressure and other conditions, note para 0047. Then a second pressure setting can be determined which can be higher then the first pressure setting, para 0062. A substrate can be placed in the chamber and a layer deposited onto the substrate using the process recipe and settings, note para 0092 and claims. The sole difference between the instant claim and the prior art is the control and recipe including a temperature parameter. However, the Matthews reference teaches a substrate processing system with the modeling and recipes with using different temperatures of the substrate, note summary of invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Kashyap et al reference by the teachings of the Matthews reference to add a temperature component to the recipe and modelling in order to increase the quality of the deposited layer.
With respect to claim 2, the Kashyap et al reference teaches using a second substrate with the same recipe, note fig 3.
With respect to claim 13, the Kashyap et al reference teaches that the system changes and adjusts profiles based on steps in the process, note para 0048.
With respect to claim 15, the Kashyap et al reference teaches that the controller is responsive to previous data, note claims.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashyap et al (2022/0327262) in view of Matthews (WO 2005062346).
The Kashyap et al and Matthews references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the determine the second substrate thickness being within the threshold margin. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum ,operable thickness of the second substrate in the combined references in order to ensure that the recipe will be proper for that substrate.
Claim(s) 11, 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashyap et al (2022/0327262) in view of Matthews (WO 2005062346).
The Kashyap et al and Matthews references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the material deposited. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum ,operable material phosphorus doped silicon in the combined references in order to grow a specific device as the references are open to the material deposited.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashyap et al (2022/0327262) in view of Matthews (WO 2005062346).
The Kashyap et al and Matthews references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the pressure ranges. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum ,operable pressure ranges in the combined references in order to ensure proper process conditions.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashyap et al (2022/0327262) in view of Matthews (WO 2005062346).
The Kashyap et al and Matthews references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the determine the second substrate thickness being within the threshold margin. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum ,operable thickness of the second substrate in the combined references in order to ensure that the recipe will be proper for that substrate.
Claim(s) 16 to 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashyap et al (2022/0327262) in view of Matthews (WO 2005062346).
The Kashyap et al and Matthews references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the gas flow recipe. 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 gas flow based on a second temperature profile in the combined references in order to have the deposition at proper temperatures for the pressures.
Claims 4-10 and 19-22 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 instantly claimed invention. The prior art does not teach removal of a precursor gas as is now set forth in the modelling and controlling of the deposition process.
Examiner’s Remarks
The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art in the controlling of deposition.
.
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