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 6/18/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome the previously presented objection and thus the objection is withdrawn.
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to the claims have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and thus the rejections are withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, the limitation “through one or more gas manifold outlets” is not fully supported by the original specification. The only mention of “outlets” in the specification is in paragraphs 0042-0043 and 0046, which all recite “outlets” and not a single “outlet”. Therefore, there is only support for multiple outlets in the gas manifold and no support for a single (i.e., one) gas manifold outlet. Therefore, claim 1 lacks written description support.
Claims 2-13 are rejected by virtue of depending on a claim that lacks written description support.
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) 1-3, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asahina (JP H09180896 A) in view of Clarke (US 5135634 A), Roth (US 20030159920 A1), and Lin (US 20060110620 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Asahina (JP H09180896 A) teaches a sputtering process comprising introducing argon gas (process gas) into a vacuum chamber, ionizing the process gas to form an ionized argon gas using a laser, colliding the argon ions with the surface of a target (accelerating the ionized process gas into a target material surface) to deposit a thin film (para 0014-0017; Fig. 1).
Asahina fails to explicitly teach the ionized process gas is accelerated into the target material surface using an actively controlled electric field and removing electrons generated by ionization and sputtering processes with the actively controlled electric field. However, Clarke (US 5135634 A), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches a shield (60, 70) between a target 12 and a substrate 14 where the shield may have a positive potential (electric field) to attract electrons (removing electrons generated by ionization and sputtering) and repel ions where the magnitude of the positive voltage may be controlled (actively controlled electric field) while a negative voltage is applied to the target to attract the argon ions toward the target (Abstract, col 5 line 45-68, claim 4; Fig. 1, 3). Additionally, Roth (US 20030159920 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches a power source applies a DC power to a target that generates an electric field between a cathode target and anode chamber that attracts and accelerates positively charged argon atoms toward the target (ionized process gas accelerated to the target material surface) while the anode chamber attracts free electrons of the plasma (removing electrons generated by ionization) and where the substrate support may also act as an anode (para 0023). Asahina teaches a DC power supply connected to the target and wafer support to make the target a cathode and the wafer support an anode, where the argon ions in the plasma collide with the surface of the target and a shield may be included between the target and wafer (para 0013-0014; 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 include a controllable power supply, as described by Clarke, connected to the shield of Asahina to control the deposition process and funnel sputtered particles towards the substrate while removing electrons from the deposition. Additionally, 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 DC power supply of Asahina with the DC power supply of Roth to accelerate the ionized argon towards the target and sputter the target material because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). As a result, the combination of Asahina, Clarke, and Roth includes an actively controlled electric field generated at least by the voltages applied to the target and shield, where the electric field accelerates ionized argon towards the target and at least some electrons generated by ionizing the process gas and sputtering the target are removed by the shield voltage.
The combination of Asahina, Clarke, and Roth fails to explicitly teach the process gas is introduced into the vacuum chamber through one or more gas manifold outlets of a gas manifold and the ionization laser is directed adjacent to the one or more gas manifold outlets to form a localized laser ionization zone. However, Lin (US 20060110620 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that process gas for impinging and sputtering material from the target may be introduced into the chamber via a mixing manifold feeding a gas distributor having one or more outlets 182 (para 0040; Fig. 4). Asahina teaches argon sputter gas is introduced into the plasma generation space (para 0013-0014) but is silent to the exact method of introduction. 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 argon introduction method of Asahina with a gas mixing manifold for introducing the argon gas, as described by Lin, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of introducing gas to a vacuum chamber. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Additionally, because the gas manifold outlets of Lin (Fig. 4 – 182) are exposed to (i.e., adjacent to) the plasma generation region, the laser beam of Asahina directed to generate plasma in the plasma generation space 22 (para 0016, 0022; Fig. 1) would necessarily be directed “adjacent” to the one or more gas manifold outlets of the gas manifold and would necessarily form an ionized process gas within the plasma generation space (localized laser ionization zone).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Asahina, Clarke, Roth, and Lin teaches controlling the amplitude and power of laser light to achieve a light intensity suitable for exciting argon molecules in a plasma generation space (power of the laser is varied to control a number of ions produced within an ionization zone) and controlling the direction of the laser light (focus of the laser is varied) which inherently controls the number of ions produced in the laser ionization zone by concentrating on more locations with the laser (Asahina para 0018-0020, 0023).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Asahina, Clarke, Roth, and Lin teaches controlling the amplitude and power of laser light to achieve a light intensity suitable for exciting argon molecules in a plasma generation space (power of the laser is varied to control an ionization level of ions produced within an ionization zone) and controlling the direction of the laser light (focus of the laser is varied) which inherently controls an ionization level of ions produced by ionizing the argon from a neutral state to a positively charged state (Asahina para 0018-0020, 0023).
Alternatively, or in addition, the combination of Asahina, Clarke, Roth, and Lin teaches at least power and focus of the laser may be controlled (Asahina para 0018-0020) and therefore the power and focus are inherently capable of being varied (can be varied) to control an ionization level of ions produced within the ionization zone.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Asahina, Clarke, Roth, and Lin teaches the ionization process can be controlled differently based on the flow rate of argon gas (Asahina para 0018) but fails to explicitly teach a process gas pressure within an ionization cross section of the laser limits the number of ions produced by ionization. However, the number of argon ions produced by the laser ionization of Asahina is necessarily limited by the pressure/amount of argon gas within the area the laser ionizes because the maximum number of argon ions that can be generated (limit) is equal to the number of argon atoms available to be ionized (process gas pressure within an ionization cross-section).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Asahina, Clarke, Roth, and Lin teaches a laser device 32 emits a single laser that creates at least a line of plasma activation within the plasma generation space 22 (Asahina para 0016-0020, 0022-0023; Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Asahina, Clarke, Roth, and Lin teaches the laser may have its direction adjusted to prevent the laser from concentrating on a single point where the laser ionizes argon to sputter material onto a substrate (Asahina para 0014-0016, 0020) and thus the laser ionization zone would be scanned/moved relative to the target material surface and coating uniformity deposited onto the substrate would necessarily be adjusted/influenced/controlled based on the position and number of the argon ions that are excited/ionized by the laser.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asahina (JP H09180896 A) in view of Clarke (US 5135634 A), Roth (US 20030159920 A1), and Lin (US 20060110620 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walton (US 20050040037 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Asahina, Clarke, Roth, and Lin fails to explicitly teach independent control of an average kinetic energy of ions arriving at the target material surface and an ion flux arriving at the target material surface are used to control a sputter rate. However, Walton (US 20050040037 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that the removal rate of target material (sputter rate) may be controlled by applying a target voltage/bias to increase the ion flux and incident ion (kinetic) energy (para 0006). Asahina teaches controlling the intensity of the laser light such that the argon molecules are excited and ionized (para 0018), thus controlling the excitation (average kinetic energy) of ions. Clarke teaches providing a negative voltage on the target to attract the ions (claim 4), thus controlling the ion flux arriving at the target. 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 control the laser intensity and target voltage of Asahina in view of Clarke in order to control the energy of ions colliding with the target and flux of ions colliding with the target to achieve a desired sputtering rate.
Claim(s) 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asahina (JP H09180896 A) in view of Clarke (US 5135634 A), Roth (US 20030159920 A1), and Lin (US 20060110620 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Le (US 20080296142 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Asahina, Clarke, Roth, and Lin teaches the laser may have its direction adjusted (scanned relative to the target) to prevent the laser from concentrating on a single point where the laser ionizes argon to sputter material onto a substrate (Asahina para 0014-0016, 0020), which would influence target erosion due to affecting the number and location of collisions with the ionized argon gas. The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the laser is scanned to maximize target erosion. However, Le (US 20080296142 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that a greater number of inert gas ions in the plasma results in a greater amount of sputtering/erosion (para 0005-0006, 0049). Asahina teaches controlling the direction of the laser to avoid concentrating on a single point, where the laser directly excites and ionizes argon atoms in the plasma generation space (para 0020, 0023). 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 vary the direction of the laser (scanning) to excite/ionize more argon atoms in order to achieve a maximum possible sputtering/deposition rate and target erosion, thus increasing the process efficiency.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Asahina, Clarke, Roth, and Lin fails to explicitly teach the ionized process gas is created in a position relative to the target material surface such that an angle of incidence of the ionized process gas arriving at the target material surface optimizes a sputter yield. However, Le (US 20080296142 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that a greater number of inert gas ions in the plasma results in a greater amount of sputtering/erosion (para 0005-0006, 0049). Asahina teaches controlling the direction of the laser to avoid concentrating on a single point, where the laser directly excites and ionizes argon atoms in the plasma generation space (para 0020, 0023). 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 vary the direction of the laser to excite/ionize more argon atoms in order to achieve a maximum possible sputtering/deposition rate and target erosion, thus increasing the process efficiency. As a result, because the combination of Asahina and Le ionizes as many atoms as possible, at least some of the ionized process gas would necessarily be created in a position such that an angle of incidence of the process gas at the target material surface optimizes a sputter yield compared to the other ions.
Claim(s) 6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asahina (JP H09180896 A) in view of Clarke (US 5135634 A), Roth (US 20030159920 A1), and Lin (US 20060110620 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sandhu (US 20040216993 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Asahina, Clarke, Roth, and Lin fails to explicitly teach multiple laser beams configured to converge to produce a plasma activation spot. However, Sandhu (US 20040216993 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches multiple ionizing sources 60 that generate lasers to ionize desired particles where the laser beams may overlap (configured to converge), where the number of ionizers may vary (para 0047-0049, 0053; Fig. 2). Asahina teaches a laser device 32 that emits laser light into a chamber, where various types of laser devices are possible (para 0016-0017; 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 single laser device of Asahina with multiple laser devices capable of overlapping/converging, as described by Sandhu, to increase the amount and/or rate of ionization because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Asahina, Clarke, Roth, and Lin teaches the target 14 surface is sputtered by argon gas ionized by laser light (Asahina para 0014-0016; Fig. 1), where the surface of the target may be defined as having multiple surfaces (e.g., an inner surface near the center of the target and an outer surface surrounding the inner surface). Alternatively, as the target is sputtered, a new surface is exposed due to some of the target being sputtered and the new surface would also be sputtered by the ionized argon, thus resulting in multiple target surfaces being sputtered by the lasers. The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach multiple lasers. However, Sandhu (US 20040216993 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches multiple ionizing sources 60 that generate lasers to ionize desired particles, where the number of ionizers may vary (para 0047-0049, 0053; Fig. 2). Asahina teaches a laser device 32 that emits laser light into a chamber, where various types of laser devices are possible (para 0016-0017; 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 single laser device of Asahina with multiple laser devices, as described by Sandhu, to increase the amount and/or rate of ionization because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Alternatively, 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 an additional laser in the apparatus of Asahina because the duplication of lasers would have no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Asahina, Clarke, Roth, and Lin teaches the target 14 surface (single target material surface) is sputtered by argon gas ionized by laser light (Asahina para 0014-0016; Fig. 1). The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach multiple lasers. However, Sandhu (US 20040216993 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches multiple ionizing sources 60 that generate lasers to ionize desired particles, where the number of ionizers may vary (para 0047-0049, 0053; Fig. 2). Asahina teaches a laser device 32 that emits laser light into a chamber, where various types of laser devices are possible (para 0016-0017; 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 single laser device of Asahina with multiple laser devices, as described by Sandhu, to increase the amount and/or rate of ionization because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Alternatively, 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 an additional laser in the apparatus of Asahina because the duplication of lasers would have no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asahina (JP H09180896 A) in view of Clarke (US 5135634 A), Roth (US 20030159920 A1), and Lin (US 20060110620 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson (US 20030042131 A1) and Walton (US 20050040037 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Asahina, Clarke, Roth, and Lin fails to explicitly teach the ionized process gas is created in a position relative to the target material surface such that an average kinetic energy of the ionized process gas arriving at the target material surface optimizes a sputter yield. However, Johnson (US 20030042131 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches a sputtering yield can be optimized by controlling the argon ion (kinetic) energy (para 0128). Additionally, Walton (US 20050040037 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that incident ion (kinetic) energy may be controlled by applying a controlled target voltage/bias (para 0006). Clarke teaches providing a negative voltage on the target to attract the ions (claim 4). 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 control target voltage of Asahina in view of Clarke in order to control the (average kinetic) energy of ions colliding with the target to achieve an optimal sputtering yield. As a result, the ionized process gas would be created in a position relative to the target material surface wherein the average kinetic energy arriving at the target material is controlled to optimize the sputtering yield.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10, filed 6/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lin (US 20060110620 A1).
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach ionizing the process gas with a laser directed adjacent to the one or more gas manifold outlets to form an ionized process gas within a localized laser ionization zone, which purposefully exploits the highest process gas pressure zone in the vacuum system to maximize ion production efficiency. This argument is not persuasive because the amended claims do not require the laser ionization to exploit the highest process gas pressure zone to maximize ion production efficiency. Rather, the amended claims only require that the laser is directed “adjacent” to the manifold outlets without specifying how close the laser needs to be or what its orientation is relative to the manifold outlets and therefore the claim may be broadly met by the laser passing into the plasma formation space of the chamber located near/adjacent to the manifold.
Applicant argues that Asahina and Clarke rely on confining electrons near the target to sustain their plasmas and thus are incongruous with removing electrons with the electric field. This argument is not persuasive because the claim does not require removing “all” electrons. Additionally, Clarke teaches that electrons may be attracted (removed) by the shield and therefore would not be incongruous because the attraction of electrons does not extinguish the plasma, rather the attraction of electrons toward the anode/shield is intended to prevent electrons exiting the plasma from contacting the substrate.
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
Prosecution Insights