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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, and indicating claims 1-20 readable thereon, in the reply filed on 3 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that typically during US examination individually recited features are interpreted as separate features. However, this is not a requirement, where Applicant’s claims clearly set forth the claimed invention at issue. Notably, in the instant application, BRI interpretation of claimed structural features allows for and at times necessarily includes “overlap” and “combination” where not precluded by the disclosure or claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are drawn to a claimed invention of “a control system of a deposition source”. However, the claimed control system also includes a claimed deposition source. Thus, the preamble is at best unclear. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has interpreted the claimed invention as a deposition system, wherein the deposition system is capable of including the recited deposition source and the recited control system. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-12 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0086681 to Ikuta et al.
Regarding claim 1: In, e.g., Figs. 1 and 8, Ikuta et al. disclose a control system of a deposition source comprising: a deposition source (110a-f) that includes a heater (110a1-f1) and provides a deposition material to a substrate (G); a sensor (180) that detects an amount of the deposition material provided to the substrate; a rate calculator (200; also see, e.g., para. 81) that calculates a first deposition rate based on the amount of the deposition material provided to the substrate; and a filter (e.g. 730) that calculates a second deposition rate by removing noise from the first deposition rate.
With respect to claim 2, in Ikuta et al., the sensor is a quartz crystal microbalance (QCM). See, e.g., paras. 77
With respect to claim 4, in Ikuta et al., the filter removes the noise in case that the deposition rate is outside of a predetermined range (see, e.g., paras. 84-85 and 102-113).
With respect to claim 5, in Ikuta et al., the apparatus further comprises a first controller (700) that generates a control signal based on the second deposition rate (see, e.g., paras. 84-85 and 102-113).
With respect to claim 6, in Ikuta et al., the first controller may be a proportional integral derivative (PID) control-type controller (see, e.g., paras. 30 and 139).
With respect to claim 7, in Ikuta et al., the control signal necessarily controls an amount of power supplied to the heater by controlling the voltage (see, e.g., paras. 84-85 and 102-113).
With respect to claim 8, in Ikuta et al., the filter and the first controller are implemented in the same device (700).
With respect to claim 9, in Ikuta et al., the system further comprises a second controller (e.g. 710, 740, 750) that stores a reference rate and provides the reference rate to the first controller.
Regarding claim 11: In, e.g., Figs. 1 and 8, Ikuta et al. disclose a control system of a deposition source comprising: a deposition source (110a-f) that includes a heater (110a1-f1) and provides a deposition material to a substrate (G); a sensor (180) that detects an amount of the deposition material provided to the substrate; a rate calculator (200; also see, e.g., para. 81) that calculates a first deposition rate based on the amount of the deposition material provided to the substrate; a filter (e.g. 730) that calculates a second deposition rate by removing noise from the first deposition rate; and a first controller (730) that compares the second deposition rate with a reference rate and generates a signal necessarily controlling an amount of power supplied to the heater by controlling the voltage (see, e.g., paras. 84-85 and 102-113).
With respect to claim 12, in Ikuta et al., the sensor is a quartz crystal microbalance (QCM). See, e.g., paras. 77
With respect to claim 14, in Ikuta et al., the filter removes the noise in case that the deposition rate is outside of a predetermined range (see, e.g., paras. 84-85 and 102-113).
With respect to claim 15, in Ikuta et al., the first controller generates the control signal based on the second deposition rate in case that the first deposition rate is outside of the predetermined range (see, e.g., paras. 84-85 and 102-113).
With respect to claim 16, in Ikuta et al., the first controller generates the control signal based on the first deposition rate in case that the first deposition rate is within the predetermined range (see, e.g., paras. 84-85 and 102-113).
With respect to claim 17, in Ikuta et al., the first controller may be a proportional integral derivative (PID) control-type controller (see, e.g., paras. 30 and 139).
With respect to claim 18, in Ikuta et al., the filter and the first controller are implemented in the same device (730).
With respect to claim 19, in Ikuta et al., the system further comprises a second controller (710, 740, 750) that stores a reference rate and provides the reference rate to the first controller.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikuta et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-12 and 14-19 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0216099 to Wu et al.
Ikuta et al. disclose the deposition/control system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Ikuta et al. fail to disclose the filter is a median filter.
Wu et al. disclose use of a median filter (i.e. calculation model calculating frequency variation median value) in a similar deposition/control system for purpose of, inter alia, removing error in oscillation frequency of oscillator sheets/sensors (i.e. QCMs) (see, e.g., paras. 18-19, 32, 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the filter in Ikuta et al. as a median filter in order to remove error in oscillation frequency of the sensor as taught by Wu et al.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikuta et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-12 and 14-19 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0215397 to Rinzan.
Ikuta et al. disclose the deposition/control system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Ikuta et al. fail to disclose the second controller is a programmable logic controller.
In a similar deposition/control system, Rinzan discloses using various types of controllers including a programmable logic controller for the purpose of providing an exemplary data-processing system for analyzing data and performing other analyses (see, e.g., para. 25). Additionally, the courts have ruled that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the second controller as a programmable logic controller for the purpose of providing an exemplary data-processing system for analyzing data and performing other analyses as taught by Rinzan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP Pub. 2011/0189380 to Jang et al. disclose a deposition with a control system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights