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 with traverse of Group II, Species I (Fig. 4A), sub-species A (Fig. 5), claims 14-31 in the reply filed on 12/24/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species I (Fig. 4A) and Species II (Fig. 4B) are not patentably distinct species and are found persuasive.
Claims 32-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/24/2025.
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.
Claims 14-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “..the first stress and the second stress are oriented in a same direction” is not clear what orientation in a direction means? Is it rotated/oriented in a same direction? As best understood from the disclosure it has been interpreted as compressive stresses in a linear direction having directions outwards as shown in Fig. 3.
Claims 15-31 are also rejected being dependent on rejected claim 14.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 14-16, 24, 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chiao et al (US 2019/0293850 A1) in view of Ronald et al (WO 2009080610 A1).
Regarding claim 14: Chiao teaches in Fig. 2A, 2B, 5 about a substrate processing method of forming a carbon-based film on a substrate (Fig. 5), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
634
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a process of placing the substrate on a stage (Fig. 5);
a first film forming process of forming a first carbon-based film 114 having a first stress (Fig. 2A);
a second film forming process of forming a second carbon-based film 112a having a second stress (Fig. 2A); and
a third film forming process of repeating the first film forming process and the second film forming process to form a stacked body 110b of the first carbon-based film and the second carbon-based film (Fig. 2B),
wherein the first stress and the second stress are oriented in a same direction, and the first stress and the second stress have different intensities.
Chiao does not explicitly talk about wherein the first stress and the second stress are oriented in a same direction, and the first stress and the second stress have different intensities.
However Chiao teaches in [0034] –[0035] about both DLC layers of 112 and 114 are being compressive (and therefore oriented in a same direction) and an sp3/sp2 ratio of the second DLC layer 114 is lower than the sp3/sp2 ratio of the first DLC layer 112 and a higher sp3 content (and exhibits more diamond-like behavior, i.e., is harder) than a second DLC layer 114 that has a lower modulus of elasticity and a lower sp3 content and a higher sp2 content than the first DLC layer 112) (and exhibits more graphite-like behavior, i.e., is softer). Ronald also teaches in Table 1, Fig. 2, [0003] about polymer-like-carbon layer 24 and diamond-like-carbon layer 26 with different Sp3 content and having different hardness and characteristics having compressive stresses.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application was filed to realize that the stress in the layer 112 of Chiao and the layer of 24 in Ronald would have less compressive stress than the stress in the layer 114 of Chiao and the layer of 26 in Ronald (and therefore different stresses) and thereby reducing the poor adhesion to the substrate (Ronald, [0003])
Regarding claim 15: As explained in claim 14, Chiao in view of Ronald teaches wherein the first stress and the second stress are compressive stresses (both being carbon layer having different sp3/sp2 ratios).
Regarding claims 16, 24: As explained in claim 14, Chiao in view of Ronald teaches wherein a stress intensity in the first carbon-based film is smaller than a stress intensity in the second carbon-based film (both being carbon layer having different sp3/sp2 ratios, first layer is polymer-like-carbon and the second layer is diamond-like-carbon).
Regarding claim 26: Ronald teaches in Fig. 1, 2 wherein a film in contact with the substrate 22 is the first carbon-based film 24.
Regarding claim 27: Chiao in view of Ronald does not explicitly show wherein a film in contact with the substrate is the second carbon-based film, and wherein the second carbon-based film in contact with the substrate has a thickness smaller than other second carbon-based films in the stacked body.
However Chiao teaches in Fig. 3 about high index film 122 in contact with substrate and [0052] – [0055] teaches the layers of MLD film 120 may also have different thicknesses.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have the feature as claimed in Chiao’s device with routine experiment and optimization since The MLD film 120 may be configured to be substantially or completely transmissive to one or more bands of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation according to the teaching of Chiao ([0056]). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 28: As explained in claim 14, Chiao in view of Ronald teaches wherein a stress intensity in the stacked body is controlled by a ratio of the first carbon-based film and the second carbon-based film (both being carbon layer having different sp3/sp2 ratios).
Regarding claim 29: Chiao in Fig. 2B and Ronald in Fig. 2 teaches wherein in the third film forming process, the first film forming process and the second film forming process are alternately repeated.
Regarding claim 30: As explained in claim 14, Chiao in view of Ronald teaches wherein the carbon-based film is a carbon film.
Regarding claim 31: Chiao teaches in [0001] wherein the stacked body is a hard mask.
Claims 17-23, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chiao et al (US 2019/0293850 A1) in view of Ronald et al (WO 2009080610 A1) and further in view of Ukon et al. (JP 03-199376 A, applicant provided IDS)
Regarding claims 17, 25: Chiao in view of Ronald does not explicitly talk about wherein an intensity of the first stress and an intensity of the second stress are controlled by application of bias power to a lower electrode of the stage.
Uknon teaches in Fig. 2 wherein an intensity of the first stress and an intensity of the second stress are controlled by application of bias power 11 to a lower electrode 8 of the stage during film forming steps of 15, 16 etc.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application was filed to have the feature as claimed during film forming steps to apply the bias power through the lower electrode/cathode and changing the power supply voltage to be applied as needed (Ukon, page 3)
Regarding claim 18: Chiao in view of Ronald does not explicitly talk about wherein in the first film forming process, the bias power is not applied, and wherein in the second film forming process, the bias power is applied.
However Chiao teaches in table 1 about different bias powers associated with other parameters like % of flow rate, deposition rate etc. to have various characteristics of the formed DLC layer and Uknon teaches in Fig. 2 application of bias power is controlled by application of bias power 11 to a lower electrode 8 of the stage during film forming steps of 15, 16 etc.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have the feature in the first film forming process, the bias power is not applied, and wherein in the second film forming process, the bias power is applied with routine experiment and optimization since applying the bias power is controlled by application of bias power 11 to a lower electrode 8 of the stage during film forming steps of 15, 16 etc. according to the teaching of Ukon ([page 3, Fig. 2]). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 19: Ronald teaches in Fig. 1, 2wherein a film in contact with the substrate 22 is the first carbon-based film 24.
Regarding claim 20: As explained in claim 14, Chiao in view of Ronald teaches wherein a stress intensity in the stacked body is controlled by a ratio of the first carbon-based film and the second carbon-based film (both being carbon layer having different sp3/sp2 ratios).
Regarding claim 21: Chiao in Fig. 2B and Ronald in Fig. 2 teaches wherein in the third film forming process, the first film forming process and the second film forming process are alternately repeated.
Regarding claim 22: As explained in claim 14, Chiao in view of Ronald teaches wherein the carbon-based film is a carbon film.
Regarding claim 23: Chiao teaches in [0001] wherein the stacked body is a hard mask.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED SHAMSUZZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 am -4 pm 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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Mohammed Shamsuzzaman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897