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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination as filed with the preliminary amendment of November 29, 2023.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on November 29, 2023. These drawings are approved.
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 1-6, 8-17 and 19-20 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.
Claim 1 and claim 14, “high frequency” is unclear and indefinite as to what range is covered to be considered “high frequency”. High frequency, for example, can commonly refer to 3-30 MHz range, while in claim 7 applicant refers to a frequency of 40 MHz or more? So, does applicant mean to cover 3 MHz or more, and is this supported in the disclosure as filed? Only 40 MHz or more? Something else? For the purpose of examination, any frequency of 3 MHz or more is understood to meet the claim requirements, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
The other dependent claims do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend and are therefore also rejected.
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Venkatasubramanian et al (US 2019/0393034).
Claim 1: Venkatasubramanian describes a plasma CVD method for forming a carbon containing film, where the process includes placing a substrate on a substrate placement table/chuck in a processing chamber/container and exhausting and depressurizing the inside of the chamber, and forming a carbon film on the substrate where high frequency RF power can be applied to the substrate chuck and DC voltage (which can be pulsed) also applied to the chuck (note chucking voltage) (so superimposed high frequency power and DC pulse voltage applied to the table), where plasma is generated by the power, while supplying carbon containing precursor processing gas into the depressurized chamber (note figures 1, 3A, 6, 0018, 0022, 0024, 0055, 0025, 0030, 0032-0033, note that the further ion implanting is not prevented by the present claims).
Claim 8: the processing gas can include argon or helium, for example (note 0028).
Claim 14: Venkatasubramanian also teaches a film forming apparatus (note figure 6, 0054). The apparatus includes a processing container/chamber 600 configured to contain a substrate 617, a substrate placement table/support 615 on which the substrate is placed and placed inside the container (note 0054, 0056, figure 5, 0022, support as electrostatic chuck), an upper electrode/showerhead 607 provided to face the table/support 615 (note 0054, 0031, figure 5), a processing gas supply 610 configured to supply a gas used for processing into the processing chamber, an exhaust apparatus 614 configured to exhaust the inside of the container to depressurize the container (note figure5, 0054-0055), a high frequency (RF) power supply 622 configured to provide the power to the table (note figure 5, 0056, and 0030, RF power to the chuck), and a DC pulse power supply configured to apply a DC pulse voltage to the table (note 0030, DC voltage to the chuck from a power source, where the DC voltage can be pulsed 0022). Venkatasubramanian further teaches to provide a system controller 630 which controls operation of the chamber/container and implement the processing methods, including using a program to implement the methods disclosed (note 0057-0058). Since the process features would include those of claim 1 as discussed above, the controller would be taught to be configured to provide the processing method of claim 1, which would provide all the features of which is claimed that the controller would be configured to provide.
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.
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.
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 7, 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatasubramanian et al (US 2019/0393034).
Venkatasubramanian teaches the features of claims 1, 8 and 14 as discussed in the 35 USC 102 rejection using Venkatasubramanian above.
Claims 7, 18: as to the high frequency power, Venkatasubramanian further describes that RF power applied to the chuck/table can be about 11-60 MHz, for example (note 0030), overlapping the claimed range, and it would have been obvious to optimize from this range, giving a value tin the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). As to claim 18, it further would have been obvious that this would be provided in the controller configuration as the controller is used to control operation of the chamber, and implement the methods, which would include the RF power (note 0057).
Claim 9: as to the pressure inside the chamber being set to 2.66 Pa or less, Venkatasubramanian provides that the chamber pressure can be set to 0.1 mTorr to 10 Torr (o.o1 Pa to 1333 Pa), or about 5-20 mTorr (o.67 to 2.67 Pa), for example) (note 0024), and it would have been obvious to optimize from this range, giving a value in the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakahigashi et al (US 2002/0039626).
Claim 1: Nakahigashi teaches a film forming method (note 0024). The method includes placing a substrate (object S) on a substrate placement table (electrode 2) provided in a processing container (chamber 1) (note figures 1, 4, 0076). The inside of the processing container is exhausted and depressurized (note figures 1, 4, 0076, exhaust device 5 operates to achieve predetermined degree of vacuum, 0109). A carbon film is formed on the substrate by applying a superimposed high frequency power (RF power) and direct current (DC) pulse voltage to the substrate placement table to generate plasma while supplying a processing gas containing a carbon containing gas into the depressurized processing container (note figures 1, 4, 0076, 0037 note superposed RF and DC power, 0039 pulsed DC power, 0043 forming carbon film, where gas would have carbon compound 0045, where a flow of gas is indicated during deposition note 0109, for example, so EITHER (1) for 35 USC 102 purposes the application of the power and voltage and plasma forming occurs while supplying the processing gas, or (2) for 35 USC 103 purposes, this application of powder and voltage and plasma forming would be suggested to occur while supplying the processing gas since there is a flow of gas and continuing this flow would allow build up of material as more material provided to be deposited, noting deposition occurs for a period of time, see 0109, for example).
Claim 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahigashi et al (US 2002/0039626).
The features of claim 1 would be indicted from Nakahigashi as discussed in the 35 USC 102/103 rejection of claim 1 using Nakahigashi as discussed above.
Claim 5 and 6: As to the duty ratio of the direct current pulse voltage, Nakahigashi indicates the pulsed DC voltage can be used and have a duty ratio of 10-90% note (0039-0040, 0096). It would have been obvious to optimize from this range, which overlaps the claimed range, giving a value in the claimed range of claims 5 and 6. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 7: as the frequency of the high frequency (RF) power, Nakahigashi indicates that the RF power can be 10-100 MHz when without modulation (note 0032, 0109), and it would have been obvious to optimize from this range, which overlaps the claimed range, giving a value in the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 2-4, 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahigashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sciamanna et al (US 2009/0029067).
Claim 2: As to the absolute value of the direct current pulsed voltage, Nakahigashi gives an example of an absolute value of 1 kV (1000 V) (note 0104). Nakahigashi describes the process as plasma CVD (note 0024).
Sciamanna describes a plasma CVD process where a substrate is placed on substrate holder/table in a processing container/chamber, the inside of the chamber is exhausted and depressurized, a carbon film is provided on the substrate by applying pulsed DC power/voltage to the substrate holder to generate plasma while also supplying RF power to the system, where a processing gas containing a carbon containing gas is supplied into the chamber (note figure 1, 0022-0026, 0038, 0056-0058, claim 1), where it is indicated that bias voltage can be used with an absolute value of 600-3000 V (note 0026) and noting how voltage in general can be adjusted as part of optimizing a treatment cycle (note 0054-0057) and bias voltage example of 2000 V (note 0060).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakahigashi to optimize the direct current pulse voltage to provide the best results as suggested by Sciamanna to provide the best treatment possible, since Nakahigashi indicates the provide voltage from a pulsed DC source, where the voltage can be 1000 V (absolute), where Sciamanna teaches that in a similar carbon deposition system with use of RF power and pulsed DC voltage, it can be desired to optimize the voltage used and also bias voltage, suggesting to optimize the specific DC pulse voltage used in the process of Nakahigashi with an expectation of providing optimized treatment, giving a result of voltage in the claimed range. Note "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 3, 4, as to the ion energy, furthermore, Sciamanna as discussed for claim 2 above also provides that it is desirable to provide the carbon compound precursor (diamondoid, note claim 1), and where it is desirable to have sp3 bonds from the precursor remain partially intact, where to do so, ion energy per carbon atom must be less than 400 eV at 100 mTorr, for example, to provide a desirable energy and give a desirable coating, so indicates providing bias voltage at less than 400 eV (note 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakahigashi to optimize the ion energy provided, including from the high frequency/RF power to provide the best results as suggested by Sciamanna to provide the best resulting coating, since Nakahigashi indicates to provide power from the RF source and DC pulse voltage, where Sciamanna teaches that in a similar carbon deposition system with use of diamondoid precursors it is desirable to a low ion energy per carbon atom to keep partially intact sp3 bonds in the precursor and give a good coating, where the ion energy is desirably less than 400 eV, and by optimizing to provide this condition the ion energy by the RF (high frequency) power would be optimized to be in the claimed range of claims 3 and 4. Note "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 8: as to the use of argon gas, when using Sciamanna as discussed for claims 2-4 above, Sciamanna would further indicate that when providing carbon containing gas to a plasma CVD deposition system, it is conventional to use carrier gases such as argon and N2 (note 0043, 0060).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakahigashi to use an argon carrier gas with the carbon containing gas as suggested by Sciamanna with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Nakahigashi indicates to provide carbon containing gas, where Sciamanna teaches that in a similar carbon deposition system it is conventional to provide the carbon containing gas with a carrier gas of argon as well.
Claims 10-12: As to initially forming an initial carbon film by generating plasma with a lower ion energy than that for forming the carbon film, while supplying a processing gas containing the carbon containing gas and not helium to the pressurized container in a depressurized state (claim 10), where the in the forming of the initial carbon film, the total ion energy is 300 eV or less (claim 11), and the plasma is generated for the initial film by applying the superimposed high frequency power and direct current pulse voltage to the table (claim 12), Nakahigashi provides that there can be an initial carbon film formation (interface film), followed by the further main/upper carbon film formation, where the layers can be made of the same material, and both layers formed by the method of the invention of Nakahigashi (so with the use of the superimposed high frequency power and direct current pulse voltage applied to the table, and supplying of processing gas containing a carbon containing gas into the chamber into a depressurized state, for example, as discussed for claim 1) (note 0040, 0041), where however, conditions such as power provided can vary from the initial to upper film production (note 0041-0042, 0109). The providing of the carbon containing gas in the initial layer can be without helium (as no helium indicated required by Nakahigashi, and note 0106). As to the total ion energy being lower for the initial layer, Nakahigashi does indicate the power for the upper layer can be not restricted (note 0042).
Furthermore, Sciamanna as discussed for claim 2 above also provides that it is desirable to provide the carbon compound precursor (diamondoid, note claim 1), and where it is desirable to have sp3 bonds from the precursor remain partially intact, where to do so, ion energy per carbon atom must be less than 400 eV at 100 mTorr, for example to provide a desirable energy and give a desirable coating, so indicates providing bias voltage at less than 400 eV (note 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakahigashi to optimize the ion energy provided, in each layer, including for the total ion energy, to provide the best results as suggested by Sciamanna to provide the best resulting coating, since Nakahigashi indicates to provide initial and upper layers of the same material, where processing conditions such as power can be adjusted, where the power for the upper layer is not restricted, where Sciamanna teaches that in a similar carbon deposition system with use of diamondoid precursors it is desirable to have a low ion energy per carbon atom to keep partially intact sp3 bonds in the precursor and give a good coating, where the ion energy is desirably less than 400 eV, and by optimizing to provide this condition the total ion energy would be optimized for each level to provide an plasma with a lower total ion energy, of 300 eV or less, for the initial layer and a higher ion energy (with the use of more power) for the upper layer, and further would suggest not using helium in the gases for the lower layer, since it indicates using argon or nitrogen carrier gases (note 0043). Note "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahigashi in view of Sciamanna as applied to claim 12-4, 8 and 10-12 above, and further in view of Venkatasubramanian et al (US 2019/0393034).
Claim 13: As to the film thickness of the initial carbon film, Nakahigashi indicates that there can be variable processing times for the initial layers and upper layers (note 0109, 0114, 0119, for example). Since the process is depositing the material as processed by the plasma, it is understood that longer times will deposit more material.
Venkatasubramanian describes a plasma CVD method for forming a carbon containing film, where the process includes placing a substrate on a table/chuck in a processing chamber/container and exhausting and depressurizing the inside of the chamber, and forming a carbon film on the substrate where high frequency RF power can be applied to the substrate holder and DC voltage (which can be pulsed) also applied to the holder (note chucking voltage), where plasma is generated from the supplied carbon containing precursor gas in the chamber (note figures 1, 6, 0018, 0022, 0024, 0055, 0025, 0030, 0032). Venkatasubramanian provides the deposited coating can be applied to a target thickness, of 0.5-1.5 microns (note 0041), where if target thickness not reached, another cycle occurs, that is, more time for processing builds up more coating (note 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakahigashi in view of Sciamanna to optimize the total thickness of the coating to be 0.5-1.5 microns as suggested by Venkatasubramanian to provide a desirable thickness, since Nakahigashi indicates to provide initial and upper layers of the same material, where processing conditions such as power can be adjusted, to provide a carbon coating, where Venkatasubramanian indicates how desired carbon coatings can have a thickness of 0.5-1.5 microns, and from Nakahigashi indicating how processing time for initial and upper layers can be adjusted, it would have been obvious to optimize from the total thickness, the thickness of the initial coating, and for this value to be int eh claimed range of 10-100 nm. Note "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 9, 14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahigashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Venkatasubramanian et al (US 2019/0393034).
Claim 9: Furthermore as to the pressure inside for depressurizing, Nakahashi gives examples of .1 to 1 Torr for deposition gas pressure (note 0104), with example deposition pressure of 0.1 Torr (note o1o9).
Venkatasubramanian describes a plasma CVD method for forming a carbon containing film, where the process includes placing a substrate on a table/chuck in a processing chamber/container and exhausting and depressurizing the inside of the chamber, and forming a carbon film on the substrate where high frequency RF power can be applied to the substrate chuck and DC voltage (which can be pulsed) also applied to the chuck (note chucking voltage), where plasma is generated from the supplied carbon containing precursor gas in the chamber (note figures 1, 6, 0018, 0022, 0024, 0055, 0025, 0030, 0032). Venkatasubramanian provides that the chamber pressure can be set to 0.1 mTorr to 10 Torr (o.o1 Pa to 1333 Pa), or about 5-20 mTorr (o.67 to 2.67 Pa), for example) (note 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakahigashi to depressurize the chamber to a pressure of about 5-20 mTorr (0.67 to 2.67 Pa) as suggested by Venkatasubramanian with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Nakahigashi indicates depressurize the chamber/container, and where Venkatasubramanian teaches that in a similar carbon deposition system the chamber can be depressurized to about 5-20 mTorr, and it would have been obvious to optimize from this range, giving a value in the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 14: As to the film forming apparatus, Nakahigashi teaches a film forming apparatus (note figures 1, 4, 0075). The apparatus includes a processing container/chamber 1 configured to contain a substrate/object S, a substrate placement table/electrode 2 on which the substrate is placed and placed inside the container (note 0075-0076, figure 1), an upper electrode 3 provided to face the table/electrode 2 (note 0028, figure 1), a processing gas supply 4 configured to supply a gas used for processing into the processing chamber, an exhaust apparatus 5 configured to exhaust the inside of the container to depressurize the container (note figure 1, 0076), a high frequency (RF) power supply configured to provide the power to the table (note figures 1, 4, 0076, 0085), and a DC pulse power supply configured to apply a DC pulse voltage to the table (note figure 1, 0076, 0039).
As to providing the controller, where the controller is configured to provide the features as in claim 1, as discussed for claim 1 above, Nakahigashi would want to provide the processing features as in claim 1.
Additionally, Venkatasubramanian also teaches a film forming apparatus (note figure 6, 0054). The apparatus includes a processing container/chamber 600 configured to contain a substrate 617, a substrate placement table/support 615 on which the substrate is placed and placed inside the container (note 0054, 0056, figure 5, 0022, support as electrostatic chuck), an upper electrode/showerhead 607 provided to face the table/support 615 (note 0054, 0031, figure 5), a processing gas supply 610 configured to supply a gas used for processing into the processing chamber, an exhaust apparatus 614 configured to exhaust the inside of the container to depressurize the container (note figure5, 0054-0055), a high frequency (RF) power supply 622 configured to provide the power to the table (note figure 5, 0056, and 0030, RF power to the chuck), and a DC pulse power supply configured to apply a DC pulse voltage to the table (note 0030, DC voltage to the chuck from a power source, where the DC voltage can be pulsed 0022). Venkatasubramanian further teaches to provide a system controller 630 which controls operation of the chamber/container and implement the processing methods, including using a program to implement the methods disclosed (note 0057-0058). Venkatasubramanian describes a plasma CVD method for forming a carbon containing film, where the process includes placing a substrate on a table/chuck in a processing chamber/container and exhausting and depressurizing the inside of the chamber, and forming a carbon film on the substrate where high frequency RF power can be applied to the substrate chuck and DC voltage (which can be pulsed) also applied to the chuck (note chucking voltage), where plasma is generated from the supplied carbon containing precursor gas in the chamber (note figures 1, 6, 0022, 0024, 0055, 0025, 0030, 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakahigashi to provide the apparatus with a controller, which is configured to control the exhaust apparatus, the gas supply, high frequency power supply, a direct current pulse power supply to provide the depressurizing as claimed, the superimposed high frequency and direct current pulse voltage applied to the table while the processing carbon containing gas supplied into the chamber to form a carbon film as suggested by Venkatasubramanian with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Nakahigashi indicates providing all the apparatus features as claimed except the controller and the desire to provide the processing steps as claimed (as discussed for claim 1 above), and Venkatasubramanian indicates that when using a similar processing apparatus for similar carbon deposition, it is desirable to provide a controller for the system that operates the chambers and implements the deposition method.
Claim 17: As to the controller configured to provide a duty ratio of the DC pulse voltage is 20% or less when forming the carbon film, this would be suggested by Nakahigashi, which indicates the pulsed DC voltage can be used and have a duty ratio of 10-90% note 0039-0040, 0096). It would have been obvious to optimize from this range, which overlaps the claimed range, giving a value in the claimed range of claim 17. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). It would have been obvious to provide the controller configured to provide this, since as discussed for claim 14, it is desirable to provide that the controller provides the desired deposition method.
Claim 18: As to the high frequency power as 40 MHz or more, Nakahigashi indicates that the RF power can be 10-100 MHz when without modulation (note 0032, 0109), and it would have been obvious to optimize from this range, which overlaps the claimed range, giving a value in the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). It would have been obvious to provide the controller configured to provide this, since as discussed for claim 14, it is desirable to provide that the controller provides the desired deposition method.
Claim 19: As to the controller configured to provide, prior to forming the carbon film, to control the high frequency power supply and DC pulse power supply so that the high frequency power and DC pulse voltage are supplied to the table, while supplying a processing gas containing a carbon containing gas and not a helium gas to the processing chamber to form an initial carbon film, this would be suggested by Nakahigashi, where Nakahigashi provides that there can be an initial carbon film formation (interface film), followed by the further main/upper carbon film formation, where the layers can be made of the same material, and both layers formed by the method of the invention of Nakahigashi (so with the use of the superimposed high frequency power and direct current pulse voltage applied to the table, and supplying of processing gas containing a carbon containing gas into the chamber into a depressurized state, for example, as discussed for claim 1) (note 0040, 0041), where however, conditions such as power provided can vary from the initial to upper film production (note 0041-0042, 0109). The providing of the carbon containing gas in the initial layer can be without helium (as no helium indicated required by Nakahigashi, and note 0106). It would have been obvious to provide the controller configured to provide this, since as discussed for claim 14, it is desirable to provide that the controller provides the desired deposition method.
Claims 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahigashi and Venkatasubramanian as applied to claims 9, 14 and 17-19 above, and further in view of Sciamanna et al (US 2009/0029067).
Claim 15: As to the controller configured to provide the absolute value of the direct current pulsed voltage, Nakahigashi gives an example of an absolute value of 1 kV (1000 V) (note 0104). Nakahigashi describes the process as plasma CVD (note 0024).
Sciamanna describes a plasma CVD process where a substrate is placed on substrate holder/table in a processing container/chamber, the inside of the chamber is exhausted and depressurized, a carbon film is provided on the substrate by applying pulsed DC power/voltage to the substrate holder to generate plasma while also supplying RF power to the system, where a processing gas containing a carbon containing gas is supplied into the chamber (note figure 1, 0022-0026, 0038, 0056-0058, claim 1), where it is indicated that bias voltage can be used with an absolute value of 600-3000 V (note 0026) and noting how voltage in general can be adjusted as part of optimizing a treatment cycle (note 0054-0057) and bias voltage example of 2000 V (note 0060).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakahigashi in view of Venkatasubramanian to optimize the direct current pulse voltage to provide the best results as suggested by Sciamanna to provide the best treatment possible, since Nakahigashi indicates the provide voltage from a pulsed DC source, where the voltage can be 1000 V (absolute), where Sciamanna teaches that in a similar carbon deposition system with use of RF power and pulsed DC voltage, it can be desired to optimize the voltage used and also bias voltage, suggesting to optimize the specific DC pulse voltage used in the process of Nakahigashi with an expectation of providing optimized treatment, giving a result of voltage in the claimed range. Note "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to provide the controller configured to provide this, since as discussed for claim 14, it is desirable to provide that the controller provides the desired deposition method.
Claim 16, as to the controller configured to control such that the ion energy of the high frequency power is 300 eV or less when forming the carbon film, furthermore, Sciamanna as discussed for claim 15 above also provides that it is desirable to provide the carbon compound precursor (diamondoid, note claim 1), and where it is desirable to have sp3 bonds from the precursor remain partially intact, where to do so, ion energy per carbon atom must be less than 400 eV at 100 mTorr, for example to provide a desirable energy and give a desirable coating, so indicates providing bias voltage at less than 400 eV (note 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakahigashi in view of Venkatasubramanian to optimize the ion energy provided, including from the high frequency/RF power to provide the best results as suggested by Sciamanna to provide the best resulting coating, since Nakahigashi indicates to provide power from the RF source and DC pulse voltage, where Sciamanna teaches that in a similar carbon deposition system with use of diamondoid precursors it is desirable to a low ion energy per carbon atom to keep partially intact sp3 bonds in the precursor and give a good coating, where the ion energy is desirably less than 400 eV, and by optimizing to provide this condition the ion energy by the RF (high frequency) power would be optimized to be in the claimed range of claim 16. Note "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to provide the controller configured to provide this, since as discussed for claim 14, it is desirable to provide that the controller provides the desired deposition method.
Claim 20: As to providing the controller is configured so that the superimposed high frequency power and DC pulse power supply have total ion energy of the generated plasma is 300 eV or less when forming the initial carbon film, as discussed above for claim 19, Nakahigashi would suggest providing the initial film.
Furthermore, Sciamanna as discussed for claim 15 above also provides that it is desirable to provide the carbon compound precursor (diamondoid, note claim 1), and where it is desirable to have sp3 bonds from the precursor remain partially intact, where to do so, ion energy per carbon atom must be less than 400 eV at 100 mTorr, for example to provide a desirable energy and give a desirable coating, so indicates providing bias voltage at less than 400 eV (note 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakahigashi in view of Venkatasubramanian to optimize the ion energy provided, in each layer, including for the total ion energy, to provide the best results as suggested by Sciamanna to provide the best resulting coating, since Nakahigashi indicates to provide initial and upper layers of the same material, where processing conditions such as power can be adjusted, where the power for the upper layer is not restricted, where Sciamanna teaches that in a similar carbon deposition system with use of diamondoid precursors it is desirable to have a low ion energy per carbon atom to keep partially intact sp3 bonds in the precursor and give a good coating, where the ion energy is desirably less than 400 eV, and by optimizing to provide this condition the ion energy by the power supplies would be optimized for each level to provide an plasma with a lower ion energy, of 300 eV or less, for the initial layer. Note "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to provide the controller configured to provide this, since as discussed for claim 14, it is desirable to provide that the controller provides the desired deposition method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights