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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 was amended to recite that the first deposition source of a first type , a second deposition source of a second type, where the first deposition source of the first type is different from the second deposition source of the second type. This amendment necessitated the .introduction of the prior art of Devine et al (US 2005/0247265).
Applicant argues that the prior art held to Yamazaki Shunpei fails to teach plasma vapor deposition (PVD) on page 8 of 13 of the Remarks, but in the claims the PVD is used to represent physical vapor deposition. Yamazaki Shunpei teaches physical vapor deposition but the prior art of Devine et al teaches plasma enhanced vapor deposition (PECVD) and has two different types of deposition sources. Recall the rejections relative to the prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei are made under 35 USC 103 (obviousness) and not 35 USC 102 (anticipation).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki Shunpei (KR 20100108283A using the Machine Generated English Translation provided herewith) in view of in view of Devine et al (US 2005/0247265).
Regarding claim 1: The prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei features a deposition system for forming coatings, where the system comprises a deposition chamber; a substrate 118 in the deposition chamber 104 configured for receiving a vapor deposition; a motor (driving unit 126) operably coupled with the substrate to rotate the substrate; a first deposition source 106 separated from the substrate; a second deposition source 108 separated from the substrate, wherein the second deposition source is configured to generate a second deposition material that is different from a first deposition material generated by the first deposition source; a divider (barrier plate 114) in the deposition chamber between the first deposition source and the second deposition source.
PNG
media_image1.png
646
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Yamazaki Shunpei
The prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei fails to teach a) the first deposition source of a first type , a second deposition source of a second type, where the first deposition source of the first type is different from the second deposition source of the second type and b) at least one of the first deposition source or second deposition source includes an inductively coupled plasma generator.
The prior art of Devine et al teaches semiconductor processing where a chamber 102 has a first processing station 120 and a second processing station 122. Each of the processing stations has a plasma source 132. In [0032] Devine et al teaches that the plasma sources are plasma inductively coupled (ICP) plasma sources. A partition 160 which includes a partition plate 162.
PNG
media_image2.png
686
798
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 Devine et al
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Yamazaki Shunpei with least one of the first deposition source or second deposition source includes an inductively coupled plasma generator as suggested by Devine et al in order improve the deposition of source materials by using plasma generation.
Regarding claim 2: The prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei teaches the first deposition source is configured for physical vapor deposition (PVD) where vapor is emitted from heating the sources and the vaporized materials is supplied to the substrate. The prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei fails to teach the second deposition source is configured for plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD). Recall that the prior art of Devine et al teaches a PECVD (plasma enhanced CVD- inductively coupled) to have modified the apparatus of Yamazaki Shunpei with least one of the first deposition source or second deposition source includes an inductively coupled plasma generator as suggested by Devine et al in order improve the deposition of source materials by using plasma generation.
Regarding claim 4: See Fig. 2 of Yamazaki Shunpei below wherein the first deposition source and second deposition source are each positioned to create a deposition that is substantially normal to the substrate.
Regarding claim 5: The prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei fails to specifically teach the divider extends longitudinally at least 25% of a trajectory length from the first and second deposition sources to the substrate. See Fig. 2 of Yamazaki Shunpei appears to meet this limitation. Nevertheless the actual dimensions of the divider are a matter of design choice and optimization barring a showing of criticality as the function of the divider is to allow for independent deposition of the a specific source the wafer and amount of deposition or desired product result would inform the dimensions of divider required to ensure this result that would be determined without undue routine experimentation. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the apparatus of Yamazaki Shunpei with the divider extends longitudinally at least 25% of a trajectory length from the first and second deposition sources to the substrate.
Regarding claim 6: The prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei fails to specifically teach the divider 114 extends laterally between the first and second deposition sources by at least 25% of a lateral length of the deposition chamber. See Fig. 2 of Yamazaki Shunpei appears to meet this limitation. Furthermore, the specific dimensions of the divider 114 used in the prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei especially how it extends relative the length of the deposition chamber is a matter of design choice and optimization barring a showing of the criticality of these dimensions as the function of the divider is to allow for independent deposition of the a specific source the wafer and amount of deposition or desired product result would inform the dimensions of divider required to ensure this result that would be determined without undue routine experimentation. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the apparatus of Yamazaki Shunpei with the divider extends longitudinally at least 25% of a trajectory length from the first and second deposition sources to the substrate.
Regarding claim 8: The deposition system of claim 1, wherein the substrate is un-biased during operation for deposition of materials. See Fig. 2 of the prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei and Fig. 1 of Yin et al.
Regarding claim 11: See Fig. 2 of Yamazaki Shunpei and the paragraph reciting “supply to the 1st evaporation source 106”… Configuration example of film formation room Where at least a first emitter manifold associated with the first deposition source 106 within a first region relative to the divider, and at least a second emitter manifold associated with the second deposition source 108 within a second region relative to the divider.
Regarding claim 12: The prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei teaches that the first and second emitter manifolds associated with the first and second deposition sources can be a plurality of emitter manifolds see Fig. 7 of the prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei.
PNG
media_image3.png
448
488
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of Yamazaki Shunpei
Regarding claim 13: The prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei recites that the substrate 118 has a through hole formed in the center part (see the paragraph reciting “although the shape of the board”… Configuration example of film formation room.) See also Fig. 2 where the divider (barrier plate 114) can at least partially block or at least partially expose a center holder in the substrate 118.
The teachings of the prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei were discussed above.
Namely, the prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei teaches that the deposition areas are clearly distinguished and that the shielding plate 114 (divider) may be formed between evaporation sources 106 and 108.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki Shunpei (KR 20100108283A using the Machine Generated English Translation provided herewith) in view of Devine et al (US 2005/0247265) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, and 11-13, and in further view of Yin et al (US 8,366,829).
Regarding claim 7: The apparatus of Yamazaki Shunpei as modified by Devine et al was discussed above.
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Yamazaki Shunpei and Devine et al fails to teach the inductively coupled plasma generator is remote from the deposition chamber. The context of this term” remote” was found in the original specification [0043] of the present invention where the power supply and/or plasma generator are located separately from the chamber.
The prior art of Yin et al teaches tandem processing zones with processing regions 110 and 115 within chamber body 105. The processing regions are physically separated by partition 122 (divider). In the paragraph that joins cols. 7 and 8 Yin et al recited the use of inductors L’ and L in the RF matching networks 153 and 157. In col. 8 lines 14-col. 9 line 28 Yin et al teaches that the inductor can be used in either or both RF matching networks. Additionally, the prior of Yin et al teaches that the processing regions 110 and 115 are physically separated by partition (divider 122). Yin et al teaches a plurality of materials and transported via pipes 171 and 173.
See in Fig. 1 of Yin et al comprise a RF match networks. The prior art of Yin et al teaches the plasma generator is remote see RF power supplies 152 and 154. The motivation to provide the power supplies which are known to be physically mated to the chamber or can be provided remotely as both arrangements are known. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Yamazaki Shunpei as modified by Devine et al with the remote plasma generator of Yin et al as recited above.
Regarding claim 9: The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Yamazaki Shunpei and Devine et al fails to specifically teach a RF inductively coupled plasma generator.
See in Fig. 1 of Yin et al comprise a RF match networks. The prior art of Yin et al teaches the plasma generator is remote see RF power supplies 152 and 154. The motivation to provide the power supplies which are known to be physically mated to the chamber or can be provided remotely as both arrangements are known. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus of Yamazaki Shunpei and Devine et al with the remote plasma generator of Yin et al as recited above.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki Shunpei (KR 20100108283A using the Machine Generated English Translation provided herewith) in view of Devine et al (US 2005/0247265) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, and 11-13, and in further view of, and in further view of Kim (US 2014/0349430).
The combined teachings of the prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei and Devine et al were discussed above.
Regarding claim 3: The prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei teaches the deposition system wherein the PVD is operably coupled with a metal supply or ceramic supply as ceramic films are produced see the discussion of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, and other ceramic films in the paragraph under the heading Operation of film forming apparatus and manufacturing method of lighting apparatus.
Recall the prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei fails to teach PECVD. The prior art of Devine et al teaches PECVD and is discussed in the rejections of 1 and 2 above.
The apparatus of Yamazaki Shunpei as modified by Devine et al fails to teach metal or ceramic supplies as recited in claim 3 or specifically teach a PECVD where DLC or DLN coatings are formed.
The actual film formed by the materials is a matter of an intended use such the structures storing and transporting the film material could be used to form a plethora of different types of films to include diamond-like coatings (DLC) or diamond-like nanocomposites (DLN).
Moreover, the prior art of Kim teaches a deposition chamber 10 with first deposition source 40, second deposition source 50, and divider 20. In Kim [0057] teaches that the first and second deposition sources 40 and 50 can comprise a metal supply such as tantalum and aluminum which are among the suggested materials. The second deposition source material may include titanium dioxide or silicon dioxide as suggested materials of construction in [0090] of Kim. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the apparatus of Yamazaki Shunpei with the PECVE of Devine et al to form DLC or DLN coating as the type of coating formed is a matter of intended use.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Yamazaki Shunpei and Devine et al with the materials of construction of the deposition sources as suggested by the prior art of Kim so that the chemically and physically optimal materials can be used to distribute the evaporation materials to the wafer to yield the desired product results.
Regarding claim 10: Recall the combined teachings of Yamazaki Shunpei and Devine et al teaches a PECVD source and the formation of DLC and DLN coatings is interpreted as a matter of intended use.
The combined teachings of Yamazaki Shunpei and Devine et al fail to teach the metal supply includes materials selected from titanium, aluminum, chromium, gold, nickel, silver, copper, zirconium, tantalum, molybdenum, alloys thereof, or combinations thereof; the ceramic supply includes materials selected from silicon nitride, silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide, titanium dioxide, zirconium dioxide, tantalum pentoxide, hafnium dioxide, silicon carbide, boron nitride, gallium nitride, constituent atoms thereof, or combinations thereof; the plurality of material supplies for forming the DLC or DLN includes materials selected from silicone, organosilicone, hexamethyldisiloxane, dimethyladamantane, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, silicon, hydrocarbon, fluorine, hydrogen, fluorinated hydrocarbon, DLC dopant, DLN dopant, or combinations thereof.
The prior art of Kim teaches a deposition chamber 10 with first deposition source 40, second deposition source 50, and divider 20. In Kim [0057] teaches that the first and second deposition sources 40 and 50 can comprise a metal supply such as tantalum and aluminum which are among the suggested materials. The second deposition source material may include titanium dioxide or silicon dioxide as suggested materials of construction in [0090] of Kim. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Yamazaki Shunpei and Devine et al with the materials of construction of the deposition sources as suggested by the prior art of Kim so that the chemically and physically optimal materials can be used to distribute the evaporation materials to the wafer to yield the desired product results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al (US 2024/0200186) teaches deposition apparatus with different evaporation materials, see Fig. 6 DM1 and DM2, see [0071] and [0077].
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 SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, 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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights