DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 6, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that none of the references or combination thereof teaches a deposition chambre with two different types of deposition sources separated by a barrier. It appears from the argument that applicant wants the divider to be a complete barrier from separating the sources, but the claims not specification limit/narrow the invention to this invention Firstly, the claims 1-13 and 21-27 recite a divider and further broadly recites such “barrier” that it is located between the first and second deposition sources. Secondly, the claims do not recite that the divider is configured to separate the sources from each other or that the separation of materials is maintained until the materials each contact the substrate. See the originally filed specification of the present invention [0045] where the distance between the deposition sources can be varied due to the barrier. In also in [0047] of the originally filed specification of the present invention where it recites that “the divider can be a planar member that is positioned between the deposition sources and extend a predetermined length towards the pedestal. Due to positioning of the divider, both sides of the reactor chamber (deposition chamber) remain clean and free from contamination. For example, neighboring contamination of the other emitter material can be avoided with the divider acting as a particle shield separating the emitters into their own compartments.” The Figures of the present illustrate the divider as element 120 in Fig. 1, element 309 in Figs. 3 and 5.
See Figs. 2 and 7 (as provided below)of the prior art held to Yamazaki Shunpei (KR 2010-0108283 using the Machine Generated English Translation). Where a processing chamber 102 is provided with a barrier plate 114 (divider) between the first evaporation source 106 and the second evaporation source 108. Note Yamazaki Shunpei also offers that a shieling plate may be formed between the first source 106 and the second source 108 to more clearly distinguish the deposition areas see page 4 paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Machine Generated English Translation provided with the Office Action mailed March 27, 2026. Yamazaki Shunpei further offers that the sources 106 and 108 can provide different materials see page 4 paragraph 5 Machine Generated English Translation. Thus, the prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei (KR 2010-0108283 using the Machine Generated English Translation) will be maintained as a primary reference below.
New claims 21-27 were introduced where claim 21 necessitated the introduction of the prior art of Lefevre (US 2020/0370161) teaches a sputter magnetron as an enhancement to conventional PVD.
PNG
media_image1.png
646
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Yamazaki Shunpei
PNG
media_image2.png
448
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of Yamazaki Shunpei
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, 11-13, and 22-27 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. The examiner interprets that the prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei teaches different “types” of deposition sources in that the source materials are different.
The prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei fails to teach 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 (divider) which includes a partition plate 162 see [0035] of Devine et al.
PNG
media_image3.png
686
798
media_image3.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 claims 5 and 23: 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 claims 6 and 24: 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 al and the substrate of Devine et al is also unbiased.
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.
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.
Regarding claim 22: The prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei in Figs. 2 and 7 illustrates the divider 114 extends from an emission side of the deposition chamber towards the substrate 118.
Regarding claim 25: The teachings of Yamazaki Shunpei were discussed above. Note the prior art of Shunpei illustrates deposition sources below the rotating substrates while the prior of Devine illustrates deposition sources above substrates 130. Note that in both Yamazaki Shunpei and Device a divider is between the sources.
The prior art of Shunpei and Devine thus shows that it is known to have deposition source vertically displaced from the substrate(s). The combined teachings of the prior art Yamazaki Shunpei and Device suggests that it is known to provide a rotating substrate below or above the deposition sources as an obvious matter of design choice so that the deposition sources can deposit the materials onto the substrate as desired. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention design the location of the divider, substrate, and deposition source such that the divider extends adjacent to the substrate such that the substrate rotates beneath the divider during deposition as this arrangement would optimize the distribution of deposition materials to the substrate as would be an obvious modification resulting from the combined teachings of the prior art of Shunpei and Devine.
Regarding claims 26 and 27: The teachings of Yamazaki Shunpei were discussed above.
The prior art of Yamazaki Shunpei fails to teach a recess feature. Recall the prior art of Devine teaches a divider 30 see Fig. 2 and divider 160 see Fig. 3, 4, 6, and 7. A recessed featured (slot 180, notch 32) is provided to couple the divider into the chamber see Figures of Devine. See Fig. 12 and Figs. 13a-13d of Devine showing various configuration of recessed feature (slot/notch) see [0051 – [0056]. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention design the apparatus of Yamazaki Shunpei with the recessed features as suggested by Devine et al.
PNG
media_image4.png
388
658
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Devine et al US 2005/0247265
PNG
media_image5.png
456
336
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of Devine et al US 2005/0247265
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, 11-13, and 22-27 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, 11-13, and 22-27 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.
Claim 21 is 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, 11-13, and 22-27 and in further view of, and in further view of Lefevre (US 2020/0370161).
Recall the combined teachings of Yamazaki Shunpei and Devine et al teaches at least one of the deposition sources is an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) generator. Recall Devine et al teaches that both the deposition sources 132 can be ICP sources.
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Yamazaki Shunpei and Devine et al fails to teach that the first source comprises a sputter magnetron.
The prior art of Lefevre teaches the formation of DLN using PVD sputtering see [0072]. Lefevre teaches a plasma generator 100. According to [0056] of Lefevre precursors 128 and gases 113, 151, and 123 can be introduced through port in the RF plasma generator 100. According to [0065] of Lefevre a high density electron emitter 117 further ionizes the metal flux from the sputter magnetron 121. The prior art of Lefevre teaches that sputter magnetrons are a known enhancement to the convention PVD sputter apparatus/process. The motivation to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Yamazaki Shunpei and Devine et al with the suggestion of the prior art of Lefevre to use a sputtering magnetron is that it will ionize the flux of deposition materials resulting in a more preferred product result that can be localized and better controlled. 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 first source comprises a sputter magnetron as suggested by the prior art of Lefevre.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cok US 2005/0241585 teaches a system for vaporizing materials onto a substrate surface with at least two separate source chambers 10a, 10b see the abstract and Figs. 1 and 2.
Chen et al CN 101892462A teaches a method and device with a partition board 1 and a group of sputtering targets 9 see Fig. 1.
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