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 .
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(s) 49-50, 53-54, 58, 71 and 77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace [US 6893939] in view of Suoduo [US 20090304906] and Freeman [US 20030168013].
Claims 49 and 53: Grace teaches a system comprising a support member constructed to hold one or more batches of precursors (crucible 34, evaporant) thereon, a baffle member disposed over and spaced from the support member by a first distance along a first direction [Fig. 3], the baffle and support members being constructed and arranged to define a confined heating volume with at least one exit window [Fig. 3, abstract] a deposition substrate (36) disposed over and spaced from the baffle member by a second distance along the first direction [Fig. 3]; and wherein the baffle member comprises a heating element [col 7, ln 15-30]. Grace also teaches heating the precursor to convert some into a vapor that exits the confined heating volume via the at least one exit window, flows around the baffle member into contact with a surface of the deposition substrate, and solidified on said deposition substrate surface (deposits onto substrate to form a film, which would be solid) [col 7, ln 10-30; disclosure on baffles commonly used in col 2, ln 26-50]. However, Grace does not appear to teach the precursor is a solid state. However, Grace does discloses that these type of deposition systems typically uses solid material to be vaporized [col 2, ln 30-35]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the precursor used by Grace could be implemented with solid state precursors as commonly known in the art, and since Grace does not provide specific details of the precursor state. However, Grace does not appear to teach a controller comprising one or more processors and one or more computer readable storage media;
and one or more computer readable storage media store instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the controller to control the heating element to subject the precursor in the heating volume to convert at least some of the precursors into vapor that exits the confined heating volume via the at least one exit window. Suoduo is provided.
Suoduo teaches a system for controlling an evaporating apparatus [title], wherein the system comprise a controller that stores programs [0141] onto a computer readable storage medium [0219]. Suoduo teaches the controller then execute heating steps to subject precursors in a heating volume to convert some of the precursors into vapor that exits the volume through an exit window [0033-0034]. It would have been obvious o one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a control system to control the heating of the precursor to deliver the vaporized precursor to the processing area so as to automate at least part of the system such as the heating process and improve efficiency [0170; 0001].
As for heating to a first temperature greater than 2200K, since Suoduo teaches the temperature is a variable that affects the vaporization rate [0043]; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the temperature as result effective variable to improve vaporization rates of the precursor.
However, the prior art does not appear to teach a batch of solid state precursors within the confined heating volume.
Freeman is provided.
Freeman teaches a physical vapor deposition system, wherein a batch of solid state precursors can be confined in a heating volume [0074; Fig. 8]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a batch of multiple solid state precursors in the heating volume since Freeman teaches this arrangement for solid precursors is already well known in the art [0074]. It is further noted that Freeman provides heating via the baffle [Fig. 8], where the prior art provides another alternative and operable heating arrangement to vaporize the precursors in a heating volume.
Claims 50 and 54: Grace teaches performing the heating by applying a current by using variable elements such as resistors (joule heating element) [col 8, ln 52-57].
Claim 58: Grace teaches the at least one exit window is defined by a vertical gap between the baffle member and the support member [Fig. 3].
Claims 71 and 77: Grace teaches the first direction is substantially parallel to a direction of the gravity [Fig. 3].
Claim(s) 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace in view of Suoduo and Freeman as applied to claim 53 above, and further in view of Yamazaki [US 20110311717].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach a cooling device coupled to the deposition substrate. Yamazaki is provided.
Claim 61: Yamazaki teaches a cooling plate is coupled with the substrate [abstract] so as to suppress radiant heat that is transfer from the vapor deposition source to a substrate [0009]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a cooling device coupled to the substrate as Yamazaki teaches so as to suppress heat that may be transferred from the vapor source. Although the prior art does not explicitly teach the controller is coupled to the cooling device and the computer readable storage medial has instructions for cooling, since Suoduo teaches the controller provides an interface and stores data and programs for feedback controlling heaters and the like [0141], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the controller to also control the cooling device would to automate most of the deposition process for efficiency.
Claim(s) 67, 73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace in view of Suoduo and Freeman as applied to claim 53 above, and further in view of Takiguchi [US 20170022605].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 67. Takaiguchi is provided.
Claim 67: Takaiguchi teaches vapor deposition can be repeated [0085], wherein the process may include stopping the heating steps multiple times for a period of time [0094; 0114]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide multiple heating and stopping steps as taught by Takaiguchi so as to better control the reaction of the vapors for deposition [0091].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 73. Takaiguchi is provided.
Claim 73: Takaiguchi teaches the size of the baffle member (lid) is less than size of the substrate in the plane perpendicular to the first direction [Fig. 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the size of the baffle to be smaller than the substate as taught by Takaiguichi so as to enhance uniformity of deposition [0069].
Claim(s) 72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace in view of Suoduo and Freeman as applied to claim 53 above, and further in view of Ramachandrappa [US 20220372612].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 72. Ramachandrappa is provided.
Claim 72: Ramachandrappa teaches the common processing environment is operable as an inert gas environment [0022]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the enclosure as an inert gas environment, since Ramachandrappa teaches such environment is well known and operable in the art.
Claim(s) 74 and 76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace in view of Suoduo and Freeman as applied to claim 53 above, and further in view of Britt [US 20090258476].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 74. Britt is provided.
Claim 74: Britt teaches a conveyor system for displacing the deposition substrate is constructed as a roll or conveyor member [Fig. 2 or 3], and feeds in the direction of the arrow 25 [Fig. 2; 0026]. Britt further teaches utilizing computers to monitor and analyze the data from the monitoring the operation [0061]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a roll or conveyor member as a substrate and control the spooling and feeding of the substrate through the chamber for deposition by a controller as taught by Britt since these type of substrates have lower cost, large volume, high yield, commercial manufacturing of devices [0008]. Although Britt does not explicitly teach the computer to comprise of a media that stores instructions on feeding the substrate through the chamber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a computer would have the storage and capabilities of automating such a task.
Claim 76: Britt further teaches the lid (baffle) may include graphite or carbon felt [0078]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a heating element made of porous carbon such as carbon felt since Britt teaches such material is electrically conducting and able to withstand extreme heating conditions [0078].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 75 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights