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) 1 and 3-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Bosscher et al. (EP3631835).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, De Bosscher teaches a power supply system for a plasma processing system (see Vacuum Coating Process, Process Controlling Means, Process Parameters section) wherein separate power sources are provided to separate sputtering means thereby “making the power supply a local variable and not a global one” (see Example section) in a process referred to as an “in-line vacuum coating process” (see Definitions section) wherein a single part is treated multiple times successively as it moves down a production line or in a circular pattern (see Fig. 2 or Figs 4-5, respectively) and wherein the substrate moves from chamber to chamber to be processed by each sputtering means without the vacuum of the vacuum operation being broken due to the presence of all individual processing chambers being present inside of a larger, encompassing vacuum chamber, wherein AC powered is employed (see description of Fig. 6) and a feedback system (210) is present such that a monitoring device comprising at least two types of sensors detecting coating variables and variations in coating associated with coating already applied by the sputtering device wherein the data is processed by a processor (230) and directions are provided to a controller (240) that can then, for example, change the power supply level being employed (see How to Use the Model section and Fig. 2) based on the acquired data. It is noted stated that the prior art power supply modifications are done in order to “decrease the crazing on the substrate” although it is stated throughout the cited sections above that the purpose of the process feedback system is to provide “uniformity” which reasonably implies attempting to avoid crazing, a known deformity. Nonetheless, using the apparatus of the prior art to reduce crazing is a recitation of intended use wherein so long as the prior art apparatus is capable of being used as claimed, the claim limitations are met by the prior art. Herein the prior art apparatus is seemingly as capable of being used to control crazing as the invention of the current application. De Bosscher fails to explicitly teaches that the signals from the first and second power supplies are synchronized even though De Bosscher does teach deposition in different chambers within the larger vacuum chamber at the same time. However, the signals are either synchronized or not. Given a limited number of possibilities (i.e., synchronized or not) wherein both solution would provide predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been considered “obvious to try” for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attempt synchronization or non-synchronization of the power signals.
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 14, as stated above, the device of De Bosscher provides separate processing chamber within a larger vacuum chamber such that the first and second plasma sources may be operating within their own internal chambers as the substrate moves from section to section.
Regarding claim 5, the first and second sensors of De Bosscher seemingly both monitor the desired process parameter of all previously provided plasma sources as shown in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art reads upon the current application wherein the first operating data is the configuration data described in De Bosscher related to a particular desired outcome, wherein if the desired outcome is not met according to second operation data, controls may be varied in order to see that the conditions are met.
Regarding claim 7, reasonably controlling the power as stated above would read upon operating in what can be labeled as “power control” mode.
Regarding claims 8-9, the control unit of De Bosscher is seemingly part of all power supplies.
Regarding claim 10, De Bosscher teaches at least light absorbing sensors reading upon item (e) of the current claim as cited above.
Regarding claim 11, power level determinations are related to crazing in the operations of De Bosscher and the current invention.
Regarding claim 13, the teachings of De Bosscher are as shown above. As cited above, De Bosscher teaches using separate chambers that are in some manner open to the surrounding environment, said environment having a vacuum applied thereto. Therefore the implication of the structure of De Bosscher would reasonably be at least something akin to chambers or boxes in line with one another inside of a larger chamber or box that that vacuum can reach the inner chambers and such that substrates may move between them, presumably through an exit opening moving towards an entrance opening of a separate chamber. Further as stated the chamber share the same air and are provided with the same vacuum, reasonably implying that gases may be exchanged at least in some manner between the chambers. It is not stated that the inner chambers or boxes have an wall on the end of the chamber so as to separate one chamber from another with a wall. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that chambers with exit holes with partial walls are known in a variety of arts and are largely seen in a singular format wherein products to be treated enter one end of a chamber and exit the other without a closing or opening of a door or stoppage of processing. These are employed in food manufacture, semiconductor manufacture, materials production arts and a large variety of fields. The end walls of the chambers are provided for a variety of reasons including protection of workers, protection of products from the environment during treatment and the protection of internal components in the chamber from the external environment and contamination. Therefore, in an instance wherein it is not reasonably implicit that the inner chamber of De Bosscher had at least partial end walls, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inner chambers of De Bosscher with partial end walls for any or all of the reasons listed above.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the applicants’ arguments, it must be first noted that the applicant did not generally address the rejection as provided. The applicant repeatedly argues that the prior art of De Bosscher does not teach the phase syncing of power signals between the first and second power supplies which was claim language previously present in claim 2 and incorporated to claim 1 herein. However, the examiner readily acknowledged in the previous rejection of claim 2 that the prior art was silent with regards to whether the signals were synchronized or not. However, the examiner gave a reasonable and logical rejection criteria showing the obviousness of the power syncing but the applicant did not acknowledge the rejection whatsoever. In order to overcome the rejection set for the by the examiner, the must reasonably address the merits of the rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights