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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species 4, associated with Figure 9 in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12110587. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12110587 fully encompass and disclose each and every claim requirement and therefore anticipates the instant claims as drafted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 requires the first and second EM radiation sources overlap opposing sidewalls of the substrate in a cross-sectional view; however, the claim from which claim 8 depends requires the first and second EM radiation sources to have a spacing in the range of 50 mm to 200 mm and the examiner cannot locate sufficient disclosure that the first and second radiation sources can be both spaced as required by claims and overlapping the opposing sidewalls as claimed.
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.
11. Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004146734, hereinafter JP 734 taken with US Patent Application Publication 20180076028 by Swaminathan
Claim 1: JP 734 discloses a placing a substrate over a platform in a chamber of a deposition system (Figure 2 and accompanying text, abstract, page 3);
introducing a precursor material into the chamber (page 3, e.g. “silane is introduced from the gas supply pipe);
generating a plasma from the precursor material in the chamber, wherein the plasma comprises dissociated components of the precursor material (page 3, “silane plasma”, dissociated components will necessarily be present in plasma);
and depositing a layer over the substrate (see “amorphous silicon film”), the layer comprising a reaction product of the dissociated components of the precursor material (While not explicit, the plasma decomposed the precursor SiH4 into components and reaction of the plasma gases from silane decomposes, i.e. creates dissociated components” and deposits the reaction product).
JP 734 discloses generating a first gas curtain in front of a first electromagnetic (EM) radiation source coupled to the chamber (Figure 2 and accompanying text, abstract, here what can reasonably be considered a “gas” curtain exists by flow of precursor gases into chamber);
subjecting the plasma to a first EM radiation from the first EM radiation source, wherein the first EM radiation further dissociates the precursor material (page 3, “laser collides with the cluster formed in the silane plasma, the cluster is energized to be excited and decomposed”)
JP 734 fail to disclose the inclusion of a first and second EM source over the edge of the substrate. However, the examiner notes Swaminathan, also forming a film using PECVD process discloses a UV source and inert gas curtain above the substrate and over the edge to treat the substrate and remove surface defects after deposition (0056) and therefore it would have been obvious to have included the UV source above the substrate to reap the benefits as outlined by Swaminathan, that is to correct surface defects in the PECVD deposited film (0056).
Swaminathan fails to explicitly disclose the EM source overlaps the perimeter of the substrate. However, Swaminathan discloses the UV source overlaps an edge of the platform in plain view (Figure 9C and accompanying text, claims merely require a substrate placed over “a platform” and such is met by carrier ring). Swaminathan discloses emitting the EM source is configured with arrangements to distribution of the UV radiation from the source to the film and discloses the configurations and location can be adjusted to resolve defects in the film deposited on the substrate. Therefore, Swaminathan explicitly discloses the location of the EM source is optimizable and adjustable to provide the desired EM radiation to the deposited layer so as to resolve defects in the surface layer and therefore adjusting the location, including overlapping the outer perimeter, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art so that the surface defects are resolved. Additionally, in view of the disclosure that location of EM source is a design choice, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide EM sources over the perimeter of the substrate, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
As for the spacing of the first EM source and second EM source, Swaminathan explicitly disclose using EM sources (0088) to resolve defects and discloses “UV irradiation device 901 can include an arrangement of lenses and/or optical fibers for distribution and transmission of the UV radiation to the film deposited on the substrate 101. Also, it should be understood that in different embodiments the UV irradiation device 901 and its operation can have variations in photon energy and/or lamp configuration and/or ambient conditions” and therefore as such illustrates that lamp configurations can be adjusted by the ordinary artisan to resolve defects in the film and it would have been obvious to have provided multiple EM sources because in view of Swaminathan, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. The sources of Swaminathan would include spacing as claimed (i.e. UV sources that are within the range as claimed) or at the least, the location of the EM Sources would have been obvious per the disclosure of Swaminathan to achieve the resolution of defects in the film.
Claim 5: JP 734 discloses wherein the first EM radiation source is a laser source (see citations above, specifically page 3), Swaminathan discloses UV source (see above).
Claim 7: JP 734 discloses precursor material of silane and a film of amorphous silicon (page 3, citations above).
Claim 8: As for the location of the first EM source and second EM source, Swaminathan explicitly disclose using EM sources (0088) to resolve defects and discloses “UV irradiation device 901 can include an arrangement of lenses and/or optical fibers for distribution and transmission of the UV radiation to the film deposited on the substrate 101. Also, it should be understood that in different embodiments the UV irradiation device 901 and its operation can have variations in photon energy and/or lamp configuration and/or ambient conditions” and therefore as such illustrates that lamp configurations can be adjusted by the ordinary artisan to resolve defects in the film and it would have been obvious to have provided multiple EM sources because in view of Swaminathan, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. The sources of Swaminathan would include spacing as claimed (i.e. UV sources that are within the range as claimed) or at the least, the location of the EM Sources would have been obvious per the disclosure of Swaminathan to achieve the resolution of defects in the film.
Claim(s) 2-4, 9-11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 734 taken with Swaminathan as applied to claim 1 above and further with US Patent 5441569 by Veligdem or KR 20100008052, hereinafter KR 052.
JP 734 taken with Chen and JP 615 and further with Swaminathan discloses all that is taught above and disclose the dissociation of the gas using the laser source; however, the references fail to disclose the third EM source to dissociate precursor material such that the fourth and third sources are on opposite sides of the chamber. The examiner cites here Veligdem, also disclosing dissociating gas using laser source, similar to that of JP 734, and discloses using a plurality of lasers to dissociate the gas and therefore using a plurality of lasers would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. As for the location of the lasers, the laser will necessarily have a location and the determination of the location would be recognized as a result effective variable, directly affecting its ability to provide dissociation and therefore it would have been obvious to have determined the spatial relationship, including at opposite sides of the chamber, between the laser sources for dissociation to effective and successfully provide gas dissociation.
Alternatively, KR 052 discloses a method for dissociating gas in a plasma using a plurality of lasers, arranged on opposite sides of the chamber (see Figure 1 and accompanying text, Figure 3) and therefore taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified JP 734 taken with Swaminathan to use the first and second laser sources to dissociate the plasma and arrange such on opposite sides of the chamber as KR 052 discloses the arrangement of multiple lasers to further dissociate a plasma include oppositely arranged lasers.
Claim 4: Each of Veligdem and KR 052 discloses windows that comprise a material that is transparent to the EM (see Veligdem at Figure 1 and accompanying text, KR 052 stating “The chamber body may comprise one or more laser transmission windows for transmitting the laser beam from the laser supply therein.”)
Claims 9-11 and 14: The limitations of these claims are specifically addressed above with respect to JP 734, Swaminathan and the presence of lasers with opposite direction would have been obvious as outlined by Veligdem or KR 052.
Claim 14: Swaminathan discloses the UV induces reaction of the cluster defects and therefore can reasonably be considered to read on the broadly drafted “burns”. At the very least, the prior art discloses the same UV source and removing defects and thus can reasonably be considered to encompass “burn.”
Claim(s) 6, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 734 taken with Swaminathan, Veligdem or KR 052 taken with EP 0521615, hereinafter EP 615 and US Patent Application Publication 20100081260 by Chen.
JP 734 with Swaminathan, Veligdem or KR 052 fails to disclose an inert “gas curtain” and such is prior to introducing the precursor material. However, Chen, which discloses a vapor deposition process, including plasma processing using silane for deposition of amorphous silicon (see e.g. 0044-0045) and discloses including using a laser and including a flowing an inert gas (0038) to prevent film forming gases into the laser area and clouding of the window (0038). Therefore taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified JP 734 to include the window and gas curtain comprising an inert gas into the chamber to reap the benefits of removing any film forming gases (or preventing their inclusion) therein and preventing the clouding of the window.
JP 734 with Chen discloses supplying inert gas curtain to prevent clouding of the window and discloses introducing the inert gas curtain to “remove film forming gases therein” and thus reasonably discloses the introducing of the film forming gases prior to forming the inert gas curtain (otherwise the inert gas will not remove any film forming gases) and then discloses using the inert gas is used to prevent film forming gases from reaching the surface of the window by diffusion (0038).
Additionally, the examiner cites here EP 615 which also discloses laser photo CVD and discloses supplying inert gas to prevent reactive products from depositing on the window of the chamber window (Figure 7, page 2, lines 10-25). EP 615 discloses the precursor is supplied to the chamber and thereafter inert gas is supplied (see page 2, lines 17-24, “subsequently”). EP 615 also discloses the light is irradiated simultaneously with the supply of the inert gas and supplying the inert gas such that the window is protected from reactive products. As such, EP 615 reasonably discloses the supply of the inert gas occurs before decomposition of the gases (i.e. simultaneously with light supply but prior to decomposition). Therefore, taking the references collectively, first supplying the precursor, then forming the inert gas curtain prior to decomposition would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to protect the window form the reactive gases. At the very least, even if the decomposition occurs instantaneously with the laser, the EP 615 reasonably suggests the inert gas is used to protect the window from the reactive gases and therefore it would have been obvious to have supplied the inert gas curtain across the window prior to decomposition to reap the benefits of reducing or preventing the reactive species from the window.
12. Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 734 taken with Swaminathan, Veligdem or KR 052 as applied to claims above collectively with US Patent Application Publication 20140255616 by Paulson.
Claim 15: JP 734 taken with Swaminathan, Veligdem or KR 052 are specifically addressed in the rejection as to claims above. Additionally, the examiner notes Swaminathan discloses UV source, but fails to explicitly disclose a laser to burn cluster defects. However, Paulson, also discloses using EM radiation to post treat a substrate and discloses the deposited film can be post treated by laser that emits UV radiation (abstract) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to modify Swaminathan to use the UV laser as Swaminathan discloses the using a UV source and Paulson discloses a UV laser is a known UV source for post treating a deposited film.
Swaminathan discloses the UV induces reaction of the cluster defects and therefore can reasonably be considered to read on the broadly drafted “burns”. At the very least, the prior art discloses the same UV source and removing defects and thus can reasonably be considered to encompass “burn.”
Claim 16: Swaminathan discloses all that is above, additionally, Swaminathan discloses a plurality of sources such that the source (see e.g. arrangement of lenses and fibers), but fails to explicitly disclose the EM source overlaps the perimeter of the substrate. However, Swaminathan discloses the UV source overlaps an edge of the platform in plain view (Figure 9C and accompanying text, claims merely require a substrate placed over “a platform” and such is met by carrier ring). Swaminathan discloses emitting the EM source is configured with arrangements to distribution of the UV ration from the source to the film and discloses the configurations and location can be adjusted to resolve defects in the film deposited on the substrate. Therefore, Swaminathan explicitly discloses the location of the EM source is optimizable and adjustable to provide the desired EM radiation to the deposited layer so as to resolve defects in the surface layer and therefore adjusting the location, including overlapping the outer perimeter, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art so that the surface defects are resolved. Additionally, in view of the disclosure that location of EM source is a design choice, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide EM sources over the perimeter of the substrate, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
As for the arrangement in a circular pattern, the examiner notes that the Swaminathan discloses a plurality of source arranged in any number arrangement per discussion above and the substrate being circular (Figure 4) and thus arranging the sources into a circular pattern to property resolve the defects of the circular substrate would have been obvious as predictable arrangement for the treatment of the substrate.
Claim 17: According to the prior art cited herein, the first and second laser sources will provide dissociation of the plasma and third and fourth will provide resolving cluster defects and therefore the amount of energy would be recognized as a result effective variable, directly affecting its utilization (i.e. too low and no further plasma dissociation or resolving film defects and too high will be detrimental to the film) and therefore determination of the optimal energy, through routine experimentation, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention..
Claim 18: JP 734 discloses heating to the desired temperature (page 1). Veligdem discloses the substrate 12 was heated to 195C within the range as claimed and thus makes obvious such.
13. Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 734 taken with Swaminathan, Veligdem or KR 052 with Paulson and further with EP 615 and Chen.
JP 734 taken with Swaminathan, Veligdem or KR 052 fails to disclose an inert “gas curtain” before or after introducing the precursor material. However, Chen, which discloses a vapor deposition process, including plasma processing using silane for deposition of amorphous silicon (see e.g. 0044-0045) and discloses including using a laser and including a flowing an inert gas (0038) to prevent film forming gases into the laser area and clouding of the window (0038). Therefore taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified JP 734 to include the window and gas curtain comprising an inert gas into the chamber to reap the benefits of removing any film forming gases (or preventing their inclusion) therein and preventing the clouding of the window.
Chen discloses supplying inert gas curtain to prevent clouding of the window and discloses introducing the inert gas curtain to “remove film forming gases therein” and thus reasonably discloses the introducing of the film forming gases prior to forming the inert gas curtain (otherwise the inert gas will not remove any film forming gases) and then discloses using the inert gas is used to prevent film forming gases from reaching the surface of the window by diffusion and thus forms a curtain before further flowing the precursors materials (0038).
Additionally, the examiner cites here EP 615 which also discloses laser photo CVD and discloses supplying inert gas to prevent reactive products from depositing on the window of the chamber window (Figure 7, page 2, lines 10-25). EP 615 discloses the precursor is supplied to the chamber and thereafter inert gas is supplied (see page 2, lines 17-24, “subsequently”). EP 615 also discloses the light is irradiated simultaneously with the supply of the inert gas and supplying the inert gas such that the window is protected from reactive products. As such, EP 615 reasonably discloses the supply of the inert gas occurs before decomposition of the gases (i.e. simultaneously with light supply but prior to decomposition). Therefore, taking the references collectively, first supplying the precursor, then forming the inert gas curtain prior to decomposition would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to protect the window form the reactive gases. At the very least, even if the decomposition occurs instantaneously with the laser, the EP 615 reasonably suggests the inert gas is used to protect the window from the reactive gases and therefore it would have been obvious to have supplied the inert gas curtain across the window prior to decomposition to reap the benefits of reducing or preventing the reactive species from the window.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718