DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to communication received on 8/19/24.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As for claim 6, it contains the limitations of approximately 0.05 nm/s to approximately 2.0 nm/s, at a deposition rate of approximately 0.5 nm/s to approximately 1.2 nm/s, or at a deposition rate of approximately 0.8 nm. The term “approximately” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As for claim 19, it contains the limitations of wherein the AlN is deposited on the substrate at a deposition rate of approximately 0.05 nm/s to approximately 2.0 nm/s. The term “approximately” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret ‘approximately’ to mean within 0.5 of the listed value.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 8- 10, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ockenfuss US PGPub 2021/0302635 hereinafter OCKENFUSS in view of Hendrix et al. US PGPub 2014/0014838 hereinafter HENDRIX and Kim et al. US Patent Number 5,270,263 hereinafter KIM.
As for claim 8, OCKENFUSS teaches “An optical thin film filter may include a first set of filter layers with a first refractive index. The optical thin film filter may include a second set of filter layers with a second refractive index” (abstract, lines 1-4).
OCKENFUSS further teaches “In some implementations, filter layers 140 may include… a hydrogenated silicon layer… an aluminum nitride” (paragraph 25, lines 11-17), and “Although some implementations are described herein in terms of two types of materials for the alternating layers, other quantities of materials may be used” (paragraph 43, lines 28-30) i.e. causing… to form a first set of layers that comprise aluminum nitride (AlN) on a substrate… causing… to form a second set of layers that comprise hydrogenated silicon (Si:H)… wherein the first set of layers and second set of layers are formed in a particular order.
OCKENFUSS is silent on supplying an inert gas, a nitrogen gas… to a chamber; causing, based on supplying the inert gas and the nitrogen gas, sputtering of a first target to form the AlN layers.
OCKENFUSS does teach “A coating system may be used to coat a substrate with a particular material. For example, a pulsed direct current (DC) magnetron sputtering system may be used for deposition of thin film layers, thick film layers, and/or the like. Based on a coating system depositing a set of layers, an optical element may be formed” (paragraph 2, lines 1-6), i.e. wherein it does teach sputtering.
Examiner notes that OCKENFUSS is specifically silent on how its layers are formed.
KIM teaches “A process for depositing a thin film of aluminum nitride (AlN) includes sputtering an aluminum target with energetic nitrogen ions generated in a nitrogen plasma. A single gas (i.e. nitrogen) is used as both the reactive gas and as the sputtering gas” (abstract, lines 1-5) and “In use the nitrogen (N2) and the inert sputter gases are introduced into the space between the electrodes 12 and 14 and are excited to a high energy state by the RF energy emitted from RF power source 28” (column 4, lines 22-25), i.e. supplying an inert gas, a nitrogen gas… to a chamber; causing, based on supplying the inert gas and the nitrogen gas, sputtering of a first target to form the AlN layers
KIM further teaches “The process of the invention is especially suited to semiconductor manufacture for forming an aluminum nitride (AIN) film having a high purity” (column 3, lines 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include supplying an inert gas, a nitrogen gas… to a chamber; causing, based on supplying the inert gas and the nitrogen gas, sputtering of a first target in the process of OCKENFUSS because KIM teaches that such a process allows for the product of high purity AlN films.
OCKENFUSS and KIM are silent on supplying… a hydrogen gas and causing, based on supplying the inert gas and the hydrogen gas, sputtering of a second target to form a second set of layers that comprise hydrogenated silicon (Si:H).
HENDRIX teaches “An optical filter having a passband at least partially overlapping with a wavelength range of 800 nm to 1100 nm is provided. The optical filter includes a filter stack formed of hydrogenated silicon layers and lower-refractive index layers stacked in alternation.” (abstract, lines 1-3)
HENDRIX further teaches “The hydrogenated silicon material is, preferably, produced by pulsed direct current (DC) sputtering” (paragraph 35, lines 6-8) and “The cathode 430 includes a silicon target 431, which is sputtered in the presence of hydrogen (H2 ) , as well as an inert gas such as argon, to deposit the hydrogenated silicon material as a layer on the substrate 420” (paragraph 37, lines 1-4), i.e. supplying… a hydrogen gas and causing, based on supplying the inert gas and the hydrogen gas, sputtering of a second target to form a second set of layers that comprise hydrogenated silicon (Si:H).
HENDRIX further teaches “Advantageously, the first exemplary optical filter of FIG. 7 includes fewer layers and has a smaller total coating thickness than the first conventional optical filter of FIG. 1…
Therefore, the first exemplary optical filter is less expensive to fabricate and is easier to pattern. Also advantageously, the first exemplary optical filter has a lower center-wavelength shift with change in incidence angle” (paragraph 60, lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include supplying… a hydrogen gas and causing, based on supplying the inert gas and the hydrogen gas, sputtering of a second target to form a second set of layers that comprise hydrogenated silicon (Si:H) in the process of OCKENFUSS because HENDRIX teaches that such a process for applying hydrogenated silicon produces optical filters that are less expensive, easier to pattern and have better optical properties.
As for claim 9, OCKENFUSS teaches “wherein the effective refractive index is greater than or equal to 3.56” (claim 2, lines 5-6), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein an effective refractive index of the first set of layers and the second set of layers is greater than or equal to 3.7 based at least in part on the particular layer order. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
As for claim 10, OCKENFUSS further teaches “The optical thin film filter may have an effective refractive index greater than or equal to 95% of a highest index component material of the plurality of layers” (paragraph 7, lines 9-12), i.e. wherein the formation of layers is formed to have an effective refractive index that is greater than or equal to 95% of a value of a layer, of the formation of layers, with a highest refractive index material.
As for claim 15, OCKENFUSS teaches “An optical thin film filter may include a first set of filter layers with a first refractive index. The optical thin film filter may include a second set of filter layers with a second refractive index” (abstract, lines 1-4).
OCKENFUSS further teaches “In some implementations, filter layers 140 may include… a hydrogenated silicon layer… an aluminum nitride” (paragraph 25, lines 11-17), i.e. causing… to form a first set of layers that comprise aluminum nitride (AlN) on a substrate… causing… to form a second set of layers that comprise hydrogenated silicon (Si:H)… wherein the first set of layers and second set of layers are formed in a particular order.
OCKENFUSS is silent on supplying an inert gas, a nitrogen gas… to a chamber; causing, based on supplying the inert gas and the nitrogen gas, sputtering of a first target to form the AlN layers.
OCKENFUSS does teach “A coating system may be used to coat a substrate with a particular material. For example, a pulsed direct current (DC) magnetron sputtering system may be used for deposition of thin film layers, thick film layers, and/or the like. Based on a coating system depositing a set of layers, an optical element may be formed” (paragraph 2, lines 1-6), i.e. wherein it does teach sputtering.
Examiner notes that OCKENFUSS is specifically silent on how its layers are formed.
KIM teaches “A process for depositing a thin film of aluminum nitride (AlN) includes sputtering an aluminum target with energetic nitrogen ions generated in a nitrogen plasma. A single gas (i.e. nitrogen) is used as both the reactive gas and as the sputtering gas” (abstract, lines 1-5) and “In use the nitrogen (N2) and the inert sputter gases are introduced into the space between the electrodes 12 and 14 and are excited to a high energy state by the RF energy emitted from RF power source 28” (column 4, lines 22-25), i.e. supplying an inert gas, a nitrogen gas… to a chamber; causing, based on supplying the inert gas and the nitrogen gas, sputtering of a first target to form the AlN layers
KIM further teaches “The process of the invention is especially suited to semiconductor manufacture for forming an aluminum nitride (AIN) film having a high purity” (column 3, lines 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include supplying an inert gas, a nitrogen gas… to a chamber; causing, based on supplying the inert gas and the nitrogen gas, sputtering of a first target in the process of OCKENFUSS because KIM teaches that such a process allows for the product of high purity AlN films.
OCKENFUSS and KIM are silent on supplying… a hydrogen gas and causing, based on supplying the inert gas and the hydrogen gas, sputtering of a second target to form a second set of layers that comprise hydrogenated silicon (Si:H).
HENDRIX teaches “An optical filter having a passband at least partially overlapping with a wavelength range of 800 nm to 1100 nm is provided. The optical filter includes a filter stack formed of hydrogenated silicon layers and lower-refractive index layers stacked in alternation.” (abstract, lines 1-3)
HENDRIX further teaches “The hydrogenated silicon material is, preferably, produced by pulsed direct current (DC) sputtering” (paragraph 35, lines 6-8) and “The cathode 430 includes a silicon target 431, which is sputtered in the presence of hydrogen (H2 ) , as well as an inert gas such as argon, to deposit the hydrogenated silicon material as a layer on the substrate 420” (paragraph 37, lines 1-4), i.e. supplying… a hydrogen gas and causing, based on supplying the inert gas and the hydrogen gas, sputtering of a second target to form a second set of layers that comprise hydrogenated silicon (Si:H).
HENDRIX further teaches “Advantageously, the first exemplary optical filter of FIG. 7 includes fewer layers and has a smaller total coating thickness than the first conventional optical filter of FIG. 1…
Therefore, the first exemplary optical filter is less expensive to fabricate and is easier to pattern. Also advantageously, the first exemplary optical filter has a lower center-wavelength shift with change in incidence angle” (paragraph 60, lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include supplying… a hydrogen gas and causing, based on supplying the inert gas and the hydrogen gas, sputtering of a second target to form a second set of layers that comprise hydrogenated silicon (Si:H) in the process of OCKENFUSS because HENDRIX teaches that such a process for applying hydrogenated silicon produces optical filters that are less expensive, easier to pattern and have better optical properties.
As for claim 16, OCKENFUSS teaches “According to some implementations, an optical thin film filter may include alternating high refractive index layers and low refractive index layers” (paragraph 6, lines 1-3), i.e. wherein the particular layer order includes an alternating layer order of high refractive index layers and low refractive index layers.
As for claim 17, OCKENFUSS further teaches “The optical thin film filter may have an effective refractive index greater than or equal to 95% of a highest index component material of the plurality of layers” (paragraph 7, lines 9-12), i.e. wherein an effective refractive index of the first set of layers and the second set of layers is greater than or equal to 95% of a value of the high refractive index layers based at least in part on the particular layer order.
As for claim 18, OCKENFUSS teaches “wherein the effective refractive index is greater than or equal to 3.56” (claim 2, lines 5-6), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein an effective refractive index of the first set of layers and the second set of layers is greater than or equal to 3.7 based at least in part on the particular layer order. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
As for claim 19, OCKENFUSS is silent on the AlN deposition.
KIM teaches “Table 2 shows that the aluminum nitride (AlN) deposition rate using this process as a function of sputter deposition power” (column 6, lines 47-48) and further list the value of 70 Å/min (table 2). It is expected that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention could have converted the Å/min to a nm/s, which overlap with the instant claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a deposition rate that overlaps with wherein the AlN is deposited on the substrate at a deposition rate of approximately 0.05 nm/s to approximately 2.0 nm/s in the process of OCKENFUSS because KIM teaches that such a process allows for the product of high purity AlN films.
As for claim 20, OCKENFUSS teaches “wherein the highest refractive index component material of the optical thin film filter is a hydrogenated silicon material with a refractive index of 3.75” (claim 2), i.e. wherein the second set of layers has a refractive index that is greater than a refractive index of the first set of layers.
Allowable Subject Matter and Reasons for Allowance
Claims 1-5, 7, are allowed.
Claims 11-14 are 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As for claim 1, it contains the following limitation which, within the overall context of the claim, is not taught nor suggested by the prior art on record:
the second set of layers comprise hydrogenated silicon with helium (Si:H-He)
The closest prior art on record of OCKENFUSS does not teach hydrogenated silicon with helium (Si:H-He).
As for claim 2-5 and 7, they depend from claim 1 and are therefore allowable.
As for claim 11, it contains the following limitation, which, within the overall context of the claim, is not taught nor suggested by the prior art on record:
wherein the one or more first layers are formed to have a net stress between -230 and 800 megapascals
The closest prior art on record of OCKENFUSS is entirely silent on the stress of the applied layers.
As for claim 12, it depends from claim 11 and is therefore allowable.
As for claim 13, it contains the following limitation, which, within the overall context of the claim, is not taught nor suggested by the prior art on record:
wherein the one or more first layers are formed to have a net stress between -1000 and 150 megapascals
The closest prior art on record of OCKENFUSS is entirely silent on the stress of the applied layers.
As for claim 14, it depends from claim 13 and is therefore allowable.
Conclusion
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN A DAGENAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1114. The examiner can normally be reached 8-12 and 1-5.
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.
/KRISTEN A DAGENAIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights