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 Objections
Claims 2 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, the limitation phrased “supposed that a partial pressure of the sputtering gas inside the vacuum chamber in the first step is defined to be a reference partial pressure, then the partial pressure of the sputtering gas” should be rephrased to clarify that the limitation is required and not like a hypothetical situation. This objection may be overcome by amending the claim limitation to recite “wherein a partial pressure of the sputtering gas inside the vacuum chamber in the first step is defined to be a reference partial pressure, and a partial pressure of the sputtering gas” or another similar limitation.
In claim 4, the limitation “depositing a film” in line 1 should be amended to read “depositing a silicon film” to maintain consistency with the other claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 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.
In claim 1, the limitation “the film density” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because there is no previous recitation of a film density of the first silicon film and therefore it is unclear what density (e.g., average film density, local film density) is being referred to. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “a film density”.
In claim 3, the limitation “the film thickness” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because there is no previous recitation of a film thickness of the first silicon film and therefore it is unclear what thickness is being referred to (e.g., a maximum thickness or a minimum thickness) or if the claim is intended to require a uniform film thickness. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “a film thickness”.
In claim 3, the limitation “the silicon film” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is intended to refer to a thickness of the silicon film or another element. Additionally, it is unclear whether the limitation refers to the overall silicon film (i.e., the combination of the first and second silicon films) or one of the first and second silicon films.
In claim 4, the limitation “the film” in line 2 is indefinite because it is unclear whether this is intended to refer to the overall silicon film, the first silicon film, the second silicon film, or a different film altogether.
Claims 2-4 are indefinite by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karabacak (US 20160226065 A1) in view of Honda (JP 2005183364 A).
Regarding claim 1, Karabacak (US 20160226065 A1) teaches depositing layers of silicon using a silicon sputtering target, where the deposited layers include a first silicon layer 123 having a lower density and a second silicon layer 124 having a higher density in two independent steps, wherein the silicon target is located in a vacuum chamber 210 with a substrate 110 (film-deposition object), an operating/sputtering gas 220, such as argon, is introduced into the vacuum chamber in a vacuum atmosphere, and the target is supplied with electric power from a power supply to deposit the silicon film on the substrate by sputtering (para 0018, 0091, 0098, 0110, 0132, 0143-0146; Fig. 1d, 2).
Karabacak fails to explicitly teach that the first and second silicon films each have a columnar structure. However, Karabacak teaches at least the low density silicon layers of the multilayer thin film as having low and high density may have a columnar structure, wherein the structure may be controlled by adjusting the pressure during sputter deposition (para 0142, 0176). Additionally, Honda (JP 2005183364 A), in the analogous art of sputtering silicon, teaches a multilayer silicon thin film may be formed by sputtering and the silicon may be columnar when used as an electrode material in a lithium ion battery (para 0006, 0047, 0063, 0070-0071). Karabacak also relates to using silicon as an electrode material for lithium ion batteries (para 0008, 0025). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the structure of the higher density silicon film with a columnar structure by controlling the pressure during sputtering because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Karabacak and Honda teaches controlling the pressure of the sputtering gas to produce the higher and lower film density silicon layers, wherein the partial pressure is higher in the first step of depositing the lower density silicon film than in the second step of depositing the higher density silicon film (partial pressure of sputtering gas in the second step is made lower than the reference partial pressure of the first step) (Karabacak para 0110-0111, 0121, 0132, 0134).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Karabacak and Honda teaches the low density layer 123 and high density layer 124 appear to be approximately equal in size (Karabacak para 0091, 0153; Fig. 1d) and therefore the ratio of the low density layer to the sum of the low density and high density layer is approximately 0.5 (from 0.3 to 0.8).
Alternatively, the previous combination fails to explicitly teach a ratio of the film thickness of the first silicon film to the overall silicon film is set to a range from 0.3 to 0.8. However, Karabacak teaches an individual low density silicon layer may have a thickness of 74 nm and a density modulated layer having two sublayers may have a thickness of 190 nm (Table 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the low density thickness in a two layer density modulated film having a thickness of 190 nm with a low density thickness of 74 nm because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). As a result the ratio of low density silicon layer to overall silicon layer would be 74/190, or 0.389 (0.3 to 0.8).
Furthermore, Karabacak teaches the stress of the film depends upon the total film thickness and the low density layer thickness (para 0073-0074; Fig. 14b-15b), thus recognizing the thicknesses as result-effective variables. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum or workable ranges of total film thickness and low density layer thickness by routine optimization, which can include thicknesses resulting in a ratio within the claimed range of 0.3 to 0.8. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karabacak (US 20160226065 A1) in view of Honda (JP 2005183364 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou (US 20200350160 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Karabacak and Honda fails to explicitly teach bias power is charged to the film-deposition object while the film is being deposited, wherein the bias power in the first step and in the second step is set to a range from 20 W to 100 W. However, Zhou (US 20200350160 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches a silicon film may be deposited from a silicon target while applying an RF bias to the substrate to control the film density and improve uniformity, where the bias power may be 100 to 600 W (para 0023, 0028, 0030, 0032, 0035, 0047). Karabacak teaches controlling the film density by controlling operating parameters (para 0044, 0132-0134). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a bias power of 100 to 600 W, as described by Zhou, to the substrate during deposition of the first and second silicon layers in order to further control the film density and improve film uniformity.
The combination of Karabacak, Honda, and Zhou fails to explicitly teach the bias power in the first step and the second step is set to a range from 20 W to 100 W. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Zhou range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 100 to 600 W, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights