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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the collimator body (Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) comprises an integrated substrate support (Applicant’s 306; Figure 3) structure” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Singh; Harmeet et al. (US 20150011093 A1). Singh teaches a collimator (“extractor plate”; throughout; 750; Figure 7; [0119]-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) for tilted c-axis thin-film deposition, comprising: a collimator body (750; Figure 7; [0119]; “extractor plate”; throughout-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) comprising an array of holes (407; Figure 4,7; 502A-D; Figure 5,7) for limiting directions of deposition of particles (ions; [0037], etc...), wherein the collimator body (750; Figure 7; [0119]; “extractor plate”; throughout-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) is a singular monolithic element (703; Figure 7; [0119]), wherein the array of holes (407; Figure 4,7; 502A-D; Figure 5,7) comprises a plurality of holes (407; Figure 4,7; 502A-D; Figure 5,7) oriented at one or more oblique angles (1º<angle<75º; [0012]; [0102]) relative to a vertical direction, the vertical direction being orthogonal to the first and second horizontal directions, wherein the collimator body (750; Figure 7; [0119]; “extractor plate”; throughout-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) comprises a central section (Figure 4-6) comprising said array of holes (407; Figure 4,7; 502A-D; Figure 5,7) and an integrated frame (750; Figure 7; [0119]) surrounding , fully or at least in part, the central section (Figure 4-6), wherein the collimator body (750; Figure 7; [0119]; “extractor plate”; throughout-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) comprises an integrated substrate support (717; Figure 7; [0119]-Applicant’s 306; Figure 3) structure extending from or provided on the integrated frame (750; Figure 7; [0119]) for holding or supporting a substrate (719; Figure 7), as claimed by claim 1
Singh further teaches:
The collimator (“extractor plate”; throughout; 750; Figure 7; [0119]-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) of claim 1, wherein the array is a one-dimensional array extending along a first horizontal direction or a two-dimensional array (Figure 4A-D) extending along the first horizontal direction and a second horizontal direction orthogonal to the first horizontal direction, as claimed by claim 2
The collimator (“extractor plate”; throughout; 750; Figure 7; [0119]-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) according to claim 1, wherein each of the one or more oblique angles (1º<angle<75º; [0012]; [0102]) is greater than 25º and smaller than 90º, preferably greater than 32° and smaller than 75º, as claimed by claim 4
The collimator (“extractor plate”; throughout; 750; Figure 7; [0119]-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) according to claim 1,wherein a width (assumed to be diameters; d=0.5mm; [0075]) of the plurality of holes (407; Figure 4,7; 502A-D; Figure 5,7) or each of a plurality of different widths (assumed to be diameters; d=0.5mm; [0075]) of the plurality of holes (407; Figure 4,7; 502A-D; Figure 5,7) is smaller than 10.0 mm, or smaller than 5.0 mm, or smaller than 3.0 mm, or smaller than 1 mm, as claimed by claim 5
The collimator (“extractor plate”; throughout; 750; Figure 7; [0119]-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) according to claim 1,wherein the array of holes (407; Figure 4,7; 502A-D; Figure 5,7) is a one-dimensional periodic array or a two-dimensional periodic array (Figure 4A-D), as claimed by claim 6
The collimator (“extractor plate”; throughout; 750; Figure 7; [0119]-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) according to claim 1,wherein the collimator body (750; Figure 7; [0119]; “extractor plate”; throughout-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) is made of an additive manufacturing material (Al, W, Co, Mo, Si [0106] - Applicant’s specification Al, Cu, Ti, Ni, ...), preferably of a metal-based or alloy-based additive manufacturing material (Al, W, Co, Mo, Si [0106] - Applicant’s specification Al, Cu, Ti, Ni, ...), more preferably of a titanium-based additive manufacturing material (Al, W, Co, Mo, Si [0106] - Applicant’s specification Al, Cu, Ti, Ni, ...), as claimed by claim 8
The collimator (“extractor plate”; throughout; 750; Figure 7; [0119]-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) according to claim 1, wherein the integrated frame (750; Figure 7; [0119]) has a mesh-like (“fine mesh”; [0075]) or porous structure, as claimed by claim 10
The collimator (“extractor plate”; throughout; 750; Figure 7; [0119]-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) according to claim 1,wherein the collimator body (750; Figure 7; [0119]; “extractor plate”; throughout-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) comprises integrated mechanical fastening means (777; Figure 7-Applicant’s “mechanical clipping or clamping element “) extending from or provided on the integrated frame (750; Figure 7; [0119]) for fastening the collimator (“extractor plate”; throughout; 750; Figure 7; [0119]-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) to a deposition system, as claimed by claim 11
Use of a collimator (“extractor plate”; throughout; 750; Figure 7; [0119]-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) according to claim 1 in a tilted c-axis axis thin-film deposition process, as claimed by claim 14. Applicant’s claim is directed to the intendeduse of the pending Apparatus claims. Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115). Singh can perform the use as demonstrated at [0118].
A deposition system comprising: a source of particles (ions; [0037], etc...) for producing particles (ions; [0037], etc...) for deposition; a collimator (“extractor plate”; throughout; 750; Figure 7; [0119]-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) according to claim 1 arranged in front of the source of particles (ions; [0037], etc...) for limiting directions of deposition of the particles (ions; [0037], etc...); and a substrate support (717; Figure 7; [0119]-Applicant’s 306; Figure 3) structure for holding or supporting a substrate (719; Figure 7) onto which the particles (ions; [0037], etc...) are to be deposited, wherein the substrate support (717; Figure 7; [0119]-Applicant’s 306; Figure 3) structure is a separate support element fixed to the collimator (“extractor plate”; throughout; 750; Figure 7; [0119]-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) or an integrated or intrinsic substrate support (717; Figure 7; [0119]-Applicant’s 306; Figure 3) structure of the collimator body (750; Figure 7; [0119]; “extractor plate”; throughout-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3), as claimed by claim 15. The above noted italicized claim text is considered intended use claim recitations for the pending apparatus claims. Applicant’s claim is directed to the intendeduse of the pending Apparatus claims. Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115). Singh can perform the use as demonstrated at [0118].
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh; Harmeet et al. (US 20150011093 A1) in view of O'Donnell, Robert J. (US 20030181065 A1). Singh is discussed above. Singh further teaches coating interior surfaces of Singh’s system (Figure 7) with oxides or “other plasma resistant coatings” ([0118]). However, Singh does not teach Singh’s collimator (“extractor plate”; throughout; 750; Figure 7; [0119]-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) according to claim 1,wherein a surface of the collimator body (750; Figure 7; [0119]; “extractor plate”; throughout-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) is coated with an adhesive layer, being preferably a layer of TiO2.
O'Donnell also teaches chamber components with TO2 coatings for lengthening service life (abstract, [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Singh to TiO2 coat Singh’s collimator as taught by O'Donnell.
Motivation for Singh to TiO2 coat Singh’s collimator as taught by O'Donnell is for reducing plasma erosion as taught by O'Donnell (throughout).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh; Harmeet et al. (US 20150011093 A1) in view of Yoshidome; GOICHI et al. (US 20180142342 A1). Singh is discussed above. Singh does not teach that a method for manufacturing Singh’s collimator (“extractor plate”; throughout; 750; Figure 7; [0119]-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) according to claim 1, the method comprising manufacturing Singh’s collimator body (750; Figure 7; [0119]; “extractor plate”; throughout-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) of Singh’s collimator (“extractor plate”; throughout; 750; Figure 7; [0119]-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) using additive manufacturing.
Yoshidome also teaches a collimator (175; Figure 1,2) made from additive manufacturing ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Singh to make Singh’s collimator by additive manufacturing as taught by Yoshidome.
Motivation for Singh to make Singh’s collimator by additive manufacturing as taught by Yoshidome is for alternate “newer manufacturing techniques” as taught by Yoshidome ([0028]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Singh; Harmeet et al. (US 20150011093 A1) further teaches Singh’s collimator (“extractor plate”; throughout; 750; Figure 7; [0119]-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) according to claim 1, wherein Singh’s collimator body (750; Figure 7; [0119]; “extractor plate”; throughout-Applicant’s 302; Figure 3) comprises a plurality of walls (601A,B-”corrugation”; Figure 6A,B-Applicant’s 105,106; Figure 1) separating holes (407; Figure 4,7; 502A-D; Figure 5,7) of the array – claim 7. However, Singh does not teach, alone or in combination, Singh’s plurality of walls (601A,B-”corrugation”; Figure 6A,B-Applicant’s 105,106; Figure 1) having a wall thickness (LB > 2mm; Figure 6B; [0102]) smaller than or equal to 300 pm, preferably 200 pm, more preferably 100pm, and larger than or equal to 50 pm or a plurality of different wall thicknesses (LB > 2mm; Figure 6B; [0102]) smaller than or equal to 300 pm, preferably 200 pm, more preferably 100 pm, and larger than or equal to 50 pm, as claimed by claim 7
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Collimation components similar to Applicant’s invention include US 6955726 B2; US 20070228302 A1; US 5985102 A; US 7355192 B2; US 8771417 B2; US 20100206231 A1; US 12463021 B2; US 20230116956 A1; US 20220011636 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights