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 with traverse of claims 1-31 in the reply filed on January 27, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner has not demonstrated that the claimed process can be practiced using a materially different apparatus. This is not found persuasive because between the apparatus claims 1-31 and the method claims 32-37 the apparatus can be used in a gaseous atmosphere without deposition from the laser. Between the apparatus claims 1-31 and product claim 38, the product can be made by another materially different process by depositing using a pulsed laser as opposed to a continuous laser or by depositing above the plasma generation threshold. There is a difference in how apparatus/product claims and method claims are searched and considered. Namely, apparatus/products claims are searched, examined, and considered based on the structure while the method claims are searched, examined, and considered based on the process steps and are thus the apparatus/product claims should be examined separately as their search areas are separated and the approach to their examination is different.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
Means plus function
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Coupling-in section in claims 1-31 where the functional language is coupling-in and generic placeholder is section
Cooling means in claim 8 where the cooling as in cooling the process volume is the functional language and means is the generic placeholder.
Source holding mechanism s recited in claims 10-16 where mechanism is generic placeholder and source holding is the functional language
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Coupling-in section is interpreted as a coupling-in window, preferably made of quartz glass see page 10 lines 20-24
Cooling means is interpreted as cooling ducts according to Fig. 1 and the original specification paragraph 1 of page 16 and lines 18-25 of page 43.
Source holding mechanism is interpreted as source holding structure 220 as illustrated in Fig. 9.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Broad term to clarify
The phrases “substantially completely enclosing” (see claim 1 line 7) and “substantially continuous separate” (see claim 1 line 14) are recited in claims 1-31. The term “substantially completely” is interpreted that the process chamber has a chamber wall that substantially encloses the process volume as illustrated in Fig. 9. The term “substantially continuous separate” is interpreted as substantially separate beam of laser light as illustrated in Figs. 1-4 and 6-8.
Claim 1 line 18 recites a phrase “below the plasma threshold’ which according to the originally filed specification paragraph joining pages 45 and 46 states that “no plasma is generated on the incidence of the laser light on the source material and a purely thermal evaporation and/or sublimation of the respective source material can be ensured.
Specification
A typographical error is noted in the specification for source holding structure is recited in the specification as elements 22 (page 55 line 18) and 220 (page 72). It appears that source holding structure is 220. It is noted throughout the specification (see page 70 for example) that beam catcher is element 22.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “by a direct irradiation of the laser light” is redundant and should be deleted. 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 18, 20, 24, and 28 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.
Claims 18, 20, and 28 recites the limitation "the source crucible" in line 3 of claim 18, line 5 claim 20, line 3 claim 28 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 refers to a source holder in lines 9 and 19 thus for the purposes of examination. The references to “the source crucible” will be interpreted as “the source holder”.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the corresponding source crucible" in line 5 of claim 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 refers to a source holder in lines 9 and 19 thus for the purposes of examination. The references to “the corresponding source crucible” will be interpreted as “the source holder”.
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, 2, 4, 6, 17-20, 24, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakai Hidekazu (JP 2014-133907 using the Machine Generated English Translation provided herewith).
Regarding claim 1: The prior art of Nakai Hidekazu teaches a coating apparatus (film deposition apparatus) for coating a substrate of a substrate material with at least one material layer of a layer material (film deposited body 8) , said coating apparatus comprising a process chamber (film deposition chamber 2) having a process volume for receiving a substrate holder for arranging the substrate, wherein the substrate holder (holding mechanism 9) is arranged in a fixed position in the process volume such that the substrate holder can furthermore be provided rotatable and/or movable essentially in a plane normal to the deposition direction as a whole (the holder rotates), wherein the process chamber has a chamber wall for at least substantially enclosing the process volume (see Fig.1) ; a gas system (air is introduced according to the description of Fig. 1) connected in a fluid-communicating manner to the process volume for generating a coating atmosphere in the process volume; and a source holder (11 crucible/container has a holder 11v for each source material) arranged in the process volume and providing at least one source material 10, wherein each of the at least one source materials (Figs. 1, 6, 8, 12, and 14 illustrate a plurality of source materials) is provided as a pure chemical element (Nakai Hidekazu recites ITO film which would comprise pure materials to not contaminate the process result see the first paragraph under Background Art) can be evaporation materials each of these are known materials found on the periodic table of elements), said coating apparatus further comprising a source heating laser (laser light source 4), wherein the source heating laser is configured to provide a continuous or at least substantially continuous separate beam of laser light for each of the at least one elemental source materials
(see abstract where control part 6 ensures this) and the process chamber has a coupling-in apparatus having at least one coupling-in section (window 14) in the chamber wall for conducting the separate beams of laser light of the source heating laser into the process volume for thermally evaporating and/or sublimating each of the elemental source materials below a plasma generation threshold, wherein the source holder 11 and the substrate holder (holding mechanism 9) are further arranged relative to one another such that thermally evaporated and/or sublimated source material originating from the at least one source material can be deposited on the substrate for an at least partial formation of the layer material of the material layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
477
321
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
324
304
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1 and 14 of Nakai Hidekazu (JP 2014-133907)
Regarding claim 2: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 1 wherein the layer material is a compound comprising two or more chemical elements, wherein at least one of the two or more chemical elements originates from one of the at least one source materials. See the first paragraph under Background Art of Nakai Hidekazu where indium and tin are recited.
Regarding claim 4: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 2 wherein a surface of the substrate is prepared such that the compound is formed only on the surface of the substrate. See the first and second paragraph under Background Art of Nakai Hidekazu where indium and tin are recited).
Regarding claim 6: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 1 wherein the process chamber comprises a monolithic chamber body providing the whole chamber wall. See Fig. 1 of See of Nakai Hidekazu above.
Regarding claim 17: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 1 wherein the source material can be directly heated and thermally evaporated and/or sublimated by the laser light 4 by a direct irradiation of the laser light onto a source surface of the source material. See the discussion of Fig. 1 where evaporation is recited.
Regarding claim 18: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 1 wherein the light beam 3 encloses an angle of incidence between 0° and 90° with a surface normal to a crucible surface of the source crucible having source material and/or with a surface normal to a source surface of the source material. See 40, 45, and 50 degree angles are recited in Nakai Hidekazu.
Regarding claim 19: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein at least one of an intensity and a wavelength of the laser light is adapted to the corresponding source material. See Figs. 5- 7 of Nakai Hidekazu which illustrates is a diagram showing an example of the wavelength characteristic of the reflectance of the antireflection film manufactured using this film forming apparatus..
Regarding claim 20: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the process chamber has, at an inner side of the chamber wall, at least one beam catcher for at least partly absorbing reflected laser light, with the beam catcher being arranged in a spatial plane, which the light beam and the surface normal to the crucible surface of the source crucible and/or to the source surface of the source material span, and at a section of the chamber wall disposed opposite the coupling-in section in accordance with the angle of incidence. See rejection of claim 1 and Fig. 1 f Nakai Hidekazu above where the beam catcher is polarizing element 7
Regarding claim 24: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein at least one of the light beams has a focal area, with, in the focal area, the light beam having a minimum extent perpendicular to a light direction of the light beam, with the focal area further being arranged in the process volume between the coupling-in section and the corresponding source material or the corresponding source crucible. See Fig. 4 of Nakai Hidekazu.
Regarding claim 29: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the coupling-in apparatus has at least one further coupling-in section in the chamber wall 14 for conducting laser light of a substrate heating laser 4 into the process volume, with the laser light at least sectionally being present as a light beam 3 in the process volume and the substrate material of the substrate 8 being heatable by the laser light. See Fig. 1 of Nakai Hidekazu
Regarding claim 31: The prior art of Nakai Hidekazu teaches a process chamber (film forming chamber 2) for a coating apparatus for coating a substrate 8 of a substrate material with at least one material layer of a layer material, wherein the process chamber 2 is configured for a use in a coating apparatus (the prior art of Nakai Hidekazu recited film forming) in accordance with claim 1.
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.
Claims 3, 5, 21-23, 25, and 28 are rejected under 5 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai Hidekazu (JP 2014-133907 using the Machine Generated English Translation provided herewith) in view of Dings et al (US 2010/0310788).
The teachings of Nakai Hidekazu were discussed above.
The prior art of Nakai Hidekazu fails to teach:
Regarding claim 3: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 2, wherein the coating atmosphere comprises a reaction gas, wherein at least one of the two or more chemical elements of the layer material originates from the reaction gas.
The prior art of Dings et al teach and method and system for continuous of semi-continuous laser deposition. The apparatus of Dings et al comprises lasers 3, 4, target 1(source material)
creating laser evaporated material 8. See paragraph [0007] where a gas atmosphere other than the target material is incorporated into the deposition material and/or films using reactive gases. According to the Dings another motivation for using reactive gases is that they eliminate contaminating material from the deposition chamber. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to employ reactive gases as suggested by Dings to incorporate additional gases into the atmosphere and to facilitate the elimination of contaminating material in the apparatus of Nakai Hidekazu.
The prior art of Nakai Hidekazu fails to teach:
Regarding claim 5: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 4, wherein the apparatus comprises a substrate heating laser for heating the substrate, wherein the substrate heating laser is constructed for heating the substrate such that at least one chemical element of the compound forming the layer material desorbs from the substrate if not incorporated into the compound forming the layer material.
The prior art of Dings et al further teaches in [0021] that the substrates may be subjected to high temperatures. Dings et al explains that to achieve high temperatures by contact with the cloud of laser evaporated material 8, the gas or plasma 5 or from direct heating of the substrate by a heating device (such as a laser). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to employ a substrate heating laser as the way to maintain the substrate at high temperatures to facilitate the film deposition onto the wafer as suggested by Dings et al.
The prior art of Nakai Hidekazu fails to teach:
Regarding claim 21: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 1 wherein the source holder has two or more source materials, with each source material being able to be heated and thermally evaporated and/or sublimated by a separate light beam of laser light.
Regarding claim 22: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 21, wherein the coupling-in apparatus has a common coupling-in section for conducting at least two of the separate light beams into the process volume.
Regarding claim 23: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 21 wherein the coupling-in apparatus has at least two separate coupling-in sections for conducting a respective at least one of the separate light beams into the process volume.
Regarding claim 25: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 24, wherein the focal areas of at least two of the light beams overlap.
The prior art of Dings et al further teaches in [0018] that lasers 3, 4 can be provided with transparent windows made of quartz to allow for travel of the laser beams into the chamber independently. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to employ more than one transparent window to allow for travel of the laser beams into the chamber of Nakai Hidekazu independently as suggested by Dings et al.
See Fig. 1 of Dings where the focal areas of the light beams 3’ and 4’ overlap. According to [0013] the motivation to provide more than one laser is that they improve the evaporation process. According to Dings et al an auxiliary laser, i.e. the second laser, can be used to preheat the target surface up around for example its melting point or evaporation temperature, whereafter evaporation of the target material can be induced by the first laser. An advantage of this two-step process is that the first laser can be configured to emit its energy at parameters (such as pulse duration, pulse width, pulse height and/or wave length) tailored to the deposition process at hand, and at a relatively low power, thus allowing for very accurate control over the temperature of the target surface. The auxiliary laser may preheat the target surface in several ways, such as by means of line-illumination--through the use of an extra optical element--or by means of a scanning movement of a laser beam over the target surface. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to employ an additional laser and allow the focal areas of at least two of the light beams overlap in order to improve evaporation as suggested by Dings et al into the apparatus of Nakai Hidekazu.
The prior art of Nakai Hidekazu fails to teach:
Regarding claim 28: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the process chamber has at least one thermocouple for determining a temperature of the at least one source material and/or of the corresponding source crucible.
The prior art of Dings et al further teaches in [0021] that the substrate and/or target (evaporated material in the crucible/source holder) may be provided with a temperature sensor (thermocouple) in order to monitor and control the temperature of the substrate and/or target. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to employ a thermocouple to monitor and control the temperature of the substrate and/or target used in the apparatus of Nakai Hidekazu as suggested by Dings et al.
PNG
media_image3.png
496
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai Hidekazu (JP 2014-133907 using the Machine Generated English Translation provided herewith) in view of Dai et al (US 2016/0340770).
The teachings of Nakai Hidekazu were discussed above.
The prior art of Nakai Hidekazu fails to teach:
Regarding claim 5: The coating apparatus in accordance with The coating apparatus in accordance with wherein the apparatus comprises a substrate heating laser for heating the substrate, wherein the substrate heating laser is constructed for heating the substrate such that at least one chemical element of the compound forming the layer material desorbs from the substrate if not incorporated into the compound forming the layer material.
The prior art of Dai et al teaches a type of high magnetic field assisted PLD system consisted of pulsed laser and PLD cylindrical vacuum chamber see the abstract where the substrate heating table or laser heating table is recited in the abstract, [0012], [0040], and [0044] where heater 20 is used in substrate heating table 30. See [0049] were it is recited that Fig. 2 of Dai gives the design plan of the laser heating table The motivation to modify the prior art of Nakai Hidekazu by introducing a laser heating table to heat the substrate in order to enhance the temperature of the substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art of to introduce a laser heating table to heat the substrate in the apparatus of Nakai Hidekazu as suggested by Dai et al.
The prior art of Nakai Hidekazu further fails to teach:
Regarding claim 8: The coating apparatus in accordance with The coating apparatus in accordance with wherein the process chamber comprises cooling means for a fluid cooling of the process volume.
Regarding claim 9: The coating apparatus in accordance with The coating apparatus in accordance with wherein the cooling means comprise coolant ducts, wherein further the coolant ducts are at least partly integrated in the chamber body.
The prior art of Dai et al teaches in [0042] that the double layer clip-sheath cylindrical chamber 5 is equipped with a water cooling system with water inlet 33 and water outlet 3 in [0042] see Figures 1 and 3. The motivation to modify the prior art of Nakai Hidekazu by providing a water cooling system as discussed in Dai et al in order to maintain the temperature of the process chamber esp. the walls. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art of to introduce a water cooling system as suggested by Dai et al to maintain the temperature of the process chamber esp. the walls.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai Hidekazu (JP 2014-133907 using the Machine Generated English Translation provided herewith) in view of Dai et al (US 206/0340770) and Darwish et al (US 2014/0227461).
The teachings of Nakai Hidekazu were discussed above.
The prior art of Nakai Hidekazu fails to teach:
Regarding claim 10: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 1 wherein the process chamber comprises an airtight sealable lock with a lock volume, wherein the lock comprises a first lock door sealable against the process volume and a second lock door sealable against the environment, the process chamber further comprising an exchange mechanism for exchanging the at least one source material, wherein the exchange mechanism is constructed to operate within the process volume and to grab and move the at least one source material between the source holder and the lock volume.
Regarding claim 11: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 10 wherein the exchange mechanism is arranged within the lock volume.
Regarding claim 12: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 10 wherein the lock comprises a divider for dividing the lock volume a first compartment and a second compartment sealable to each other by the divider, wherein the first compartment extends between the divider and the first lock door, and the second compartment extends between the divider and the second lock door.
Regarding claim 13: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 10 wherein the lock comprises a source holding structure arranged in the lock volume, wherein the source holding structure is constructed to receive the at least one source material placed in the lock volume by the exchange mechanism.
Regarding claim 14: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 10 wherein the exchange mechanism is constructed to grab and move all of the at least one source materials simultaneously.
Regarding claim 15: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 10 wherein the exchange mechanism is constructed to also grab and move the substrate between the substrate holder and the lock volume.
Regarding claim 16: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 15 wherein the lock comprises a substrate holding structure arranged in the lock volume, wherein the substrate holding structure is constructed to receive the substrate placed in the lock volume by the exchange mechanism.
The prior art of Dai et al teaches a flange plate 13, flange plate 44, and vacuum seal joint 49 see [0049] and see Figs. 1 and 2 where the flange plates are interpreted as locks/lock doors to seal the chamber from the exterior atmosphere and process volume. The motivation to provide the flanges and seal joint of Dai et al is to maintain a clean process volume which will limit contamination. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art of to introduce the flanges and seal joint of Dai et al in the apparatus of Nakai Hidekazu.
The combined teachings of Nakai Hidekazu and Dai et al fails to teach the exchange mechanism.
Regarding claim 10: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 1 wherein the process chamber comprises an airtight sealable lock with a lock volume, wherein the lock comprises a first lock door sealable against the process volume and a second lock door sealable against the environment, the process chamber further comprising an exchange mechanism for exchanging the at least one source material, wherein the exchange mechanism is constructed to operate within the process volume and to grab and move the at least one source material between the source holder and the lock volume.
Regarding claim 11: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 10 wherein the exchange mechanism is arranged within the lock volume.
Regarding claim 12: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 10 wherein the lock comprises a divider for dividing the lock volume a first compartment and a second compartment sealable to each other by the divider, wherein the first compartment extends between the divider and the first lock door, and the second compartment extends between the divider and the second lock door.
Regarding claim 13: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 10 wherein the lock comprises a source holding structure arranged in the lock volume, wherein the source holding structure is constructed to receive the at least one source material placed in the lock volume by the exchange mechanism.
Regarding claim 14: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 10 wherein the exchange mechanism is constructed to grab and move all of the at least one source materials simultaneously.
Regarding claim 15: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 10 wherein the exchange mechanism is constructed to also grab and move the substrate between the substrate holder and the lock volume.
Regarding claim 16: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 15 wherein the lock comprises a substrate holding structure arranged in the lock volume, wherein the substrate holding structure is constructed to receive the substrate placed in the lock volume by the exchange mechanism.
Recall the combined teachings of Nakai Hidekazu and Dai et al teaches a plurality of lasers to evaporate the source materials and assist in depositing films onto the substrate.
The prior art of Darwish et al teaches multiple beam pulsed laser deposition See the abstract where one or more targets 110, 112 are disposed on a tiltable mount (exchange mechanism/ target carousel 104) to adjust direction and the mixing of the ablation plumes from multiple targets. See [0055] where a tiltable platform 106 is provided to adjust the tilt angle 108 to direct second plume 116. Also [0056] the holder 106 of the second target configured with a hinge 202 to allow variable or adjustable tilt along arc 108. Esp. 114, 116 normal to the surface of each target. The plumes have a respective first axis 208 and second axis 210 normal to the surface of the target at the center of the laser spot. A bisector 212 of the angle 216 between the first and second axis may preferably pass through the hinge 202 axis. A tilt angle 214 is shown. A distance 206 from the tilt axis (hinge axis) to the substrate is shown, and a first plume offset distance 204 from the first plume axis to the hinge axis and perpendicular to the plume axis is also shown. In one exemplary variation a second plume offset distance 218 is equal to the first plume offset distance 204. The exchange mechanisms are interpreted as 106 tilted targe/ source holder and substrate manipulator 406). The motivation to provide the exchange mechanism suggested by Darwish et al to move the source materials and/or substate in order to adjust the distance of the desired materials relative to the substrate and/or laser to better control the evaporation of the source materials to facilitate the deposition of the films onto the substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art of to introduce an exchange mechanism as suggested by Darwish et al in the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Nakai Hidekazu and Dai et al.
Note Darwish et al also provides flanges (locks) at the windows see [0072] and Fig. 4.
PNG
media_image4.png
746
630
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
680
554
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 3, 7, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai Hidekazu (JP 2014-133907 using the Machine Generated English Translation provided herewith) in view of Kojima et al (US 5,622,567).
The teachings of Nakai Hidekazu were discussed above.
The prior art of Nakai Hidekazu fails to teach:
Regarding claim 3: The coating apparatus in accordance with The coating apparatus in accordance with wherein the coating atmosphere comprises a reaction gas, wherein at least one of the two or more chemical elements of the layer material originates from the reaction gas.
The prior art of Kojima et al teaches a thin film forming apparatus using a laser. Oxygen gas 19 is introduced as the reactive gas to react with target 5 using laser beam 16 see the description of Fig. 149 in col. 2 lines 8-45 to form the layer material (film) from the plurality of elements used as the evaporation materials. See also col. 45 lines 58-60 where a nozzle 6 supplies gas 19 containing oxygen to provide an oxygen atmosphere to promote generation of oxide around the substrate 2. The modify the provide a reaction gas such as oxygen is that is a known and widely available gas to react with the evaporation materials and form the desired film. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a reaction gas such as oxygen as suggested by Kojima et al to react with the evaporation source material to deposit onto the substrate.
Regarding claim 7: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 6 wherein the chamber body consists of aluminum or of an aluminum alloy.
The prior art of Kojima et al teaches a thin film forming apparatus using a laser.
The material of construction of the chamber body is a matter of design choice as the material would be determined in consideration of the chemical and physical properties of the material ensuring that it can withstand the harsh environment of film deposition using evaporation materials. In col. 88 line 44 where aluminum is cited as the preferred material is a known metal with such advantageous properties as good heat conduction and high reflectivity. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use aluminum as the material of construction of the chamber body as suggested in the prior art of Kojima et al.
The prior art of Nakai Hidekazu fails to teach:
Regarding claim 26: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 25, wherein the process chamber has at least one heating laser aperture having an aperture opening, with the heating laser aperture being arranged in the process volume such that the focal area of at least one of the light beams coincides or at least substantially coincides with the aperture opening.
Regarding claim 27: The coating apparatus in accordance with claim 26, wherein the aperture opening is formed in the heating laser aperture by the laser light of the source heating laser.
The prior art of Kojima et al teaches a film forming apparatus with a chamber 1, a laser 10, target 5, substrate holder 3. See col. 4 lines 35-41 where Kojima et al teaches providing an aperture through which the laser beam passes. Apertures 4230 is positioned between the window and target 5 so that solid angle of the window. According to Kojima et al the apertures allow for more focused heating of the laser. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apertures as suggested by Kojima e al to the apparatus of Nakai Hidekazu.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai Hidekazu (JP 2014-133907 using the Machine Generated English Translation provided herewith) in view of Dings et al (US 2010/0310788) as applied to claims 3, 5, 21-23, 25, and 28, and in further view of Ohnishi et al US 6,169,356).
The combined teachings of Nakai Hidekazu and Dings et al were discussed above. Recall air was discussed as being provided to the apparatus of Nakai Hidekazu and Dings et al taught the introduction of reaction gases in [0007] and fluid channel 6 with end connectors 7 and 7’ (gas supply system). Dings et al further discussed evacuating the process chamber using a subatmospheric pump in [0018].
The combined teachings of Nakai Hidekazu and Dings et al fails to teach that the pump is specifically a magnetically levitated turbopump.
Ohnishi et al teaches an electron emitting device with an electron source and image forming apparatus. See Fig. 12 where an vacuum system employs a magnetic levitation pump. According to col. 8 lines 27 -31 where Ohnishi et al suggests that an exhaust pump be provided with an oil free high vacuum pump such as magnetic levitation pump in order to achieve the desired degree of vacuum in the process chamber. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Nakai Hidekazu and Dings et al to provide a magnetic levitation pump as suggested by Ohnishi et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cheung (US 4,701,592) teaches laser assisted deposition 33 using a laser 26, source 18, and laser beam 20.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 pm.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights