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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watson et al (U.S.Pat. 7,566,579 B2).
With respect to claims 1, 11-13, Watson discloses an intermediate product, a corresponding projection exposure apparatus and method for producing an optical element, such as a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser for a projection exposure apparatus and comprising all limitations of the instant claim such as: a substrate (200)/a gallium nitride substrate (see figures 2a-2n) for specifying a basic topography of an optical surface; a plurality of etchable layers having a layer to be structured (Watson discloses that the layer to be structured may comprise GAN, while fabrication-facilitation layer 2020 has ALlnN or AllnGaN. These chemically different materials produce detectable differences, including a refractive-index contrast, different chemical species during etching, and in some embodiments, different etching behavior. Watson specifically states that aluminum- or indium-containing species liberated from layer 2020 may be distinguished from gallium-containing species liberated from an adjacent GaN layer) and a contrast layer applied to the substrate wherein the layer to be structured and the contrast layer have different chemical properties such that a removal of the contrast layer can be detected in situ (Watson expressly discloses using the fabrication-facilitation layer as an etch-marker layer and using mass spectrometry or optical-emission spectrometry to detect ions or optical emission lines associated with that layer during etching. Watson further discloses terminating etching in response to detecting chemical species liberated form the fabrication-facilitation layers. Thus, removal or exposure of the contrast layer during structuring is detected in situ) .
As to claim 6, the layer to be structured has a thickness ranging from 10nm to 50 µm (see col.7, lines 3-34).
As to claim 7, as shown in figure 6, at least one further layer to be structured and at least one further contrast layer that forms an intermediate layer between the layers to be structured.
As to claim 14, Watson discloses analyzing material removed during etching using mass spectrometry or optical-emission spectrometry. The analysis detects ions or spectral lines associated with aluminum, indium or gallium and thereby determines whether the etching process has reached the fabrication-facilitation layer. Watsu further teaches that etching is terminated in response to the detection of chemical species liberated from the fabrication-facilitation layer. Watson also teaches that detection of the first facilitation layer may trigger a change from a fast removal process to a slower, more controllable process, such as wet etching or chemomechanical polishing. The signal generated from the analysis and used to terminate or change the structuring process constitutes the claimed control signal.
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 2-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson et al (U.S.Pat. 7,566,579 B2).
With respect to claim 2, Watson discloses substantially all of the limitations of the claim as discussed. Watson does not expressly disclose “wherein the etchable layers consist of materials whose etching rates in a specified etching method deviate by no more than 10% from one another”. However, Watson clearly discloses selecting the fabrication facilitation layer and adjacent semiconductor layers so that they are compatible with the fabrication process while still permitting reliable endpoint detection. In view of such teachings, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill would have optimized the relative etch rates of adjacent layers to obtain predictable etching performance, sufficient endpoint sensitivity and reduced profile distortion. Selecting a difference of 10% or less represent no more routine optimization of a known process parameter.
As to claim 3, Watson lacks to show “ wherein the etchable layers consist of materials having densities differing by no more than 10% from one another”. Watson uses epitaxial semiconductor having closely related material systems (GaN, AlGaN, AllnGaN). These layers are selected for compatibility during crystal growth and fabrication. It is the Examiner’s position that material density is an inherent physical property considered during multilayer semiconductor design because density influences mechanical stress, lattice compatibility and film quality. Therefore, selecting materials whose densities differ no more than 10% would have been a routine engineering optimization to improve structural integrity while preserving Watson’s disclosed endpoint detection function.
As to claim 4, Watson does not specifically disclose “wherein the contrast layer and the layer to be structured each have a starting material with the same chemical element or the same chemical compound, wherein the starting material of the contrast layer is modified by doping or ion implantation”. It is noted that ion implantation and doping were conventional techniques for modifying semiconductor material to alter composition, optical properties, etching characteristics. A skilled artisan would have recognized implantation and doping as known alternative techniques for creating the material distinction required by Watson while maintaining the same base semiconductor material. This substitution merely employs one known equivalent modification technique in place of another to obtain the predictable result of distinguishable etching behavior.
As to claims 5 and 10, Watson does not expressly disclose the contrast layer having a thickness of no more than 10nm or the contrast layer and/or the layer to be structured have an arealy varying thickness. However, Watson suggests that the thickness of fabrication facilitation layer 202 according to fabrication requirements. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to select the contrast layer/or the layer to structured thickness according to optical requirement for the purpose of improving the quality of the optical element as intended by Watson.
As to claims 8-9, Watson does not expressly disclose “at least one further contrast layer, wherein the contrast layers have mutually differing chemical compositions and/or mutually difference modifications” or “at least two further contrast layers, wherein the contrast layers are separated by differing mutual distances”, as recited in the claims. It is the Examiner’s position that once Watson teaches employing multiple contrast layers for monitoring different fabrication stages, it would have been obvious to employ different compositions for respective layers to provide distinguishable endpoint signatures for successive fabrication operations.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (U.S.Pat. 7,566,579 B2) in view of Yu et al (U.S.Pat. 12,278,125 B2).
With respect to claim 15, Watson discloses an apparatus and process for producing an optical element, including an intermediate multilayer semiconductor product that is structure by etching and monitored in situ. Watson teaches monitoring the structuring process using mass spectrometry, optical-emission spectrometry, or reflectance monitoring to detect arrival at or removal of a fabrication-facilitation layer. Watson further teaches terminating the etching process or changing to another material-removal process in response to the monitored information. Thus, Watson discloses substantially all features of the instant claim but does not expressly illustrate all claimed components as a single apparatus having a vacuum chamber, a structuring device, and a monitoring device coupled to transmit data to the structure device. Yu discloses an integrated semiconductor processing apparatus having a vacuum processing chamber configured to receive a substrate, a plasma processing device configured to structure or remove material form the substate within the chamber, sensors for monitoring chamber and process conditions, and a system controller coupled to the sensors and process components. The system controller receives data relating to the process operation and control parameters of the structuring operation (for example: figures 4-9 and the corresponding discussion of processing chamber (402), process tool (500), system controller (550), process modules, pressure control components, and plasma processing components).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement Watson’s in-situ monitored etching process using the integrated vacuum-processing architecture taught by Yu, including coupling Watson’s endpoint or material-removal monitoring device to Yu’s controller and plasma processing device. The purpose of doing so would have been to automat termination or modification of the etching process, to improve processing accuracy and repeatability and to yield the predictable result of automatic control of material removal based on monitored process data.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mizuno (U.S.Pat. 10,074,756) disclose method for producing optical components and has been cited for technical background.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Toan Minh Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
Hvn
8/1/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights