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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
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 14 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.
Claim 14 contains a comparison between a temperature change rate (degrees/unit time) and a temperature value (average of highest and lowest temperatures – in degrees). Because these values contain different units, it is unclear from the claim how their values can be directly compared without further guidance. Claim 14 is therefore indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 20160378092) in view of Ivanov (US 20110005920) and Aizenshtein (US 4396478).
As to claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a deposition apparatus comprising:
A chamber configured to accommodate top electrode and a substrate on which a layer comprising deposition material is deposited (figure 2: shower electrode 16 and substrate W);
A substrate electrode in contact with the substrate and a voltage applying device applying voltage to the top electrode and substrate electrode (figure 2: power source 42 for showerhead 16 and electrostatic chuck 6 with power supply 13);
A temperature measurement part to measure a temperature of the substrate (figure 2: temperature sensor 20; paragraph 51);
A controller configured to calculate a difference between the substrate temperature measured and a preset threshold temperature and control operation of the voltage applying device (figure 1-2: controller 200 for temperature control; paragraph 96: comparison of measured temperature to reference temperature; paragraph 49: control of power heater 6c to electrostatic chuck 6 by controller 200).
Yamamoto, while disclosing a deposition apparatus with a top electrode and substrate on a substrate electrode for deposition, is silent as to use of its temperature control system with a target deposition system.
Ivanov discloses a deposition system in which a powered sputter target provides deposition material to deposit onto a substrate on an electrode within a deposition chamber (abstract; figure 1: target 1444 with HIPIMS power supply 154 via magnetron 150, and wafer 148 biased from supply 152). Ivanov also discloses knowledge in the art of monitoring the temperature of the substrate and providing a controller to adjust the power supply parameters based upon the measured temperature (paragraph 54; figure 1: controller 166 and temp sensor 170) to prevent damage to the substrate during deposition by exceeding a curie temperature (paragraph 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a sputter deposition system to efficiently grow desired amorphous film structures, as disclosed by Ivanov, with the effective temperature control system for deposition systems of Yamamoto.
Yamamoto, while disclosing a deposition apparatus with substrate temperature measurement and feedback control to adjust the temperature by controlling the voltage to the substrate electrode, is silent as to use of a temperature change rate and preset temperature change rate threshold as the measured and compared values for the control system.
Aizenshtein discloses a deposition system in which plasma deposition, including sputter deposition from a target electrode, is controlled by measuring a rate of change of a temperature of the substrate, comparison of this value to a reference value, and generating an error upon a large differential to control the voltage supplied to the process (abstract; col 3 lines 10-40) to prevent deformation of the substrate (col 1 lines 41-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control a rate of change of a substrate temperature, as disclosed by Aizenshtein, in the system of Yamamoto, because this prevents thermal deformation of the substrate from rapid temperature changes.
As to claim 2-5, Aizenshtein discloses reducing or stopping the voltage supplied when the temperature rate is greater than a threshold value (col 3 lines 10-40: temperature rate comparison to threshold to generate error; col 15 lines 18-20: supply voltage decrease and stop from signal from regulator) and maintain a voltage when the calculated temperature rate change is equal or less than a preset threshold value (col 8 lines 1-14: maintaining a steady voltage waveform if error signal from temperature rate comparison to threshold value is not obtained).
As to claim 6, Ivanov disclose the system allows for deposition to a desired thickness (paragraph 27), and the system would necessarily be repeatably usable as desired.
As to claim 12, Yamamoto illustrates the substrate as a flat wafer (figure 2: substrate/wafer ‘W’).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Ivanov and Aizenshtein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ciraldo (US 20170009334).
As to claim 13, Aizenshtein discloses a controller for reducing or stopping the voltage supplied when the temperature rate is greater than a threshold value (col 3 lines 10-40: temperature rate comparison to threshold to generate error; col 15 lines 18-20: supply voltage decrease and stop from signal from regulator), but Aizenshtein, as well as Yamamoto and Ivanov, are silent as to a substrate with a bent portion.
Ciraldo discloses a deposition system (paragraph 12: vapor deposition systems) in which a controller is used to adjust the provided voltages and the temperature of the substrate is controlled (paragraph 68). Ciraldo also discloses knowledge in the art of using the deposition system for any desired substrate including planar or non-planar or three-dimensional substrates (paragraph 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a non-planar substrate including a bent substrate, as disclosed by Ciraldo, in the system of Yamamoto in view of Ivanov and Aizenshtein, because this allows for controlled formation of a desired film onto any desired shape substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15-20 are allowed.
Claims 15-20 require a deposition apparatus with a target, substrate, voltage supply to target and substrate electrode, temperature monitor for the substrate and a controller for adjusting the voltage supply based upon a differential between a first and second thermal stress calculated for a first and second opposite surface of the substrate compared to a threshold thermal stress difference.
While prior art discloses knowledge in the art of measuring the temperature of the substrate in various locations, this does not render obvious using thermal stress as the relation requires material properties, the materials of opposite substrate surfaces are often different materials [especially during a deposition process].
Claim 7-11 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.
Claims 7-11 require a controller to configure the voltage with respect to a start point time with the voltage applying device in a stop state and either changing to an operating status or maintaining the state depending on the comparison of the temperature change rate to the threshold temperature value for a portion of the thickness less than the target thickness, and further similar controller actions after the start point and before the finishing point for partial deposition thicknesses. The prior art, while disclosing controllers for control of a voltage in response to a comparison of temperature, or temperature rate, to a threshold value and lower/raising or stopping the voltage accordingly, is silent as to the specific controller configuration as required in the instant claims.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON BERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5265. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8-4.
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 on (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 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.
/JASON BERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights