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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 13-21 and 23-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichiro et al. (JP 2006083404) in view of Li et al. (US 2014/0273295) and Feng et al. (US 20210216695).
As to claims 13, 31 and 32, Ichiro discloses a method comprising determining an actual state of a result (thickness or layer structure, see 0001 of the translation ) of a two-sided coating process (double sided coating – see Figs 1 and 2 below, 0026), which forms a first layer stack on a front side of a substrate (see Fig. 2) and a second layer stack on a back side of the substrate (see Fig. 2), based on a model that correlates the result and a spectral response of the result (an optical measurement is taken – spectral – control device 0014-15); and an actual state of the spectral response and controlling the coating process based on the actual result (see 0015, 0022, 0023, 0028-29 0047-48 ). The correction of a film thickness of a next layer is performed based on the measurement. calculation (see 0027-0032, 38, 0047-48, Figs. 1, 2, and 8 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
340
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
588
721
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
632
555
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ichiro et al. fails to teach using information about the difference in a process variable between a first sub process of the coating process which forms the first layer stack and a simultaneous second sub process forming the second layer stack , and wherein the information is used as input to the model or to configure the model and controlling the process based on the actual state of the result as required by claims 13, 31, and 32.
Li teaches determining a present property or state of a deposited thin film from actual optical-response data and controlling the deposition process based on that determination. Li teaches optically monitoring a film during deposition using ellipsometry, spectroscopic ellipsometry, polarized reflectance spectroscopy, or diffuse reflectance spectroscopy; using optical measurements for real-time or in-line measurement and control; determining composition, material deposition, and film thickness; and controlling deposition rate substrate speed, and the starting and stopping of the depositing stages. Li further teaches that the transition times along with the duration of the deposition stages shows a relationship between the deposition rates and may be used to calculate composition and material distribution. (see abstract, 0013, 0034-0041, 0067-0068, and 0070).
Feng et al. teaches configuring a process simulation model using process parameter values, executing the model to calculate a fabrication result, and correlating the calculated fabrication result with an optical response. Feng further teaches receiving vised and adjustable process-model parameter values, providing those values to a process simulation model to produce a configured model, generating a computed predicted result using the model, generating a computed reflectance or ellipsometric spectrum from the predicted result, and comparing the computed result with an experimentally measured optical result (see Figs. 3-5, 20-30, 41-46, and 94-100).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the optical monitoring and feedback control teachings of Li in the method of Ichiro to monitor actual coating progress, improve film accuracy and determine when a target result has been reached. It would have been further obvious to configure the resulting optical/process model as taught by Feng using the known operating parameters of Ichiro’s front side and back side processes. One would have been motivated to do so since Li teaches that deposition rates may differ and that timing information and stage durations reflect deposition rate relationships, the use of information representing the difference or relationship between the first and second subprocesses as a model input would have reduced the number of unknowns and improve how well the coating result can be determined.
As to claim 14, the coating process is controlled based on a target thickness or deposition rate (see 0047)
As to claim 15, controlling of the coating process is based on a preset (simulated) and actual result (see 0047).
As to claims 16 and 29, the first and second layer stack has similar architecture (number of layers, thickness – see Fig. 2, 0026).
As to 17 and 19, Li et al. discloses a method for depositing and controlling the deposition process (See abstract) such as the length of time a material is deposited, the amount of material deposited, starting and stopping the coating process or the amount of material deposited (see abstract, 0013). The process is controlled by taking optical measurements (reflectance/transmittance) which are compared to expected optical responses to determine film thickness and layer completion (see abstract, 0041, 0070).
As to claims 18 and 24, Ichiro et al. teaches the deposition rate can be determined and controlled by the spectral response. It would have been obvious to determine both the rate on the front and backside of the substrate using the sensors 13/14, and determining a difference between the two rates in order to ensure that both sides reach the desired layer thickness and maintain balanced internal stress and uniform coating properties.
As to claim 20, the actual result (measured and using the model).
As to claim 21, the spectral response can comprise a transmission or reflection spectrum (see 0031).
As to claims 23 and 27, the first and second process provide a common coating material (see Fig. 2, 0020, 0026).
As to claim 25, a difference in deposition rate will cause a difference in time the two processes reach the desired thickness (Ichiro teaches adjusting the deposition rate based on the thickness calculation).
As to claim 26, the process deposits two different compositions to form the layered stack (see Fig. 2).
As to claim 28, Ichiro et al. teaches forming alternating layers on both sides of the substrate where chemical composition of the alternating layers differ (see Fig. 2).
As to claim 30, the layer stacks have a common spectral response (see 0036).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art does not teach using formation about a difference in a process variable as input to a model with respect to claim(s) 13-21 and 23-32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Ichiro teaches simultaneous coating on both sides of the substrate in order to reduce stress therefore teaches away from introducing differences between two coating subprocess. Ichiro merely describes advantages associated with simultaneously coating opposite sides of the substrate using corresponding coating conditions to reduce internal stress. Ichiro does not state that differences in deposition rate, timing, power, or other operating parameters never occur, nod does Ichiro discourage accounting for such differences during process monitoring or computational modeling.
Applicant also argues that the claimed invention differs architecturally form Ichiro because the claimed process-variable difference is supplied to the model before determining the coating result, whereas Ichiro merely determines thickness from measured spectra and subsequently controls deposition. Applicant contends that the claimed model itself is configured using the process variable difference.
The claims do not recite any particular mathematical algorithm, optimization routine or computational technique by which the model is configured. Instead, the claim broadly recites that the information about a difference in a process variable is used as input to the model or to configure the model. Under the broadest interpretation, supplying known process parameters to initialize or configure a computational model satisfies the limitation.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights