Applied Materials, Inc.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.

17/832,570 06/03/2022 Rutger MEYER TIMMERMAN THIJSSEN 44015734US03CON 7583 44257 7590 11/04/2025 EXAMINER

PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPLIED MATERIALS

24 GREENWAY PLAZA

CHIN, EDWARD

SUITE 1600

HOUSTON, TX 77046

ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER

2893

NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE

11/04/2025 ELECTRONIC

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es):

Applied_Materials.Pair@anaqua.com

Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com

psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com

PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

1

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

________________

Ex parte RUTGER MEYER TIMMERMAN THIJSSEN, JOSEPH C. OLSON, and MORGAN EVANS¹ ________________

Appeal 2025-001571

Application 17/832,570

Technology Center 2800

________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, NABEEL U. KHAN, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all of the pending claims. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

The Board reviews the rejections for error based upon the issues identified by appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We affirm.

2

Appeal 2025-001571 Application 17/832,570

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

Appellant describes the presently claimed subject matter as follows:

Systems and methods discussed herein can be used to form gratings at various slant angles across a grating material on a single substrate by determining an ion beam angle and changing the angle of an ion beam among and between ion beam angles to form gratings with varying angles and cross-sectional geometries. The substrate can be rotated around a central axis, and one or more process parameters, such as a duty cycle of the ion beam, can be modulated to form a grating with a depth gradient.

Spec. Abstr.

Independent claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the subject matter of the appealed claims:

1. An optical device, comprising:

a grating material layer comprising:

a first grating in the grating material layer, wherein the first grating comprises a first plurality of fins having a first slant angle, a first shape vector, and a first grating vector, wherein a direction of the first shape vector is in the direction from a first side of the first grating to a second side of the first grating, wherein the first grating has a depth from about 10 nm to about 400 nm, wherein each of the first plurality of fins has a width in a range from about 30% to about 70% of a pitch of the first plurality of fins, and wherein the second side is opposite the first side and a first transitional surface extends between the first side and the second side; and

a second grating in the grating material layer, wherein the second grating comprises a second plurality of fins having a second slant angle, a second shape vector, and a second grating vector, wherein a direction of the second shape vector is in the direction from a first side of the first grating to a second side of the second grating, wherein the second side is opposite the first side and a second transitional surface extends between the first side and the second side, and wherein the second slant angle is

2

Appeal 2025-001571 Application 17/832,570 different than the first slant angle and the second grating vector is different than the first grating vector.

Appeal Br. 12.

STATEMENT OF THE REJECTIONS

Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kostamo (US 9,827,209 B2; issued Nov. 28, 2017). Final Action mailed Jan. 18, 2024 ("Final Act.") 2-7. Claims 3 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kostamo and Levola (US 2016/0231566 A1; published Aug. 11, 2016). Final Act. 7-8.²

Claims 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kostamo and Sainiemi (US 2016/0035539 A1; published Feb. 4, 2016) ("Sainiemi '539"). Final Act. 9-11. Claims 7, 12, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kostamo and Sainiemi (US 2016/0033697 A1; published Feb. 4, 2016) ("Sainiemi '697"). Final Act. 12-13.

DETERMINATIONS AND CONTENTIONS

The Examiner finds that, with one exception, Kostamo discloses every limitation of claim 1, including that the claimed grating has a depth from about 10 nm to about 400 nm. Final Act. 2-4. More specifically, the Examiner finds that Kostamo does not expressly disclose that each of the

3

Appeal 2025-001571 Application 17/832,570 first plurality of fins has a width on a range from about 30% to about 70% of the fins' pitch. Id. at 3-4.

However, the Examiner finds that the fins' percentage of the pitch, or period, is a result effective variable for various reasons. Final Act. 4. For example, the Examiner reasons that Kostamo teaches that the fins' height, thickness, and periods impact the image intensity Id. (citing Kostamo col. 6, ll.4-15). The Examiner further reasons, "one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a width of fins and the pitch to be about 30-70%, in order to achieve the desired balance between the amount of structural integrity and luminescence, as taught by Kostamo." Id. The Examiner further notes, "applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed dimensions [are] for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions). Id. Appellant asserts,

There is insufficient evidence provided to motivate one skilled in the art to modify Kostamo's surface relief grating (SRG) and arrive at the optical device having a grating material layer, as recited in the present claims. Kostamo provides many different examples of SRGs, but with no disclosure of fins having a width in a particular percent range of the pitch of the fins. . . . Kostamo remains completely silent to and unconcerned about fins having widths of any particular value relative to the pitch, much less fins having a width in a range from about 30% to about 70% of the pitch of the fins.

Appeal Br. 8-9 (citations omitted).

Appellant further contends,

The Examiner states that one skilled in the art is motivated in order to achieve the desired balance between the amount of structural integrity and luminescence. However, Kostamo does

4

Appeal 2025-001571 Application 17/832,570 not describe or disclose providing SRGs having fins with varying widths and pitches for balancing the amount of structural integrity and luminescence.

Appeal Br. 9.

ANALYSIS

We disagree with Appellant's contention that Kostamo fails to describe that grating lines and pitches may be adjusted to affect luminescence:

When the periodic structure is due to modulation of the surface itself, it is referred to as a surface relief grating (SRG). An example of a SRG is uniform straight grooves in a surface of an optical component that are separated by uniform straight groove spacing regions. Groove spacing regions are referred to herein as "lines", "grating lines" and "filling regions". The nature of the diffraction by a SRG depends both on the wavelength of light incident on the grating and various optical characteristics of the SRG, such as line spacing, groove depth and groove slant angle.

Kostamo, col. 5, ll. 9-19 (emphasis added). As such, we agree with the Examiner that the specific and relative widths of the SRG's ridges and grooves are result-effective variables.

We also disagree with the breadth of Appellant's contention, Kostamo provides many different examples of SRGs, but with no disclosure of fins having a width in a particular percent range of the pitch of the fins. . . . Kostamo remains completely silent to and unconcerned about fins having widths of any particular value relative to the pitch, much less fins having a width in a range from about 30% to about 70% of the pitch of the fins.

Appeal Br. 8-9.

Regardless of whether Kostamo expressly discloses the exact ratio of the grating and groove widths of the SRGs, such as those SRGs depicted in

5

Appeal 2025-001571 Application 17/832,570 Figure 5B, Kostamo does qualitatively depict the gratings and grooves of Figure 5B having approximately equal widths. Kostamo, Fig. 5B. Furthermore, Kostamo's Figure 11 depicts exposed and unexposed regions of plate 70 and photoresist 74 having unequal widths (e.g., steps S6, S8, S10, S11, S14, S18), but leading to SRG ridges etched into the underlying chromium layer 72 that are wider than the respective overlying photoresist regions of photoresist layer 74 (e.g., steps S11, S14, S18). These differences in the respective layers' spacing indicate that the drawings are intended to depict some general relative scale, at least qualitatively. Taking these factors together, one of ordinary skill would have understood that Kostamo either teaches or at least suggests providing SRGs that have ridges and grooves that are roughly equal in width. A fortiori, Kostamo at least teaches ridge and groove spacings that fall well within the broadly claimed range of ridges that comprise roughly 30% to 70% of the pitch—almost one quarter to three quarters of the pitch.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of that claim and of claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 15, and 16, which Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 9-10. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) ("When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group or subgroup

6

Appeal 2025-001571 Application 17/832,570 and may decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone."). We, likewise, affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10-14, and 17-20 over Kostamo and the additionally cited prior art references. Appellant has not particularly pointed out errors in the Examiner's reasoning regarding the further teachings of the additionally cited references, but merely reiterates the same arguments that are set forth in relation to independent claim 1 regarding the alleged deficiencies of the remaining claims. Appeal Br. 9-10.

DECISION SUMMARY

In summary:

Overall 1-20

Outcome

7

Appeal 2025-001571 Application 17/832,570

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

8