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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/21/2026 has been entered.
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 19-20, 22-23, and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Galan et al (US 2015/0197847), as further evidenced by Grune et al (DE 102013106168, machine translation cited below) and Helmut et al (US 3,290,572).
With respect to claims 19 and 22, Galan discloses in figs. 2-3 an endblock [4] for a sputter deposition apparatus (Abstract; para 0014), wherein the endblock [4] comprises: a drive means to provide relative movement between a “cylindrical magnetron target” (i.e. claimed “consumable target”)” [1] having a “magnet bar structure” (para 0014 and 0016); the drive means comprises a “rotating conductive rotor” [22] part of a first motor* for rotating the consumable target [1], the rotor [22] being either “a single piece design, or may be made up of multiple pieces” (para 0015-0016), such as suggested by fig. 3 showing an end portion of the rotor [22] and a first motor shaft of the rotor [22]. The cropped figure below of fig. 3 serves to clarify the end portion and first motor shaft of the rotor [22].
PNG
media_image1.png
545
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Galan further discloses the endblock [4] comprises a “fixed conductive collector” (i.e. claimed “electrical power transmission means”) [20] for transmitting power (i.e. electric current) to the consumable target [1] via an electric power transmission path through the rotor [22] of the first motor (para 0015).
*Galan teaches that the rotor [22] is part of the first motor, as further evidenced by: Grune teaching in figs. 1-2 and para 0023 and 0030 an electric motor [4] comprises a rotor [42] and stator [41], the rotor [42] having a similar purpose and shape as the rotor [22] of Galan; and Helmut teaching at col. 1, lines 30-36 that the term “rotor” is an associated structure of a motor.
With respect to claims 20 and 31, Galan further depicts in figs. 2-3 an endblock housing containing the endblock [4] being substantially axially symmetric and coaxial with the first motor shaft of the rotor [22], wherein the consumable target [1] is mounted to have a rotational axis that is coaxial to the first motor shaft of the rotor [22] (para 0016), and the endblock [4] comprising coupling (approximate to detail [4a]) configured for mounting of the consumable target [1] (para 0016), wherein a diameter of a circle circumscribing the endblock housing and perpendicular to the first motor shaft of the rotor [22] is not greater than 2.1 times a diameter of the coupling configured for the mounting of the consumable target [1]. The cropped figure below of fig. 2 serves to clarify the endblock housing and coupling.
PNG
media_image2.png
385
278
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 23, Galan further depicts in fig. 3 one or more bearings [52,[54] to support the consumable target [1] mechanically for rotation around the rotational axis of the consumable target [1] (para 0016).
With respect to claims 28-30, as discussed above, claim 19 requires “the drive means comprising a first motor with a first motor shaft configured for rotating the consumable target and/or a second motor with a second motor shaft for rotating the magnetic bar” (emphasis added). Thus ‘the drive means comprises a second motor and a second motor shaft for rotating the magnetic bar’ is an optional limitation due to the alternative language ‘or’, and accordingly not required by claim 19. Claims 28-30 are dependent upon this optional limitation; accordingly these limitations are also not required as they are dependent upon the optional limitation from claim 19. Thus claims 28-30 are also rejected for the same reasoning set forth above for claim 19.
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.
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galan et al (US 2015/0197847), as further evidenced by Grune et al (DE 102013106168, machine translation cited below), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Grune et al (DE 102013106168, machine translation cited below).
With respect to claim 24, the reference is cited as discussed for claim 19. However Galan is limited in that while the rotor [22] is present for rotating the consumable target [1] (para 0015-0016), and necessarily requires a stator (i.e. static portion) present for operation of the first motor, particulars of the stator, rotor, and first motor are not suggested.
Grune teaches in fig. 1 a support device (i.e. end-block) [3] in a sputter deposition apparatus (para 0001 and 0009), wherein the end-block [3] comprises: a drive means to provide a relative movement between a tube target (i.e. consumable target) [1] and a magnet arrangement (i.e. magnetic bar) [2] (para 0001-0002 and 0020-0025), the drive means comprises a first motor [4] with a drive shaft (i.e. first motor shaft) [33] configured for rotating the consumable target [1] (para 0023); and a contacting means [36] that includes an electrical power transmission means for transmitting electric current to the consumable target [42] (para 0014-15 and 0022-0023), similar to the endblock [4] of Galan. Grune further depicts in figs. 1-2 the first motor [4] that inherently has a magnet system (see p. 10 Remarks 8/24/2022) in addition to a stator comprising coils (para 0004 and 0023), wherein the coils of the stator are mounted on a static portion of the end-block [3] and the magnet system is mounted on a rotor on the first motor shaft [33] (para 0004 and 0007), also similar to the rotor [22] of Galan. The coils of the stator and the magnet system on the rotor are mounted in such a way that an electric current is sent through the coils capable of generating a rotation moment on the first motor shaft [33] for rotating the consumable target [1] (para 0004 and 0007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the rotor and first motor of Galan have particular structures and stator as taught by Grune to yield the predictable result of rotating the consumable target [1]. In addition it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the particular structures and stator of Grune incorporated into Galan since Galan fails to specify the particular structures of the stator and first motor for rotating the consumable target [1], and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation for success in making the modification since Grune has shown a similar first motor comprising a rotor and stator of Galan for rotating a consumable target.
With respect to claims 25 and 26, Grune further depicts in fig. 2 the stator [41] mounted to the static portion that comprises a disc with a cylinder, the cylinder coaxial with the first motor shaft [33], and the disc being perpendicular to the first motor shaft [33], wherein the cylinder is located around the first motor shaft [33], and the coils of the stator [42] are mounted on the cylinder, and the electrical power transmission means (of contact means [36]) mounted between the cylinder and the first motor shaft [33] (para 0004, 0007, 0014-0019, and 0029-0031).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 19-20, 22-26, and 28-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of US Patent No. 8,562,799 in view of US 2015/0197847 as further evidenced by DE 102013106168. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the US Patent are narrower in scope than the claims of the current invention, and encompass the subject matter of the current claims. Therefore, any reference meeting the limitations set forth in claims 1-24 of the US Patent would also meet the requirements set forth in claims 19-20, 22-26, and 28-31 of the current invention. The US Patent also recites a conductive ring used to transmit power to a consumable target in order for the consumable target to be sputtered, with US 2015/0197847 also teaching to transmit power to a consumable target through a first motor that rotates the consumable target, as further evidenced by DE 102013106168.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 9-18 filed 7/21/2026 are addressed below.
102 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 10-13 with respect to claim 19 and associated dependent claims over Cnockaert have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim 19 amendment. The previous rejections over Cnockaert have been withdrawn.
On p. 13-16, Applicant argues that neither Galan nor Grune teaches “an electric power transmission path to the consumable target that passes through the first motor” as recited by amended claim 19, and that the “rotor” of Galan is not necessarily part of an electric motor.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Galan explicitly teaches the power path to the consumable target [1] passes through the rotor [22] (para 0015); the rotor [22] is part of the first motor, as further evidenced by: Grune teaching in figs. 1-2 and para 0023 and 0030 that an electric motor [4] comprises a rotor [42] and a stator [41] (the rotor [42] of Grune having similar purpose and shape as the rotor [22] of Galan); and Helmut teaching that the term “rotor” is part of an electric motor. Thus since Galan teaches the power path is through the rotor [22] to the consumable target [1], and the rotor [22] is part of the first motor as evidenced by Grune and Helmut, Galan (with evidence by Grune and Helmut) teaches the power path is through the first motor.
Regarding the “rotor” of Galan, the term “rotor” is specific to an electric motor for providing “force to turn the shaft” (such as Galan’s first motor shaft of the rotor [22] for rotating the target), as evidenced by both Grune and Helmut (as discussed above in the rejection). Furthermore an “Electric motor” as per Wikipedia (see attached PTO-892 form) states that components of the electric motor necessarily includes a “rotor” for “extert[ing] force to turn the shaft”. As such, the term “rotor” of Galan signifies that a stator and motor are present in order to then turn or rotate the rotor [22] that then rotates consumable target [1]; thus Galan’s rotor [22] (and the claimed “electric power transmission path” thereof) is part of the first motor.
Applicant’s arguments on p. 14-16 to the structural arrangement of Grune are noted, however Grune is merely relied upon as evidence that the terms “rotor” and “stator” are known as structural components of a motor in a cylindrical sputtering device, similar to “rotor” [22] in the cylindrical sputtering device of Galan.
In response to Applicant's argument on p. 14 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., stator, coils, or a magnet system arranged to electromagnetically drive rotor) are not recited in the rejected claims (but are recited in withdrawn claim 39). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the Specification, limitations from the Specification are not read into the claims (MPEP 2145, VI).
On p. 16, Applicant argues that dependent claims 28-30 reciting ‘both first and second motors’ adds additional structural arrangement not suggested by Galan.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since the limitation of the “second motor” is an alternative limitation as recited in independent claim 19 (i.e. “a first motor and a first motor shaft […] and/or a second motor and a second motor shaft” (emphasis added), thus limitations reciting the “second motor” and “second motor shaft” are optional limitations. As such, any dependent claims that recites the optional limitations is also an optional claim.
103 Rejections
All other arguments on p. 17-18 to claims 24-26 are directed towards the subject matter addressed in the 102 Rejections above and therefore have been addressed accordingly.
Double Patenting Rejections
On p. 17-18, Applicant argues that US Patent No. 8,562,799 with US 2015/0197847 does not require the limitation of amended claim 19 of: “wherein the first motor being an electric motor […], wherein an electric power transmission path to the consumable target passes through the first motor”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since the arguments have been addressed similarly above in the 102 Rejections.
Rejoinder Request
The request on p. 18 is noted for claims 32-36, and presumably new claim 39.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm EST.
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 at (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 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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights