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 .
Reopening Prosecution
In view of the Appeal Brief filed 4/1/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED in view of the combination of previous US 4,407,713 with new reference US 9,790,590.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office Action is a non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
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 1-4, 7-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zega (US 4,407,713) in view of Furukawa et al (US 9,790,590).
With respect to claim 1, Zega discloses in fig. 1 a cylindrical magnetron sputtering cathode (i.e. radial magnetron system) [10] used for uniformly coating tubular metal substrate [59] using a plasma (Abstract; col. 4, lines 9-22; col. 6, lines 3-17; col. 8, lines 63-66), and thus the radial magnetron system [10] is fully capable of being used for “plasma surface modification and deposition of high-quality coatings for multi-dimensional structures” (MPEP 2111.02, II). Fig. 1 further depicts the radial magnetron system [10] comprising a “tubular sheath” (i.e. axial electrode) [15] made of copper (col. 6, lines 11-25), the axial electrode [15] mounted with a tubular target material [20] (col. 6, lines 30-33), and an applied potential from a high-voltage source (i.e. external electric power source) [62] connected to the axial electrode [15] via attachment to metal block (i.e. high-current contact) [11] (col. 6, lines 14-29; col. 9, lines 1-2 and 10-32). Fig. 1 also depicts a magnet assembly [45] comprising primary permanent magnet assembly [461]-[464] of individual magnetic material elements, wherein the magnet assembly [45] (including the primary permanent magnet assembly [461]-[464]) is supported by a soft iron central rod (i.e. magnet substrate) [44] within the axial electrode [15] (col. 7, lines 32-54); the claim requirement “configured to produce a target-region magnetic field for generating a Hall-effect dense plasma region under application of the applied potential to the axial electrode” relates to the intended functioning of the claimed primary permanent magnet assembly, with the primary permanent magnet assembly [461]-[464] of Zega fully capable of functioning in the claimed manner. While fig. 1 shows an admission conduit [56] for coolant (e.g. coolant conduit [56]) outside the magnet substrate [44] (col. 8, lines 46-62), Zega also teaches that the coolant conduit [56] is replaceable with “a borehole, pierced through the stud 43 and the rod 44 so as to axially extend from the upper end of the stud 43 to the lower end of said rod 44” (col. 10, lines 62-63), thus the magnet substrate [44] has a passageway via the “borehole” capable of cooling both the primary permanent magnet assembly [461]-[464] and the axial electrode [15].
However Zega is limited in that specifics of a rotation mechanism for the motor [55] for rotating the axial electrode (i.e. tubular sheath) [15] are not suggested.
Furukawa teaches in fig. 1 a magnetron sputtering apparatus (Abstract; col. 4, lines 57-67; col. 5, lines 1-35), related to the sputtering technology of Zega of the cylindrical magnetron sputtering cathode (shown in fig. 1) in addition to suggesting planar magnetron sputtering cathode at col. 1, lines 6-20. Furukawa further shows in fig. 1 a rotation mechanism comprising: a “rotational drive unit” (i.e. motor) [64] outside a vacuum container [2] for rotating a “rotation shaft” [63] within the vacuum container [2] (col. 5, lines 30-33), structurally similar to the tubular sheath (i.e. axial electrode) [15] that rotates via motor [55] of Zega; Furukawa’s fig. 1 also shows the rotation mechanism with the motor [64] includes an external permanent magnet (i.e. claimed “secondary external permanent magnet assembly”) [64a] in a fixed relative physical alignment with a permanent magnet (i.e. claimed “secondary internal permanent magnet assembly”) “installed at a position corresponding to the rotation shaft 63” (i.e. the secondary internal permanent magnet assembly installed within the rotation shaft [63] as shown in fig. 1), wherein the rotation shaft [63] is rotated via “magnetic coupling” between the secondary external permanent magnet assembly [64a] and the secondary internal permanent magnet assembly (i.e. applied rotation or movement of the secondary external permanent magnet assembly [64a] causes the claimed “corresponding included movement of the secondary internal permanent magnet assembly”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply “simple substitution” of the rotation mechanism of the secondary external and internal permanent magnet assemblies with the motor of Furukawa as the rotation mechanism with the motor of Zega to yield the predictable results of rotating the tubular sheath (i.e. axial electrode) of Zega (MPEP 2143, I, B). In addition it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a “known technique” of the rotation mechanism of Furukawa as the rotation mechanism of Zega in order to improve similar devices of rotating tubes or shafts (i.e. Zega’s rotating tubular sheath [15]; Furukawa’s rotation shaft [63]) “in the same way” (e.g. both the tubular sheath [15] and rotation shaft [63] rotate about an axis via motor) (MPEP 2143, I, C). In addition it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a “known technique” of the rotation mechanism for rotating the shaft of Furukawa as the rotation mechanism “ready for improvement” of Zega to yield the predictable results of rotating the tubular sheath of Zega (MPEP 2143, I, D).
With respect to claim 2, modified Zega further depicts in fig. 1 a plane cover (i.e. bushing) [40] having slots, the bushing [40] configured to maintain a concentric orientation of the primary permanent magnet assembly [461]-[464] relative to the axial electrode [15] (col. 7, lines 27-54).
With respect to claims 3 and 11, modified Zega further discloses the magnet substrate [44] is configured to allow rotation during sputter deposition (e.g. in-process) of the primary permanent magnet assembly [461]-[464] via motor [55] (fig. 1; col. 10, lines 59-68; col. 11, lines 1-2).
With respect to claims 4 and 12, modified Zega further depicts in fig. 1 the magnet substrate [44] configured to allow for axial-longitudinal displacement of the primary permanent magnet assembly [461]-[464] during in-process cleaning of the magnet assembly [45] by removal of a screw (approximate to flange [17a]) through cover [40], open top [17], and the high-current contact [11] (col. 7, lines 27-31).
With respect to claims 7 and 8, modified Zega further depicts in fig. 1 the stud (i.e. end cap) [43] attached to (e.g. supports) the magnet substrate [44] (col. 7, lines 34-36), wherein both the end cap [43] and magnet substrate [44] rotate (col. 8, lines 38-42; col. 10, lines 59-68). Fig. 1 also depicts the end cap [43] is sized to be configured to accommodate an evacuating port (i.e. coolant return passage) [57] adjacent thereto (col. 8, lines 57-62).
With respect to claim 9, modified Zega further depicts in fig. 1 the axial electrode [15] being “tubular” (i.e. substantially hollow cylindrical vessel) (col. 6, lines 17-33).
With respect to claim 10, modified Zega discloses figs. 2-3 depicts the magnet assembly [45] and the primary permanent magnet assembly [461]-[464] of fig. 1 (col. 5, lines 40-43; col. 5, lines 66-67), wherein fig. 2-3 depict the primary permanent magnet assembly [461]-[464] comprises discrete individual permanent magnetic field sources [461], [462],[463],[464] separated by gaps along a perimeter of the axial electrode [15] (col. 7, lines 47-68; col. 8, lines 1-37).
With respect to claim 15 and 16, modified Zega further depicts in fig. 1 the radial magnetron system [10] is included with a sealed enclosure (i.e. vacuum chamber) [3], a pumping device (i.e. gas management pumping), a fixture to hold a substrate [59] to be coated, a cooling circuit (i.e. thermal management system), and control circuit (i.e. controlling electronics) [64] (col. 6, lines 3-10; col. 8, lines 44-68; col. 9, lines 1-9). Fig. 1 also depicts the motor (i.e. actuator) [55] for rotating or affecting positioning of the radial magnetron system [10] in the vacuum chamber [3] (col. 10, lines 59-68; col. 11, lines 1-8).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zega (US 4,407,713) and Furukawa et al (US 9,790,590) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schuhmacher (DE 19751710, machine translation cited below).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of references Zega and Furukawa is cited as discussed for claim 1.
However the combination of references is limited in that “an isolation support to galvanically isolate the primary permanent magnet assembly from the secondary internal permanent magnet assembly” is not specifically suggested.
Schuhmacher teaches permanent magnets used in a sputtering apparatus (para 0006 and 0015-0016), similar to permanent magnets in each of Zega and Furukawa. Schuhmacher further teaches to apply a protective coating to each permanent magnet (e.g. Zega’s primary permanent magnet assembly; Furukawa’s secondary internal permanent magnet assembly) to protect against effects of chemical substances on outer surfaces of the permanent magnets (para 0001), wherein the protective layer is suggested to be plastic, metallized plastic, or lacquer (para 0012-0014); the protective layer of plastic, metallized plastic, or lacquer configured to provide for each of the permanent magnets galvanic isolation from each other, thus the protective layer is the claimed “isolation support”. Schuhmacher cites the advantages of the protective layer as “avoiding occurrence of mechanical damage and corrosion” of the permanent magnets in addition to protecting “against the effects of chemically reactive substances, in particular liquid or gaseous substances” (para 0007-0009).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the protective layer of Schuhmacher to each permanent magnet (e.g. the primary permanent magnet assembly and secondary internal permanent magnet assembly) of the combination of references to gain the advantages of avoiding occurrence of mechanical damage and corrosion of the permanent magnets in addition to protecting against the effects of chemically reactive substances (and thereby also galvanically isolating the primary permanent magnet assembly from the secondary internal permanent magnet assembly).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zega (US 4,407,713) and Furukawa et al (US 9,790,590) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Elghazzali et al (US 2023/0097276).
With respect to claim 13, the combination of references Zega and Furukawa is cited as discussed for claim 1.
However Zega is limited in that while a negative current is supplied from external electrical power source [62] having field-generating electronic circuitry to the axial electrode [15] (fig. 1; col. 11, lines 57-63), the external electrical power source [62] generating both negative and positive pulses is not suggested.
Elghazzali teaches in figs. 1 and 2 variations of radial magnetrons having an axial electrode that is hollow for sputter deposition (Abstract; para 0042-0043 and 0055), similar to the radial magnetron system [10] of Zega. Elghazzali also depicts in figs. 1-2 a respective external pulse power supply [13] to each of the radial magnetrons (para 0064-0067), wherein fig. 6 depicts the external pulse power supply [13] is configured for generating a high-power pulsed magnetron discharge with a high-current negative DC pulse to the axial electrode, followed by generating a sustained positive voltage kick pulse to the axial electrode (para 0066-0067). Fig. 6 further depicts that at least one kick pulse property of the sustained positive voltage kick pulse of duration, amplitude, and frequency is controlled via control signal from the external pulse power supply [13] (Abstract; para 0066; claim 1), to which the external pulse power supply [13] necessarily includes a “program processor configured logic circuitry” for controlling the at least one kick pulse property. Elghazzali cites the advantage of the external pulse power supply generating both negative and positive pulses as allowing for clearing of potential charge buildup, thereby reducing or avoiding arcing (para 0009).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the external pulse power supply of Elghazzali as the external power supply of the combination of references to gain the advantage of clearing charge buildup to reduce or avoid arcing.
With respect to claim 14, the claim requirement of “configured to modify a surface through material etching and material deposition during a single continuous production process” relates to the intended functioning of the claimed radial magnetron system, with the radial magnetron system taught by the combination of references Zega, Furukawa, and Elghazzali fully capable of operating in the claimed manner.
Response to Arguments
Appellant’s Remarks on p. 4-14 filed 4/1/2026 are addressed below.
112 Rejections
On p. 5-8, Appellant’s explanation regarding the claimed “secondary external permanent magnet assembly” having both “a fixed relative physical alignment” and “an applied movement” is persuasive; the previous 112(b) has been withdrawn.
103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 8-13 with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references Zega and Furukawa being applied in the current rejection.
All other arguments on p. 14 to claims 2-4 and 6-16 are directed towards the subject matter addressed in the 103 Rejections above and therefore have been addressed accordingly.
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