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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/22/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 1 requires “so that a plurality of emission regions are formed in the target without overlapping with one another when viewed in a plan view from above the target” (emphasis added). There is no support for this negative requirement in the Specification in view of reasoning that a negative claim requirement introduces new concepts since an express exclusion of certain elements implies permissible inclusion of all other elements not so expressly excluded. Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393, 394 (BD. App. 1983; aff’dmem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir, 1984). Claims 2-3, 9, and 11 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
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 11 is 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.
Amended claim 11 (dependent on amended claim 1) recites “each of the plurality of emission regions is a partial region of the target exposed” (emphasis added), rendering claim 11 unclear as to whether the claim is intended to mean: multiple “plurality of emission regions” are present, or each “single emission region” (from amended claim 1) “of the plurality of regions is a partial region of the target exposed”.
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 1-3, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubs et al (US 6,123,814) in view of Inao (JP No. 06322538, machine translation cited below), Takigawa (JP No. 05001373, machine translation cited below), and Pavloff et al (US 7,767,064).
With respect to claim 1, Dubs discloses a “sputter coating station” (e.g. claimed “apparatus”) [1] configured for planar magnetron sputtering onto a substrate (Abstract; col. 3, lines 23-64), wherein fig. 1 depicts the apparatus [1] comprises: a processing container configured to accommodate plural substrates [13] (col. 3, lines 30-64); a “planetary system” of “planets” (e.g. claimed “stages”) [11] provided inside the processing container that each have a single substrate [13] of the plural substrates [13] and arranged along a circle surrounding a preset center position of axis [As] (col. 3, lines 30-64); and a “sputter source” (e.g. claimed “target”) disposed at a position above the stages [11] to cause target particles emitted by plasma formed inside the processing container to adhere to the plural substrates [13] on the planets [11] (col. 3, lines 23-30; claim 1).
However Dubs is limited in that while a side view is shown in fig. 1, a top-down view (e.g. claimed “plan view from above the target”) is not suggested.
Inao teaches in fig. 1 a side view of an apparatus configured for planar magnetron sputtering comprising: a vacuum chamber (i.e. processing container) [7] containing a target [2], plural substrates [6] each on a respective plate (i.e. stage) [9] and arranged “at equal pitches on a circumference coaxial with the target” (e.g. along a circle surrounding a preset center position), such that target particles emitted from the target [2] adhere to the plural substrates [6] (para 0003 and 0009-0010), similar to the apparatus of Dubs. Inao further teaches that fig. 2 is a top-down view (i.e. plan view) of fig. 1 (para 0009), wherein fig. 2 depicts the plural substrates [6] each on the respective stage [9] are arranged such that when viewed from the plan view: overlapping regions, in each of which a single substrate [6] of the plural substrates [6] overlaps with a single emission region among plural emission regions of the target [2], are arranged at positions that are rotationally symmetrical around the preset center position, wherein the plural emission regions are formed in the target [2] without overlapping with one another (para 0009-0010). The cropped figure below of Inao’s fig. 2 serves to clarify the single emission region for each single substrate [6] of the plural substrates [6].
PNG
media_image1.png
401
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Inao cites the advantage of arranging the plural substrates [6] each on the respective stage [9] to overlap with respect to the target [2] as improving uniformity of film thickness distribution on each substrate [6] and film deposition efficiency (para 0001).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the plural substrates [13] and target [3] of Dubs to overlap as taught by Inao in fig. 2 to gain the advantages of improving uniformity of film thickness distribution on each of the plural substrates [13] and film deposition efficiency.
However the combination of references Dubs and Inao is further limited in that while the apparatus is configured for planar magnetron sputtering (Dubs, col. 1, lines 23-25; Inao, para 0009), specifics of the planar magnetron are not suggested.
Takigawa teaches in fig. 1 an apparatus configured for planar magnetron sputtering comprising: a target [4] having “magnet pairs” (i.e. singular magnet pairs) [19] behind the target [4] and a substrate [3] in front of the target [4], wherein each of the singular magnet pairs [19] rotate (para 0011-0013), similar to the apparatus of both Dubs and Inao. Takigawa further depicts in fig. 1-2 each of the singular magnet pairs [19] extend to an outer periphery of the target [4], wherein each of the singular magnet pairs [19] totals four singular magnet pairs [19] as shown in a plan view of fig. 2; each of the four singular magnet pairs [19] forms a respective emission region (e.g. plural emission regions as shown in fig. 1, also similar to Inao’s fig. 2) on the target [4] based on a shape of each of the four singular magnet pairs [19]. Takigawa cites the advantage of the four singular magnet pairs [19] as enabling expansion of an erosion region in a radial direction of the target [4] to improve target utilization (para 0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the four singular magnet pairs of Takigawa as the planar magnetron of the combination of references to gain the advantage of improving target utilization.
However the combination of references Dubs, Inao, and Takigawa is further limited in that while the four singular magnet pairs [19] of Takigawa are rotated (Takigawa para 0011-0013) in addition to rotating the planar magnetron of Inao (para 0003 and 0009), a controller programmed to control the magnet moving mechanism to repeatedly and alternatively rotate each of the singular magnet pairs [19] in clockwise and counter-clockwise directions is not specifically suggested.
Pavloff teaches in fig. 1 a position controlled magnet [60] that rotates behind target [18] in an apparatus for a sputter process (Abstract; col. 3, lines 56-59), similar to the apparatus and magnet [4] that rotates behind the target [2] of Sasaki. Pavloff further teaches in fig. 1 the magnet [60] includes magnetrons [62],[64] that are configured to move repeatedly and alternately in radial directions via “computer-controlled motor” in both “clockwise” and “counter clockwise” directions (col. 7, lines 22-67; col. 8, lines 1-25). Pavloff cites the advantages of the magnetron [60] configured to move the magnetrons [62],[64] via the computer-controlled motor [96] as allowing for advanced sputtering and efficient target cleaning (col. 9, lines 33-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the computer-controlled motor of Pavloff to control each of the singular magnet pairs [19] of the combination of references to gain the advantages of advanced sputtering and efficient target cleaning.
In summary, the combination of references Dubs, Inao, Takigawa, and Pavloff has: Dubs showing in fig. 1 four stages [11] overlapping the target [3] (as suggested by Inao’s fig. 2) in the plan view from above the target [3]; and Takigawa showing in figs. 1-2 each of the four singular magnet pairs [19] extend to an outer periphery of the target [4] (and thus also an outer periphery of each of Dubs’ target [3] and Inao’s target [2]), with the plan view of Takigawa’s fig. 2 showing the four singular magnet pairs [19] rotatable about the outer periphery of the target [4] (para 0011-0013). Thus the combination of Dubs, Inao, and Takigawa teaches that each of the four singular magnet pairs [19] of Takigawa (incorporated as the planar magnetron of each of Dubs and Inao) would overlap with the corresponding one stage [11] of the four stages [11] of Dubs in the plan view from above the target [3] (as suggested by Inao’s fig. 2). The cropped figures below of Inao’s fig. 2 and Takigawa’s fig. 2 serve to clarify the structural arrangement of Dubs having the four singular magnet pairs [19] with respect to the plural emission regions of the plural substrates [6] each on the respective stage [9] of Inao, with the plural emission regions being formed in the target [2] without overlapping with one another in the plan view.
PNG
media_image2.png
439
917
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In addition, the four singular magnet pairs [19] of Takigawa (incorporated as the planar magnetron of Dubs) are rotationally symmetrical around the preset center position of axis [As]; thus the plural emission regions formed by the four singular magnet pairs [19] are also rotationally symmetrical around the preset center position of axis [As] in the plan view from above the target [3]. The computer-controlled motor [96] of Pavloff is then configured (e.g. programmed via computer) to repeatedly and alternately rotate the four singular magnet pairs [19] of Takigawa (and thus plural emission regions of the four singular magnet pairs [19]) in both clockwise and counter clockwise directions (Pavloff col. 7, lines 22-67; col. 8, lines 1-25).
With respect to claim 2, modified Dubs further discloses in fig. 1 that each of the stages [11] includes the planetary system (i.e. claimed “rotation mechanism”) configured to rotate each of the stages [11] around a vertical axis [Ap] passing through a center of the substrate [13] placed on each of the stages [11] (col. 3, lines 30-56); similarly, Inao’s figs. 1-2 also show the stages [9] having a rotation mechanism configured to rotate each of the stages [9] around a vertical axis of each of the plural substrates [6] placed on each of the stages [9] (para 0009-0010).
With respect to claims 3 and 9, Inao (as included with Dubs) further depicts in figs. 1-2 the circle surrounding the preset center position has a diameter that is set to a dimension in which the circle encloses the plural emission regions when viewed in the plan view (e.g. when viewed from the plan view from above the target [3] of Dubs).
With respect to claim 11, Inao (as included with Dubs) further depicts in figs. 1-2 each of the plural emission regions (e.g. each single emission region) is a partial region of the target [2] exposed inside the processing container [7] (para 0003 and 0009-0010).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 6-14 filed 10/22/2025 are addressed below.
112 Rejections
Claim 1 has been amended to clarify the “singular magnet” as per Examiner’s suggestion (see p. 3 OA 7/22/2025); the previous 112(a) and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim 11 has been amended by deleting the rejected subject matter; the previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 7-13 with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references Dubs, Inao, Takigawa, and Pavloff being applied in the current rejection.
Rejoinder Request
The request on p. 14 is noted.
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