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 § 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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites “the central portion spans less than 260 degrees about the center of the coil body” (emphasis added). There is no support in the Specification for the emphasized portion. Examiner notes that Specification para 0047 states “the central portion span 234 is between about 180 to about 260 degrees” (emphasis added).
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 1, 4-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brcka et al (US 2009/0200949).
With respect to claim 1, Brcka depict in figs. 1 and 4 a coil or antenna [26] or [40] for use in a process chamber [12] for sputtering with a target [22] (para 0006, 0063-0064, and 0073) , wherein fig. 6A depicts an alternative design for the coil [40j] (para 0051-0052 and 0091). Fig. 6A depicts the coil [40j] comprises: a coil body with first and second portions coupled together via central portion (represented by [46j],[45j]); the coil body shown to have an annular shape with the first and second portions adjacent to each other and spaced apart by a gap that forms a discontinuity in the annular shape; wherein the first and second end portions have a height that is greater than a height of the central portion at least at portion [45j]; and wherein an upper surface of the coil body includes a first sloped portion that extends upward from the central portion to the first end portion and a lower surface of the coil body includes a second sloped portion that extends downward from the central portion to the first end portion (para 0091). The cropped figure below serves to clarify the first and second end portions and the central portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
329
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6A further depicts hubs with a first hub at the first end portion and a second hub at the second end portion, wherein the hubs couple to and extend from an outer sidewall of the coil body and configured to facilitate coupling the coil [40j] to the process chamber [12] (shown in figs. 1 and 4) and a power source (para 0091).
With respect to claim 4, Brcka further depicts in fig. 6A the hubs comprises about 10 hubs, which encompasses seven hubs.
With respect to claim 5, Brcka further depicts in fig. 6A each of the hubs are positioned along a central horizontal plane of the coil body.
With respect to claim 7, Brcka further depicts in fig. 6A (as per the cropped figure above for claim 1) the upper surface of the coil body includes a third sloped portion that extends upward from the central portion to the second end portion and the lower surface of the coil body includes a fourth sloped portion that extends downward from the central portion to the second end portion.
With respect to claim 8, Brcka further depicts in fig. 6A the hubs include a central opening capable of receiving a fastener.
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 2-3, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brcka et al (US 2009/0200949) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nulman et al (US 8,398,832).
With respect to claims 2-3, 6, and 9, the reference is cited as discussed for claim 1. However Brcka is limited in not suggesting: 1) dimensions of the coil; 2) textures of the coil; and 3) material of the coil.
Nulman teaches in fig. 3 depicts a coil [200] for use in a process chamber [100] with a target [110] to be sputtered, wherein the coil [200] has a coil body with first and second end portions (approximate respective grooves [212]), the first end portion coupled to the second end portion opposite thereof via groove [212] of a central portion (Abstract; col. 6, lines 16-19 and 34-37), similar to the coil [40j] of Brcka. Nulman further teaches heights of the first and second end portions in addition to the central portion is about 2 inches (col. 6, lines 4-11; claims 18 and 20), and the coil body of the coil [104] or [200] has a thickness of about 1/16 inch to 2 inches (col. 6, lines 9-11). Nulman also teaches that surfaces of the coil [104] or [200] that are “likely to be coated” with sputtered material are bead blasted (i.e. textured) to promote “good adhesion” of the sputtered material (col. 6, lines 4-7; col. 8, lines 63-67; col. 9, lines 1-16), with figs. 2 and 4 depicting that inner and outer sidewalls of the coil [104] or [200a] are surfaces that are “likely to be coated” with the sputtered material from the target [110] (col. 7, lines 1-35; col. 9, lines 2-16), thus the inner and outer sidewalls of the coil [104] or [200a] are bead blasted (i.e. textured). Nulman also suggests for the coil [104] or [200] to be made of the same material (i.e. Al, Ti, or Cu) as the target [110] used for deposition (col. 6, lines 4-26; col. 9, lines 2-16; claims 11 and 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the dimensions and material of the coil of Nulman as dimensions and material of the coil of Brcka since Brcka fails to specify particular dimensions and material, and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation for success in making the modification since Nulman has shown success for a coil similar to Brcka that utilizes the dimensions and material for inductively coupling plasma for sputtering a target. In addition it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to texture outer and inner sidewalls of the coil taught by Nulman for the coil of Brcka to gain the advantage of providing good adhesion of deposition material if the coil is exposed to plasma.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nulman et al (US 8,398,832) in view of Pancham et al (US 2004/0118521).
With respect to claim 10, Nulman discloses in fig. 2 a coil [104] used in a vacuum chamber (i.e. process chamber) [102] comprising a chamber body with an interior volume therein, a pedestal [114] disposed in the interior volume and supporting a substrate [112], a target [110] disposed in the interior volume opposite the pedestal [114], with the coil [104] between the target [110] and pedestal [114] (Abstract; col. 3, lines 61-67; col. 4, lines 1-12), wherein fig. 3 depicts the coil [104] as coil [200] (col. 6, lines 16-19), fig. 3 further showing the coil [200] having a coil body with first and second end portions (approximate respective grooves [212]), the first end portion coupled to the second end portion opposite thereof via groove [212] of a central portion (col., 6, lines 34-37). Fig. 3 also depicts the coil body having an annular shape, wherein the first and second end portions (approximate respective grooves [212]) disposed both adjacent each other and with a gap forming a discontinuity in the annular shape, wherein at least one of the first and second end portions have a thickness or height greater than a height of the groove [212] of the central portion, the central portion has a substantially uniform height, and wherein the first and second end portions together span less than 180 degrees about a center of the coil body and the central portion spans greater than 180 degrees about the center of the coil body. The cropped figure below of fig. 3 serves to further clarify the height of the at least one of first and second end portions being greater than the height of the groove [212] of the central portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
237
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 3-4 and 6 further depict the coil [200] or [200a] having standoffs (i.e. hubs) [204a],[206a],[208a] for each groove [212], the hubs [204a],[206a],[208a] coupled to and extending from an outer sidewall of the coil [200] or [204a] to facilitate coupling the coil [200] or [200a] to the process chamber [102] via shield wall [210] (fig. 1, coil [104] coupled to process chamber [102]; col. 6, lines 34-44). Fig. 3 shows each groove [212] approximate the first and second end portions, with the coil [200] symmetrical along a central horizontal plane of the coil [200], wherein fig. 6 shows a first hub [206a] coupled to the first end portion and a second hub [208a] coupled to the second end portion, and the hubs [204a],[206a],[208a] configured to be coupled to a RF power source (col. 6, lines 34-44; col. 10, lines 20-25).
However Nulman is limited in that the hubs [204a],[206a],[208a] being entirely disposed between upper and lower surfaces of the coil body of the coil [200] are not suggested.
Pancham teaches in fig. 2 a process chamber [102] comprising a chamber body with an interior volume therein, a pedestal [114] disposed in the interior volume and supporting a substrate [112], a target [110] disposed in the interior volume opposite the pedestal [114], with the coil [104] between the target [110] and pedestal [114] (Abstract; para 0017-0018), similar to the process chamber [102] and coil [104] of Nulman. Pancham further depicts in fig. 7 the coil [104] having plural standoffs [500] each having a hub [504] around the coil [104] to fasten to the process chamber [102] (para 0028-0029 and 0049), also similar to the coil [104] of Nulman; Pancham’s fig. 4 depicts each standoff [500] and hub [504] is entirely disposed between upper and lower surfaces of the coil [104] (para 0028-0029). Pancham cites the advantage of the standoffs [500] and hubs [504] being disposed entirely between the upper and lower surfaces of the coil [104] as reducing particle generation (Abstract; para 0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to locate the hubs of Nulman between the upper and lower surface of the coil body of the coil as taught by Pancham to gain the advantage of reducing particle generation.
With respect to claim 11, modified Nulman further depicts in figs. 3 and 6 the gap of the coil [200] or [200a] has a width. Although Nulman does not specify a particular width of the gap, it has been held that the only difference between the prior art (seven hubs) and the claims (three hubs) was a recitation of relative dimensions (e.g. number of hubs) of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, IV, A). In this case, the coil [200] or [200a] would still function the same of having power delivered through the first and second end portions via the central portion regardless as to the width of the gap.
With respect to claim 12, modified Nulman further discloses that surfaces of the coil [104] or [200] that are “likely to be coated” with sputtered material are bead blasted (i.e. textured) to promote “good adhesion” of the sputtered material (col. 6, lines 4-7; col. 8, lines 63-67; col. 9, lines 1-16), with figs. 2 and 4 depicting that inner and outer sidewalls of the coil [104] or [200a] are surfaces that are “likely to be coated” with the sputtered material from the target [110] (col. 7, lines 1-35; col. 9, lines 2-16), thus the inner and outer sidewalls of the coil [104] or [200a] are bead blasted (i.e. textured).
With respect to claim 13, modified Nulman further discloses heights of the first and second end portions in addition to the central portion is about 2 inches (col. 6, lines 4-11; claims 18 and 20).
With respect to claim 14, modified Nulman further depicts in fig. 3 the coil [200] has the central portion that spans less than 260 degrees about the center of the coil body.
With respect to claim 15, modified Nulman further depicts in fig. 3 heights of the first and second end portions are substantially constant.
With respect to claim 16, Nulman discloses in fig. 2 a coil [104] used in a vacuum chamber (i.e. process chamber) [102] comprising a chamber body with an interior volume therein, a pedestal [114] disposed in the interior volume and supporting a substrate [112], a target [110] disposed in the interior volume opposite the pedestal [114], with the coil [104] between the target [110] and pedestal [114] (Abstract; col. 3, lines 61-67; col. 4, lines 1-12), wherein fig. 3 depicts the coil [104] as coil [200] (col. 6, lines 16-19), fig. 3 further showing the coil [200] having a coil body with first and second end portions (approximate respective grooves [212]), the first end portion coupled to the second end portion opposite thereof via groove [212] of a central portion (col., 6, lines 34-37). Fig. 3 also depicts the coil body having an annular shape, wherein the first and second end portions (approximate respective grooves [212]) disposed both adjacent each other and with a gap forming a discontinuity in the annular shape, and wherein at least one of the first and second end portions have a thickness or height greater than a height of the groove [212] of the central portion. The cropped figure below of fig. 3 serves to further clarify the height of the at least one of first and second end portions being greater than the height of the groove [212] of the central portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
237
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 3-4 and 6 further depict the coil [200] or [200a] having standoffs (i.e. hubs) [204a],[206a],[208a] for each groove [212], the hubs [204a],[206a],[208a] coupled to and extending from an outer sidewall of the coil [200] or [204a] to facilitate coupling the coil [200] or [200a] to the process chamber [102] via shield wall [210], and each of the hubs [204a],[206a],[208a] has a center disposed along a central horizontal plane of the coil [200] or [200a] (fig. 1, coil [104] coupled to process chamber [102]; col. 6, lines 34-44). Fig. 3 shows each groove [212] approximate the first and second end portions, wherein fig. 6 shows a first hub [206a] coupled to the first end portion and a second hub [208a] coupled to the second end portion, and the hubs [204a],[206a],[208a] configured to be coupled to a RF power source (col. 6, lines 34-44; col. 10, lines 20-25).
However Nulman is limited in that the coil body of the coil [104] or [200] having “an upper surface of the coil body includes a first sloped portion that extends upward from the central portion to the first end portion and a lower surface of the coil body includes a second sloped portion that extends downward from the central portion to the first end portion” is not suggested.
Pancham teaches in fig. 2 a process chamber [102] comprising a chamber body with an interior volume therein, a pedestal [114] disposed in the interior volume and supporting a substrate [112], a target [110] disposed in the interior volume opposite the pedestal [114], with the coil [104] between the target [110] and pedestal [114] (Abstract; para 0017-0018), similar to the process chamber [102] and coil [104] of Nulman. Pancham further depicts in figs. 4 and 7 the coil [104] having plural standoffs [500] each having a hub [504] around the coil [104] to fasten to the process chamber [102], wherein a center of each of the standoffs [500] is disposed along a central horizontal plane of the coil [104], with the coil [104] symmetrical on both sides of the central horizontal plane (para 0028-0029 and 0049), also similar to the coil [104] of Nulman. Pancham further depicts in fig. 3 the coil [104] having first and second portions spaced apart by a gap and coupled to a central portion; fig. 4 depicts the coil [104] has an upper surface [104e] that includes a first sloped portion therearound that extends upward from the central portion to first end portion and a lower surface [104f] of the coil [104] including a second sloped portion therearound that extends downward from the central portion to the first end portion (para 0052). Pancham cites the advantage of the upper and lower surfaces [104e],[104f] having the first and second sloped portions as reducing accumulation of deposited material on the coil [104] to thereby reduce generation of particles (para 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the upper and lower surface of the coil of Nulman have first and second sloped portions taught by Pancham to gain the advantage of reducing particle generation.
With respect to claim 17, modified Nulman further teaches the hubs [204a],[206a],[208a] configured to be coupled to a RF power source (col. 6, lines 34-44; col. 10, lines 20-25).
With respect to claims 18 and 19, modified Nulman further depicts in fig. 2 the process chamber [102] comprises the coil [104] in the interior volume between the target [110] and pedestal [114] (col. 3, lines 61-67; col. 4, lines 12), and fig. 4 depicting the coil [200a] coupled to the shield wall (i.e. inner shield) [210] (col. 6, lines 29-37), thus the shield wall [210] (coupled to the coil [200a]) is also between the target [110] and pedestal [114]. Modified Nulman further discloses the hubs are electrically insulated from the inner shield [210] via insulating means (i.e. coil spacers) between the standoffs (i.e. hubs) [204a],[206a],[208a] and the inner shield [210] (col. 4, lines 41-64; col. 5, lines 40-49; col. 6, lines 29-44).
With respect to claim 20, modified Nulman further discloses the coil [104] or [200] is made of Al, Ti, or Cu that is the same material as the target [110] (col. 6, lines 4-26; col. 9, lines 2-16; claims 11 and 16).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nulman et al (US 8,398,832).
With respect to claim 4, Nulman further depicts in figs. 3-6 the coil [200] or [200a] has three hubs [204a],[206a],[208a] (col. 6, lines 29-44). Although Nulman does not specifically teach more than three hubs, it has been held that: 1) a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04, VI, C); and 2) where the only difference between the prior art (three hubs) and the claims (seven hubs) was a recitation of relative dimensions (e.g. number of hubs) of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, IV, A). In this case, the hubs [204a],[206a],[208a] of Nulman serve as power connectors to the coil [200] or [200a] (col. 6, lines 29-44; col. 10, lines 20-25), thus the expected result of power still being delivered to the coil [200] or [200a] occurs regardless of three, seven, or more than seven hubs being present.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nulman et al (US 8,398,832) and Yamazawa et al (CN 102056395, machine translation cited below) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pancham et al (US 2004/0118521).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of references Nulman and Yamazawa is cited as discussed for claim 1. However Nulman is limited in that while each hub (i.e. standoff) [204a],[206a],[208a] of the coil [104] or 200a] is attached to the shield wall [210] (fig. 4; col. 6, lines 34-44), a particular structure of each hub (i.e. standoff) [204a],[206a],[208a] for attaching to the shield wall [201] is not suggested.
Pancham teaches in figs. 1-2 a coil [104] for use in a vacuum chamber (i.e. process chamber) [102] and mounted on a wall [140] of a shield [106] (e.g. shield wall [106],[140]) via standoffs [500] (Abstract; para 0017 and 0023), similar to the coil [104] or [200a] with standoffs (i.e. hubs) [204a],[206a],[208a] of Nulman. Figs. 4 and 7 depict the coil [104] having plural standoffs [500] each with a hub [504] (para 0028), wherein each of the hubs [504] has a central portion [504a] which defines a threaded bore [504b] which receives a fastener (para 0029). Pancham cites the advantage of the particular structure of each hub [504] having the fastener in the central portion [504a] as the front or inner face of the coil [104] being free of any protruding fastener for mounting the coil [104] to the shield wall [106],[140], thereby preventing generation of particulates from the mounting (para 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the particular structure including the fastener in a central portion for each standoff/hub of Pancham for each standoff/hub of Nulman to gain the advantage of providing a mounting structure to the shield wall without generating undesirable particulates from the mounting structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 6-9 filed 9/22/2025 are addressed below.
103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 6-7 with respect to amended claims 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference Brcka being applied in the current rejection.
On p. 7-8, Applicant argues Nulman and Pancham do not teach the new limitation “the coil is symmetrical along a central horizontal plane of the coil” as recited by claim 10.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since Nulman’s fig. 3 at least shows the coil [200] as being symmetrical along a central horizontal plane of the coil [200]. Thus the combination of Nulman and Pancham renders obvious the new limitation of claim 10.
On p. 8, Applicant argues that Nulman and Pancham do not teach the limitation of amended dependent claim 14.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since Nulman’s fig.3 depicts the coil [200] has the central portion that spans less than 260 degrees about the center of the coil body. Thus Nulman teaches dependent claim 14.
On p. 8-9, Applicant argues that Pancham does not teach from claim 16: 1) the coil having the upper surface with the first sloped surface extending upwards from the central portion of the coil and the lower surface with the second sloped surface extending downwards from the central portion; and 2) the coil being symmetrical on both sides of the central horizontal plane.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding:
1) Pancham’s fig. 4 shows the first and second sloped surfaces of the coil [104] extend around the coil [104]. Thus the first sloped surface extends from the first and second portions in addition to the central portion, with the first sloped surface extending upwards; and the second sloped surface extends from the first and second portions in addition to the central portion, with the second sloped surface extending downwards.
2) Pancham’s figs. 4 and 7 depict the coil [104] symmetrical on both sides of the central horizontal plane.
Thus Pancham teaches 1) and 2) for claim 16.
All other arguments on p. 9 to claim 8 are directed towards the subject matter addressed in the 103 Rejections above and therefore have been addressed accordingly.
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 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