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.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10 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 recites “the first angle and the second angle are different from each other to steer plasma ions away from the substrate holder” (emphasis added). There is no support in the Specification that ‘the first and second angles being different from each other’ then results “to steer plasma ions away from the substrate holder”. Claims 3-8 and 10 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
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, 3-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belkind et al (WO 92/01081), as evidenced by De Bosscher (US 10,424,468), in view of Hollars et al (US 6,488,824).
With respect to claim 1, Belkind discloses in figs. 1-2 a sputter apparatus comprising first and cylindrical targets [14],[114] arranged in a first direction parallel to each other, a plurality of first magnets [24],[26],[28] with a first magnet [28] disposed in the first cylindrical target [14] wherein magnet axes of two adjacent magnets [24],[26] or [26],[28] of the first magnets [24],[26],[28] form an acute angle, and a plurality of second magnets [24],[26],[28] with a second magnet [24] disposed in the second cylindrical target [114] wherein magnet axes of two adjacent magnets [24],[26] or [26],[28] of the first magnets [24],[26],[28] form an acute angle, a substrate holder (such as shown in fig. 8) spaced apart from the first and second cylindrical targets [14],[114] in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction (Abstract; p. 8, lines 26-35; p. 9, lines 3-24). Figs. 1-2, 8, and 13 further depict (as interpreted in view of Applicant’s fig. 4) the first and second cylindrical targets [14],[114] with first and second [24],[26],[28] are capable of “a first angle formed by a first imaginary straight line from a center of an arrangement of the first magnets to a cylindrical axis of the first cylindrical target with a first perpendicular line is in a range of about 30 degrees to about 180 degrees, wherein the first perpendicular line is defined by an imaginary perpendicular line drawn from the cylindrical axis of the first cylindrical target to an upper surface of the substrate holder, and a second angle formed by a second imaginary straight line from a center of an arrangement of the second magnets to a cylindrical axis of the second cylindrical target with a second perpendicular line is in a range of about 30 degrees to about 180 degrees, wherein the second perpendicular line is defined by an imaginary perpendicular line drawn from the cylindrical axis of the second cylindrical target to the upper surface of the substrate holder”, to which the cropped figures below of both Applicant’s fig. 4 and Belkind’s fig. 8 serve to clarify.
PNG
media_image1.png
425
875
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Belkind further discloses the substrate holder is “supporting rollers 265 or another convenient mechanism” (figs. 1-2 and 8; p. 23, lines 8-13), with evidence by De Bosscher showing in figs. 1-2 a sputter apparatus having an exemplary “convenient mechanism” of a substrate [170] mounted on substrate holder [180] that is capable of moving horizontally in a first direction via a drive mechanism while first and second cylindrical targets [160] are fixed (Abstract; col. 20, lines 58-67; col. 21, lines 1-12), similar to sputter apparatus of Belkind. Belkind further discloses each of the first and second cylindrical targets [14],[114] comprises silver (p. 11, lines 5-12), which is fully capable of being transmissive or semi-transmissive as evidenced by p. 9 of Applicant’s Specification stating “the lower electrode 140 may include a conductive material such as a metal including silver (Ag) or aluminum (Al), and may be semi- transmissive or reflective”. Belkind also discloses each of the first and second magnets [24],[26],[28] rotate to a desired angle (p. 10, lines 29-36; p. 11, lines 1-5), such as the desired angle shown in figs. 2, 8, and 13; the claim requirement of “the first angle and the second angle are different from each other to steer plasma ions away from the substrate holder” related to the intended functioning of the claimed first and second magnets, with the first and second magnets [24],[26],[28] fully capable of functioning in the claimed manner (fig. 8; p. 10, lines 29-36; p. 11, lines 1-5), including different angles from each other.
However Belkind is limited in that an additional magnet disposed between the first and second cylindrical targets [14],[114] having an N pole and a S pole arranged along the second direction are not suggested.
Hollars teaches in fig. 2c first and second cylindrical targets [29] of magnetrons arranged in a first direction parallel to each other and spaced from a substrate [4] in a second direction, wherein each contains respective angled magnetic assemblies (i.e. plural magnets) [36] as shown in figs. 3a-b as [46a],[46b] (col. 13, lines 28-47; col. 14, lines 57-61), similar to the first and second cylindrical targets [14],[114] with the first and second magnets [24],[26],[28] of Belkind. Hollars further depicts in fig. 14 a “TriMag” or “type-I configuration” comprising a magnetic assembly [36c] disposed between the first and second cylindrical targets [29a],[29b] of magnetrons [100a],[100b] (col. 3, lines 1-67; col. 23, lines 1-67; col. 24, lines 1-8), wherein each magnet (i.e. claimed “additional magnet”) of the magnetic assembly [36c] consists of one magnet of which N and S poles are arranged along the second direction (via vertical arrows shown for [36c]) (col. 23, lines 1-67; col. 24, lines 1-59). The cropped figure below of fig. 14 serves to clarify the claimed “additional magnet consists of one magnet in which an N pole and a S pole are arranged along the second direction” and the first and second cylindrical targets [29a],[29b] with a first magnet of plural first magnets [36a] and a second magnet of plural second magnets [36b].
PNG
media_image2.png
674
971
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hollars further teaches that a voltage is applied to the magnetic assembly [36c] (which includes each additional magnet) (col. 25, lines 40-54), wherein for “safety reasons” each magnetron (which includes the magnetic assembly [36c] and each additional magnet) should be connected to ground (col. 18, lines 18-19; col. 22, lines 41-44); thus each additional magnet of the magnetic assembly [36c] is also directly connected to or applied with a ground voltage via a structural means. Hollars further depicts in fig. 14 (as the cropped figure above shows): N and S poles of the first magnet of plural first magnets [36a] of the first cylindrical target [29a] and N and S poles of a second magnet of plural second magnets [36b], the first and second magnets each closest to the additional magnet (with Belkind’s fig. 8 showing similar first and second magnets [225],[227] that are each arranged obliquely to the first and second directions); wherein the first magnet has a polarity at a side oriented towards the additional magnet that is opposite a polarity of the additional magnet at a side oriented towards the first magnet, such that magnetic field lines are continuously formed between the additional magnet and first magnet (col. 23, lines 23-37 and 51-67). Hollars cites the advantage of the additional magnet [36c] as providing superior characteristics including a net collection efficiency reaching 80% or more (col. 23, lines 23-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the additional magnet of Hollars between the first and second cylindrical targets of Belkind to gain the advantages of providing superior characteristics including a net collection efficiency reaching 80%.
With respect to claim 3, modified Belkind further discloses the first and second cylindrical targets [205],[207] each rotate about the respective cylindrical axis [209],[211] as shown in fig. 8 (p. 20, lines 25-35; p. 21, lines 1-4), wherein the first and second magnets [217],[219] do not swing.
With respect to claim 4, modified Belkind further depicts in figs. 1-2 and 8 each of the first and second angles is capable of being adjusted in a range of about 25-50o (p. 10, lines 29-36; p. 11, lines 1-5).
With respect to claims 5 and 6, modified Belkind further discloses the first and second magnets [24],[26],[28] in figs. 1-2 are disposed such that same and opposite poles face each other (p. 10, lines 11-23).
With respect to claims 7 and 8, modified Belkind further discloses a power supply of either DC or RF connected between the first and second cylindrical targets [14],[114]p. 5, lines 25-29). The claim limitation of “the power supply uses an alternating-current pulse method” relates to the intended functioning of the claimed power supply, with the power supply of Belkind fully capable of operating in the claimed manner by repeatedly switching the power supply OFF/ON.
With respect to claim 10, Hollars further depicts in fig. 14 the magnetic assembly [36c] (including each additional magnet) disposed farther from a substrate holder holding substrate [4] than an imaginary straight line connecting cylindrical axes of the first and second cylindrical targets [29] of magnetrons [100a],[100b] (col. 23, lines 23-41).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 7-11 filed 5/19/2026 are addressed below.
103 Rejections
On p. 7-11, Applicant argues that the combination of Belkind and Hollars does not teach as recited by amended claim 1: 1) “the first angle and second angle are different from each other to steer plasma away from the substrate holder”; and 2) “the additional magnet consists of one magnet in which an N pole and a S pole are arranged along the second direction”, specifics of how the additional magnet is arranged with respect to the claimed ‘first and second magnets’, and “a ground voltage is directly applied to the additional magnet”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Regarding 1): First, there is no support in the Specification nor fig. 11 that the first and second angles being different from each other then results in the claimed “to steer plasma away from the substrate holder”. Second, Belkind teaches each of the first and second magnets [24],[26],[28] rotate to desired first and second angles (p. 10, lines 29-36; p. 11, lines 1-5), such as the desired first and second angles shown in figs. 2, 8, and 13; the claim requirement of “the first angle and the second angle are different from each other to steer plasma ions away from the substrate holder” related to the intended functioning of the claimed first and second magnets, with the first and second magnets [24],[26],[28] fully capable of functioning in the claimed manner (fig. 8; p. 10, lines 29-36; p. 11, lines 1-5), including different angles from each other.
Regarding 2): Hollars teaches in fig. 14 (and as clarified by the cropped figure above of fig. 14) the magnetic assembly [36] comprises additional magnets, with each of the additional magnets consisting of one magnet of an N pole and S pole that is arranged along the second direction, in addition to the specifics of how one additional magnet is arranged with respect to the first and second magnets. The cropped figure below of fig. 14 with new evidentiary reference De Bosscher (US 2016/0273094) serves to clarify N and S poles of each additional magnet based on the vertical arrows.
PNG
media_image3.png
499
879
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hollars also teaches that the magnetron (and thus each additional magnet of the magnetron) is connected to “safety ground” due to a “power source […] connected across each pair of magnetrons” (col. 18, lines 18-19; col. 22, lines 41-44); thus a ground voltage (of the power source) is “directly applied” to each additional magnet via structural means, wherein the structural means is either the power source itself or magnetic assembly [36], or “the power supply case” as suggested by Applicant on p. 10.
On p. 10-11, Applicant argues that the combination of Belkind and Hollars do do not teach producing “an unexpected technical result” from the claimed apparatus.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious (MPEP 2145, II).
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
Prosecution Insights