Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/687,961

SPUTTERING APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR THIN FILM ELECTRODE DEPOSITION

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 07, 2022
Examiner
BAND, MICHAEL A
Art Unit
1794
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
7 (Non-Final)
45%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
4y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 45% of resolved cases
45%
Career Allow Rate
373 granted / 833 resolved
-20.2% vs TC avg
Strong +55% interview lift
Without
With
+55.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 4m
Avg Prosecution
55 currently pending
Career history
888
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.5%
+1.5% vs TC avg
§102
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
§112
30.5%
-9.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 833 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/2/2025 has been entered. 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] 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] 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” 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. 15 a “type-II magnetic assembly configuration” comprising a magnetic assembly (i.e. claimed “additional magnet”) [36’c] disposed between the first and second cylindrical targets [29] of magnetrons [100a],[100b] (col. 4, lines 4-8), wherein N and S poles of the additional magnet [36’c] are arranged along the second direction (via vertical arrows shown for [36’c]) (col. 24, lines 60-67; col. 25, lines 1-10). Hollars further teaches that a voltage is applied to the additional magnet [36’c] (col. 25, lines 40-54), wherein for “safety reasons” each magnetron (which includes the additional magnet [36’c]) should be connected to ground (col. 18, lines 18-19; col. 22, lines 41-44); thus the additional magnet [36’c] is connected to a ground voltage. Hollars cites the advantages of the additional magnet [36’c] as providing superior characteristics including a net collection efficiency reaching 80% or more (col. 23, lines 23-41), in addition to effectively stopping any heating of the substrate [4] (col. 25, lines 25-34). 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% or more in addition to effectively stopping any heating of a substrate. 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. 15 the additional magnet [36’c] 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. 7-9 filed 12/2/2025 are addressed below. 102 Rejections Applicant’s arguments on p. 7-9 with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references Belkind, with evidentiary reference De Bosscher, and Hollars being applied in the current rejection. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 07, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 22, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 23, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 26, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 25, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 26, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 29, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 29, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 03, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 18, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 18, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 18, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 15, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 22, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 02, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584108
METHOD FOR SEPARATING MIGRASOMES FROM MACROPHAGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577648
METHODS FOR CONTROLLING PHYSICAL VAPOR DEPOSITION METAL FILM ADHESION TO SUBSTRATES AND SURFACES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580168
SPUTTERING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571085
NOBLE METAL-TRANSITION METAL-BASED NANO-CATALYST THIN FILM AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12548746
PHYSICAL VAPOR DEPOSITION APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
45%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+55.2%)
4y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 833 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month