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 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 74 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 74 (dependent on amended claim 73) recites the limitation "the magnetic poles surfaces". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 55-57, 61-67, and 73-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maass et al (US 5,182,003) in view of Scobey et al (US 9,771,647) and Zueger (US 10,043,642).
With respect to claims 55 and 73-74, Maass discloses in figs. 1-2 a sputter coating apparatus for substrates [17],[17’] with two opposed two-dimensionally extended surfaces (Abstract; col. 2, lines 31-35 and 41-63), wherein figs. 1-2 further depict the sputter coating apparatus comprises a substrate plate (i.e. substrate conveyer) [4] drivingly rotatable around a first axis (represented by shaft [5]) in a vacuum chamber (i.e. housing) [3], the substrate conveyer [4] having substrate supporting areas (i.e. substrate supports) that support the substrates [17],[17’] and are radially equally distant from the first axis (as shown in fig. 1), wherein the substrate supports with the substrates [17],[17’] on the substrate conveyer [4] are rotationally movable along a circular path (i.e. ring-locus) (col. 2, lines 41-64). Figs. 1-4 further depict the ring-locus having (in a radial direction with respect to the first axis [5]) an outer periphery [IV] or [a], an inner periphery [I] or [b], and a center line [K]. Figs. 1-2 depict a cathode (i.e. sputter source) [10] comprising a circular target [13] that is planar having: a sputter surface towards the ring-locus, a target center on the sputter surface, a target center axis, and a backside opposite the sputter surface (col. 2, lines 16-18 and 41-63), and wherein a stationary magnetron magnet arrangement [14] faces the backside of the circular target [13] (Abstract; col. 2, lines 49-51; claim 1). Figs. 3-6 depict different magnet arrangements of the stationary magnetron magnet arrangement [14] (col. 2, lines 35-37 and 49-63; col. 3, lines 7-20), wherein the stationary magnetron magnet arrangement [14] comprises a first magnet arrangement [14b] or [14b’] or [14b’’] or [14b’’’] defining an outer closed loop of magnet pole surfaces of one magnet polarity (e.g. n or ‘north’) facing the backside and a second magnet arrangement [14a] or [14a’] or [14a’’] or [14a’’’] with magnet pole surfaces opposite (e.g. S or ‘south’) facing the backside, with the second magnet arrangement [14a] or [14a’] or [14a’’] or [14a’’’] nested within the outer closed loop of the first magnet arrangement [14b] or [14b’] or [14b’’] or [14b’’’] (col. 3, lines 30-40), wherein figs. 1-6 depict the target center is located in a spacing between the first magnet arrangement [14b] or [14b’] or [14b’’] or [14b’’’] and second magnet arrangement [14a] or [14a’] or [14a’’] or [14a’’’] having a magnetic tunnel (i.e. closed loop area) [t] or [t’] or [t’’] or [t’’’] of magnetron magnetic field generated therebetween (col. 3, lines 21-29).
However Maass is limited in that the circular target being rotatable is not suggested.
Scobey teaches in fig. 1 a cathode assembly (i.e. sputter source) [200] having a circular target [222] that is planar with a sputter surface facing a substrate [S] and a backside facing a stationary magnetic array unit (i.e. stationary magnetron magnet arrangement) [210] (Abstract; col. 2, lines 44-46; col. 6, lines 62-67; col. 7, lines 17-49), similar to the sputter source [10] and stationary magnetron magnet arrangement [14] of Maass. Scobey further teaches the circular target [222] is driving rotatable via target support [220] and drive mechanism [230] (Abstract; col. 7, lines 40-49), resulting in advantages of reducing non-uniform erosion and improved utilization of the circular target [222] in addition to improved deposition rates and uniformity of deposited films (col 2, lines 6-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the circular target that is drivingly rotatable of Scobey as the circular target of Maass to gain the advantages of reducing non-uniform erosion and improved utilization of the circular target in addition to improved deposition rates and uniformity of deposited films.
However the combination of references Maass and Scobey is further limited in that the claimed “first azimuthal extent”, “second azimuthal extent”, and “third azimuthal extent” are not suggested.
Zueger teaches in figs. 8a-b a design for a magnetron magnet arrangement [1],[13],[2] for a circular target [3] that is planar for a sputter coating apparatus (Abstract; col. 11, lines 45-48; col. 17, lines 65-67; col. 18, lines 1-11), similar to the circular target [13] and magnetron magnet arrangement [14] of Maass. Zueger further depicts in figs. 8a-b the magnetron magnet arrangement [1],[2],[13] comprises a first magnet arrangement [1] defining an outer closed loop of magnet poles surfaces of one magnetic polarity (e.g. gray shaded) facing a backside of the circular target [3], and a second magnet arrangement [13],[2] with magnet poles of another polarity (e.g. cross-hatched) facing the backside and nested within the outer closed loop, wherein the second magnet arrangement [13],[2] comprises a first magnet pole surface [13] and a second magnet pole surface [2] nested within the first magnet poles surface [13], and the second magnet pole surface [2] is located in a center area such that a target center (e.g. represented by axis [20]) resides within both the center area and an area define by magnetic pole surfaces of the first magnet arrangement [1] (col. 18, lines 3-11); the first and second magnet arrangements [1],[13],[2] generating a closed loop area of magnetron magnetic field (col. 18, lines 3-11 and 36-62). Zueger cites the advantages of the magnetron magnet arrangement [1],[13],[2] as achieving a rotationally symmetric high erosion off the circular target and a high coating thickness uniformity in azimuthal direction on substrates (col. 18, lines 3-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the magnetron magnet arrangement of Zueger as the stationary magnetron magnet arrangement of Maass to gain the advantages of achieving a rotationally symmetric high erosion off the circular target and a high coating thickness uniformity in azimuthal direction on substrates, as the advantages would be expected and predictable whether the circular target is rotated and magnetron magnet arrangement is stationary (of Maass), or vice versa the circular target is stationary and magnetron magnet arrangement is rotated (of Zueger).
In summary, the combination of references Maass, Scobey, and Zueger has Zueger teaching the magnetron magnet arrangement [1],[13],[2] that is incorporated as the stationary magnetron magnet arrangement [14] of Maass while the circular target is rotated according to Scobey, wherein the magnetron magnet arrangement [1],[13],[2] of Zueger has a similar shape and nested structure as Applicant’s fig. 5. Since the combination of references teaches the claim requirements of the stationary magnetron magnet arrangement and circular target, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established that the combination of references also teaches the resulting stationary magnetron magnet arrangement and circular target having structural properties of: “a first azimuthal extent of a first area of said closed loop area of magnetron magnetic field along a first circle locus around said first axis and radially closer to said outer periphery of said ring-locus than to said inner periphery of said ring-locus, wherein the first azimuthal extent is defined by an overlap of said closed loop area and said outer periphery of said ring-locus”; “a second azimuthal extent of a second area of said closed loop area of magnetron magnetic field along a second circle locus around said first axis and radially closer to said inner periphery of said ring-locus than to said outer periphery of said ring-locus, wherein the second azimuthal extent is defined by an overlap of said closed loop area and said inner periphery of said ring-locus”; “a third azimuthal extent of a third area of said closed loop area of magnetron magnetic field along a third circle locus around said first axis and radially located between said first and said second circle locus, wherein the third azimuthal extent is defined by an overlap of said closed loop area that overlaps with said center line of said ring-locus”; “said target center being located in said third area”; and “said second azimuthal extent is shorter than said first azimuthal extent and said third azimuthal extent is shorter than said second azimuthal extent” (MPEP 2112.01, I).
With respect to claims 56 and 57, modified Maass further depicts in figs. 3-6 with respect to the first axis [5]: the third circle locus is radially centered between the first and second circle locus, and radially aligned with the center line [K] of the ring-locus.
With respect to claims 61-63, modified Maass further depicts in figs. 1-2 planes of: the sputter surface of the circular target [13] extends along a sputter surface plane in an unused state (i.e. new state), magnet pole surfaces of the stationary magnetron magnet arrangement [14] extend along a magnet arrangement plane; a substrate aligned with the sputter source [10] extends along a substrate plane, and a target backside extends along a backside plane. Although figs. 1-2 of Maass appear to depict the planes as parallel (e.g. angle a = 0o) instead of intersecting at the angle a >0o, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges (e.g. angle a >0o or 0.000000001o) and prior art ranges (e.g. angle a = 0o) do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (MPEP 2144.05, I). In this case, one of ordinary skill would have expected the same results of sputter depositing onto the substrate [17],[17’] from the circular target [13] regardless of the angle a being 0o or 0.000000001o, to which if 0.000000001o, the planes would intersect along a line perpendicular to a plane containing the first axis [5] and the target center of the circular target [13] since the planes would no longer be parallel.
With respect to claims 64 and 67, the combination of references Maass and Zueger has fig. 6 of Maass depicting the first magnet arrangement [14b’’’] (e.g. Zueger’s first magnet arrangement [1] in fig. 8a) defining the outer closed loop being similarly shaped as the first magnet arrangement [27] in Applicant’s fig. 5; as such, fig. 6 then depicts the first magnet arrangement [14b’’’] (e.g. Zueger’s first magnet arrangement [1] in fig. 8a) has: “an angular position with respect to said target center and with an outwards radial direction from said first axis to said target center as angle W = 0o: from W = 0° up to W in a range of 170° to 190°, along a periphery of said circular target; subsequently, bent inward to pass close to said target center; and subsequently, bent outwards towards the periphery of said circular target; subsequently, along the periphery of said circular target back to W = 0°” (claim 64) and “said outer closed loop defines a secant with respect to said circular target, departing at an angle in a range from 30° to 50°” (claim 67).
With respect to claims 65 and 66, the combination of references Maass and Zueger has Maass depicting in figs. 1-2 both the target center of the circular target [13] and a center of circular yoke plate [15] being substantially on (i.e. aligned with) the center line [K] of the ring-locus in addition to centers of each of the substrates [17],[17’] also on the center line [K]; Maass depicts in figs. 3-4 the center of the yoke plate [15] (which is also the target center) on the center line [K], wherein the center of the circular yoke plate [15] is between the outer closed loop of the first magnet arrangement [14b] or [14b’] (e.g. Zueger’s first magnet arrangement [1] in fig. 8a) and the second magnet arrangement [14] or [14a’] (e.g. Zueger’s second magnet arrangement [13],[2] in fig. 8a) nested in the outer closed loop. Thus the target center of the circular target [13] is also then between the outer closed loop of the first magnet arrangement [14b] or [14b’] (e.g. Zueger’s first magnet arrangement [1] in fig. 8a) and the second magnet arrangement [14] or [14a’] (e.g. Zueger’s second magnet arrangement [13],[2] in fig. 8a) nested in the outer closed loop.
Claims 68-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maass et al (US 5,182,003), Scobey et al (US 9,771,647), and Zueger (US 10,043,642) as applied to claim 55 above, and further in view of Seeser et al (US 5,879,519).
With respect to claims 68-72, the combination of references Maass, Scobey, and Zueger is cited as discussed for claim 55. However the combination of references is limited in that: 1) the substrates [17],[17’] driving rotatable around a respective support central axis (claim 68); 2) a material of the circular target [13] (claim 69); 3) a gas feed into the housing of a reactive gas of oxygen (claims 70 and 71); and 4) at least two sputter sources (claim 72) are not suggested.
Seeser teaches in fig. 19-20 a sputter coating apparatus comprising a substrate carrier disk (i.e. substrate conveyer) [162] mounted with substrates for rotating about a ring-locus and facing deposition stations (i.e. sputter sources) [26],[27] comprising targets (Abstract; col. 5, lines 27-30; col. 7, lines 10-18; col. 17, lines 56-67; col. 18, lines 1-41), similar to the sputter coating apparatus of Maass. Seeser further depicts in fig. 19 that the substrate conveyer [162] has the substrates mounted to smaller disks (i.e. substrate supports) [166] for independent rotation around respective support central axes to increase deposition uniformity (col. 17, lines 66-67; col. 18, lines 1-8). Seeser further teaches that one of the targets in figs. 19-20 comprises a variety of materials, including silicon (col. 7, lines 10-18; col. 10, lines 14-22), the materials reacting with a reactive gas of oxygen from reaction station [28] shown in figs. 19-20 (col. 8, lines 38-43; col. 9, lines 20-46; col. 18, lines 1-26), to thereby selectively form on the substrates a combination of materials and oxides (Abstract; col. 7, lines 10-40). Fig. 6-7 depict specifics of ion source [40] of the reaction station [28] shown in figs. 19-20 (col. 8, lines 39-43), the ion source [40] comprising a manifold (i.e. gas feed) [57] connected to a gas source or tank arrangement of the oxygen (col. 9, lines 20-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to:
1) mount the substrates of the combination of references to the substrate carriers (i.e. substrate supports) that are independently rotatable as taught by Seeser to gain the advantage of increasing deposition uniformity;
2) have the circular target of the combination of references comprise silicon as taught by Seeser since the combination of references fails to specify a particular material for the circular target, and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation for success in making the modification since Seeser has shown success in having silicon comprise the target for depositing in a similar sputter coating apparatus of the combination of references; and
3 and 4) have the reaction station with the gas feed of oxygen and the targets of Seeser in the housing of the combination of references to gain the advantage of selectively forming on the substrates a combination of materials and oxides.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 6-8 filed 12/11/2025 are addressed below.
Drawing Objections
Claims 55 and 74 have each been amended to show subject matter from fig. 3; the previous objections are withdrawn.
112 Rejections
Claim 55 has been amended as discussed during the interview (see interview summary mailed 6/5/2025); the previous 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim 64 has been amended by deleting the phrase “as follows”; the previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim 73 has been amended to clarify “magnet pole surface”; the previous 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim 74 has been amended as discussed during the interview (see interview summary mailed 6/5/2025); the previous 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
103 Rejections
On p. 7-9, Applicant argues that the combined features of Maass, Scobey, and Zueger do not render obvious the structural apparatus of amended claim 55.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since: Maass’ figs. 1-6 are cited to teach a structural apparatus having a spatial relationship between a target (with magnetron) and a substrate support that rotates along a ring-locus (that includes first, second, and third circle locus) via substrate conveyor; Scobey’s fig. 1 for teaching benefits to also rotate the target of Maass while having the magnetron fixed; and Zueger’s figs. 8a-b for teaching benefits of a particular magnetron arrangement for the magnetron of Maass. In particular, Zueger’s fig. 8a shows a similar magnetron arrangement as Applicant’s fig. 5 (that results in the first, second, and third azimuthal extents in Applicant’s fig. 3 with the first, second, and third ring locus); the magnetron arrangement of Zueger incorporated as the magnetron in the structural apparatus of Maass having the first, second, and third circle locus, resulting in the first, second, and third azimuthal extents. Thus the combination of Maass, Scobey, and Zueger render obvious the structural apparatus of amended claim 55, in particular the claimed first, second, and third azimuthal extents.
On p. 9, Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach a feature of “a circular target that is planar” as recited by amended claim 55.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since Maass, Scobey, and Zueger each teaches the feature (Maass, figs. 1-2, circular target [13]; Scobey, fig. 8, circular target [222], claim 8; and Zueger, figs. 8a-b, circular target [4]).
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