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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on February 23, 2026 was received. Claim 1 was amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued February 28, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 1-2 and 8-11 as being indefinite are withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1 to fix the antecedent basis issues.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 1 for having a typographical error is withdrawn because that error was corrected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Watanabe et al. (US 2017/0352540) on claims 1 and 8-11 are withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1 to require a motor coupled to the one or more movable shields and being outside the vacuum chamber.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. in view of Matsunaga et al. (US 2017/0222185).
Regarding claim 1: Watanabe et al. discloses a vacuum processing apparatus (10) having a vacuum deposition chamber (26b) with a processing area having a sputtering target (42) which is a deposition apparatus, a cryotrap (54) which is a cooling surface, and a movable substrate stage (46) which is a movable shield placed between the target (42) in the processing area and the cryotrap (54) (pars. 108-111, 120-121, figures 1-2). Watanabe et al. further discloses a deposition shield (44) which is fixed that is disposed between the cryotrap (54) and sputtering target (42), and partially surrounds the cryotrap (54) (par. 112, figure 2B), where when the substrate stage (46) is in the vertical position the stage (46) and the shield (44) can be considered to provide at least a partial enclosure for the cryotrap (54) (figure 2B) as it mostly blocks the cryotrap (54) from the target (42). Further, when the substrate stage (46) is in the horizontal position (phantom lines in figure 2B) there is a clear fluid path between the cryotrap (54) and the target (42) in the processing area (figure 2B). Watanabe et al. discloses that the shield (44) prevents particles from depositing on regions of the apparatus that are not needed such that it regulates exposure of the cryotrap (54) from the target (42) (par. 112, figure 2B). Even without this teaching, the presence of the shield (44) and stage (46) quite clearly do inherently regulate exposure of the cryotrap (54) from the target (42) by simply being solid objects blocking radiant particles, and thus control a partial gas pressure and can be considered a gas partial pressure control assembly (see figure 2).
Watanabe et al. fails to explicitly disclose the actual moving mechanism for the stage (46), or that it is a motor located outside the vacuum chamber (26b). However, Matsunaga et al. disclose a similar sputtering system having a vacuum chamber (111) in which a substrate (100) is held by a substrate holder and moved by a conveying mechanism between an entrance/exit position and a processing position, where the conveying mechanism can be a motor (pars. 210-212, 219, 250, fig. 10). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a motor like that of Matsunaga et al. to perform the stage (46) movement of Watanabe et al. because Matsunaga et al. teaches that a motor is a known element to be used for moving a substrate holder in a sputtering apparatus within a vacuum chamber (par. 219), and using a known element for a known purpose is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143). While Watanabe et al. and Matsunaga et al. do not clarify that the motor is located outside of the vacuum chamber, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try placing it either inside the vacuum chamber connected to the stage (46) or outside the vacuum chamber connected to the stage (46) because trying from a finite number of solutions is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E).
Regarding claim 8: Watanabe et al. shows that the fluid path between the target (42) and the cryotrap (54) is adjustable as the angle of the substrate stage (46) is changed (par. 111, figure 2B).
Regarding claim 9: Watanabe et al. discloses that the cryotrap (54) includes a plurality of refrigerator units, which are pipes when used in a cryotrap (par. 121).
Regarding claim 10: Watanabe et al. teaches that the cooling device is a cryotrap (54) which is a cryogenic cooling apparatus having a surface (par. 121).
Regarding claim 11: Watanabe et al. teaches that the chamber (26b) is connected to a turbo molecular pump (52) (par. 121, figure 2B).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. and Matsunaga et al. as applied to claims 1 and 8-11 above and further in view of Brors et al. (US 2016/0181066) and Yamazaki (US 2017/0256572).
Regarding claim 2: Watanabe et al. discloses a number of gate valves (28) which can be considered sealing members that seal an opening, but fails to explicitly disclose one of them being coupled to the cooling surface and having a holder for the deposition apparatus.
However, Brors et al. discloses a similar vacuum deposition apparatus where a vapor generator (105) is held by a partition wall (103) which is a sealing member that seals at least one opening in the apparatus relative to the main chamber (101) (par. 40, figure 4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a sealing partition wall as taught by Brors et al. to hold the target (42) of Watanabe et al. because Brors et al. shows that this is a well-known arrangement for supporting vapor sources and using a known technique to improve a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143), nor is simple rearrangement of parts (MPEP 2144.04). Furthermore, Brors et al. teaches that putting ports, doors or other means of access in various areas of the device is well within the ability of the skilled artisan in vacuum chamber technology (par. 40).
The cryotrap (54) of Watanabe et al. and Brors et al. could be considered “coupled” to this modified sealing partition, since that is a broad term, and it being provided on a wall that also supports the partition can read on the term “coupled”. Alternatively, Yamazaki discloses a similar sputtering apparatus to that of Watanabe et al. where the cryotrap (2751) is provided on an outer wall adjacent to the sputtering targets (2766) such that the wall holding the cryotrap (2751) can be considered the same wall holding the sputtering targets (2766) (pars. 132-138, figure 41B). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a cryotrap arrangement on the same wall as the targets as taught by Yamazaki for the apparatus of Watanabe et al. because Yamazaki shows that this is a functionally equivalent arrangement for using a cryotrap in a sputtering apparatus and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06). With the above modification the sealing partition would be coupled directly to the cryotrap and include a holder for the sputtering target.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Watanabe et al. does not disclose providing an enclosure, nor does it disclose forming a gas partial pressure control assembly, or having a motor coupled to the movable shields located outside the vacuum chamber.
In response:
Regarding the new limitations, they are addressed above in the new rejection over Watanabe et al. in view of Matsunaga et al. and therefore Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Regarding the “enclosure” argument, Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, Applicant argues that Watanabe et al. shows the stage (46) merely blocking the substrate from the cryotrap and not that it forms an enclosure for the cryotrap. However, the claims do not specify how exactly this enclosure must be structured, simply that the fixed shields and movable shields “provide an enclosure for the cooling surface inside the vacuum chamber”. Figure 2B of Watanabe et al. clearly shows that the fixed shields (44) as well as other fixed surfaces, together with the movable stage (46) when in the vertical position “enclose” the cryotrap (54) within the vacuum chamber (26b). There is no specific requirement as to what it is enclosed from, or the size or span of the enclosure, or even whether the enclosure is complete and fully sealed. Simply a broad requirement that they “provide an enclosure” which is clearly the case in figure 2B of Watanabe et al. Applicant is encouraged to use more defined, structural language to more distinctly point out the arrangement of the shields relative to the cooling surface and how such an enclosure is meant to be arranged.
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 STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
4/17/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights