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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/8/2026 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, 4-5, 8-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuehnle (US 3,829,373) in view of Tepman (US 7,550,066).
With respect to claim 1, Kuehnle discloses in figs. 1-2, 5, and 8 a sputter deposition apparatus [10] (Abstract; col. 4, lines 20-22), figs. 1-2, 5, and 8 showing the sputter deposition apparatus [10] comprises: a remote plasma generation arrangement to provide plasma [146] for sputtering of target material from a target [62] comprising plates (i.e. claimed “first and second targets”) [82] within a deposition zone (fig. 6; col. 2, lines 52-59; col. 6, lines 24-50; col. 8, lines 64-68; col. 9, lines 1-10); a confining arrangement to provide a confining magnetic field that substantially confines the plasma [146] in the deposition zone to sputter material from the first and second targets [82] (fig. 8; col. 6, lines 24-61; col. 7, lines 10-60; col. 8, lines 64-68; col. 9, lines 1-10); a substrate [50] within the deposition zone (col. 5, lines 43-68; col. 6, lines 1-4; col. 9, lines 3-8); a “transport means” (i.e. claimed “conveyor system” [24] arranged to convey the substrate [50] from a first side of the deposition zone to a second side of the deposition zone (figs. 3-4; col. 5, lines 43-68; col. 6, lines 1-21); and the first and second target [82] mounted onto at least one target assembly (i.e. claimed “one or more target support assemblies”) [74] in the deposition zone to sputter target material onto the substrate [50], wherein the at least one target support assembly [74] supports the first and second targets [82] without an intervening element between the first and second targets [82] and the substrate [50] during conveyance of the substrate [50] through the deposition zone via the conveyor system [24] (fig. 6; col. 6, lines 31-48). Kuehnle further teaches in figs. 6 and 8 the confining arrangement confines the plasma [146] such that first target material from the first target [82] (e.g. bottom left target) is deposited as a first region on the substrate [50], and second target material from the second target [82] (e.g. top right target) is deposited as a second region on the substrate [50], wherein the first and second targets [82] are offset from each other in the conveyance direction with a first gap perpendicular to the conveyance direction between the first and second targets [82], and an intermediate region is deposited from target material at the intermediate region (e.g. middle targets [82]) between the first and second regions of the first and second targets [82] (col. 6, lines 24-61); Kuehnle also discloses the intermediate region (of middle targets [82]) is capable of comprising different target materials (e.g. a blend of target materials) (col. 6, lines 45-60), thus the intermediate region is fully capable of being a blend of target materials of the first and second targets [82]. In addition, the claim requirement of “in use there is deposited: the first target material as a first region on the substrate; a second target material as a second region on the substrate; and an intermediate region between the first and second regions comprising a blend of the first and second target materials” relates to the intended functioning of the claimed sputter deposition apparatus, with the sputter deposition apparatus [10] of Kuehnle fully capable of functioning in the claimed manner for reasons discussed above.
However Kuehnle is limited in that while fig. 6 shows the first and second targets [82] being elongated, the first and second targets [82] being elongated in the conveyance direction is not specifically suggested.
Tepman teaches in fig. 6 a target [80] for sputtering, the target [80] comprising elongated “tiles” or plates (i.e. first and second targets) [32],[82] having “interstices” (e.g. small spaces or gaps) [82] therebetween in addition to an intermediate region of middle targets [32],[82] (Abstract; col. 4, lines 58-67; col. 5, lines 1-12), similar to the target [62] comprising the first and second targets [82] of Kuehnle. Tepman also depicts in fig. 8 an alternative embodiment of fig. 6 (col. 4, lines 42-43 and 48-49; col. 5, lines 34-37), with fig. 8 depicting the target [100] comprising elongated first and second targets [102] offset from each other with a first gap therebetween in addition to middle targets [102] therebetween (col. 5, lines 34-51), wherein the first gap creates a separation between a trailing edge of the first target and a leading edge of the second targe with the first and second targets configured to be on opposite sides of the first gap as extended perpendicular to the conveyance direction, and wherein the first and second targets [102], middle targets [102], and first gap are capable of being arranged in a conveyance direction such as the conveyance direction of Kuehnle. The cropped figure below of fig. 8 serves to clarify the first and second targets [102] elongated in the conveyance direction, intermediate region, and the first gap being perpendicular to the conveyance direction with the first and second targets on opposite sides of the first gap.
PNG
media_image1.png
345
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Since Tepman recognizes the similarities of elongated tiles, plates, or targets forming a singular target for sputtering, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the elongated first and second targets [82] of Kuehnle’s fig. 6 (similar to Tepman’s fig. 6) with the elongated first and second targets [102] of Tepman’s fig. 8 as it is merely the selection of functionally similar elongated tiles, plates, or targets recognized in the prior art for forming a singular target, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Kuehnle and Tepman has Kuehnle further depicts in fig. 3-6 the conveyor system [24] arranged to convey the substrate [50] from a first position to a second position along the conveyance direction (5, lines 43-68; col. 6, lines 53), wherein the at least one target support assembly [74] is arranged to support the first and second targets [82] (e.g. the first and second targets [102] Tepman shown in the cropped figure above) such that at a first position, the first and second targets [102] are capable of depositing onto the intermediate region that is due to the first target [102] but not the second target [102], and at a second position, the first and second targets [102] are capable of depositing onto the intermediate region that is due to the second target but not the first target.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of references Kuehnle and Tepman has Tepman teaching (via the cropped figure above of fig. 8) the first and second targets [102] supported (via the at least one target support assembly [74] of Kuehnle) to have the first target [102] be off set from the second target [102] (within the deposition zone of Kuehnle) along an axis perpendicular to (represented by the first gap), but substantially within a plane of, the conveyance direction.
With respect to claims 8-10, modified Kuehnle Figs. 5-6 and 8 further teach a first magnetic element associated with the at least one target assembly [74] via electrical connection [94], the at least one target assembly [74] arranged to support the first target [82] between the first magnetic element and drum [58] of the conveyor system [24] (col. 5, lines 52-68; col. 6, lines 1-53; col. 7, lines 10-33), wherein control and/or “control circuit” (i.e. claimed “controller”) is present to control electrical voltage which in turns controls a first magnetic field from the first target magnetic element (col. 2, lines 30-45; col. 4, lines 58-66; col. 5, lines 8-22). Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1, and claims 9-10 dependent on claim 8; claim 1 recites “one or more target assemblies”, thus modified Kuehnle need only teach one target assembly to meet claim 1, as discussed above for claim 1. Claim 8 recites “a second target magnetic element associated with a second target support assembly” (emphasis added); thus since the “second target magnetic element” is part of an optional limitation of “a second target support assembly”, the “second target magnetic element” is also an optional limitation and thus not required to meet claims 8-10.
With respect to claim 11, the combination of references Kuehnle and Tepman teaches that each of the first and second targets are capable of being different materials (Kuehnle, col. 6, lines 59-61; Tepman, col. 7, lines 14-25).
With respect to claims 12 and 13, modified Kuehnle further depicts in fig. 8 the remote generation arrangement comprises at least one elongate antennae connected to a power supply via [94] that is elongated along the conveyance direction, with the conveyor system [24] arranged to convey the substrate [50] along a curved path that is in the same direction of curvature as the at least one elongate antennae (col. 5, lines 52-68; col. 6, lines 1-23; col. 7, lines 3-60).
With respect to claims 14 and 15, modified Kuehnle further teaches in fig. 8 the confining arrangement comprises at least one confining magnetic element via electrical connection [94] that is elongate along the conveyance direction and a further at least one confining magnetic element via anode of drum [58] that is elongated in a direction substantially perpendicular to the conveyance direction as shown in fig. 4 (col. 7, lines 10-60).
With respect to claim 17, modified Kuehnle further depicts in figs. 3 and 8 the conveyor system [24] comprises a “drum” (i.e. claimed “roller”) [58] to convey the substrate [50] in the conveyance direction that that is substantially perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the roller [58] (col. 5, lines 52-68; col. 6, lines 1-15; col. 7, lines 61).
With respect to claim 18, modified Kuehnle further depicts in figs. 6 and 8 the conveyor system [24] comprises a “drum” (i.e. claimed “curved member”) [58] that substantially conforms to a curvature of the first and second targets [82] mounted onto the at least one target support assembly [74] (col. 6, lines 45-53).
With respect to claim 19, modified Kuehnle further depicts in figs. 5-6 a surface of the first and second targets [82] facing the conveyor system [24] is curved (col. 6, lines 45-53).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-15, and 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 17/775030 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending 17/775030 are overlap in scope with the claims of the current invention, and encompass the subject matter of the current claims. Therefore, any reference meeting the limitations set forth in claims 1-19 of the copending 17/775030 would also meet the requirements set forth in claims 1, 4-5, 8-15, and 17-19 of the current invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-15, and 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 17/774999 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending 17/774999 are overlap in scope with the claims of the current invention, and encompass the subject matter of the current claims. Therefore, any reference meeting the limitations set forth in claims 1-19 of the copending 17/774999 would also meet the requirements set forth in claims 1, 4-5, 8-15, and 17-19 of the current invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-15, and 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of copending Application No. 17/774421 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending 17/774421 are overlap in scope with the claims of the current invention, and encompass the subject matter of the current claims. Therefore, any reference meeting the limitations set forth in claims 1-22 of the copending 17/774421 would also meet the requirements set forth in claims 1, 4-5, 8-15, and 17-19 of the current invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 8-13 filed 1/8/2026 are addressed below.
112 Rejections
Applicant’s explanation on p. 10 regarding support for claim 4 at para 0113 is persuasive; the previous 112(a) has been withdrawn.
103 Rejections
On p. 11, Applicant argues that Tepman cannot be combined with Kuehnle.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since Kuehnle teaches in fig. 6 target tiles [82] arranged in a rectangular formation, similar to the rectangular formation of targets tiles [32],[82] in Tepman’s figs. 6-7; Tepman’s fig. 8 is an alternative rectangular formation of figs. 6-7. Thus Tepman is combinable with Kuehnle for showing similar rectangular formations of target tiles.
On p. 11-13, Applicant argues that Tepman does not teach the limitation “the first and second targets configured to be on opposite sides of the first gap as extended perpendicular to the conveyance direction, wherein the first gap creates a separation between a trailing edge of the first target and a leading edge of the second target in the conveyance direction” as recited by amended claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the cropped figure above in the rejection of claim 1 shows that the first and second targets are on opposite sides of the ‘interstice’ (i.e. first gap) and the first gap exists and separates the trailing edge of the first target and the leading edge of the second target (Abstract; col. 5, lines 8-11 and 34-45). As such Tepman (as incorporated into Kuehnle) teaches amended claim 1.
On p. 12-13, Applicant argues that claim 1 requires the ‘intermediate region to result from deposition of material from each of the first and second targets’.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since claim 1 recites “an intermediate region […] comprising a blend of the first and second target materials” (emphasis added); thus claim 1 only requires that the same materials as that of the first and second targets be deposited to form the claimed intermediate region (which Tepman and Kuehnle teaches), and not necessarily that the first and second targets themselves are used to deposit the first and second target materials to form the intermediate region.
Double Patenting Rejections
No Terminal Disclaimers have been filed; the rejections are maintained with exception of 17/776709 (now US 12,385,123); 17/776590 (now US 12,460,300). The allowed subject matter from each of US 12,385,123 and US 12,460,300 is sufficiently divergent from the presently claimed subject matter of the present application; the rejections over each of US 12,385,123 and US 12,460,300 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments on p. 12 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2012/0298501 is relevant for teaching in fig. 5 staggered or offset first and second targets [120] from each other, the first and second targets [120] capable of forming an intermediate region of a blended material from the first and second targets [120] as a substrate [20] is moved in an “X-axis direction” (i.e. horizontal direction) (para 0020).
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