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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/11/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 2, 8-11, and 14-15 are 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.
Claim 2 (dependent on amended claim 1 ) recites “the conveyor system is arranged to convey the substrate from a first side of the sputter deposition zone to a second side of the sputter deposition zone” (emphasis added), rendering claim 2 indefinite as to whether the ‘a first and second sides of the deposition zone’ is intended to be the same or refer back to “a first side of the sputter deposition zone to a second side of the sputter deposition zone” of claim 1, or distinct ‘first and second sides’ thereof. Claims 8-11 are also rejected as depending on claim 2.
Claim 14 (dependent on amended claim 1) recites “a confining magnetic field to substantially confine plasma in the sputter deposition zone to provide for sputter deposition of the target material” (emphasis added), rendering claim 14 unclear as to whether the “plasma” is intended to be the same “single plasma” as claim 1 or a distinct ‘plasma’ thereof. Claim 15 is rejected as depending on claim 14.
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 1-2, 4, 6, and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuehnle (US 4,014,779) in view of Kikuchi et al (US 5,190,630).
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 a single 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 “transport means” (i.e. claimed “conveyor system” [24] arranged to convey a substrate [50] from a first side of the deposition zone to a second side of the deposition zone in a conveyance direction (figs. 3-4; col. 5, lines 43-68; col. 6, lines 1-21); and the first and second targets [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] with the single plasma, wherein the at least one target support assembly [74] supports the first and second targets [82] during conveyance of the substrate [50] fully through the deposition zone via the conveyor system [24] (fig. 6; col. 6, lines 5-48), the first and second targets [82] capable of sputtering a first stripe onto a first portion of the substrate [50] and a second stripe onto a second portions of the substrate [50] as shown in figs. 5-6 and 8.
However Kuehnle is limited in that the first and second targets [82] being “at an oblique angle with respect to the conveyance direction” and “the first stripe comprises at least one of: a different density of the target material or a different composition of the target material than the second stripe” are not specifically suggested.
Kikuchi teaches in figs. 2-3, 6, and 8-13 various designs for a target [1] comprising “pieces” (i.e. first and second targets) [2],[3] of various metals and alloys (Abstract; col. 2, lines 50-55 and 61-64; col. 6, lines 18-23), similar to Kuehnle’s design of the target [62] with first and second targets [82]. Kikuchi further depicts in figs. 3 and 6 the target [1] having various shapes for the first and second targets [2],[3] that are “wedge-shape” or “triangles” (col. 2, lines 53-55; col. 4, lines 59-67). Kikuchi cites the advantage of the various designs for the target [1] as adjusting a desired composition of a film or alloy formed within a specified range (col. 5, lines 14-18; col. 6, lines 11-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the target [1] with first and second targets [2],[3] of Kikuchi as the target [62] of Kuehnle to gain the advantage of adjusting a desired composition of a film or alloy formed within a specified range.
In summary, the combination of references of Kuehnle and Kikuchi has: Kuehnle teaching in figs. 5-6 and 8 the substrate [50] fully conveyed in the conveyance direction past the target [62] (i.e. Kikuchi’s target [1] in figs. 3 and 6) with first and second targets [82] (i.e. Kikuchi’s first and second targets [2],[3] in figs. 3 and 6) from the first side to the second side of the deposition zone (col. 6, lines 5-50), resulting in the first and second targets [2],[3] being oblique to the conveyance direction in addition to depositing the first strip on the first portion of the substrate [50] and the second stripe on the second portion of the substrate [50], with the first and second stripes comprising different compositions. The cropped figures below of Kikuchi’s fig. 3 serves to clarify two interpretations of the first and second stripes in the conveyance direction of the substrate [50] of Kuehnle.
Interpret 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
282
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Interpret 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
281
805
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 2 and 6, the combination of Kuehnle and Kikuchi has: Kuehnle the conveyor system [24] arranged to convey a substrate [50] from the first side of the deposition zone to the second side of the deposition zone in the conveyance direction (figs. 3-4; col. 5, lines 43-68; col. 6, lines 1-21), wherein the at least one target support assembly [74] comprises respective first and second target supports, wherein a gap is between the first and second targets [2],[3] (and thus also the respective first and second target supports) that extends from the first side to the second side of the deposition zone, and the first and second [2],[3] are offset from each other within the deposition zone and along the conveyance direction. The cropped figure below from claim 1 serves to further clarify.
PNG
media_image2.png
281
805
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Kuehnle and Kikuchi has: Kuehnle further depicting 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. Kikuchi’s the first and second targets [2],[3] of fig. 3 shown in the cropped figure above) such that at a first position, the first and second targets [2],[3] are capable of depositing onto the second portion that is due to the first target [2] but not the second target [3], and at a second position, the first and second targets [2],[3] are capable of depositing onto the second portion that is due to the second target but not the first target. The cropped figure below from claim 1 serves to further clarify.
PNG
media_image3.png
334
832
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 8-10, modified Kuehnle further teaches in figs. 5-6 and 8 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 the second target support assembly” (emphasis added); thus since the “second target magnetic element” is part of an optional limitation of “the 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 Kikuchi teaches that each of the first and second targets [82] of Kuehnle or [2],[3] of Kikuchi are capable of being different materials (Kuehnle, col. 6, lines 59-61; Kikuchi, Abstract; col. 3, lines 13-25).
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 claim 14 and 15, modified Kuehnle further discloses a confining arrangement to provide a confining magnetic field that substantially confines the single 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), wherein 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 16, modified Kuehnle further depicts in fig. 6 the at least one target support assembly [74] supports the first and second targets [82] (i.e. Kikuchi’s first and second targets [2],[3] of figs. 3 and 6) 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).
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 or arcuate (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 1-2, 4, 6, 8-19 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 1-2, 4, 6, 8-19 of the current invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of copending Application No. 17/776709 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending 17/776709 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 1-24 of the copending 17/776709 would also meet the requirements set forth in claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-19 of the current invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 17/776590 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending 17/776590 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 1-18 of the copending 17/776590 would also meet the requirements set forth in claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-19 of the current invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 17/774443 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending 17/774443 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 17/774443 would also meet the requirements set forth in claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-19 of the current invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-19 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 1-2, 4, 6, 8-19 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. 8-10 filed 10/13/2025 are addressed below.
102 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 8-11 with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references Kuehnle and Kikuchi being applied in the current rejection.
103 Rejections
All other arguments on p. 11 are directed towards the subject matter addressed in the 102 Rejections above and therefore have been addressed accordingly.
Double Patenting Rejections
No Terminal Disclaimers have been filed; the rejections are maintained.
Applicant's arguments on p. 11-12 do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2005/0199492 is relevant for teaching multiple targets aligned offset and obliquely to a conveyance direction of a substrate, but does not specify the multiple targets having different materials, and thus stripes of different compositions deposited on the substrate.
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