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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wang (US 6,143,140 as cited on the IDS dated April 5, 2023).
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches a Physical Vapour Deposition (PVD) apparatus for depositing a deposition material into a plurality of recesses formed in a substrate (fig. 4 and 5) comprising:
a chamber (100, fig. 2, col. 3, ln. 54-56);
a magnetron device (106, col. 3, ln. 55-60)comprising a target (104) disposed in the chamber from which a sputtering material can be sputtered (Fig. 2);
and a substrate holder (112) configured to hold a substrate (110) of pre-defined dimensions comprising a substrate support disposed in the chamber (Fig. 2);
an RF power supply connected to the substrate support and configured to provide an RF bias to the substrate (col. 4, ln 25-35);
in which:
the substrate support comprises a substrate supporting upper surface (105, Fig. 2) and an arrangement of permanent magnets (160; col. 2, ln. 34-50) positioned beneath the substrate supporting upper surface so that, in use, permanent magnets are disposed underneath the substrate (110, Fig. 2);
and wherein the arrangement of permanent magnets is configured to provide, in use, a substantially uniform lateral magnetic field (161, fig. 2) across the surface of the substrate (110) which extends into a region beyond a periphery of the substrate (110, fig. 2)
As all the structure of the apparatus of claim 19 is taught by Wang, the Examiner takes the position that Wang would also be inherently capable of performing the following function: “ to enhance resputtering of deposited material deposited into the recesses.” See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches the arrangement of permanent magnets is positioned beneath the substrate supporting upper surface (105) so that permanent magnets (160, 162) are additionally disposed beyond the periphery of the substrate (110, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Wang teaches in use, the target (104) and the substrate support (112) are separated by a gap of 2.5 to 7.5 cm (col. 5, ln. 33-37).
Regarding claim 22, Wang teaches the arrangement of permanent magnets is moveable (col. 4, ln. 35-40), and the apparatus further comprises a mechanism configured to subject the arrangement of permanent magnets to a motion which allows the substantially uniform lateral magnetic field to be provided in use (col. 4,ln. 35-50).
Regarding claim 23, Wang teaches the mechanism is a rotation mechanism for rotating the moveable arrangement of permanent magnets (col. 4, ln. 35-50).
Regarding claim 24, Wang teaches a controller (149, fig. 2) which is configured to control the PVD apparatus (col. 5, ln. 13-27).
Regarding claim 25, Wang teaches the substrate (110) positioned on the substrate supporting upper surface (105) of the substrate support (112, Fig. 2).
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.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 19 above in view of Lopp (US 2011/0100799).
Regarding 26, Wang teaches providing magnet in an orientation that would produce a horizontal magnetic field throughout the substrate (col. 4, ln. 53-60). Wang does not teach the arrangement of permanent magnets is in an array with alternate north and south polarities along a cross section of the substrate support.
Lopp teaches an arrangement of permanent magnets in an array with alternate north and south polarities along a cross section of the substrate support (301, 302, 303, fig. 1 and 2). Accordingly Lopp teaches that it is well known in the sputtering art to use an array of magnets with alternate north and south polarities along a cross section of a substrate support. Since Lopp teaches these magnet arrangements are operable in the sputtering arts are operable it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used the arrangement of Lopp with the substrate holder of Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the arrangement of permanent magnets of Wang by providing the permanent magnets are arranged in an array with alternate north and south polarities along a cross section of the substrate support, as taught by Lopp, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. A.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wang’s disclosure teaches away from using an RF power supply connected to the substrate support to bias the substrate as set out in claim 19.
The Examiner does not agree. Wang discloses an embodiment wherein use of permanent magnets with the third power source is preferably not used (col. 5, ln. 60-67). Because Wang prefers another embodiment to avoid the possibility of demagnetization does not teach away from an apparatus wherein an RF substrate power supply and permanent magnet exist together. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). MPEP 2123. The Examiner takes the position that one of ordinary skill in the art wishing for high directionality of particles impacting the substrate would pursue a substrate holder with accompanying bias power and permanent magnetic field configuration as set out in Wang.
Additionally, Applicant’s argument appears directed to an intended use of the claimed apparatus. The claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant argues that Wang would not be able to perform the function of resputtering. The functional recitation within the claim does not appear to further limit the claimed apparatus because all the structural elements for performing the function are set out in the claim. Since Wang teaches all the structural components required for performing the recited function it would be capable of performing the resputtering function.
Resputtering of a deposited material are considered materials worked upon by the apparatus and do not receive patentable weight. Resputtering of a recess is also considered a material worked upon by the apparatus. Materials worked upon do no impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2114 and 2115.
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 JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
