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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/9/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference (e.g. Taiwanese Office Action) listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 8,562,798) in view of Sansoni et al (US 8,390,980).
With respect to claims 1 and 4, Brown discloses in fig. 1 a “vacuum chamber” (i.e. process chamber) comprising a substrate support comprising a pedestal [14] with an upper surface that supports a wafer (i.e. substrate) [16] (Abstract; col. 6, lines 48-62), wherein figs. 2-3 show two similar embodiments of the pedestal [14] containing an “electrode” (i.e. claimed “sacrificial plate”) [52] of a target material (col. 4, lines 20-23 and 7, lines 18-55). Fig. 2 depicts the pedestal having an upper surface embedded with the sacrificial plate [52] (col. 7, lines 18-24); fig. 3 depicts similarly as fig. 2 but the sacrificial plate [52] is supported on the upper surface of the pedestal [14] to contact the substrate [16] such that the sacrificial plate [52] is between the upper surface and the substrate [16] (col. 7, lines 50-52). Fig. 3 further depicts a “center conductor” (i.e. electrical conductor) [54] configured to contact a connection member formed in the sacrificial plate [52] from an electrical bias of a “RF generator” (i.e. bias source) [36] and/or [38] (i.e. (fig. 2; col. 7, lines 18-52). Fig. 3 also shows the pedestal [14] having fastening features (e.g. a concave portion and a shaft for the electrical conductor [54]) formed therein to fasten the sacrificial plate [52] to the upper surface of the pedestal [14].
However Brown is limited in that: 1) gas outlets formed in the pedestal [14]; and 2) the sacrificial plate [52] having gas apertures are not specifically suggested.
Sansoni teaches in figs. 6A-D a “chuck assembly” (i.e. substrate support”) [124] comprising a “puck” [150] embedded with a “cooling plate” [601] to form a pedestal [150],[601] for supporting a wafer (i.e. substrate) [S] in a physical vapor deposition (PVD) chamber, in addition to the pedestal [150],[601] having fastening features (e.g. a concave portion and a shaft for the electrical conductor) in addition to bolts [616] and bolt holes [602] (e.g. claimed “mechanical fastening features”) (Abstract; col. 1, lines 14-17 col. 3, lines 56-67; col. 4, lines 17-23 and 35-54; col. 5, lines 51-60; col. 13, lines 37-53), similar to the pedestal [14] and processing chamber of Brown. Sansoni further teaches in fig. 6B the pedestal [150],[601] comprises an electrode (i.e. sacrificial plate) [159] near a “frontside surface” (i.e. upper surface) [206] of the pedestal [150],[601] (similar to fig. 2 of Brown) (col. 15, lines 35-46); and “gas holes” (i.e. claimed “gas apertures”) [605] formed in the sacrificial plate [159] for providing a “heat transfer gas” (i.e. claimed “processing gas”) [603] from a lower surface to an upper surface of sacrificial plate [159] (col. 15, lines 21-46), wherein the gas apertures [605] are aligned with gas outlets [632],[604] integrally formed in the pedestal [150],[601] (col. 14, lines 38-49; col. 15, lines 29-34). Sansoni further depicts in figs. 6B-6E the gas outlets [632],[604] and the fastening features including bolts [616] and bolt holes [602] are arranged to align with a plate divider region (via gas grooves [158]) of the sacrificial plate [159] (i.e. Brown’s sacrificial plate [52] in fig. 3) that is divided into at least two discrete regions of the sacrificial plate [159] (i.e. Brown’s sacrificial plate [52] in fig. 3) (col. 7, lines 12-35; col. 15, lines 35-46). Sansoni cites the advantages of the pedestal [150],[601] having the gas apertures [605] extending through the sacrificial plate [150] and gas outlets [632],[604] in the pedestal [150],[601] as reducing thermos-mechanical stresses and minimal loading (col. 17, lines 47-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the pedestal [150],[601] of Sansoni as the pedestal [14] with the sacrificial plate [52] of Brown to gain the advantages of reducing thermos-mechanical stresses and minimal loading.
In summary, the combination of references Brown and Sansoni has: Brown teaching in fig. 3 the mounting features for the sacrificial plate [52] at the upper surface of the pedestal [14] perpendicular to a backside surface of the substrate [16] (col. 7, lines 50-52), and Sansoni teaching in fig. 6B the gas apertures [605] formed through the sacrificial plate [159] to provide the heat transfer gas [603] to a backside of the substrate [S]. Thus the combination of references teaches the gas apertures [605] of Sansoni are then also formed through the sacrificial plate [52] of Brown in order to provide the heat transfer gas to the backside surface of the substrate [16] of Brown (as further supported by Sansoni’s fig. 3 showing the backside gas flowing through the sacrificial plate [159].
With respect to claim 2, Sansoni further depicts in fig. 6B the gas outlets [632],[604] configured to be coupled to a gas supply [141].
With respect to claims 5-8, the combination of references Brown and Sansoni has: Brown teaching in fig. 1 a target [18] of comprising Ta as target material facing the pedestal [14] (col. 6, lines 49-54), and teaches in fig. 3 the sacrificial plate [52] also comprises the target material of Ta (col. 7, lines 50-55), or alternatively the target [18] is Cu or Ti with the sacrificial plate [52] also then made of the Cu or Ti (col. 7, lines 50-55; col. 10, lines 58-67; col. 11, lines 1-15); and Sansoni teaches the sacrificial plate [159] is made of “any suitable conductive material, such as a metal or metal alloy” with examples being Al, Co, Ni, Au, Ag, Ti, and/or Si (col. 5, lines 2-4; col. 8, lines 3-19). Modified Brown further discloses the target material is “pure” (e.g. ~100%) (col. 1, lines 36-43; col. 12, lines 36-42). Despite Brown not specifying a particular grain size of the target material, it has been held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effect variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05, II, B). In this case, one of ordinary skill would seek through routine experimentation to decrease the grain size (including 80 microns or less as claimed) of the target material in order to reduce or avoid electrical arcing when sputtering the target.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 8,562,798) and Sansoni et al (US 8,390,980) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ryding et al (US 6,689,221).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of references Brown and Sansoni is cited as discussed for claim 1. However the combination of references is limited in that an actuator configured to rotate the pedestal [14] is not specifically suggested.
Ryding teaches a cooling gas delivery system for a substrate support assembly (i.e. pedestal) supporting a wafer (i.e. substrate) for a physical vapor deposition (PVD) chamber (Abstract; 2, lines 47-67), wherein the pedestal [106] comprises an electrode (i.e. sacrificial plate) [109] near a “support surface” (i.e. upper surface) [110] of the pedestal [106] and gas outlets through the pedestal [106], similar to the pedestal [14] and processing chamber of Brown and pedestal [150],[601] of Sansoni. Ryding further teaches in fig. 1 a “motor” (i.e. actuator) [124] configured to rotate the pedestal [106] about a first axis that extends through the sacrificial plate [109] and the substrate [101] during processing (col. 4, lines 35-42; col. 6, lines 41-44). Ryding cites the advantage of the motor rotating the pedestal [106] as permitting exposure of predefined portions of a wafer or substrate to allow for uniform exposure (col. 1, lines 41-43; col. 3, lines 15-29)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the motor for rotation of Ryding to the pedestal [14] of the combination of references to gain the advantage of exposing predefined portions of the substrate during the PVD process to allow for uniform exposure.
Claims 9-11, 13-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 8,562,798) in view of Sansoni et al (US 8,390,980) and Ryding et al (US 6,689,221).
With respect to claims 9 and 13, Brown discloses in fig. 1 a “vacuum chamber” (i.e. process chamber) comprising a substrate support comprising a pedestal [14] with an upper surface that supports a wafer (i.e. substrate) [16] (Abstract; col. 6, lines 48-62), wherein figs. 2-3 show two similar embodiments of the pedestal [14] containing an “electrode” (i.e. claimed “sacrificial plate”) [52] of a target material (col. 4, lines 20-23 and 7, lines 18-55). Fig. 2 depicts the pedestal having an upper surface embedded with the sacrificial plate [52] (col. 7, lines 18-24); fig. 3 depicts similarly as fig. 2 but the sacrificial plate [52] is supported on the upper surface of the pedestal [14] to contact the substrate [16] such that the sacrificial plate [52] is between the upper surface and the substrate [16] (col. 7, lines 50-52); the sacrificial plate [52] is fully capable of being removable since the sacrificial plate [52] is exposed to plasma and deposits onto the substrate [16] (col. 7, lines 50-55), resulting in the sacrificial plate [52] needing to be replaced. Fig. 3 further depicts a “center conductor” (i.e. electrical conductor) [54] configured to contact a connection member formed in the sacrificial plate [52] from an electrical bias of a “RF generator” (i.e. bias source) [36] and/or [38] (i.e. (fig. 2; col. 7, lines 18-52). Fig. 3 also shows the pedestal [14] having fastening features (e.g. a concave portion and a shaft for the electrical conductor [54]) formed therein to fasten the sacrificial plate [52] to the upper surface of the pedestal [14].
However Brown is limited in that: 1) gas outlets formed in the pedestal [14]; and 2) the sacrificial plate [52] having gas apertures are not specifically suggested.
Sansoni teaches in figs. 6A-D a “chuck assembly” (i.e. substrate support”) [124] comprising a “puck” [150] embedded with a “cooling plate” [601] to form a pedestal [150],[601] for supporting a wafer (i.e. substrate) [S] in a physical vapor deposition (PVD) chamber, in addition to the pedestal [150],[601] having fastening features (e.g. a concave portion and a shaft for the electrical conductor) in addition to bolts [616] and bolt holes [602] (e.g. claimed “mechanical fastening features”) (Abstract; col. 1, lines 14-17 col. 3, lines 56-67; col. 4, lines 17-23 and 35-54; col. 5, lines 51-60; col. 13, lines 37-53), similar to the pedestal [14] and processing chamber of Brown. Sansoni further teaches in fig. 6B the pedestal [150],[601] comprises an electrode (i.e. sacrificial plate) [159] near a “frontside surface” (i.e. upper surface) [206] of the pedestal [150],[601] (similar to fig. 2 of Brown) (col. 15, lines 35-46); and “gas holes” (i.e. claimed “gas apertures”) [605] formed in the sacrificial plate [159] for providing a “heat transfer gas” (i.e. claimed “processing gas”) [603] from a lower surface to an upper surface of sacrificial plate [159] (col. 15, lines 21-46), wherein the gas apertures [605] are aligned with gas outlets [632],[604] integrally formed in the pedestal [150],[601] (col. 14, lines 38-49; col. 15, lines 29-34). Sansoni further depicts in figs. 6B-6E the gas outlets [632],[604] and the fastening features including bolts [616] and bolt holes [602] are arranged to align with a plate divider region (via gas grooves [158]) of the sacrificial plate [159] (i.e. Brown’s sacrificial plate [52] in fig. 3) that is divided into at least two discrete regions of the sacrificial plate [159] (i.e. Brown’s sacrificial plate [52] in fig. 3) (col. 7, lines 12-35; col. 15, lines 35-46). Sansoni cites the advantages of the pedestal [150],[601] having the gas apertures [605] extending through the sacrificial plate [150] and gas outlets [632],[604] in the pedestal [150],[601] as reducing thermos-mechanical stresses and minimal loading (col. 17, lines 47-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the pedestal [150],[601] of Sansoni as the pedestal [14] with the sacrificial plate [52] of Brown to gain the advantages of reducing thermos-mechanical stresses and minimal loading.
However the combination of references Brown and Sansoni is further limited in that a first motor coupled to the pedestal [14] for rotation is not specifically suggested.
Ryding teaches a cooling gas delivery system for a substrate support assembly (i.e. pedestal) supporting a wafer (i.e. substrate) for a physical vapor deposition (PVD) chamber (Abstract; 2, lines 47-67), wherein the pedestal [106] comprises an electrode (i.e. sacrificial plate) [109] near a “support surface” (i.e. upper surface) [110] of the pedestal [106] and gas outlets through the pedestal [106], similar to the pedestal [14] and processing chamber of Brown and pedestal [150],[601] of Sansoni. Ryding further teaches in fig. 1 a “motor” (i.e. first motor) [124] configured to rotate the pedestal [106] about a first axis that extends through the sacrificial plate [109] and the substrate [101] during processing (col. 4, lines 35-42; col. 6, lines 41-44). Ryding cites the advantage of the first motor rotating the pedestal [106] as permitting exposure of predefined portions of a wafer or substrate to allow for uniform exposure (col. 1, lines 41-43; col. 3, lines 15-29)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the first motor for rotation of Ryding to the pedestal [14] of the combination of references to gain the advantage of exposing predefined portions of the substrate during the PVD process to allow for uniform exposure.
With respect to claim 10, modified Brown further discloses fig. 25 as an alternative to figs. 1 and 19 (col. 18, lines 60-67; col. 19, lines 1-23; col. 20, lines 64-67), wherein fig. 25 depicts a surface area of the upper surface of the pedestal [14] is greater than a surface area of the surface of the target [18’], and the surface of the target [18’] is tilted at a first angle in relation to a plane of the upper surface of the pedestal [14].
With respect to claim 11, modified Brown further discloses in figs. 1 and 19 a magnetron [22] disposed over the target [18] and in a region of the lid assembly [12] that is maintained at atmospheric pressure (col. 6, lines 49-62; col. 17, lines 32-40), wherein figs. 19-20 teach an “electric motor” and “planetary gear arrangement” (i.e. first and second actuators) are configured and capable of translating the magnetron [22] over a surface of the target [18] and in a second direction over the surface of the target [18] (col. 18, lines 6-18).
With respect to claim 14, Ryding further teaches in fig. 1 the pedestal [106] comprises a rotary union configured to provide during rotation of the pedestal [14] about the first axis: “fluid lines” (i.e. fluid path) [121] for “a cooling fluid” (col. 4, lines 26-34); and a channel for electrical cabling associated with a biasing source (such as the biasing source [36] and/[38] of Brown) electrically connected to the “electrode” (i.e. sacrificial plate) [109] (col. 3, lines 43-49).
With respect to claim 15, modified Brown further discloses the upper surface is of the pedestal [14] is fully capable of receiving the sacrificial plate [52] that is polygonal (e.g. square or rectangular) based on a shape of the target [18] (col. 11, lines 55-56).
With respect to claim 16, modified Brown further discloses fig. 25 as an alternative to figs. 1 and 19 (col. 18, lines 60-67; col. 19, lines 1-23; col. 20, lines 64-67), wherein fig. 25 depicts an edge of the target [18’] comprises three corners, wherein one of the three corners is radially positioned closer to the first axis of the pedestal [14] (as taught by Ryding) than the two other corners of the three corners.
With respect to claims 17 and 18, modified Brown further teaches in fig. 1 the target [18] comprising tantalum as target material facing the pedestal [14] (col. 6, lines 49-54); Brown also discloses the sacrificial plate [52] “can be formed of the material to be deposited on the wafer, such as tantalum” (col. 7, lines 50-55), and thus also renders obvious that the sacrificial plate [52] “can be formed” conversely of a different material than the target [18].
With respect to claim 21, Brown discloses in fig. 1 a “vacuum chamber” (i.e. process chamber) comprising a substrate support comprising a pedestal [14] with an upper surface that supports a wafer (i.e. substrate) [16] (Abstract; col. 6, lines 48-62), wherein figs. 2-3 show two similar embodiments of the pedestal [14] containing an “electrode” (i.e. claimed “sacrificial plate”) [52] of a target material (col. 4, lines 20-23 and 7, lines 18-55). Fig. 2 depicts the pedestal having an upper surface embedded with the sacrificial plate [52] (col. 7, lines 18-24); fig. 3 depicts similarly as fig. 2 but the sacrificial plate [52] is supported on the upper surface of the pedestal [14] to contact the substrate [16] such that the sacrificial plate [52] is between the upper surface and the substrate [16] (col. 7, lines 50-52); the sacrificial plate [52] is fully capable of being removable since the sacrificial plate [52] is exposed to plasma and deposits onto the substrate [16] (col. 7, lines 50-55), resulting in the sacrificial plate [52] needing to be replaced. Fig. 3 further depicts a “center conductor” (i.e. electrical conductor) [54] configured to contact a connection member formed in the sacrificial plate [52] from an electrical bias of a “RF generator” (i.e. bias source) [36] and/or [38] (i.e. (fig. 2; col. 7, lines 18-52). Fig. 3 also shows the pedestal [14] having fastening features (e.g. a concave portion and a shaft for the electrical conductor [54]) formed therein to fasten the sacrificial plate [52] to the upper surface of the pedestal [14].
However Brown is limited in that: 1) gas outlets formed in the pedestal [14]; and 2) the sacrificial plate [52] having gas apertures are not specifically suggested.
Sansoni teaches in figs. 6A-D a “chuck assembly” (i.e. substrate support”) [124] comprising a “puck” [150] embedded with a “cooling plate” [601] to form a pedestal [150],[601] for supporting a wafer (i.e. substrate) [S] in a physical vapor deposition (PVD) chamber, in addition to the pedestal [150],[601] having fastening features (e.g. a concave portion and a shaft for the electrical conductor) in addition to bolts [616] and bolt holes [602] (e.g. claimed “mechanical fastening features”) (Abstract; col. 1, lines 14-17 col. 3, lines 56-67; col. 4, lines 17-23 and 35-54; col. 5, lines 51-60; col. 13, lines 37-53), similar to the pedestal [14] and processing chamber of Brown. Sansoni further teaches in fig. 6B the pedestal [150],[601] comprises an electrode (i.e. sacrificial plate) [159] near a “frontside surface” (i.e. upper surface) [206] of the pedestal [150],[601] that is applied from a bias source [117A],[117B] comprising a RF source (similar to fig. 2 of Brown) (col. 6, lines 41-67; col. 15, lines 35-46); and “gas holes” (i.e. claimed “gas apertures”) [605] formed in the sacrificial plate [159] for providing a “heat transfer gas” (i.e. claimed “processing gas”) [603] from a lower surface to an upper surface of sacrificial plate [159] (col. 15, lines 21-46), wherein the gas apertures [605] are aligned with gas outlets [632],[604] integrally formed in the pedestal [150],[601] (col. 14, lines 38-49; col. 15, lines 29-34). Sansoni further depicts in figs. 6B-6E the gas outlets [632],[604] and the fastening features including bolts [616] and bolt holes [602] are arranged to align with a plate divider region (via gas grooves [158]) of the sacrificial plate [159] (i.e. Brown’s sacrificial plate [52] in fig. 3) that is divided into at least two discrete regions of the sacrificial plate [159] (i.e. Brown’s sacrificial plate [52] in fig. 3) (col. 7, lines 12-35; col. 15, lines 35-46). Sansoni cites the advantages of the pedestal [150],[601] having the gas apertures [605] extending through the sacrificial plate [150] and gas outlets [632],[604] in the pedestal [150],[601] as reducing thermos-mechanical stresses and minimal loading (col. 17, lines 47-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the pedestal [150],[601] of Sansoni as the pedestal [14] with the sacrificial plate [52] of Brown to gain the advantages of reducing thermos-mechanical stresses and minimal loading.
However the combination of references Brown and Sansoni is further limited in that an actuator coupled to the pedestal [14] for rotation is not specifically suggested.
Ryding teaches a cooling gas delivery system for a substrate support assembly (i.e. pedestal) supporting a wafer (i.e. substrate) for a physical vapor deposition (PVD) chamber (Abstract; 2, lines 47-67), wherein the pedestal [106] comprises an electrode (i.e. sacrificial plate) [109] near a “support surface” (i.e. upper surface) [110] of the pedestal [106] and gas outlets through the pedestal [106], similar to the pedestal [14] and processing chamber of Brown and pedestal [150],[601] of Sansoni. Ryding further teaches in fig. 1 a “motor” (i.e. actuator) [124] configured to rotate the pedestal [106] about a first axis that extends through the sacrificial plate [109] and the substrate [101] during processing (col. 4, lines 35-42; col. 6, lines 41-44). Ryding cites the advantage of the actuator rotating the pedestal [106] as permitting exposure of predefined portions of a wafer or substrate to allow for uniform exposure (col. 1, lines 41-43; col. 3, lines 15-29)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the actuator for rotation of Ryding to the pedestal [14] of the combination of references to gain the advantage of exposing predefined portions of the substrate during the PVD process to allow for uniform exposure.
With respect to claim 22, the combination of references Brown and Sansoni has: Brown teaching in fig. 1 a target [18] of comprising Ta as target material facing the pedestal [14] (col. 6, lines 49-54), and teaches in fig. 3 the sacrificial plate [52] also comprises the target material of Ta (col. 7, lines 50-55), or alternatively the target [18] is Cu or Ti with the sacrificial plate [52] also then made of the Cu or Ti (col. 7, lines 50-55; col. 10, lines 58-67; col. 11, lines 1-15); and Sansoni teaches the sacrificial plate [159] is made of “any suitable conductive material, such as a metal or metal alloy” with examples being Al, Co, Ni, Au, Ag, Ti, and/or Si (col. 5, lines 2-4; col. 8, lines 3-19). Modified Brown further discloses the target material is “pure” (e.g. ~100%) (col. 1, lines 36-43; col. 12, lines 36-42). Despite Brown not specifying a particular grain size of the target material, it has been held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effect variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05, II, B). In this case, one of ordinary skill would seek through routine experimentation to decrease the grain size (including 80 microns or less as claimed) of the target material in order to reduce or avoid electrical arcing when sputtering the target.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 7-12 filed 3/13/2026 are addressed below.
103 Rejections
On p. 7-8, Applicant argues for claim 1 that: 1) no motivation modify Brown with Sansoni due to different process chambers; and 2) Brown does not teach the claimed “sacrificial plate” but instead a conductive mesh buried inside the insulating layer.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding 1), as Applicant states in p. 12, Brown is directed to a physical vapor deposition (PVD) plasma reactor, the PVD plasma reactor utilizing a wafer support [14] that is an electrostatic chuck (Abstract; col. 7, lines 19-21); Sansoni specifically teaches an electrostatic chuck for supporting a substrate or wafer is used in a “plasma processing chamber” or reactor, such as “physical vapor deposition” (col. 4, lines 11-38). Thus Brown and Sansoni are directed to similar (if not the same) types of PVD plasma reactors, and one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Brown with Sansoni for the benefits (e.g. “reducing thermos-mechanical stresses and minimal loading” at col. 17, lines 47-60) taught by Sansoni.
Regarding 2), Brown merely suggests in fig. 2 the “electrode 52 such as a conductive mesh buried inside the insulating layer 50” (col. 17, lines 55-60); thus the electrode being mesh is merely a preferred embodiment compared with the solid structure (i.e. plate) when entirely buried in the insulating layer as shown in fig. 2, with “patents [being] relevant as prior art for all they contain” and suggested “examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiment”(MPEP 2123, I-II). In addition, fig. 3 (which is being relied upon for the rejection above) shows that the electrode [52] is not buried, but instead exposed to plasma; thus suggesting for the electrode to not be mesh but instead the solid object (i.e. plate) shown in fig. 3. As such, one of ordinary skill would still be motivated to modify Brown with Sansoni.
All other arguments on p. 9 are similarly directed towards the subject matter addressed above for claim 1 in the 103 Rejections and therefore have been addressed accordingly.
All other arguments on p. 9 to dependent claim 3 are directed towards the subject matter addressed above in the 103 Rejections and therefore have been addressed accordingly.
All other arguments on p. 9-12 to independent claim 9 are similarly directed towards the subject matter addressed above for claim 1 in the 103 Rejections and therefore have been addressed accordingly.
Double Patenting Rejections
A Terminal Disclaimer was filed 3/13/2026, and approved 3/28/2026; the previous rejections are withdrawn.
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
Prosecution Insights