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 Objections
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented objections and thus the objections are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 20, the limitation “configured to ratchet up and down along its vertical plane” is interpreted to mean capable of moving incrementally.
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 10-12 and 15-21 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.
In claims 10, 15, and 16, the limitation “the off-axis module” is indefinite because it is unclear which off-axis module of the “two or more off-axis modules” recited in claim 1 is intended to be referred to or if the claim intends to refer to “each” of the off-axis modules.
In claims 15 and 16, the limitation “a linear sputtering apparatus” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is intended to refer to the linear sputtering apparatus of each of the off-axis modules in claim 1, a particular linear sputtering apparatus, or a different linear sputtering apparatus distinct from those in claim 1.
In claim 16, the limitation “a target surface” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim intends to refer to one of the targets from claim 1, each of the targets from claim 1, or a different target.
In claim 17, the limitation “a linear magnetron” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is intended to refer to one of or each of the rectangular magnetrons recited in claim 1 or intended to require an additional magnetron in the linear sputtering apparatus.
In claim 21, the limitation “a second off-axis module” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this off-axis module is intended to refer to one of the “two or more off-axis modules” or a different, additional off-axis module.
Claims 11-12 and 17-20 are indefinite by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oota (US 20170062192 A1) in view of Srinivasan (US 20180155834 A1), Yamamoto (JP 2016195359 A), McCarron (US 20170110300 A1), Park (US 20030106791 A1), and Pitcher (US 6585870 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Oota (US 20170062192 A1) teaches a multi-chamber film forming apparatus comprising a plurality of film forming chambers (206a-206c) (two or more process modules) for depositing material on a substrate and a central wafer transfer unit comprising a transfer chamber 204 (vacuum chamber) through which a substrate is transferred in a vacuum, load lock chamber 203a, and a transfer robot 263 for transferring a substrate between process chambers (para 0076-0078, 9974; Fig. 1). Oota also teaches one of the film formation chambers 206b may include a target holder 266 and substrate holder 268 opposite to each other in a vertical (longitudinal) direction and configured to deposit material on the substrate at a normal incidence (para 0087; Fig. 2B). Oota also teaches one of the film formation chambers may include targets (100a-100b) arranged at an angle with respect to the substrate 160 (off-axis) to control the incident angle of the sputtered particles (para 0177-0181; Fig. 7), wherein the apparatus may be used for forming films with a c-axis alignment (Abstract, para 0190) and is inherently capable of depositing material at an inclined c-axis.
Oota fails to explicitly teach a control unit operatively connected to the robot. However, Srinivasan (US 20180155834 A1), in the analogous art of film formation apparatuses, teaches a central transfer station 110 connecting to multiple processing chambers and comprising a robot 117, wherein a controller 195 (control unit) is connected to the robot and configured to move substrates between chambers (para 0007, 0031-0033, 0061). Oota similarly teaches the robot transferring a substrate between chambers (para 0084). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller in the Oota apparatus for controlling the robot to transfer substrates between chambers.
The previous combination of Oota and Srinivasan fails to explicitly teach the off-axis module and longitudinal module are present in the same system. However, Oota teaches film forming chambers may have different structures (para 0126-0128) and that the material deposited may include two or more layers (para 0229). Additionally, Srinivasan teaches that single wafer processing chambers (140, 150) may comprise physical vapor deposition chambers and the two single wafer processing chambers can be the same or different (para 0056, 0060). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a longitudinal deposition module (as shown in Fig. 2B and Fig. 4 of Oota) and an off-axis module (as shown in Fig. 7 of Oota) within the same apparatus for depositing different material layers simultaneously.
The combination of Oota and Srinivasan teaches an off-axis deposition module (Oota Fig. 7) and longitudinal deposition module (Oota Fig. 2B, 4) but fails to explicitly teach the off-axis module is constructed for depositing a first portion of the material at an off-normal angle of incidence to achieve the desired c-axis tilt and the longitudinal module is constructed for depositing a second portion of the material onto the first portion at a normal incidence once the desired c-axis tilt is established. However, Yamamoto (JP 2016195359 A), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches a method of forming a piezoelectric thin film with a c-axis tilt/inclination including depositing a seed layer 2ba using oblique incidence (off-axis) sputtering to achieve a desired c-axis tilt and then depositing a bulk layer 2bb by perpendicular incidence (longitudinal/normal incidence) sputtering on the seed layer once the desired c-axis tilt is established (para 0056-0058; Fig. 14). Oota teaches a plurality of film forming chambers where the apparatus may be used for depositing a c-axis aligned film (para 0190; Fig. 1). Because Yamamoto teaches that such deposition methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an off-axis deposition module of Oota (Fig. 7) to deposit a seed layer of a piezoelectric material (first portion of the material) before using a longitudinal deposition module of Oota (Fig. 2B, 4) to deposit the remaining (second) portion of the piezoelectric material onto the first portion 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)).
The combination of Oota, Srinivasan, and Yamamoto fails to explicitly teach that the system is for forming a bulk acoustic wave resonator structure. However, the limitation merely states the intended use of the apparatus. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). The combination of Oota, Srinivasan, and Yamamoto teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, which is necessarily capable of forming a bulk acoustic wave resonator structure.
Alternatively, or in addition, the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach forming a bulk acoustic wave resonator. However, McCarron (US 20170110300 A1), in the analogous art of depositing piezoelectric films with inclined c-axis, teaches piezoelectric films with an inclined c-axis may be used for making bulk acoustic wave resonator structures, where the piezoelectric film may be deposited using a seed layer and a bulk layer each having a c-axis tilt/orientation, wherein the seed and bulk layers may each be respectively deposited in a first station and second station (334A, 334B) each capable of depositing material at an inclined/off-axis or longitudinal/normal orientation (off-axis module and longitudinal module) and including a linear sputtering apparatus, and wherein bulk acoustic wave resonators and surface acoustic wave devices are alternative piezoelectric resonators (para 0003, 0005, 0015, 0025, 0140, 0151-0153, 0174-0180; Fig. 10, 30A-30B). Yamamoto teaches forming a piezoelectric layer for use in a surface acoustic wave element (para 0002, 0010). Therefore, because McCarron teaches that such deposition stations and methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a bulk acoustic wave resonator using the two step piezoelectric layer deposition of Yamamoto including a seed layer deposition in a first deposition station/chamber having an off-axis incidence and a bulk layer deposition in a second deposition station/chamber having a normal incidence each station having a linear sputtering apparatus, as described by McCarron, 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)).
The combination of Oota, Srinivasan, Yamamoto, and McCarron teaches that the number of film forming chambers is not limited (Oota para 0079). Additionally, Park (US 20030106791 A1), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches that a multi-chamber tool may include multiple chambers for running the same process in parallel to improve throughput (para 0006). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an identical second off-axis module in the apparatus of Oota for performing deposition on multiple substrates at once to improve throughput/efficiency. Additionally, the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
The previous combination of Oota, Srinivasan, Yamamoto, McCarron, and Park teaches that the off-axis modules comprises a linear sputtering apparatus with a target surface configured to eject metal atoms and a linear magnetron (McCarron para 0141, claim 5) but fails to explicitly teach a rectangular magnetron configured to simulate a single point sputter source. However, Pitcher (US 6585870 B1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches scanning a rectangular magnetron along the back of a target to achieve directional emission from the target (configured to simulate a single point sputter source) while minimizing cross particle streams 40 (col 10 line 59-67, col 11 line 1-5, col 18 line 26-52; Fig. 16). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the linear magnetron of McCarron with a rectangular magnetron to be scanned along the target surface, as described by Pitcher, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the previous combination of Oota, Srinivasan, Yamamoto, McCarron. Park, and Pitcher fails to explicitly teach a cooling station constructed to control wafer temperature. However, Srinivasan teaches a water box 180 (cooling station) connected to the central transfer station 110 and configured to provide a coolant to processing chambers and that substrates can be cooled during processing (para 0066, 0088). Oota teaches controlling the temperature of substrates (para 0160). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a water box in the central transfer station of Oota to further control the temperature of substrates during processing.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Oota, Srinivasan, Yamamoto, McCarron. Park, and Pitcher teaches a substrate heating chamber 205 for removing impurities on a substrate, wherein heat treatment may be performed before film formation (pre-sputter module constructed to prepare wafer substrates for deposition of material) (Oota para 0079; Fig. 1, 2A).
Regarding claim 5, Oota teaches the heating chamber 205 (pre-sputter module) comprises a vacuum pump (degassing unit) and a heating mechanism such as a lamp (wafer heater) (para 0081-0083; Fig. 2A)
Regarding claim 6, Oota teaches the (central wafer) transfer chamber 204 is located centrally between process modules (205, 206a-c) (para 0076-0078; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Oota teaches that each chamber is independently kept under vacuum, is separated from the central transfer unit by gate valves, and contains a distinct vacuum pump 270 (each process module comprises an internal environment controlled separately from the central wafer transfer unit) (para 0078, 0081, 0084, 0091; Fig. 1, 2A-2B).
Regarding claim 8, Oota teaches each chamber is separated from the central transfer chamber 204 by a valve 264 (para 0078; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Oota teaches the robot 263 is configured to transfer substrates in a horizontal position (para 0078; Fig. 1, 2C).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Oota, Srinivasan, Yamamoto, McCarron. Park, and Pitcher teaches the off-axis module comprises a substrate table/holder (wafer chuck) configured to receive substrates (Oota para 0177-0178, Fig. 7; McCarron para 0175, Fig. 30A).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Oota, Srinivasan, Yamamoto, McCarron. Park, and Pitcher teaches the off-axis module comprises a deposition chamber 334, a pump and valves to establish a vacuum in the chamber, and a linear sputtering apparatus (McCarron para 0174-0177; Fig. 30A), wherein the off-axis module is separated from the central wafer transfer unit 204 by a gate valve 264 (Oota para 0078; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Oota, Srinivasan, Yamamoto, McCarron. Park, and Pitcher teaches that the number of film forming chambers is not limited (Oota para 0079). Additionally, Park teaches that a multi-chamber tool may include multiple chambers for running the same process in parallel to improve throughput (para 0006). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an identical second off-axis module in the apparatus of Oota for performing deposition on multiple substrates at once to improve throughput/efficiency. Additionally, the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oota (US 20170062192 A1) in view of Srinivasan (US 20180155834 A1), Yamamoto (JP 2016195359 A), McCarron (US 20170110300 A1), Park (US 20030106791 A1), and Pitcher (US 6585870 B1), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Cohen (US 7014887 B1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Oota, Srinivasan, Yamamoto, McCarron. Park, and Pitcher fails to explicitly teach the pre-sputter module comprises a plasma sputtering device. However, Cohen (US 7014887 B1), in the analogous art of film forming apparatuses, teaches pre-cleaning a substrate before depositing thin film layers using an argon and/or hydrogen plasma (plasma sputtering device) to sputter-etch deposits from previous process steps and remove contaminants from the substrate, wherein the process is performed in a pre-clean chamber (col 2 line 35-50, col 6 line 22-48; Fig. 3). Srinivasan also teaches that a pre-clean chamber may be provided in a cluster tool (para 0085). Additionally, Oota is concerned with impurities on the substrate (para 0079). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a pre-clean chamber (pre-sputter module) in the apparatus of Oota for cleaning the substrate prior to a deposition step to reduce impurities and contamination on the substrate.
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oota (US 20170062192 A1) in view of Srinivasan (US 20180155834 A1), Yamamoto (JP 2016195359 A), McCarron (US 20170110300 A1), Park (US 20030106791 A1), and Pitcher (US 6585870 B1), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Bangert (US 20170244070 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Oota, Srinivasan, Yamamoto, McCarron. Park, and Pitcher fails to explicitly teach the wafer chuck is constructed to receive the wafer substrate in a horizontal position and to rotate the wafer substrate to a vertical position. However, Bangert (US 20170244070 A1), in the analogous art of thin film deposition, teaches a horizontal substrate handling chamber 1100 connected to a vacuum swing module 1160, wherein the substrate is loaded in a horizontal position on a carrier/chuck before the swing module rotates the carrier into a vertical orientation and then transferred into deposition chambers 200 (para 0126, 0140; Fig. 11, 12A), wherein using a vertical substrate orientation allows for a small footprint of deposition apparatuses and allows for good scalability (para 0066). McCarron teaches an off-axis chamber includes a substrate table 322 configured to carry substrates through a load lock chamber 302 and into a sputter deposition chamber 334 (para 0175-0176; Fig. 30A). Additionally, McCarron teaches that the linear sputtering apparatus 154 may be arranged through a tubular portion 102 and having a substrate table translation rail 178, wherein the tubular portion 102 is extending in a vertical direction (para 0151, 0166; Fig. 9, 22). Furthermore, Bangert teaches that the vacuum swing module may be used with sputtering deposition systems (para 0121).
Because Bangert and McCarron teach that such sputtering apparatuses were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the off-axis module of Oota in view of McCarron such that the substrate is held in a vertical orientation during deposition and the substrate carrier is rotated from a horizontal to vertical orientation in order to reduce the footprint of the deposition apparatus 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)).
Regarding claim 12, the c combination of Oota, Srinivasan, Yamamoto, McCarron. Park, Pitcher, and Bangert teaches the substrate holder/wafer chuck is configured to translate the substrate while it is in the vertical position (McCarron para 0151, 0166, Fig. 9, 22; Bangert para 0126, 0140; Fig. 11, 12A).
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oota (US 20170062192 A1) in view of Srinivasan (US 20180155834 A1), Yamamoto (JP 2016195359 A), McCarron (US 20170110300 A1), Park (US 20030106791 A1), and Pitcher (US 6585870 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kroeker (US 5961269 A).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Oota, Srinivasan, Yamamoto, McCarron. Park, and Pitcher fails to explicitly teach a cassette elevator for housing a plurality of wafer substrates accessible by the robot. However, Kroeker (US 5961269 A), in the analogous art of substrate processing chambers, teaches a cassette elevator that is vertically indexable so that every substrate can be delivered by the robot (col 6 line 4-19). Oota teaches cassette ports 261 for holding substrates, where the substrates may be transferred from the cassette to the load lock chamber by a robot 263 (para 0076; Fig. 1, 2C).
Because Kroeker teaches that such cassette elevators were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a cassette elevator for holding the substrates of Oota 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)).
The previous combination fails to explicitly teach that the cassette elevator is accessible by the robot in the vacuum chamber. However, Srinivasan teaches that buffer stations (151, 152) directly adjacent to the central transfer chamber 110 may be used for holding a cassette of wafers (para 0062; Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the substrate supply chamber 201, substrate transfer chamber 202, and load lock chambers 203a-203b of Oota with a factory interface and buffer chambers (load lock chambers) containing cassettes, as described by Srinivasan, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Oota, Srinivasan, Yamamoto, McCarron. Park, Pitcher, and Kroeker teaches the robot is configured to retrieve a wafer substrate from the cassette elevator and transfer the retrieved wafer substrate to one of the process modules (Oota para 0084; Kroeker col 6 line 4-19).
Claim(s) 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oota (US 20170062192 A1) in view of Srinivasan (US 20180155834 A1), Yamamoto (JP 2016195359 A), McCarron (US 20170110300 A1), Park (US 20030106791 A1), and Pitcher (US 6585870 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brugge (US 5958193 A).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Oota, Srinivasan, Yamamoto, McCarron. Park, and Pitcher teaches the off-axis module comprises a linear sputtering apparatus 154 comprising a target 166 to eject metal atoms, a substrate table 148 (wafer chuck) having a support surface configured to receive and secure a substrate, and a collimator comprising a plurality of guide members defining a plurality of collimator apertures arranged between the linear sputtering apparatus and the wafer chuck, wherein the target surface is arranged non-parallel to the support surface (McCarron para 0016, 0153, 0166, 0174; Fig. 10, 22, 30A-30B).
The substrate table of McCarron is inherently capable of securing the substrate. Alternatively, Oota teaches that a substrate may be fixed to a substrate holder (para 0167). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fix (secure) the substrate to the substrate table in order to prevent the substrate from falling off of the holder.
McCarron also teaches the collimator may be translated vertically and/or in a direction perpendicular to a direction of translation of the substrate table (para 0144, 0154; Fig. 22-23), thus making the collimator inherently capable of translating in a direction substantially parallel to the target surface. Alternatively, Brugge (US 5958193 A), in the analogous art of sputter deposition, teaches a mobile collimator that can be moved into or out of position between a wafer and target so that sputtering can be performed both with and without collimation (Abstract, col 2 line 25-33, col 4 line 55-67, col 5 line 1-17, claim 1). McCarron teaches translating the collimator relative to a target (para 0144, 0154; Fig. 22-23).
Therefore, because Brugge teaches that such collimator translation methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the collimator to be removable from the space between the target and substrate (linearly translatable in a direction parallel to the target surface) to further control the deposition process 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)).
Regarding claim 17, McCarron teaches the linear sputtering apparatus comprises a linear magnetron with a sputtering cathode operatively coupled to the target surface to promote ejection of metal atoms from the target surface (para 0018, 0050).
Regarding claim 18, McCarron teaches the support surface 324 of the substrate table 322 (wafer chuck) is disposed along a vertical plane defined as the direction of travel of the substrate table, wherein the substrate transfer direction is non-parallel to the target 346B surface (para 0174-0177; Fig. 30A).
Alternatively, McCarron teaches that relative terms such as “vertical” are used to describe relationships as shown in the figures but different orientations of the device may be used (para 0129), and the linear sputtering apparatus 154 may be arranged through a tubular portion 102 and having a substrate table translation rail 178, wherein the tubular portion 102 is extending in a vertical direction (para 0151, 0166; Fig. 9, 22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the off-axis module of McCarron to include the substrate table oriented in a vertical direction (along a vertical plane).
Regarding claim 19, McCarron teaches a target 346B having a longitudinal axis extending into and out of the page of Fig. 30A and thus perpendicular to the vertical plane of the substrate table 322 (oriented along a horizontal line) (para 0174-0177; Fig. 30A). The longitudinal (length) direction/axis of the target 166 can be more clearly seen in Fig. 12 of McCarron.
Regarding claim 20, McCarron teaches the substrate table 322 and its support surface 324 are configured to be translated (ratcheted) linearly up and down the vertical plane (para 0144, 0174; Fig. 30A).
Claim(s) 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oota (US 20170062192 A1) in view of Srinivasan (US 20180155834 A1), Yamamoto (JP 2016195359 A), McCarron (US 20170110300 A1), Park (US 20030106791 A1), and Pitcher (US 6585870 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barnes (US 5178739 A).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Oota, Srinivasan, Yamamoto, McCarron. Park, and Pitcher teaches the longitudinal module comprises a chamber 206b, a vacuum pump 270 configured to bring the chamber to vacuum, wherein the chamber is separated from the housing unit 204 by a gate valve 264 (Oota para 0078, 0091; Fig. 1, 2B). The previous combination fails to explicitly teach a circular sputtering apparatus. However, Barnes (US 5178739 A), in the analogous art of film forming apparatuses, teaches a sputter system 10 having a vacuum chamber 20, a circular sputtering target 12, and a circular magnet arrangement 28, wherein a substrate 19 is opposite to the target 12, and wherein the targets may be made of a metal (col 3 line 39-68, col 4 line 1-7; Fig. 1-2). Oota teaches a similar arrangement of a sputtering target 100 and magnet unit 130 opposite to a substrate 160 (para 0136; Fig. 4) but is silent to the shape of the target. Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute the target of Oota with a circular sputtering target, as described by Barnes, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Alternatively, or additionally, changing the shape of the sputtering target is an obvious matter of design choice that one skilled in the art would find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Oota, Srinivasan, Yamamoto, McCarron. Park, and Pitcher teaches the longitudinal module includes a target 100 having a surface arranged parallel to a support surface of a substrate holder 170 (chuck) configured to receive and secure a substrate 160 (Oota para 0136, 0147; Fig. 4). The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach a circular sputtering apparatus configured to eject metal atoms. However, Barnes (US 5178739 A), in the analogous art of film forming apparatuses, teaches a sputter system 10 having a vacuum chamber 20, a circular sputtering target 12, and a circular magnet arrangement 28, wherein a substrate 19 is opposite to the target 12, and wherein the targets may be made of a metal (col 3 line 39-68, col 4 line 1-7; Fig. 1-2). Oota teaches a similar arrangement of a sputtering target 100 and magnet unit 130 opposite to a substrate 160 (para 0136; Fig. 4) but is silent to the shape of the target and the target material. Additionally, McCarron teaches that the targets for piezoelectric layer deposition are metallic (para 0007, 0016). Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute the target of Oota in view of McCarron with a circular metal sputtering target, as described by Barnes, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Alternatively, or additionally, changing the shape of the sputtering target is an obvious matter of design choice that one skilled in the art would find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
The substrate holder 170 of Oota is inherently capable of securing the substrate 160, especially considering the substrate is facing downward (Fig. 2A, 4). Alternatively, Oota teaches that a substrate may be fixed to a substrate holder (para 0167). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fix (secure) the substrate to the substrate holder in order to prevent the substrate from falling off of the holder.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-9, filed 1/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Park (US 20030106791 A1) and Pitcher (US 6585870 B1).
Park teaches including multiple of the same processing chamber to improve efficiency. Pitcher teaches a rectangular magnetron configured to simulate a single point sputter source.
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 PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. 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, 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights