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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 9-11, 13-16, 19, 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (U.S. Pat. 4,444,635) in view of Sardesai et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,342,131) and Inagawa et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2007/0193881 A1) and Jan et al. (U.S. PGPUB.
2006/0219546 Al) and Kawaguchi (JPS59-179783).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi et al. teach a composite PVD target comprising a
diameter; a connection face; a substrate face disposed opposite the connection face; a thickness
between the connection face and the substrate face; and a material distribution comprising:
A silicon containing material arranged in an annular pattern and a refractory material arranged in
the annular pattern; wherein the material distribution is uniform at any point along the thickness.
(Figs. 5 - FIG. 5 shows a schematic sectional view of another embodiment of the sputter
electrode structure of the present invention. It comprises; a target plate 21 having a circular target
plate 21a and ring target plates 21 band 21c; Column 6 lines 17-26; Claim 3 - said materials
include a refractory metal and a Si material and said alloy film is a refractory metal silicide film.)
The difference not between Kobayashi et al. and claim 1 is that a backing plate having a back face and a connection face opposing the back face, wherein the magnet is configured to be movable across the backing plate and a composite PVD target coupled to the connection face of the backing plate is not discussed (Claim 1), a magnet disposed on the back face is not discussed (Claim 1), utilizing titanium is not discussed (Claim 1 ), wherein the diameter of the target is greater than 400 mm is not discussed (Claim 1 ), and wherein the silicon containing material comprises less than 50% of a total volume of the material distribution and wherein the titanium containing material comprises more than 50% of the total volume of the material distribution is not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding a backing plate having a back face and a connection face opposing the back face, wherein the magnet is configured to be movable across the backing plate and a composite PVD target coupled to the connection face of the backing plate (Claim 1), Sardesai et al. teach a susceptor (i.e. backing plate) 23 with a back face and a connection face opposing the back face. (See Fig. 1; Column 1 lines 49-58; Column 5 lines 33-39) There is a magnet disposed adjacent to the back face. (Column 1 lines 62-64) The magnet is configurable to be movable across the backing plate. (Column 5 lines 60-67) A composite PVD target is coupled (i.e. mounted) to the connection face of the backing plate. (Column 5 lines 33-39; Column 2 lines 43-45)
Regarding wherein a magnet is disposed on the back face (Claim 1), Inagawa et al. teach disposing a magnet on a back face of a backing plate in order to scan the magnets across a target. (See Fig. 3 – roller bearings supporting the magnets on the backing plate 144 connected to the target 143)
Therefore it would be obvious to modify Kobayashi et al. (i.e. Fig. 2) with the teachings of Sardesai and Inagawa et al. because it allows for controlling the ratio of components in the thin film (Sardesai -abstract) and allows for sputtering large size targets (Inagawa et al. -Paragraph 0008)
Regarding utilizing titanium (Claim 1 ), Refractory materials cover the metal titanium.
( See Claim 3)
Regarding wherein the diameter of the target is greater than 400 mm (Claim 1 ), Jan et al.
teach that a target can have a diameter of 450 mm for deposition on large substrates for
improving electromigration performance on the edge of the substrate. (Paragraph 0030; Fig. 9d)
Therefore it would be obvious to modify Kobayashi et al. by utilizing a 450 mm target
size as suggested by Jan et al. because it allows for deposition on large substrates for improving
electromigration performance on the edge of the substrate.
Regarding wherein the silicon containing material comprises less than 50% of a total
volume of the material distribution and wherein the titanium containing material comprises more
than 50% of the total volume of the material distribution (Claim 1), Kawaguchi teaches in Fig. 1
a target of a high melting point metal (i.e. Ti) and silicon. Kawaguchi teaches in Fig. 1 the
volume distribution required for the target. (See Fig. 1) Wedges 3 are the high melting point
metal. Wedges 2 are the silicon. There is 67% high melting point metal. 33% silicon. (See
Annotated Fig. 1; Machine Translation - As shown in FIG. 1, a composite target 1 includes a
plurality of silicon pieces (hereinafter, referred to as a silicon beam) 2 and high melting point
metal pieces (hereinafter, ref erred to as a high melting point metal) 3 gathered in a mosaic
shape. It is integrated in a disk shape. The silicon beam 2 and the refractory metal beam 3
are each formed in a fan shape as shown in FIG. (The fractured target i thus constructed is
mechanically fixed on a copper backing plate 6 as a substrate by an inner peripheral
pressing ring 4 and an outer peripheral pressing ring 5 shown in FIG. 3 (see FIG. 4). The
fixing method is generally screwing, more specifically, a longitudinal section of Fig. 3 is
shown in Fig. 5. The target by the composite target configured as described above is a
silicon beam 2 and a refractory metal beam. 3 has an advantage that the composition
ratio of the formed film can be freely changed.)
PNG
media_image1.png
332
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Kobayashi et al. by utilizing a certain amount
of titanium and silicon in the target as taught by Kawaguchi because it allows for freely changing
the composition of the film based on ratios of materials selected in the target and in the specific
example Fig. 1 there is 67% high melting point metal (Ti) and 33% silicon which is within
applicant's range.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the annular pattern comprises the silicon
containing material arranges as a circle; and the titanium containing material arranged as an
annulus.
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi et al. teach wherein the annular pattern comprises the
silicon containing material arranges as a circle; and the titanium containing material arranged as
an annulus. (Figs. 5 - FIG. 5 shows a schematic sectional view of another embodiment of the sputter electrode structure of the present invention. It comprises; a target plate 21 having a
circular target plate 21a and ring target plates 21 band 21c; Column 6 lines 17-26; Claim 3 - said
materials include a refractory metal and a Si material and said alloy film is a refractory metal
silicide film.) Refractory materials cover the metal titanium. (See Claim 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the annular pattern comprises the titanium
containing material arranges as a circle; and the silicon containing material arranged as an
annulus.
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi et al. teach wherein the annular pattern comprises the
refractory containing material arranged as a circle; and the silicon containing material arranged
as an annulus. (See Fig. 21 A) Refractory materials cover the metal titanium. (See Claim 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the material distribution comprises more of
the titanium containing material than the silicon containing material.
Regarding claim 7, Kawaguchi teaches in Fig. 1 a target of a high melting point metal (i.e. Ti) and silicon. Kawaguchi teaches in Fig. 1 the volume distribution required for the target. (See Fig. 1) Wedges 3 are the high melting point metal. Wedges 2 are the silicon. There is 67% high melting point metal. 33% silicon. (See Annotated Fig. 1; Machine Translation - As shown in FIG. 1, a composite target 1 includes a plurality of silicon pieces (hereinafter, referred to as a silicon beam) 2 and high melting point metal pieces (hereinafter, referred to as a high melting point metal) 3 gathered in a mosaic shape. It is integrated in a disk shape. The silicon beam 2 and the refractory metal beam 3 are each formed in a tan shape as shown in FIG.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the diameter of the target is configured to be
greater than a substrate diameter.
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi et al. teach wherein the diameter of the target is configured
to be greater than a substrate diameter. (See Fig. 5)
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi et al. teach a composite PVD target assembly,
comprising: a backing plate; and a com po site PVD target coupled to a target face of the backing
plate, wherein the composite PVD target comprises: a diameter of at least about 200mm; a connection face coupled to the backing plate; a substrate face disposed opposite the connection
face; a silicon containing material arranged in a first annular pattern; and a titanium containing
material arranged in a second annular pattern. (Figs. 5 - FIG. 5 shows a schematic sectional view
of another embodiment of the sputter electrode structure of the present invention. It comprises; a
target plate 21 having a circular target plate 21a and ring target plates 21b and 21c; Column 6
lines 1 7 -26; Claim 3 - said materials include a refractory metal and a Si material and said alloy
film is a refractory metal silicide film.; Fig. 11-14, 17 - radial diameter of 15 0 mm which would
be 300 mm in diameter)
The difference not between Kobayashi et al. and claim 10 is that a backing plate having a back face and a connection face opposing the back face and a magnet disposed adjacent the back face wherein the magnet is configured to be movable across the entirety of the backing plate is not discussed (Claim 10), the magnet disposed on the backing plate is not discussed (Claim 10), utilizing titanium is not discussed (Claim 10), wherein the diameter of the target is greater than 400 mm is not discussed (Claim 10), and wherein the silicon containing material comprises less than 50% of a total volume of the material distribution and wherein the titanium containing material comprises more than 50% of the total volume of the material distribution is not discussed (Claim 10).
Regarding a backing plate having a back face and a connection face opposing the back face and a magnet disposed adjacent the back face wherein the magnet is configured to be movable across the entirety of the backing plate (Claim 10), Sardesai et al. teach a susceptor (i.e. backing plate) 23 with a back face and a connection face opposing the back face. (See Fig. 1; Column 1 lines 49-58; Column 5 lines 33-39) There is a magnet disposed adjacent to the back face. (Column 1 lines 62-64) The magnet is configurable to be movable across the backing plate. (Column 5 lines 60-67) A composite PVD target is coupled (i.e. mounted) to the connection face of the backing plate. (Column 5 lines 33-39; Column 2 lines 43-45)
Regarding the magnet disposed on the backing plate (Claim 10), Inagawa et al. teach disposing a magnet on a back face of a backing plate in order to scan the magnets across a target. (See Fig. 3 – roller bearings supporting the magnets on the backing plate 144 connected to the target 143)
Therefore it would be obvious to modify Kobayashi et al. (i.e. Fig. 2) with the teachings of Sardesai and Inagawa et al. because it allows for controlling the ratio of components in the thin film (Sardesai -abstract) and allows for sputtering large size targets (Inagawa et al. -Paragraph 0008)
Regarding utilizing titanium (Claim 10), Refractory materials cover the metal titanium.
( See Claim 3)
Regarding wherein the diameter of the target is greater than 400 mm (Claim 10), Jan et
al. teach that a target can have a diameter of 450 mm for deposition on large substrates for
improving electromigration performance on the edge of the substrate. (Paragraph 0030; Fig. 9d)
Therefore it would be obvious to modify Kobayashi et al. by utilizing a 450 mm target
size as suggested by Jan et al. because it allows for deposition on large substrates for improving
electromigration performance on the edge of the substrate.
Regarding wherein the silicon containing material comprises less than 50% of a total
volume of the material distribution and wherein the titanium containing material comprises more than 50% of the total volume of the material distribution (Claim 10), Kawaguchi teaches in Fig.
1 a target of a high melting point metal (i.e. Ti) and silicon. Kawaguchi teaches in Fig. 1 the
volume distribution required for the target. (See Fig. 1) Wedges 3 are the high melting point
metal. Wedges 2 are the silicon. There is 67% high melting point metal. 33% silicon. (See
Annotated Fig. 1; Machine Translation - As shown in FIG. 1, a composite target 1 includes a
plurality of silicon pieces (hereinafter, referred to as a silicon beam) 2 and high melting point
metal pieces (hereinafter, referred to as a high melting point metal) 3 gathered in a mosaic
shape. It is integrated in a disk shape. The silicon beam 2 and the refractory metal beam 3
are each formed in a tan shape as shown in FIG. (The fractured target i thus constructed is
mechanically fixed on a copper backing plate 6 as a substrate by an inner peripheral
pressing ring 4 and an outer peripheral pressing ring 5 shown in FIG. 3 (see FIG. 4). The
fixing method is generally screwing, more specifically, a longitudinal section of Fig. 3 is
shown in Fig. 5. The target by the composite target configured as described above is a
silicon beam 2 and a refractory metal beam. 3 has an advantage that the composition
ratio of the formed film can be freely changed.)
PNG
media_image1.png
332
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Kobayashi et al. by utilizing a certain amount
of titanium and silicon in the target as taught by Kawaguchi because it allows for freely changing
the composition of the film based on ratios of materials selected in the target and in the specific
example Fig. 1 there is 67% high melting point metal (Ti) and 33% silicon which is within
applicant's range.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a material distribution is uniform at any point
between the substrate face and the connection face.
Regarding claim 11, Kobayashi et al. teach wherein a material distribution is uniform at
any point between the substrate face and the connection face. (Fig. 5)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein: the first annular pattern comprises the silicon
containing material arranged as a circle; and the second annular pattern comprises the titanium
containing material arranged as an annulus.
Regarding claim 13, Kobayashi et al. teach he first annular pattern comprises the silicon
containing material arranged as a circle; and the second annular pattern comprises the titanium
containing material arranged as an annulus. (See Kobayashi et al. discussed above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein: the second annular pattern comprises the
titanium containing material arranged as a circle; and the first annular pattern comprises the
silicon containing material arranged as an annulus.
Regarding claim 14, Kobayashi et al. teach wherein the annular pattern comprises the
refractory containing material arranged as a circle; and the silicon containing material arranged
as an annulus. (See Fig. 21 A) Refractory materials cover the metal titanium. (See Claim 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the diameter of the target is configured to be
greater than a substrate diameter.
Regarding claim 15, Kobayashi et al. teach wherein the diameter of the target is
configured to be greater than a substrate diameter. (See Fig. 5)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the target diameter is configured to be about
equal to a substrate diameter.
Regarding claim 16, Kobayashi et al. teach wherein the target diameter is configured to
be about equal to a substrate diameter. (Fig. 4)
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
Regarding claim 19, Kobayashi et al. teach a PVD chamber comprising: a chamber body
(Inherent for sputtering); a substrate support disposed within the chamber body configured to support a substrate; a process volume disposed between the substrate support and the chamber
body, wherein the process volume is configured to hold a plasma; and the substrate support is
configured to support a substrate; a gas supply coupled to the chamber body configured to supply
a gas; a composite PVD target assembly disposed within the chamber body, on a upper side of
the chamber body, connected to a power source, wherein the composite PVD target assembly
comprises: a backing plate; and a composite PVD target coupled to a target side of the backing
plate, wherein the composite PVD target comprises: a diameter: a connection face coupled to the
backing plate; a substrate face disposed opposite the connection face; a thickness defined by the
connection face of the PVD target and the substrate face of the PVD target; and a material
distribution comprising: a pattern, wherein the pattern is an annular pattern; a silicon containing
material arranged in the annular pattern; and a refractory containing material arranged in the
annular pattern, wherein the silicon containing material and the refractory containing material are
uniform at any point along the thickness. (Figs. 5 - FIG. 5 shows a schematic sectional view of
another embodiment of the sputter electrode structure of the present invention. It comprises; a
target plate 21 having a circular target plate 21a and ring target plates 21b and 21c; Column 6
lines 1 7 -26; Claim 3 - said materials include a refractory metal and a Si material and said alloy
film is a refractory metal silicide film.)
The difference not between Kobayashi et al. and claim 19 is that a backing plate having a back face and a connection face opposing the back face and a magnet disposed adjacent the back face wherein the magnet is configured to be movable across the entirety of the backing plate is not discussed (Claim 19), the magnet disposed on the backing plate is not discussed (Claim 19), utilizing titanium is not discussed (Claim 19), wherein the diameter of the target is greater than 400 mm is not discussed (Claim 19), and wherein the silicon containing material comprises less than 50% of a total volume of the material distribution and wherein the titanium containing material comprises more than 50% of the total volume of the material distribution is not discussed (Claim 19).
Regarding a backing plate having a back face and a connection face opposing the back face and a magnet disposed adjacent the back face wherein the magnet is configured to be movable across the entirety of the backing plate (Claim 10), Sardesai et al. teach a susceptor (i.e. backing plate) 23 with a back face and a connection face opposing the back face. (See Fig. 1; Column 1 lines 49-58; Column 5 lines 33-39) There is a magnet disposed adjacent to the back face. (Column 1 lines 62-64) The magnet is configurable to be movable across the backing plate. (Column 5 lines 60-67) A composite PVD target is coupled (i.e. mounted) to the connection face of the backing plate. (Column 5 lines 33-39; Column 2 lines 43-45)
Regarding the magnet disposed on the backing plate (Claim 10), Inagawa et al. teach disposing a magnet on a back face of a backing plate in order to scan the magnets across a target. (See Fig. 3 – roller bearings supporting the magnets on the backing plate 144 connected to the target 143)
Therefore it would be obvious to modify Kobayashi et al. (i.e. Fig. 2) with the teachings of Sardesai and Inagawa et al. because it allows for controlling the ratio of components in the thin film (Sardesai -abstract) and allows for sputtering large size targets (Inagawa et al. -Paragraph 0008)
Regarding utilizing titanium (Claim 19), Refractory materials cover the metal titanium.
( See Claim 3)
Regarding wherein the diameter of the target is greater than 400 mm (Claim 19), Jan et
al. teach that a target can have a diameter of 450 mm for deposition on large substrates for
improving electromigration performance on the edge of the substrate. (Paragraph 0030; Fig. 9d)
Therefore it would be obvious to modify Kobayashi et al. by utilizing a 450 mm target
size as suggested by Jan et al. because it allows for deposition on large substrates for improving
electromigration performance on the edge of the substrate.
Regarding wherein the silicon containing material comprises less than 50% of a total
volume of the material distribution and wherein the titanium containing material comprises more
than 50% of the total volume of the material distribution (Claim 19), Kawaguchi teaches in Fig.
1 a target of a high melting point metal (i.e. Ti) and silicon. Kawaguchi teaches in Fig. 1 the
volume distribution required for the target. (See Fig. 1) Wedges 3 are the high melting point
metal. Wedges 2 are the silicon. There is 67% high melting point metal. 33% silicon. (See
Annotated Fig. 1; Machine Translation - As shown in FIG. i, a composite target 1 includes a
plurality of silicon pieces (hereinafter, referred to as a silicon beam) 2 and high melting point
metal pieces (hereinafter, ref erred to as a high melting point metal) 3 gathered in a mosaic
shape. It is integrated in a disk shape. The silicon beam 2 and the refractory metal beam 3
are each formed in a fan shape as shown in FIG. (The fractured target i thus constructed is
mechanically fixed on a copper backing plate 6 as a substrate by an inner peripheral
pressing ring 4 and an outer peripheral pressing ring 5 shown in FIG. 3 (see FIG. 4). The
fixing method is generally screwing, more specifically, a longitudinal section of Fig. 3 is
shown in Fig. 5. The target by the composite target configured as described above is a silicon beam 2 and a refractory metal beam. 3 has an advantage that the composition ratio of the formed film can be freely changed.)
PNG
media_image1.png
332
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Kobayashi et al. by utilizing a certain amount
of titanium and silicon in the target as taught by Kawaguchi because it allows for freely changing
the composition of the film based on ratios of materials selected in the target and in the specific
example Fig. 1 there is 67% high melting point metal (Ti) and 33% silicon which is within
applicant's range.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 21:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the annular pattern further comprises: the
silicon containing material arranged as an additional annulus disposed around the titanium
containing material arranged as the annulus.
Regarding claim 21, Kobayashi et al. teach wherein the annular pattern further comprises:
the silicon containing material arranged as an additional annulus disposed around the titanium
containing material arranged as the annulus. (See Fig. 23A)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 22:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the annulus pattern further comprises the
titanium containing material arranged as an additional annulus disposed around the silicon
containing material arranged as the annulus.
Regarding claim 22, Kobayashi et al. teach wherein the annulus pattern further comprises
the titanium containing material arranged as an additional annulus disposed around the silicon
containing material arranged as the annulus. (See Fig. 23A) The refractory material covers
titanium. (Claim 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 23:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the silicon containing material is further
arranged in a third annular pattern comprising an annulus.
Regarding claim 23, Kobayashi et al. teach wherein the silicon containing material is
further arranged in a third annular pattern comprising an annulus. (See Fig. 23A) The refractory
material covers titanium. (Claim 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 24:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the titanium containing material is further
arranged in a third annular pattern comprising an annulus.
Regarding claim 24, Kobayashi et al. teach wherein the titanium containing material is
further arranged in a third annular pattern comprising an annulus. (See Fig. 23A) The refractory
material covers titanium. (Claim 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 25:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the annular pattern comprises: one of the
silicon containing material or the titanium containing material arranged as a circle; and the other one of the silicon containing material or the titanium containing material arranged as a first
annulus around the circle.
Regarding claim 25, Kobayashi et al. teach herein the annular pattern comprises: one of
the silicon containing material or the titanium containing material arranged as a circle; and the
other one of the silicon containing material or the titanium containing material arranged as a first
annulus around the circle. (See Fig. 23A) The refractory material covers titanium. (Claim 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 26:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the annular pattern further comprises: the one
of the silicon containing material or the titanium containing material arranged as a second
annulus around the first annulus.
Regarding claim 26, Kobayashi et al. teach wherein the annular pattern further comprises:
the one of the silicon containing material or the titanium containing material arranged as a
second annulus around the first annulus. (Fig. 23A) The refractory material covers titanium.
(Claim 3)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Sardesai et al. is that it allows for controlling the ratio of components in the thin film (Sardesai -abstract).
The motivation for utilizing the features of Inagawa et al. is that allows for sputtering large size targets (Inagawa et al. -Paragraph 0008)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Jan et al. is that it allows for improving
electromigration performance on the edge of the substrate. (Jan et al. - Paragraph 0030)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Kawaguchi is that it allows for controlling and
freely changing the composition of the deposited film. (Kawaguchi - See Machine Translation)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified the features of Kobayashi et al. with the teachings of Sardesai et al. and Inagawa et al. and Jan et
al. and Kawaguchi et al. because it allows for controlling the ratio of components in the thin film, allows for sputtering large size targets and depositing a composite film with improved
electromigration performance on the edge of the substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that the prior art of record does not teach a magnet disposed on the back face of the backing plate that is configured to be movable across the backing plate having a composite PVD target coupled to the connection face of the backing plate opposing the back face, it is argued that the newly cited references to Sardesai et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,342,131) and Inagawa et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2007/0193881 A1) address these new claim limitation as discussed above in the rejection. Specifically Sardesai et al. teach a susceptor (i.e. backing plate) 23 with a back face and a connection face opposing the back face. (See Fig. 1; Column 1 lines 49-58; Column 5 lines 33-39) There is a magnet disposed adjacent to the back face. (Column 1 lines 62-64) The magnet is configurable to be movable across the backing plate. (Column 5 lines 60-67) A composite PVD target is coupled (i.e. mounted) to the connection face of the backing plate. (Column 5 lines 33-39; Column 2 lines 43-45) Inagawa et al. teach disposing a magnet on a back face of a backing plate in order to scan the magnets across a target. (See Fig. 3 – roller bearings supporting the magnets on the backing plate 144 connected to the target 143)
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 RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off..
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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
February 6, 2026