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 § 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 1-3, 5-7, and 9-13 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.
Amended claim 1 recites the limitation "the shutter". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since it is unclear as to whether “the shutter” is intended to refer to “a plate-shaped shutter” and “the plate-shaped shutter”, or a distinct ‘shutter’ thereof. Claims 2-3, 5-7, 10, and 12 also recite “the shutter” and are similarly rejected. Claims 2-3, 5-7, and 9-13 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
Amended claim 1 recites the limitation "the reflector". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since it is unclear as to whether “the reflector” is intended to refer to “a plate-shaped reflector” and “the plate-shaped reflector”, or a distinct ‘reflector’ thereof. Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-12 are also recite “the reflector” and are similarly rejected. Claims 2-3, 5-7, and 9-13 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
Claim 9 is dependent on canceled claim 8, rendering claim 9 indefinite as to which claim is intended for claim 9 to depend from, or if claim 9 is intended to be canceled.
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 1-3, 5-7, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Setoyama et al (JP 63247361, machine translation cited below) in view of Zhang et al (CN 104947039, machine translation cited below).
With respect to claim 1, Setoyama discloses in figs. 1-2 a sputter apparatus (p. 1), wherein figs. 1-2 depict the sputter apparatus comprises: a “vacuum vessel” (i.e. claimed “vacuum chamber”) [1] configured to accommodate a “substrate” (i.e. claimed “to-be-deposited object”) [5] on which a thin film is deposited by sputtering from a target [2] (p. 2); a “high frequency power supply” [21] connected to an electrode within substrate holder [6], the electrode (i.e. claimed “heater”) configured to heat the to-be-deposited object [5] via high frequency electrical bias (p. 2-3); a “vacuum exhaust pump” [26] to exhaust gas in the vacuum chamber [1] via exhaust passage (p. 3); and a “partition plate” (i.e. claimed “plate-shaped shutter” [7] configured to move between open and closed positions (p. 2-3). Setoyama further discloses the plate-shaped shutter [7]: at the closed position (i.e. claimed “shutter-closed position”) between the to-be-deposited object [5] and covered from the target [2] as shown in each of figs. 1-2 (p. 2-3), and at the open position (i.e. claimed “shutter-moved-out position”) in which the plate-shaped shutter [7] is moved out of the shutter-closed-position to an exhaust pump side of the vacuum exhaust pump [26] (as shown in fig. 2) and stays on the exhaust pump side during the thin film deposition (p. 2-3).
However Setoyama is limited in that a plate-shaped reflector is not suggested.
Zhang teaches a baffle for use in a physical vapor deposition chamber (para 0002 and 0004), such as the sputter apparatus of Setoyama. Zhang further depicts in fig. 1 the baffle (i.e. reflector) [13] being plate-shaped of stainless steel in a process or vacuum chamber [10] and above a vacuum pump (para 0005 and 0017), wherein a width of the plate-shaped reflector [13] is greater than a width of an exhaust opening of the vacuum pump. Zhang further teaches that the plate-shaped reflector [13] has a “one-way mirror” (i.e. claimed “mirror finished surface”) “located on a surface close” to a heat source to reflect heat to the heat source while lowering temperature of a cooling device near the vacuum pump (para 0005, 0017, and 0040), thereby improving efficiency of vacuuming the process chamber in addition to stability and sustainability of a process (para 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the plate-shaped reflector with mirror finished surface of Zhang into the sputter apparatus of Setoyama (in which an upper surface of the plate-shaped reflector faces and is close to potential heat sources of the plate-shaped shutter [7] and target [2]) to gain the advantages of improving efficiency of vacuuming the vacuum chamber in addition to stability and sustainability of a sputter process.
In summary, the combination of references Setoyama and Zhang has: Zhang teaching in fig. 1 the plate-shaped reflector [13] is directly above and adjacent to the vacuum pump; thus the plate-shaped reflector [13] would be located in the sputter apparatus of Setoyama between the plate-shaped shutter [7] and the vacuum exhaust pump [26] as shown in figs. 1-2. In addition the combination of references teaches the plate-shaped shutter [7] of Setoyama in figs. 1-2 and the plate-shaped reflector [13] Zhang in fig. 1 each having a width (i.e. projected area of surface) that is greater than a width of a passage of the respective vacuum exhaust pump [26] (of Setoyama) and vacuum pump. Although the combination of references does not particularly specify for the projected area of surface of the plate-shaped reflector [13] (of Zhang) to be greater than the projected area of surface of the plate-shaped shutter [7] (of Setoyama), it has been held that: where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, IV, A). In this case, the plate-shaped reflector [13] of Zhang would function similarly regardless of having the projected area of surface greater than, equal to, or less than the projected area of the surface of the plate-shaped shutter [7] of Setoyama.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of references Setoyama and Zhang has: Setoyama teaching in figs. 1-2 the heater in the substrate holder [6] on a bottom surface side of the plate-shaped shutter [7]; and Zhang teaching in fig. 1 the plate-shaped reflector [13] is on a bottom surface side. Thus the combination of references teaches the plate-shaped shutter [7] and plate-shaped reflector [13] to both be on the bottom surface side, wherein the plate-shaped reflector [13] is arranged with respect to the plate-shaped shutter [7] in the moved-out state in which the plate-shaped shutter [7] is arranged at the shutter-moved-out position.
With respect to claim 3, the combination of references Setoyama and Zhang teaches the upper surface of plate-shaped reflector [13] on the side that faces the plate-shaped shutter [7] in the moved-out state in which the plate-shaped shutter [7] is arranged at the shutter-moved-out position is parallel to a surface of the heater in the substrate holder [6], which is arranged on a side in which the to-be-deposited object [5] is arranged.
With respect to claim 5, Zhang further teaches that the plate-shaped reflector [13] is configured without being cooled from a cooling device mechanism therewithin.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, the combination of references Setoyama and Zhang has Zhang teaching in fig. 1 the plate-shaped reflector [13] is arranged at the exhaust opening of the vacuum chamber and connected to the exhaust pump (para 0005 and 0017), with the plate-shaped reflector [13] then arranged between the vacuum exhaust pump [26] and the plate-shaped shutter [7] of Setoyama in the moved-out state in which the plate-shaped shutter [7] is arranged at the shutter-moved-out position, and is spaced away from both the exhaust opening and the plate shutter [14] in the moved-out state (p. 2-3). The combination of references also teaches both the plate-shaped reflector [13] and the plate-shaped shutter [7] overlap each other and the exhaust opening as shown by Setoyama’s figs. 1-2 and Zhang’s fig. 1.
With respect to claim 10, the combination of references Setoyama and Zhang has Setoyama’s figs. 1-2 and Zhang’s fig. 1 showing the plate-shaped reflector [13] arranged parallel to a surface on the exhaust pump side of the plate-shaped shutter [7] in the moved-out state in which the plate-shaped shutter [7] is arranged at the shutter-moved-out position, and faces the surface on the exhaust pump side of the plate-shaped shutter [7].
With respect to claim 11, Zhang further teaches in fig. 1 the plate-shaped reflector [13] as singular or alternatively as plural plate-shaped reflectors [101]-[103] that are spaced from each other (para 0034).
With respect to claims 12 and 13, the combination of references Setoyama and Zhang has: Setoyama further depicting in figs. 1-2 the vacuum exhaust pump [26] configured to exhaust the gas, and the plate-shaped reflector [13] (of Zhang) is arranged between the vacuum exhaust pump [26] and the plate-shaped shutter [7] in the moved-out state in which the plate-shaped shutter [7] is arranged at the shutter-moved-out position (p. 2-3); the claim requirement of the exhaust pump “is configured to cool gas in the vacuum chamber and then to exhaust the gas” relates to the intended functioning of the claimed exhaust pump, with the vacuum exhaust pump [26] of Setoyama fully capable of functioning in the claimed manner by simply extending a path of the gas by conducting the gas around the plate-shaped reflector [13] prior to exhausting the gas. In addition 0Zhang teaches to use a “cold pump” (i.e. claimed “cryopump”) to increase vacuum (para 0005, 0034, and 0044).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 6-9 filed 12/3/2025 are addressed below.
112 Rejections
Claim 5 has been amended to depend from claim 1; the previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 6-9 with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references Setoyama and Zhang being applied in the current rejection.
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