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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/3/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 1 recites “the magnet assembly comprising: a magnetic field generating arrangement for generating a magnetic field proximate the substrate, wherein the magnetic field has a magnetic field strength of from greater than zero to 25 milliteslas” (emphasis added). There does not appear to be support in the Specification nor figures, in particular fig. 6 (see p. 6 Remarks 4/3/2026), for this exact range of “greater than zero to 25 milliteslas” since “greater than zero” encompasses values (e.g. 0.001 milliteslas, 0.5 milliteslas, or 1 milliteslas) that do not appear to be supported. Claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14-16, and 18-19 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
Amended claim 20 recites “the magnetic field strength is from greater than zero to 2 milliteslas” (emphasis added). Similarly as discussed above for amended claim 1, there does not appear to be support in the Specification nor figures for this exact range of “2 milliteslas or less”.
Claim 15 (dependent on claims 1 and 14) recites “each of the linear recesses extends to a periphery of a cassette” (emphasis added). There is no support in the Specification for two distinct ‘cassettes’ (e.g. “a cassette” of claim 1 and “a cassette” of claim 15).
Claim 18 (dependent on claim 1) recites “rotationally coupled at one end with a cassette” (emphasis added). There is no support in the Specification for two distinct ‘cassettes’ (e.g. “a cassette” of claim 1 and “a cassette” of claim 18).
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 1-5, 7, 9-12, 14-16, and 18-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “a magnetic field strength from greater than zero to 25 milliteslas” as allegedly being supported by fig. 6 (see Remarks p. 6 4/3/2026), however fig. 6 shows that the claimed “varying magnetic field” decreases in strength from the ‘centre of the cassette to the periphery of the recesses in the cassette’ in contrast to the claimed “the varying magnetic field strength is greater proximate a periphery of the recess in the cassette than a centre of the cassette” (emphasis added). Claim 1 is rendered indefinite as to how the claimed “varying magnetic field” has the claimed strength of “greater than zero to 25 milliteslas” greater from the ‘centre to the periphery of the cassette’ in fig. 6 but then also has the “varying magnetic field” greater at the ‘periphery than the centre’ in contrast to fig. 6. Claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
Claims 15 and 18 (each dependent on claim 1) each recites “a cassette”, rendering each of claims 15 and 18 indefinite as to whether each instance of “a cassette” is intended to refer to a distinct ‘cassette’ from claim 1, or the same “cassette” as claim 1.
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 1-4, 10-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 6,143,140) in view of Morimoto (US 8,377,269).
With respect to claim 1, Wang discloses in fig. 2 an apparatus capable of controlling a thickness variation in a material layer formed on a substrate [110] (as shown in figs. 4-5) in a physical vapor deposition (PVD) chamber [100] (col. 1, lines 30-36; col. 3, lines 45-64; col. 4, lines 35-41), wherein a controller [149] controls DC power supply [130] to a target [104] (col. 4, lines 23-26; col. 5, lines 14-27); thus the controller [149] is fully capable of operating the DC power supply [130] in a pulsed manner by simply switching the DC power supply [130] between OFF and ON positions via programming or input interfaces (col. 5, lines 17-25). Fig. 2 further depicts the apparatus comprises the PVD chamber [100] housing: the target [104] from which the material layer is formed, a support member (i.e. platen) [112] for holding the substrate [110], and an inlet [136] for introducing a gas; (col. 3, lines 54-67; col. 4, lines 1-17); fig. 2 also teaches the apparatus comprises a plasma generating arrangement for generating a plasma in the PVD chamber [100], a voltage source [134] applying a RF bias voltage to the substrate [110], and magnets (i.e. plasma localising magnetic field generating arrangement) [106] configured to generate a plasma localising magnetic field proximate the target [104] for localizing the plasma adjacent the target [104] (col. 3, lines 54-64; col. 4, lines 8-32). Fig. 2 further depicts a magnet assembly capable of steering ions that form the material layer on the substrate [110] during a pulsed DC PVD process, the magnet assembly comprising: a magnetron [162] including magnets [160] (e.g. a magnetic field generating arrangement [160],[162]) for generating a magnetic field [161] proximate the substrate [110], wherein the magnetic field [161] is capable of having a magnetic field strength of 50-800 Gauss (5-80 mT) or preferably at least 200 Gauss (20 mT) (col. 7, lines 21-27), and means for rotating the magnetic field generating arrangement [160],[162] about an axis [A] of rotation relative to the substrate [110] (col. 4, lines 35-47; col. 6, lines 4-6; col. 7, lines 45-49). Fig. 3 depicts the magnetic field generating arrangement [160],[162] comprises the magnets [160] configured to the magnetron (i.e. array) [162] which extends around a shaft [164], the shaft [164] being the axis [A] of rotation as shown in fig. 2 (col. 3, lines 27-28; col. 4, lines 39-54), with fig. 2 depicting the array [162] of the magnets [160] disposed within a structure (i.e. cassette) in the platen [112] having recesses for each magnet [160] and capable of generating the magnetic field [161] to have a varying magnetic field strength along a radial direction relative to the axis [A] of rotation (col. 4, lines 54-67). The claim requirement of “the varying magnetic field and RF bias voltage are configured to increase density of the ions at regions of the material layer upon the substrate” relates to the intended functioning of the claimed apparatus, with the apparatus of Wang comprising the RF bias voltage and varying magnetic field strength of the magnets [160] of the array [162] fully capable of functioning in the claimed manner. Wang further discloses the varying magnetic field strength of the magnetic field [161] is fully capable of being greater proximate a periphery of the linear recesses of the magnets [160] in a structure (i.e. cassette) of the platen [112] than a centre of the structure (col. 4, lines 54-67), as also shown in fig. 2. In addition since Wang teaches the claim requirements of the apparatus comprising the RF bias voltage and varying magnetic field strength of the magnets [160] of the array [162], a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established that Wang also teaches the resulting the RF bias voltage and varying magnetic field strength of the magnets [160] of the array [162] having a property of being “configured to increase density of the ions at regions of the material layer upon the substrate” (MPEP 2112.01, I).
However Wang is limited in that while the plasma generating arrangement includes a coil [122] attached to power supply [132] capable of being a DC pulsed power supply (fig. 2; col. 4, lines 8-13 and 23-32), the plasma generating arrangement including an anode ring within the chamber that receives pulsed DC power is not specifically suggested.
Morimoto teaches in the figure a sputter apparatus (i.e. PVD apparatus) comprising a chamber [2], a target [3] facing a substrate [W], and a plasma generating arrangement including a coil [12] attached to a DC power supply [11] (col. 2, lines 63-67; col. 3, lines 62-67; col. 4, lines 1-32), similar to the apparatus and plasma generating arrangement of Wang. The figure also shows that the plasma generating arrangement comprises the coil [12] disposed outside the chamber [2] in addition to inside the chamber [2] an “ion reflector 10 […] of a substantially cylindrical shape” that is applied with a “positive electric potential” from the DC power supply [11] (col. 4, lines 3-15), with the ion reflector [10] being an anode ring [10]; the DC power supply [11] to the anode ring [10] is fully capable of being a pulsed DC power supply [11] via “change-over switch” [13] (figure; col. 2, lines 53-58; col. 5, lines 3-10). Morimoto cites the advantage of the plasma generating arrangement including the coil [12] outside the chamber [2] and anode ring [10] inside the chamber [2] as providing capability of accelerating ionization of atoms scattered from the target [3], thereby stably performing self-sputtering (col. 1, lines 50-54; col. 2, lines 38-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the coil and anode ring of Morimoto in place of the coil of the plasma generating arrangement of Wang to gain the advantage of the apparatus being capable of accelerating ionization of atoms scattered from the target to stably perform self-sputtering.
With respect to claim 2, modified Wang further teaches in fig. 2 that the magnetic field [161] from the magnetic field generating arrangement [160],[162] is substantially unaffected by the plasma localizing magnetic field from the plasma localising magnetic field generating arrangement [106] (col. 3, lines 59-64; col. 4, lines 55-67; col. 5, lines 1-13).
With respect to claim 3, modified Wang further depicts in fig. 2 the magnetic field generating arrangement [160],[162] disposed at a side of the substrate [110] which is opposite a side of the substrate [110] facing the plasma within the PVD chamber [100] (col. 3, lines 54-64; col. 4, lines 39-43).
With respect to claim 4, modified Wang further depicts in fig. 3 the array [162] comprises two linear, sub-arrays of the magnets [160] arranged in a parallel configuration (col. 4, lines 39-41).
With respect to claims 10 and 11, modified Wang further depicts in fig. 2 the recesses of the cassette in the platen [112] comprises left and right recess portions (i.e. first and second recess portions) which extend along the radial direction relative to the axis [A] of rotation and each receive a magnet [160], wherein the first and second recess portions are angularly separated, with Wang further teaching that the array [162] in some embodiments includes more magnets (and thus an additional recess portion that corresponds to each additional magnet) that extend along the radial direction relative to the shaft [164], wherein at least three magnets (with a recess portion corresponding to each magnet [160]) being angularly separated around the shaft [164] similarly to two magnets [160] (and thus corresponding recess portion for each magnet [160]).
With respect to claim 14, modified Wang further depicts in figs. 2-3 the array [162] having linear recesses that contain each of the magnets [160] arranged in a parallel configuration (col. 4, lines 39-41).
With respect to claim 15, modified Wang further depicts in figs. 2-3 that each magnet [160] extends to a periphery of the platen [112]; thus each linear recess that contains each magnet [160] also extends to the periphery of the platen [112].
With respect to claims 12 and 16, modified Wang further depicts in fig. 2 a structure approximate to [162] that is in the linear recesses and “spacing” bottom portions of the magnets [160] from the platen [112]; the structure is considered as “non-magnetic” since no magnetic field is shown extending therefrom.
With respect to claim 18, modified Wang further depicts in fig. 2 the means for rotating the magnetic field generating arrangement [160],[162] comprises the shaft (i.e. spindle) [164] and a motor assembly (i.e. drive assembly) [114] for driving the spindle [164], wherein the spindle [164] is rotationally coupled at: 1) one end of the platen [112] and 2) at the other end with the drive assembly [114] (col. 4, lines 43-47).
With respect to claim 19, the combination of references Wang and Morimoto has Wang teaching a DC power supply [130] in electronic communication with the target [104] and coil [122] (e.g. coil [122] interchanged with coil [12] and anode ring [10] of Morimoto) via controller [149] (col. 4, lines 23-26; col. 5, lines 13-25), wherein the target [104] is fully capable of receiving pulsed DC power from the DC power supply [130] by simply switching the DC power supply [130] between OFF and ON positions via programming or input interfaces of the controller [149] (col. 5, lines 17-25).
With respect to claim 20, modified Wang further discloses the magnetic field [161] is capable of having a magnetic field strength of 50-800 Gauss (5-80 mT) (col. 7, lines 21-27); it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges (2 mT) and prior art ranges (5 mT) do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (MPEP 2144.05, I). In addition modified Wang further teaches the magnets [160] that generate the magnetic field [161] are “permanent magnets, electromagnets or any combination thereof” (col. 7, lines 33-44); thus the magnetic field [161] generated via electromagnets [160] is fully capable of being greater than zero mT to 5 mT (e.g. claimed “greater than zero to 2 milliteslas” [emphasis added]) when the electromagnets [160] are initially turned ON to eventually attain the 5 mT.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 6,143,140) and Morimoto et al (US 8,377,269) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al (US 2013/0101749).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of references Wang and Morimoto is cited as discussed for claim 1. However modified Wang is limited in that while some embodiments envision including more magnets for the array [162] (col. 5, lines 1-4), the array [162] comprising a spiral array or concentric circular sub-arrays magnets are not specifically suggested.
Yang teaches in fig. 4 a process chamber (i.e. PVD chamber) [400] including a substrate [406] on a support (i.e. platen) [404] facing a target (Abstract; para 0003, 0006, 0038, and 0040), similar to the PVD chamber [100] of Wang. Yang further depicts in figs. 6A-B embodiments of the platen [404] having a holder [604] below the substrate [406], wherein the holder [604] includes an array for magnets [600],[602] (para 0048); figs. 6A-B also depict the holder [604] attached to either the platen [404] or shaft of the platen [404] and made of non-magnetic material that spaces the magnets [600],[602] from each other, with the platen [404] capable of rotation (para 0038; claim 11), and thus the holder [604] with the magnets [600],[602] is also capable of rotation. Figs. 7A-B depict a top view of figs. 6A-B (para 0015-0016), with figs. 7A-B depicting the magnets [700],[702] or [704],[706] comprise the array as a plurality of concentric circular sub-arrays (para 0049), in addition to “numerous geometric configurations of the magnets are possible” (e.g. the array is a spiral array of the magnets) (para 0049), since it has been held that ‘a change of shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that a particular shape is significant’ (MPEP 2144.04, IV, B). Yang cites the advantage of the magnets as having “a smoothing effect that modulates the argon flux density so that there is less of a variation between the edge and center of the substrate with respect to the argon flux density” (para 0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the array of Yang as the array of modified Wang to gain the advantage of less variation between an edge and center of the substrate with respect to argon flux density.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 6,143,140) and Morimoto et al (US 8,377,269) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morrison, Jr. (US 4,461,688).
With respect to claims 7 and 9, the combination of references Wang and Morimoto is cited as discussed for claim 1. However modified Wang is limited in that while some embodiments envision including more magnets for the array [162] (col. 5, lines 1-4), the magnets being in a stacked configuration is not specifically suggested.
Morrison teaches in fig. 5 a magnet assembly comprising a plurality of magnets [46’],[48’],[50’],[52’] (abstract; col. 5, lines 60-68; col. 6, lines 1-11; col. 9, lines 40-43). Morrison further depicts in fig. 5 the plurality of magnets [46’],[48’],[50’],[52’] are configured in a first and second array, wherein the second array is disposed above upon the first array in a stacked configuration. Morrison cites the advantage of the first and second arrays in the stacked configuration as resulting in an improved means for trapping plasma (col. 2, lines 3-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the first and second arrays in a stacked configuration as taught by Morrison for the magnets of modified Wang to gain the advantage of an improved means for trapping plasma.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,913,109 in view of US 8,377,269. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 1-6 of the US Patent are narrower in scope than the claims 1-5, 7, 9-12, 14-16, and 18-20 of the current invention, and encompass the subject matter of the current claims; US 8,377,269 renders it obvious to include an anode ring connected to a DC power supply capable of pulsing in order to accelerate ionization of atoms scattered to stably perform self-sputtering. Therefore, any reference meeting the limitations set forth in claims 1-6 of the US Patent with US 8,377,269 would also meet the requirements set forth in claims 1-5, 7, 9-12, 14-16, and 18-20 of the current invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 6-9 filed 4/3/2026 are addressed below.
112 Rejections
Claim 1 has been amended to clarify the range of “greater than zero to 25 milliteslas”; the previous 112(a) rejection is maintained for the new reasoning set forth above.
Claim 20 has been amended to clarify the range of “greater than zero to 2 milliteslas”; the previous 112(a) rejection is maintained for the new reasoning set forth above.
103 Rejections
On p. 7-8, Applicant argues that Wang does not teach the limitation “the varying magnetic field and the RF bias voltage” to result in “increase density of the ions at regions of the material layer upon the substrate” as recited by amended claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since:
1) the claim requirement of “the varying magnetic field and the RF bias voltage are configured to increase density of the ions at regions of the material layer upon the substrate” relates to the intended functioning of the claimed apparatus, with the apparatus of Wang comprising the RF bias voltage from voltage source [134] and varying magnetic field strength of the magnets [160] of the array [162] is fully capable of functioning in the claimed manner.
and 2) as Wang teaches the claim requirements of the apparatus comprising the RF bias voltage from voltage source [134] and varying magnetic field strength of the magnets [160] of the array [162], a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established that Wang also teaches the resulting the RF bias voltage and varying magnetic field strength of the magnets [160] of the array [162] having a property of being “configured to increase density of the ions at regions of the material layer upon the substrate” (MPEP 2112.01, I).
Thus Wang teaches, or at the very least suggests, the limitation recited by claim 1.
All other arguments on p. 8 to claims 5, 7 and 9 are directed towards the subject matter addressed in the 103 Rejections above and therefore have been addressed accordingly.
Double Patenting Rejections
No Terminal Disclaimer has been filed; the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP No. 2015183264 is relevant for teaching in figs. 1-6 a sputter deposition apparatus comprising: a substrate holder [9] with a substrate [10]; and plural magnets [M1],[M2] within a base [23] and lid [23] (i.e. cassette [23],[25]) for generating a varying magnetic field over a surface of the substrate [10].
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
