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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “rotating the bias magnetic field device once every first preset time length of consuming the material of the target until a total time length of consuming the material of the target reaches an upper limit, to periodically change an area, of a surface of the target, to which the bias magnetic field is applied” as recited by claim 1 and “a center angle” of claim 2 [or “central angle” as argued by Applicant (see p. 9-10 Remarks 8/17/2026)] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-6 is 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 “rotating a bias magnetic field device arranged around a base by a fixed angle along a circumferential direction of the base, the bias magnetic field device being configured to generate a bias magnetic field, and rotating the bias magnetic field device once every first preset time length of consuming the material of the target until a total time length of consuming the material of the target reaches an upper limit, to periodically change an area, of a surface of the target, to which the bias magnetic field is applied” (emphasis added). There is no support in the Specification nor Drawings that “the bias magnetic field” from the “bias magnetic field device arranged around a base” (emphasis added) is the same “bias magnetic field” that is then applied to “a surface of the target”, in particular in view of Specification para 0039, 0044, and 0056 stating multiple ‘bias magnetic fields’ from multiple ‘bias magnetic field devices’ (none of which is shown in the drawings). Claims 2-6 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
Amended claim 1 recites “rotating the bias magnetic field device once every first preset time length of consuming the material of the target” (emphasis added). There is no support in the Specification for this limitation. Claims 2-6 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
Amended claim 1 recites “within each first preset time length of consuming the material of the target, a number of substrates is deposited with the material of the target”. There is no support in the Specification that plural substrates are deposited on during each “first preset time length”. Claims 2-6 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
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 1-6 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 “rotating a bias magnetic field device arranged around a base by a fixed angle along a circumferential direction of the base, the bias magnetic field device being configured to generate a bias magnetic field, and rotating the bias magnetic field device once every first preset time length of consuming the material of the target until a total time length of consuming the material of the target reaches an upper limit, to periodically change an area, of a surface of the target, to which the bias magnetic field is applied” (emphasis added). The claim is indefinite from the claim, Specification, and Drawings as to how the claimed “bias magnetic field device arranged around a base” is then also configured to generate “a bias magnetic field” that is then applied to “a surface of the target” . Claims 2-6 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
Amended claim 2 recites “before rotating the bias magnetic field device by the fixed angle along the circumferential direction, in response to the material of the target having been consumed for a second preset time length of consuming the material of the target, measuring a center angle corresponding to an arc length of a deepest recessed area or a shallowest recessed area formed on the surface of the target, the fixed angle being smaller than or equal to the center angle”. In view of Applicant’s explanation on p. 9-10 Remarks 8/17/2026, the claim is indefinite as to whether the “center angle” is intended to be the same as the “central angle a” or distinct therefrom since the Specification para 0040 and 0048 states numerous citations of “center angle” but then para states “central angle a” (to which detail [a] does not appear to be shown in the figures). Claims 3-4 are also rejected as depending on claim 2.
Amended claim 5 recites the limitation "the plurality of rotations". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunekawa (US 8,377,270) in view of Tateishi et al (US 4,853,102).
With respect to claim 1, Tsunekawa discloses a method of controlling a bias magnetic field (Abstract), the method comprising in response to a deposition time length (i.e. claimed “consumption time length”) of depositing material from a target [51] (i.e. claimed “consuming a material of a target”) reaching a first preset time length of depositing the material from the target [51] (i.e. claimed “consuming the material of the target”), rotating a magnet (i.e. claimed “bias magnetic field device”) [30] arranged around a substrate holder (i.e. claimed “base”) [11] by a fixed angle along a circumferential of the base [11], wherein the bias magnetic field device [30] is configured to generate a bias magnetic field [M] (Abstract; figs. 1 and 6-7; col. 9, lines 40-50; col. 10, lines 27-37). Tsunekawa further discloses rotating the bias magnetic field device [30] once in a “swingingly” manner to periodically change on area of a substrate the bias magnetic field [M] is applied every first preset time length of deposition until a total deposition time length exhausts the material of the target [51] (i.e. claimed “a total time length of consuming the material of the target reaches an upper limit”) (Abstract; figs. 6-7 col. 3, lines 11-25 and 36-48; col. 7, lines 66-67; col. 8, lines 1-20; col. 9, lines 66-67; col. 9, lines 66-67; col. 10, lines 1-37), wherein the bias magnetic field device [30] is swung or rotated in a same direction, either left or right (figs. 6-7; col. 9, lines 66-67; col. 9, lines 66-67; col. 10, lines 1-37), and wherein at least one substrate is deposited with material from the target [51] for each preset first time length (figs. 6-7; col. 9, lines 18-30 and 66-67; col. 9, lines 66-67; col. 10, lines 1-53).
However Tsunekawa is limited in that the bias magnetic field [M] also being applied to the target [51] is not suggested.
Tateishi teaches in fig. 7 a method of controlling a bias magnetic field comprising a target [5], substrate [25] on a supporting table (i.e. base) [10A], and a substrate coil (i.e. bias magnetic field device) [17] arranged around the base [10A] (Abstract; col. 8, lines 36-68), similar to the target [51], bias magnetic field device [30], and base [11] of Tsunekawa. Tateishi further teaches that bias magnetic field device [17] applies a bias magnetic field to both the substrate [25] and target [5] (figs. 7-8; col. 4, lines 12-17; col. 10, lines 11-68), thereby providing a high density plasma formed in a wide region (col. 10, lines 11-68; col. 11, liens 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have the bias magnetic field of Tsunekawa also be applied to the target [51] as taught by Tateishi to gain the advantage of providing a high density plasma in a wide region.
With respect to claim 2, modified Tsunekawa further discloses that before deposition onto another substrate, in response to deposition from a target [51] (i.e. claimed “consuming a material of a target”) reaching a second preset time length of depositing the material from the target [51], measuring a center angle corresponding to an arc length as shown in figs. 6, 9, 11, 14 the arc length corresponding to a greater or less amount of deposition from the target [51] (which correlates to a deepest or shallowest recessed area of the target [51]), wherein the center angle is approximately smaller or equal to the center angle (col. 3, lines 36-67; col. 9, lines 18-53; Examples 1-5).
With respect to claim 4, modified Tsunekawa further discloses a time length (which includes the first and second preset time lengths) required for total consumption (i.e. exhaustion) of the target [51] is capable of being ten times kWh (col. 10, lines 4-60).
With respect to claim 5, modified Tsunekawa further discloses during deposition, a position of the bias magnetic field device [30] is resting or unchanged (Example 2), wherein each time after processing time is complete (and thus the first preset time length has been reached), the bias magnetic field device [30] is rotated by the fixed angle (Examples 1-2; col. 3, lines 36-67; col. 9, lines 18-53; col. 10, lines 14-67; col. 11, lines 1-11).
With respect to claim 5, modified Tsunekawa further discloses the bias magnetic field [M] is rotated plural times with a sum fixed angles of plural rotations greater than or equal to 180o (fig. 7; col. 10, lines 14-38).
With respect to claim 6, modified Tsunekawa further discloses the bias magnetic field [M] is a “parallel magnetic field” [M] (i.e. claimed “horizontal bias magnetic field”) (col. 5, lines 54-63; col. 10, lines 13-23), wherein a magnetic film layer is deposited onto the substrates of NiFe (col. 9, lines 66-67; col. 10, lines 1-37).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 9-12 filed 8/17/2026 are addressed below.
Drawing Objections
On p. 9-10, Applicant explains that “central angle a” is clearly shown in fig. 4, thus claim 2 is supported by fig. 4.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since claim 2 recites “center angle”, not “central angle”, to which the Specification appears to make a distinction between each ‘angle’ (see para 0040, 0047, and 0048). As such, claim 2 is not shown in fig. 2 (and also now rendered indefinite per Applicant’s explanation). The objection is maintained.
On p. 10-11, Applicant argues that “detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention”, and points to a worded description in figs. 3-6 as support for the objected to limitation of claim 1 .
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since the “detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention” for “conventional features disclosed in the description and claims” [MPEP 608.02(d)]; if the objected to limitation of claim 1 is conventional, then Applicant is respectfully requested to clearly state so for the record since ‘a magnetic field device around a base of a substrate for applying a magnetic field to a target’ is not conventional for sputtering. In contrast at present, none of the figures sufficiently show the claimed “bias magnetic field” from the surface ”bias magnetic field device arranged around a base” that is then applied to the claimed “surface of the target”. As such, the objection is maintained since “[a]ny structural detail that is sufficient importance to be described should be shown in the drawings” [MPEP 608.02(d)].
112 Rejections
Claim 1 has been amended to clarify the claimed “bias magnetic field device”, “bias magnetic field”, and “surface of the target”; the previous 112(b) rejection is maintained in view of the new reasoning set forth above.
Claim 5 has been amended for clarity; the previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Rejoinder
The request on p. 11-12 is noted.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights