Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “to defining” in line 10. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1, 3, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickey (US 5,106,474) in view of Choi (US 2017/0342547).
Regarding claim 1, Dickey teaches an anode for a plasma chamber, comprising:
an anode block (150) having a front surface (152, fig. 8) to face a plasma and a rear surface (150, fig. 8) to face away from the plasma;
a magnet (160, Fig. 11) positioned on the anode block (150) and generating magnetic field lines (170) extending outwardly from the magnet through the front surface of the anode block (150, Fig. 8);
an electron filter bar (angled member extending into the chamber, fig. 8) spaced apart and extending over the front surface of the anode block (152, fig. 8) and intercepting at least part of the magnetic field lines (Fig. 8), the electron filter bar forms a cantilever having an attachment end attached to the front surface of the anode block and the free end of the electron filter bar is extending between the front surface of the anode block and the plasma to define a hollow area between the front surface of the anode block and an interior surface of the filter bar such that electrons reflected by the magnetic field lines (170, fig. 8) impact on the interior surface of the filter bar (trough shaped member 152, fig. 9, col. 8, ln. 47-54).
Dickey does not teach a magnet positioned within the anode block.
Choi teaches a magnet (400, Fig. 1) positioned within the anode block (300) and generating magnetic field lines (170) extending outwardly from the magnet through the front surface of the anode block (300, Fig. 5, [0071-0074]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the magnet on the anode block of Dickey by providing a magnet positioned within the anode block and generating magnetic field lines extending outwardly from the magnet through the front surface of the anode block, as taught by Choi, because it would strongly constrain electrons of the plasma with the magnetic field [0069].
In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Therefore in light of Gardner the free end being thinner than the attachment end does not patentably distinguish the instant claim over the prior art Dickey.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the anode block of Dickey by providing the electron filter bar forms a cantilever having a free end and an attachment end and wherein the free end is thinner than the attachment end as taught by Halbanian in light of Gardner v. Tech, because it would provide masking of the anode allowing for continuous sputtering of insulators at lower anode voltages (col. 1, ln. 55-60).
Regarding claim 3, Dickey teaches wherein the magnet (160, col. 9, ln. 5) is inserted within a cavity associated with the anode block (Fig. 11), the cavity being larger than the magnet, such that no part of the magnet physically contacts (164, col. 9, ln. 5, Fig. 11) any part of the anode block.
Dickey does not teach the cavity formed in the anode block.
Choi teaches a magnet (400, fig. 1) is inserted within a cavity formed in an anode block (300), the cavity being larger than the magnet (Fig. 1 and Fig. 5, [0071-0074]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the magnet on the anode block of Dickey by providing a magnet positioned within the anode block and generating magnetic field lines extending outwardly from the magnet through the front surface of the anode block, as taught by Choi, because it would strongly constrain electrons of the plasma with the magnetic field [0069].
Regarding claim 4, Dickey teaches a keeper bar (164, 162, Fig. 11, col. 9, ln. 1-10) attached to the magnet (160).
Regarding claim 6, Dickey teaches the anode block (150) and the electron filter bar (angled bar on right side of 154) are formed integrally as one piece of conductive material (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7, Dickey teaches the anode block and the electron filter bar are made of copper or aluminum (col. 6, ln. 35-40).
Regarding claim 8, Dickey teaches a spacer (184) and wherein the electron filter bar (180) is attached at one end to anode block via the spacer (Fig. 11).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickey and Choi as applied to claim 1 above in view of Bernick (US 8,470,141).
Regarding claim 2, Dickey does not teach the magnet strength is greater than 30 mega-gauss-oersted.
Bernick is directed to a sputtering apparatus and teaches a magnet strength is greater than 30 mega-gauss-oersted because it would provide high energy magnets for a low mass of magnetic material (col. 3, ln. 67-col. 4, ln. 5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the magnet strength of Dickey by providing it is greater than 30 mega-gauss-oersted, as taught by Bernick, because it would provide high energy magnets for a low mass of magnetic material (col. 3, ln. 67-col. 4, ln. 5).
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickey and Choi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hablanian (US 3,514,391).
Regarding claim 5, Dickey does not teach the anode block includes cooling channels configured for cooling fluid flow.
Hablanian teach the anode block (20) includes cooling channels configured for cooling fluid flow (col. 2, ln 15-17).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the anode block of Dickey by providing cooling channels configured for cooling fluid flow, as taught by Hablanian, because it would lower the temperature of the anode.
Regarding claim 9, Dickey does not teach the free end is at least twice as thick as the gap.
In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Therefore in light of Gardner the free end being twice as thick as the gap does not patentably distinguish the instant claim over the prior art Dickey in view of Halbanian.
In light of Gardner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the anode block of Dickey by providing the free end is at least twice as thick as the gap, because it would not perform differently than the prior art device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have only expected predictable results.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickey and Choi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of German (US 2008/0067057).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Dickey does not teach a magnetic mirror ratio of the magnet (r=B(max)/B(min), where B is magnetic field intensity) is greater than 10 (claim 10) or greater than 100 (claim 11).
German teaches a magnetic mirror with its anode [0062] because it would increase the resident time of electrons increasing the probability for ionizing collisions [0062]. German teaches the magnetic field enhances the paths of conduction for electrons to enable stable plasma in the chamber with the increased quantity of collisions resulting in increased ionization of gas enhanced the deposition output [0062]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the magnet of Dickey by providing a magnetic mirror ratio, as taught by German, because it would increase the resident time of electrons increasing the probability for ionizing collisions [0062].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to “provide a magnetic mirror ratio of the magnet is greater than 10 or greater than 100” since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Dickey in view of Choi provide the anode and electron filter bar setup of claim 1 but does not teach a second filter bar spaced apart and extending over the front surface of the anode block but does not teach that it is oriented to mirror the orientation of the electron filter bar and defining a gap between the electron filter bar and the second filter bar.
Halbanian teaches a second filter bar (30, Fig. 2) spaced apart and extending over the front surface of the anode block (20) but it teaches the second filter bars are repeated over the surface of the anode (Fig. 2, col. 2, ln. 30-50) and not oriented to mirror the orientation of the electron filter bar.
Therefore modification of Dickey and Choi in light of the prior art Hablanian or any prior art would not teach the requirements of claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 30, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot because new grounds of rejection are set out above.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that prior art Dickey does not teach amended claim 1.
The Examiner disagrees because there are many ways to interpret Dickey and apply it to the language of claim 1. Applicant’s amendments and arguments clarify the language of claim 1 and allow a new application of Dickey as set out above in view of Choi. The Examiner notes the similarity of Applicant’s figure 3 to the figures of Dickey.
Applicant submits that in order for Dickey to provide the limitations of claim 1, Dickey’s plate 180 would need to be located to the right of the front surface of the anode block. Dickey teaches such a configuration wherein its anode block is shown to be the vertical member of the anode closest to the chamber wall and its filter bar to be the angled member in front and to the right of the vertical member. See figure 8 of Dickey.
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 JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 on 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.
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794