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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the abstract the phrase “node aperture shield” should be amended to read “anode aperture shield”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In claims 1 and 19, the limitation “adsorbate particles” is understood to be equivalent to “sputtered particles” because sputtered particles stick/adsorb to the substrate when forming a film.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9-10, 12-13, 15, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 of claim 1, the limitation “substrates carrier” should be amended to read “substrate carrier” to align with future recitations.
In claim 9 and 10, the limitation “across transverse axis” should be amended to read “across a transverse axis” to improve clarity.
In claim 9 and 10, the limitation “orthogonal to direction” should be amended to read “orthogonal to a direction” to improve clarity.
In claim 12, the limitation “along travel path” in lines 1-2 should be amended to read “along a travel path” to improve clarity.
In claim 13 and 15, the limitation “lower shields plate” should be amended to read “lower shield plate” to correct grammar.
In claim 19, the limitation “limits range of approach angles” should be amended to read “limits a range of approach angles” to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
In claim 1, the limitation “the substrate” in line 11 is indefinite because it is unclear which of the “at least one substrate” is being referred to.
In claim 6, the limitation “the magnet strength” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because there is no previous recitation of a magnet strength and therefore it is unclear what magnet strength is being referred to. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “a magnet strength”.
In claim 9 and 10, the limitation “longer transport path length” is indefinite because it is unclear what is required for the transport path length to be considered “longer” as there is no other transport path length recited to serve as a point of comparison. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted to only require any transport path length.
In claim 11, the limitation “the substrate carrier” in line 11 is indefinite because claim previously recites “substrate carriers” and therefore it is unclear which of the substrate carriers is being referred to.
In claim 17, the limitations “the transverse chamber walls”, “the transverse aperture shield”, and “the front surface of the anode block” lack antecedent basis and thus are indefinite because claim 11 does not recite transverse chamber walls, a transverse aperture shield, or a front surface of the anode block and thus it is unclear what features are being referred to.
In claim 19, the limitation “the substrates” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because claim 11 does not recite substrates and therefore it is unclear what substrates are being referred to. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “substrates” instead of “the substrates” or by amending claim 11 to recite “substrates”.
In claim 20, the limitation “increasingly longer transport path length” is indefinite because it is unclear what is required for the transport path length to be considered “increasingly longer” as there is no other transport path length recited to serve as a point of comparison. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted to only require any transport path length.
In claim 20, the limitation “the transverse direction” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because there is no previous recitation of a “transverse direction” in claim 11 and therefore it is unclear what direction is being referred to. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “a transverse direction” instead.
Claims 2-5, 7-8, 12-16, and 18 are indefinite by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasaki (US 20120118733 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki (US 20120118733 A1) teaches a sputtering (physical deposition) chamber 20 for forming a film on substrates 1comprising a vacuum enclosure having sidewalls, floor, and ceiling and a sputtering target holder (cathode) positioned inside the vacuum enclosure and a target 3 and magnet unit 5 (magnetron), where a high density plasma is generated and maintained to sputter atoms (adsorbate particles) from the target onto the substrate 1 at multiple angles, which is positioned over the floor and supported by a tray (substrate carrier) (para 0005, 0022, 0024, 0026-0027, 0036, 0038; Fig. 1). Sasaki also teaches a process gas is supplied to the chamber through a gas piping (gas injector delivering gas to the plasma) and an opening shield 7 that acts as an anode (anode aperture shield) and is attached to the sidewall at a level above the substrate carrier and below the sputtering cathode, wherein the anode aperture shield is grounded and defines an opening 70 admitting sputtered/adsorbate particles approaching at angles smaller than a certain value based on the size of the opening (smaller than a preset angle from vertical to the substrate) (para 0022, 0027, 0038; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki teaches the anode aperture shield comprises an opening shield 7 (top plate) and a pair of L-shaped shields 17 forming a horizontal (bottom) plate spaced apart from the top plate where the top plate 7 has an opening 70 and thus is perforated (para 0022, 0034, 0038; Fig. 1, 4).
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20120118733 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dickey (US 5106474 A).
Regarding claim 3, Sasaki teaches the anode aperture shield comprises an opening shield 7 (top plate) and a pair of L-shaped shields 17 forming a horizontal (bottom) plate spaced apart from the top plate (para 0022, 0034, 0038; Fig. 1, 4). Sasaki fails to explicitly teach the top plate has an electron filter attached thereto. However, Dickey (US 5106474 A), in the analogous art of magnetron sputtering, teaches anodes 150 including a magnet array 158 within a trough for trapping electrons (electron filter) on each side of the target in order to increase sputtering rates, where the coating chamber may be part of an in-line sputtering apparatus (col 1 line 48-58, col 4 line 25-34, col 8 line 23-68, col 9 line 1-10; Fig. 8, 11). Sasaki teaches that the opening shield 7 (top plate) functions as an anode (para 0038). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opening shield of Sasaki to include an electron filter including a magnet array within a trough, as described by Dickey, to collect electrons and improve deposition rate.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sasaki and Dickey teaches the electron filter may include a set of plates 180 (filter bar) attached to the anode (top plate) and a magnet array 158 incorporated within the top plate (col 8 line 23-68, col 9 line 1-10; Fig. 8, 11).
Regarding claim 5, Sasaki fails to explicitly teach an anode attached to the sidewall above the anode aperture shield, the anode comprising an anode block includes a magnet inserted within a cavity formed in the anode block, the cavity being larger than the magnet such that no part of the magnet physically contacts any part of the anode block, and an electron filter bar spaced apart and extending over the anode block and intercepting at least part of magnetic field lines emanating from the magnet. However, Dickey (US 5106474 A), in the analogous art of magnetron sputtering, teaches anodes 150 for trapping electrons mounted to walls on each side of the target in order to increase sputtering rates, where the coating chamber may be part of an in-line sputtering apparatus, and where the anode comprises a bracket 154 (anode block) having a cavity/trough formed therein, a magnet 160 positioned within the trough-shaped member, where the trough is larger than the magnet, and the magnet is connected to the anode block by bolts 162 and copper strips 164 (no physical contact to any part of the anode block), and plates 180 (filter bar) spaced apart from and extending over a portion of the anode block and intercepting at least some magnetic field lines emanating from the magnet array (col 1 line 48-58, col 4 line 25-34, col 8 line 23-68, col 9 line 1-10; Fig. 8-9, 11). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include electron filter anodes, as described by Dickey, above the L-shaped shields 17 of Sasaki (Fig. 4), where the L-shaped shields are considered a part of the anode aperture shield, to collect electrons before they hit the shields and to improve sputtering deposition rate. As a result, the anode attached to the sidewall would be positioned above at least part of the anode aperture shield.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20120118733 A1) in view of Dickey (US 5106474 A), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Bernick (US 8470141 B1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sasaki and Dickey fails to explicitly teach the magnet strength is greater than 30 mega-gauss-oersted. However, Bernick (US 8470141 B1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that magnets preferably produce a flux density (magnet strength) of at least 40 mega-gauss-oersted (MGO) and are made of a rare earth material so that a high energy can be achieved for a lower mass of magnetic material (col 1 line 39-67, col 3 line 57-67, col 4 line 1-7, claim 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the magnet material of Dickey with the high energy magnet materials of Bernick having flux density (strength) of at least 40 MGO because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of generating a magnetic field. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20120118733 A1) in view of Dickey (US 5106474 A), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Krassnitzer (US 20220307125 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sasaki and Dickey fails to explicitly teach the anode block includes cooling channels configured for cooling fluid flow. However, Krassnitzer (US 20220307125 A1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches an electron trap having an anode 2 (anode block) with an electron receiving surface and cooling channel 6 within the anode for receiving water (cooling fluid flow) and limit the heating of the anode and chamber by electrons (para 0062, 0074; Fig. 1, 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a cooling channel, as described by Krassnitzer, in the anode block of Dickey in order to cool the anode during the deposition process and maintain desired temperatures within the chamber.
Though the combination of Sasaki, Dickey, and Krassnitzer fails to explicitly teach multiple cooling channels, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include multiple cooling channels via duplication of parts to improve cooling. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20120118733 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (US 20110209985 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Sasaki fails to explicitly teach the anode aperture shield is made of Al, Cu, or Fe-based materials. However, Li (US 20110209985 A1), in the analogous art of magnetron sputtering, teaches that a grounded shield for blocking sputtered material may be made of aluminum (para 0048). Sasaki teaches the opening shield 7 (anode aperture shield) may be grounded and prevents particles from reaching the substrate (para 0038, 0043; Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the opening shield material of Sasaki with aluminum, as described by Li, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20120118733 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagle (US 20200010948 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Sasaki fails to explicitly teach the anode aperture shield forms a convex aperture that provides a longer transport path length of enabled deposition across transverse axis of the carrier orthogonal to direction of travel of the carrier. However, Nagle (US 20200010948 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that a shield opening may have various shapes as alternatives including a rectangular shape or an oval (convex) shape (para 0066-0067; Fig. 5A-5B). Sasaki teaches the opening may be rectangular (para 0039; Fig. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the rectangular shield opening of Sasaki with an oval opening (convex aperture), as described by Nagle, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The resulting oval/convex aperture would inherently result in a (longer) transport path length of enabled deposition across a transverse axis of the carrier.
Regarding claim 10, Sasaki fails to explicitly teach the anode aperture shield forms an edge-notched rectangular aperture that provides a longer transport path of enabled deposition across transverse axis of the carrier, orthogonal to direction of travel of the carrier. However, Nagle (US 20200010948 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that a shield opening may have various shapes as alternatives including a rectangular shape or a rounded corner rectangular (edge-notched rectangular) shape (para 0066-0067; Fig. 5A-5B). Sasaki teaches the opening may be rectangular (para 0039; Fig. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the rectangular shield opening of Sasaki with a rounded corner (edge-notched) rectangular aperture, as described by Nagle, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The resulting rounded corner rectangular aperture would inherently result in a (longer) transport path length of enabled deposition across a transverse axis of the carrier.
Claim(s) 11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20120118733 A1) in view of Hollars (US 6488824 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Sasaki (US 20120118733 A1) teaches a sputtering chamber 20 comprising a vacuum enclosure having sidewalls, floor, and ceiling and a sputtering target positioned inside the vacuum enclosure and defining a plasma area and having a front surface coated with a target 3 (sputtering material) facing the plasma area and a back surface with a magnet unit 5 (magnetron) positioned behind the back surface of the target (para 0022, 0024, 0027, 0036, 0038; Fig. 1). Sasaki also teaches a substrate conveyor 2 including rollers 21 (transport tracks) for conveying a plurality of substrates placed on trays (substrate carriers supported by transport tracks) below the plasma area and an opening shield 7 having an opening 70 (defining an aperture) between the plasma area and the substrates and attached to the sidewalls 13 above the transport tracks (para 0022, 0025-0026, 0038; Fig. 1).
Sasaki fails to explicitly teach two sputtering targets, two magnetrons, and a gas injector mounted onto the ceiling and positioned centrally between the two targets. However, Hollars (US 6488824 B1), in the analogous art of magnetron sputtering teaches two tubular sputtering targets 30 defining a plasma area between the targets, each having a front surface coated with a sputtering target material 29 facing the plasma area and a back surface facing a magnet assembly 36 within each target (two magnetrons), wherein a tube 17 for feeding sputtering gas (gas injector) is mounted onto the ceiling of the chamber and positioned centrally between the two targets, and wherein a deposition shield 96 (aperture shield) is positioned above the substrate and defines an aperture between substrate 4 and the plasma area between the targets (col 12 line 22-54, col 13 line 28-67, col 14 line 1-34; Fig. 2c). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the magnetron target of Sasaki with the pair of tubular magnetron sputtering targets of Hollars including magnet assemblies behind the back surface of the targets and having a sputtered material coated on the front surface where the plasma is formed because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Sasaki and Hollars teaches the opening shield 7 (aperture shield) may define a rectangular opening (Sasaki para 0039; Fig. 6)
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Sasaki and Hollars teaches the opening shield 7 (aperture shield) prevents some sputtered particles from reaching the substrate (Sasaki para 0043) and thus limits a range of approach angles of sputtered/adsorbate particles that can land on the substrates.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Sasaki and Hollars teaches the opening shield 7 (aperture shield) provides a transport path length of enabled deposition across the transverse direction (Fig. 1, 4, 6).
Claim(s) 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20120118733 A1) in view of Hollars (US 6488824 B1), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Mucke (US 20250290197 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the previous combination of Sasaki and Hollars teaches the rollers 21 (transport tracks) define a substrate conveyance direction “A” (transport direction) along the travel path of the substrate carriers and a transverse direction perpendicular/orthogonal to the travel path of the substrate carriers (Sasaki para 0025-0026, 0028, 0034; Fig. 1). Sasaki also teaches two (transport) chamber walls along the transport direction “A” and having ports to carry the substrates in and out of the chamber and two (transverse) chamber walls along the transverse direction perpendicular to the transport direction “A”, wherein an opening shield 7 (transport aperture shield) that is grounded and has an opening provided between the target and substrate is fixed to the process chamber and thus at least indirectly attached to one of the transport chamber walls, and wherein a pair of L-shaped shields (two transverse aperture shields) surrounding the substrate 1 are provided in the process chamber to prevent deposition on the chamber walls and attached to the opening shield 7 (each indirectly attached to one of the transverse chamber walls) (para 0024, 0034, 0038; Fig. 1, 4).
The previous combination fails to explicitly teach two transport aperture shields. However, Mucke (US 20250290197 A1), in the analogous art of vacuum deposition, teaches a shield 50 in addition to a coating window 20 with an opening toward the substrate to prevent negative impacts of the coating window heating up during the deposition process due to backcoating of material not deposited on the substrate (para 0020, 0051, 0054-0055; Fig. 4). Sasaki teaches a (transport aperture) opening shield 7 having an opening between the target and substrate and configured to receive particles dropping from the target and not coated on the substrate (para 0043-0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the opening shield of Sasaki with the coating window and shield (two transport aperture shields) attached to the transport chamber walls to prevent negative effects due to heating because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sasaki, Hollars, and Mucke teaches the transport aperture shields (20, 50) each have a window/opening (Mucke Fig. 4) and thus are perforated.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20120118733 A1) in view of Hollars (US 6488824 B1) and Mucke (US 20250290197 A1), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Li (US 20110209985 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sasaki, Hollars, and Mucke fails to explicitly teach each of the two transverse aperture shields includes an upper shield plate and lower shield plate wherein the upper shield plate is perforated. However, Li (US 20110209985 A1), in the analogous art of magnetron sputtering, teaches a sputtering apparatus may include a secondary L-shaped chamber shield 134 (lower shield plate) including an annular body and flange (142, 144) in addition to an L-shaped shield 124 (upper shield plate) to protect sidewalls from being coated with thin film material, where the shield 124 can be connected to the anode shield 108 (para 0048, 0052-0054; Fig. 1A, 3A). Sasaki similarly teaches L-shaped shields to prevent deposition on the chamber walls where the L-shaped shield may be attached to the anode opening shield 7 (para 0034, 0038; Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the L-shaped shield arrangement of Sasaki with an L-shaped shield arrangement including two L-shaped transverse aperture shields attached to the chamber and thus indirectly attached to one of the transverse chamber walls, as described by Li, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Additionally, the upper shields (124) of Li may be defined as including the mesh (perforated) electrically conductive body 130 (Li para 0052; Fig. 1) and therefore the upper shield plates are perforated.
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20120118733 A1) in view of Hollars (US 6488824 B1) and Mucke (US 20250290197 A1), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Li (US 20110209985 A1) and Dickey (US 5106474 A).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Sasaki, Hollars, and Mucke fails to explicitly teach each of the two transverse aperture shields includes an upper shield plate and lower shield plate wherein the upper shield plate is perforated. However, Li (US 20110209985 A1), in the analogous art of magnetron sputtering, teaches a sputtering apparatus may include a secondary L-shaped chamber shield 134 (lower shield plate) including an annular body and flange (142, 144) in addition to an L-shaped shield 124 (upper shield plate) to protect sidewalls from being coated with thin film material, where the shield 124 can be connected to the anode shield 108 (para 0048, 0052-0054; Fig. 1A, 3A). Sasaki similarly teaches L-shaped shields to prevent deposition on the chamber walls where the L-shaped shield may be attached to the anode opening shield 7 (para 0034, 0038; Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the L-shaped shield arrangement of Sasaki with an L-shaped shield arrangement including two L-shaped transverse aperture shields attached to the chamber and thus indirectly attached to one of the transverse chamber walls, as described by Li, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The combination of Sasaki, Hollars, Mucke, and Li fails to explicitly teach the upper shield plate includes an electron filter. However, Dickey (US 5106474 A), in the analogous art of magnetron sputtering, teaches anodes 150 for trapping electrons (electron filter) on each side of the target in order to increase sputtering rates, where the coating chamber may be part of an in-line sputtering apparatus (col 1 line 48-58, col 4 line 25-34, col 8 line 23-64; Fig. 8, 11). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upper shields of Li to include an electron filter, as described by Dickey, to collect electrons and improve deposition rate.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Sasaki, Hollars, Mucke, Li, and Dickey teaches the electron filter includes an plates 180 (filter bars) mounted onto the anode/shield and a magnet 158 within the trough shaped member of the anode/shield plate (Dickey col 8 line 40-69, col 9 line 1-10; Fig. 8, 11).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20120118733 A1) in view of Hollars (US 6488824 B1), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Dickey (US 5106474 A).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Sasaki and Hollars teaches L-shaped shields 17 (transverse aperture shield) and transverse chamber walls along a direction perpendicular to the transport direction “A” (Sasaki para 0034; Fig. 1, 4). The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach two elongated anodes each mounted on one of the transverse chamber walls above the transverse aperture shield and each comprising an anode block having a cavity formed therein, a magnet array positioned within the cavity and having no physical contact to the anode block, and a filter bar spaced apart and extending over the front surface of the anode block and intercepting magnetic field lines emanating from the magnet array. However, Dickey (US 5106474 A), in the analogous art of magnetron sputtering, teaches two (elongated) anodes 150 for trapping electrons mounted to walls (at least indirectly mounted on one of the transverse chamber walls) on each side of the target in order to increase sputtering rates, where the coating chamber may be part of an in-line sputtering apparatus, and where the anode comprises a bracket 154 (anode block) having a cavity/trough formed therein, a magnet array 158 positioned within the trough-shaped member and connected to the anode block by bolts 162 and copper strips 164 (no physical contact to the anode block), and plates 180 (filter bar) spaced apart from and extending over a front surface and intercepting at least some magnetic field lines emanating from the magnet array (col 1 line 48-58, col 4 line 25-34, col 8 line 23-68, col 9 line 1-10; Fig. 8-9, 11). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include electron filter anodes, as described by Dickey, above the transverse aperture shields to collect electrons before they hit the L-shaped shields 17 of Sasaki and to improve sputtering deposition rate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794