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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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, 11, 14 and 16 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.
Claims 1, 11, 14 and 16 recite “ low moisture content” which lacks a basis for comparison and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The Examiner recommends reciting vented with “a gas”
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, 6, 7, 8, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (KR 20120022638 see translation for citations) in view of Kishida (US 2020/0027708).
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki teaches a method of conditioning a coater for removing water and/or moisture from a processing area of the coater (top of page 6 of translation), the processing area (10) comprising at least one pump compartment (58) and at least one sputtering compartment (32,34), the method comprising the steps of:
loading conditioning substrates (dummy substrates, top of page 4) into the processing area (10), so that the processing area is substantially filled with the conditioning substrates (5),
The Examiner takes the position that claim 1 provides 3 options for conditioning: 1) sputtering, 2) heating or 3) sputtering and heating. In the rejection of claim 1, option 2, heating, is selected and rejected by Yamazaki. Applicant’s amendments “wherein during conditioning sputtering is temporarily stopped and the coater is at least partially vented with gas having low moisture content and subsequently pumped down again” are part of and go along with options 1 and 3 and are not part of option 2.
Yamazaki teaches desorption of water with a vacuum pump and baking the chamber at 100 – 450 degrees C, by flowing inert gas and by flowing hot inert gas and evacuating said gas (top of page 6). Therefore Yamazaki teaches conditioning the coater by starting, as required, by heating of at least the one pump compartment (58, top of pg. 6). Yamazaki teaches employing a cryo-pump among other pumps while heating to evacuate water from the chamber. Therefore Yamazaki teaches detached water is pumped out of the processing area (deposition chamber) during heating (see Yamazaki at page 6).
Yamazaki does not teach performing an oscillating movement in the processing area.
Kishida teaches the substrates perform an oscillating movement (14) in the processing area (Fig. 2, [0042]) because it would improve film uniformity on the substrate ([0015]. Therefore Kishida teaches oscillating the substrate for purposes of uniformity is operable and well known for sputtering. Combining the oscillation of the substrate of Kishida with Yamazaki’s conditioning would provide the advantage of simulating the process conditions that allow uniformity of the process to occur throughout the chamber. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known method that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of conditioning the substrates of Yamazaki by performing an oscillating movement in the processing area, as taught by Kishida, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known method that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. D.
Regarding claim 4, Yamazaki teaches the length of a conditioning substrate (dummy, top of page 6) substantially corresponds to the length of a sputtering compartment (10, 42; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Yamazaki does not teach the minimum amplitude of oscillation substantially corresponds to the length of the sputtering compartment.
Kishida teaches the minimum amplitude of oscillation substantially corresponds to the length of the sputtering compartment (Fig. 2, [0043], [0048]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the oscillation of Yamazaki by providing the minimum amplitude of oscillation substantially corresponds to the length of the sputtering compartment, as taught by Kishida, because it would provide a desired film uniformity [0048].
Regarding claim 7, Yamazaki teaches a heating means comprises, a heated conductance tunnel (heated inert gas pipe) is used for heating the at least one pump compartment (58, top of page 6; (heated inert gas and substrate heater 44, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Yamazaki teaches the length of the conditioning substrates (dummy, top of page 4) and/or the amplitude of oscillation is/are selected such that only a single conditioning substrate is located in the sputtering compartment (10, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Yamazaki teaches the gas having low moisture content is an inert gas. Yamazaki teaches that argon is used in the film formation chamber and teaches it is a well-known inert gas (embodiment 3, pg. 15 of translation).
Regarding claim 14, Yamazaki teaches a device for coating substrates, including:
a processing area (10, Fig. 1) comprising at least one pump compartment (58) and at least one sputtering compartment (32, 34), and a driving means for moving the substrates (8) through the processing area (Fig. 1).
The Examiner finds the following to be a function of the apparatus and does not contribute any structure to the apparatus of claim 14: “wherein, during condition, sputtering is temporarily stopped, and the coater is at least partially vented with dry gas and subsequently pumped down again, and wherein, during conditioning, the device is configured to pump detached water out of the processing area”.
Yamazaki teaches sputtering and/or heating the chamber and gases inlet to the chamber to perform conditioning. Therefore Yamazaki teaches sputtering may be started and may be stopped. Yamazaki teaches gas may be inlet and not inlet to the chamber. Yamazaki teaches evacuating the chamber. Yamazaki teaches employing a cyro-pump among other pumps while heating and/or sputtering to evacuate water from the chamber. Therefore Yamazaki teaches an apparatus inherently capable of performing the functions set out above (see Yamazaki at page 6).
Yamazaki does not teach the driving means being configured to move the substrates such that the substrates perform an oscillating movement in the processing area during conditioning by sputtering.
Kishida teaches the driving means (14) being configured to move the substrates such that the substrates perform an oscillating movement in the processing area during conditioning by sputtering (Fig. 2, [0042]) because it would improve film uniformity on the substrate ([0015].
Therefore Kishida teaches oscillating the substrate for purposes of uniformity is operable and well known for sputtering. Combining the oscillation of the substrate of Kishida with Yamazaki’s conditioning would provide the advantage of simulating the process conditions that allow uniformity of the process to occur throughout the chamber. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the substrate holder of Yamazaki by providing the driving means (14) being configured to move the substrates such that the substrates perform an oscillating movement in the processing area during conditioning by sputtering, as taught by Kishida, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. D.
Regarding claim 15, Yamazaki teaches a heated conductance tunnel (heated inert gas and substrate heater 44, fig. 1).
Claim 16 is interpreted as a functioning of the device of claim 14. Claim 16 adds no additional structural limitations to the apparatus of claim 14. The prior art Yamazaki is inherently capable of functioning as recited by claim 16.
Yamazaki teaches the device starts and stops sputtering (pg. 6) – this reads on “the device is configured to temporarily stop sputtering”.
Yamazaki teaches inert gas is provided to the interior of the device (pg. 6)– this reads on venting the device with gas of low moisture content including Ar, O2, N2 or dry air.
Yamazaki teaches the device is pumped with cryo pumps and turbo pumps (pg. 6)– this reads on “pump it down again”.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki and Kishida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishino (KR 2009 0127378).
Regarding claim 2, Yamazaki teaches the dummy substrates is a material having low emission gas and may be the same material as a regular substrate (top of page 6).
Yamazaki does not teach metal substrates with a specific heat capacity of at least 350 J/(kg*K), wherein the conditioning substrates (5) are cleaned and reused after conditioning the coater.
Ishino teaches metal substrates with a specific heat capacity of at least 350 J/(kg*K), wherein the conditioning substrates (5) are cleaned and reused after conditioning the coater (aluminum top of pg. 3; pg. 5 – top of page 6).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the conditioning substrate of Yamazaki by providing it is a metal substrates with a specific heat capacity of at least 350 J/(kg*K), wherein the conditioning substrates (5) are cleaned and reused after conditioning the coater because it would reduce the cost of the dummy substrate and prevent the dummy substrate from breaking inside the sputtering chamber (pg. 5-6).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki and Kishida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ilic (US 2007/0251813).
Regarding claim 3, Yamazaki teaches wherein the conditioning substrates (5) are glass substrates (pg. 6), but does not teach the conditioning substrates are scrapped after conditioning the coater.
Ilic teaches wherein the conditioning substrates are scrapped after conditioning the coater [0005].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the conditioning substrate of Yamazaki by providing the conditioning substrates are scrapped after conditioning the coater, as taught by Ilic, because it would remove impurities from the chamber and sputtering target [0005].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki and Kishida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stephan (DE 10 2011 017566 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yamazaki does not teach the distance between two successive substrates (5) in the coater is at about 30 to 100 mm.
Stephan teaches a substrate holder capable of holding a 400 mm x 400 mm substrate and three rows and three columns of 100 mm x 100 mm substrates. The Examiner takes the position that substrate spacing distances of the 3 x 3 configuration would provide a distance between two successive substrates of 25 mm (pg. 7 of translation).
Therefore Stephan teach a distance between two successive substrates (5) in the coater is at about 30 mm (Fig. 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the conditioning substrate of Yamazaki by providing the distance between two successive substrates (5) in the coater is at about 30 to 100 mm, as taught by Stephan, because would provide electrical contact to each substrate (pg. 7).
Claims 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki and Kishida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jindal (TW 202000963).
Regarding claim 9, Yamazaki does not teach the preferably precious coating material is recycled from the conditioning substrates after conditioning the coater.
Jindal teaches the preferably precious coating material is recycled from a shield because it would reduce the waste and cost of the coating process (pg. 5 of translation).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Yamazaki by providing the preferably precious coating material is recycled from the conditioning substrates after conditioning the coater, as taught by Jindal because it would reduce the waste and cost of the coating process.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki and Kishida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshida (JP 2010-147052)
Regarding claim 12, Yamazaki does not teach a step of stopping conditioning when determining that the conditioning is completed by detecting that the remaining water partial pressure in the coater is below a predetermined threshold.
Yoshida monitors the emission intensity of a plasma during a cleaning process to determine whether or not the emission intensity is equal to or less than a preset threshold value. This will determine whether or not moisture removal has been completed (pg. 3) Therefore Yoshida teach a step of stopping conditioning when determining that the conditioning is completed by detecting that the remaining water partial pressure in the coater is below a predetermined threshold.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the conditioning of the coater of Yamazaki by providing stopping conditioning when determining that the conditioning is completed by detecting that the remaining water partial pressure in the coater is below a predetermined threshold, as taught by Yoshida, because it would eliminate problems caused by moisture content in the reactor (pg. 2).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki and Kishida and Yoshino as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Sasagawa (US 2013/0026136).
Regarding claim 13, Yamazaki does not teach the water partial pressure in the coater is detected by using a residual gas analyzer and/or a spectroscopic plasma emission monitoring system.
Sasagawa teaches the water partial pressure in the coater is detected by using a residual gas analyzer [0094].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the water partial pressure in the coater of Yamazaki by providing it is detected by using a residual gas analyzer, as taught by Sasagawa, because it would allow detection of a partial pressure of water in the chamber [0094].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (US 5,340,454) in view of Yamazaki (KR 2012/0022638) and Ishino (KR 2009 0127378). Evidence provided by Oscar (US 3,616,449).
Regarding claim 17, Schaefer teaches a method of sputtering in a coater (Fig. 1 and 2), the processing area (6) comprising at least one pump compartment (8, fig. 1) and at least one sputtering compartment (7, fig. 1),
the method comprising the steps of:
loading conditioning substrates (1, 1’) into the processing area (6), so that the processing area is substantially filled with the conditioning substrates (fig. 2, col. 3, ln. 20-30),
- conditioning the coater by starting a sputtering process in the processing area (6), wherein, during conditioning, the conditioning substrates (1, 1’) perform an oscillating movement in the processing area (Fig. 2, col. 3, ln. 20-col. 4, ln. 10).
The Examiner takes the position that inherent to the sputtering process heat is generated at the target and substrate by applied power to the target, plasma and charged particles impacting the substrate. (See Oscar at col. 1, ln. 40-64). In light of this evidence the Examiner takes the position that it would be inherent to the method of sputtering of the coater of Schaefer that the oscillating movement achieves distribution of heat across the conditioning substrates (1, 1’) wherein the oscillating movement moves the conditioning substrates back and forth between the at least one sputtering compartment (7) and the at least one pump compartment (8), transferring heat from the at least one sputtering compartment (7) to the at least one pump compartment (8).
Schaefer does not teach a method of conditioning a coater for removing water and/or moisture from a processing area of the coater, nor does it teach detached water is pumped out of the processing area during sputtering and/or heating.
Yamazaki teaches a method of conditioning a coater for removing water and/or moisture from a processing area of the coater (top of page 6). Yamazaki teaches employing a cyro-pump among other pumps while sputtering to evacuate water from the chamber. Therefore Yamazaki teaches detached water is pumped out of the processing area (deposition chamber) during sputtering (see Yamazaki at page 6).
Therefore Yamazaki teaches conditioning of the coater during a sputtering process is operable and beneficial. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known method that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. D.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of sputtering of Schaefer by providing a method of conditioning a coater for removing water and/or moisture from a processing area of the coater, and detached water is pumped out of the processing area during sputtering and/or heating, as taught by Yamazaki, because it would eliminate the incorporation of hydrogen into the sputtered film increasing the reliability of the device being manufactured (pg., 6) and because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known method that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. D.
Schaefer does not teach the substrates including metal substrates with a specific heat capacity of at least 350 J/(kg*K), configured, therefore, to promote a heat distribution across the conditioning substrates.
Ishino teaches metal substrates with a specific heat capacity of at least 350 J/(kg*K), wherein the conditioning substrates (5, aluminum, top of pg. 3; pg. 5 – top of page 6). The Examiner takes the position that providing a substrate of the required heat capacity would as a necessary result of the property promote a heat distribution across the conditioning substrates. Ishino teaches that it is well known in the art to use a substrate with a specific heat capacity of at least 350 J/(kg*K) such as an aluminum substrate in sputtering apparatus as a dummy substrate. Because Ishino teaches such material is operable it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used the substrate of Ishino in the apparatus of Schaefer to perform sputtering because one skilled in the art could have combined the claimed elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the conditioning substrate of Yamazaki by providing it is a metal substrates with a specific heat capacity of at least 350 J/(kg*K), configured, therefore, to promote a heat distribution across the conditioning substrates, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have only expected predictable results and it would provide a reduce the cost of the dummy substrate and prevent the dummy substrate from breaking inside the sputtering chamber (pg. 5-6 of Yamazaki).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (US 5,340,454) in view of Yamazaki (KR 2012/0022638) as evidenced by Oscar (US 3,616,449).
Regarding claim 18, Schaefer teaches a method of sputtering, the processing area comprising at least one pump compartment (8, fig. 1) and at least one sputtering compartment (7, fig. 1),
the method comprising the steps of:
loading conditioning substrates (1, 1’) into the processing area (7, step 4, fig. 2, col. 3, ln 20), so that the processing area (7) is substantially filled with the conditioning substrates (1, 1’),
conditioning the coater by starting a sputtering process in the processing area wherein, during conditioning, the conditioning substrates perform an oscillating movement in the processing area (step 4-7, col. 3, ln. 20-col. 4, ln. 10),
The Examiner takes the position that inherent to the sputtering process heat is generated at the target and substrate by applied power to the target, plasma and charged particles impacting the substrate. (See Oscar at col. 1, ln. 40-64). In light of Oscar the Examiner takes the position that Schaefer teaches the oscillating movement (Fig. 2) moving the conditioning substrates (1, 1’) back and forth between the at least one sputtering compartment (7) and the at least one pump compartment (8), transfers heat from the at least one sputtering compartment (7, Fig. 1) to the at least one pump compartment (8, Fig. 1).
Schaefer does not teach a method of conditioning a coater for removing water and/or moisture from a processing area of the coater, nor does it teach and detached water is pumped out of the processing area during sputtering and/or heating.
Yamazaki teaches a method of conditioning a coater for removing water and/or moisture from a processing area of the coater (top of page 6). Yamazaki teaches employing a cyro-pump among other pumps while sputtering to evacuate water from the chamber. Therefore Yamazaki teaches detached water is pumped out of the processing area (deposition chamber) during sputtering (see Yamazaki at page 6).
Therefore Yamazaki teaches conditioning of the coater during a sputtering process is operable and beneficial. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known method that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. D.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of sputtering of Schaefer by providing a method of conditioning a coater for removing water and/or moisture from a processing area of the coater, and detached water is pumped out of the processing area during sputtering and/or heating, as taught by Yamazaki, because it would eliminate the incorporation of hydrogen into the sputtered film increasing the reliability of the device being manufactured (pg., 6) and because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known method that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. D..
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026 are persuasive with regards to the argument directed to the motivation for combination under 35 USC 103 for claim 1. New motivation is provided above. Therefore this application is made non-final. A reply to Applicant’s other arguments regarding the claims was not persuasive. A reply is set out below.
Applicant argues that a definition for a “gas with low moisture content” is set out in the specification and therefore the rejection under 35 USC 112 2nd is traversed.
The Examiner does not agree. To act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. The Examiner could not find a definition for term in question clearly set out in the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (IV).
Regarding claims 1, Applicant submits that the process of claim 1 includes sputtering or heating or both process and as such all need to be considered for rejection.
The Examiner does not agree because the intent to use or select sputtering or heating or both doesn’t receive patentable weight because selection of each process “as required” is a mental step. Interpreting the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification one of ordinary skill in the art would claim 1 as a method that can be performed under sputtering, heating or both. Applicant admits as much in on page 10 of the reply filed February 24, 2026. Rejection of the heating option is set out above as well known in the art.
Applicant argues that the motivation to combine references is not adequate for the obviousness inquiry.
The Examiner agrees. New motivation for combination is set out in the rejection above. As such the application is made non-final.
The Applicant argues that venting would disrupt plasma stability.
The Examiner takes the position that venting isn’t required by claim 1 because claim 1 presents three different options for consideration of the claimed method. One option involves only heating with no sputtering therefore the claim is interpreted to not require sputtering for conditioning. Yamazaki teaches such a method and is set out above.
Applicant argues the synergistic effects of the invention have not been considered.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The Examiner notes here that no synergistic effects have been claimed. As such the arguments regarding hindsight are moot because the synergistic effects have not been submitted by Applicant for obviousness inquiry.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant argues Ishino does not cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1. The Examiner disagrees because the rejection of claim 1 as set out above is not deficient.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant argues Ilic does not cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1. The Examiner disagrees because the rejection of claim 1 as set out above is not deficient.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant argues Stephan does not cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1. The Examiner disagrees because the rejection of claim 1 as set out above is not deficient.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant argues Jindal does not cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1. The Examiner disagrees because the rejection of claim 1 as set out above is not deficient.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant argues Ye does not cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1. The Examiner disagrees because the rejection of claim 1 as set out above is not deficient.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant argues Yoshida does not cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1. The Examiner disagrees because the rejection of claim 1 as set out above is not deficient.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant argues Sasagawa does not cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1. The Examiner disagrees because the rejection of claim 1 as set out above is not deficient.
Regarding claim 17, Applicant argues that Schaefer teaches substrate movement for sputtering but not conditioning substrate. The Examiner notes that conditioning of claim 17 requires water removal which Yamazaki teaches occurs during sputtering. Therefore Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Schaefer’s movement is for coating uniformity and not heat shuttling during conditioning. The Examiner takes the position that as sputtering generates heat the transfer of heat is inherent to the movement of substrate in Schaefer.
Regarding claim 18, the applicant is referred above to reply to the arguments of claim 17.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights