NOTICE OF FINAL REJECTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has already an interview on 02/10/2026. Examiner has explained the rejection and its relevance. No agreement has been reached. Same arguments without any amendments to claims 1-16 have been presented by applicant. A detailed explanation to applicant’s arguments has been given below.
Applicant recites the claim 1 and argues that reactive HIPIMS processing of dielectric materials suffers typically from arcing due to the target poisoning, where the resulting droplet rejection limits the resulting film quality and deposition rates and hence three excitations combination only can achieve the high metal ion energy during film growth, suppression of arcing and target poisoning, and enhanced deposition rates (See Remarks p 6, 7 ). Applicant then argues that Burn fails to disclose or suggest that all three application forms are used together (See page 8) . Also, Applicant argues that Bruth fails to disclosure the application of three superimposed electrical excitation forms, the office action turns to the disclosure of change. (See remarks page 9) . Applicant argues that Chang ‘s DC bias does not allow synchronization or delay, bias delay is state of the art. (See remarks Page 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, a part of combinations excitations on target by Burns magnetron sputtering method and using Non Patent Literature by Chang teaches the super imposition of second excitation form in the form of high-power impulses with a frequency of 100 Hz to 5 kHz. (See Fig 1 page 978 experimental details chapter 2 and column 2 paragraph 1, 2). Hence, examiner suggests that the combination is known before the effective filing date of the instant application and it is quite possible to an ordinary skill in the art to incorporate combination of power pulses to enhance the can achieve the high metal ion energy during film growth, suppression of arcing and target poisoning, and enhanced deposition rates. Hence, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. However, Examiner incorporate this advantage for the sake of clarity.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US20120164051 A1 by Bruns et al (Bruns) in view of Non patent Literature (NPL) article "Effect of Insert mid frequency pulses on I-V characterization deposition rates and properties of nc-WC/a-C:H films prepared by superimposed HiPIMS process by Chi-Lung Chang et al (Chang) at Surface & Coatings Technology 350 (2018) 977-984
Referring to the claim 1, Burns reference Fig 1-5 are teaches a method for depositing layers (paragraph [0077]) on a substrate by magnetron sputtering in a deposition chamber (See Fig 2-5 and abstract claim 1) with use of at least one magnetron (See paragraph [0068]), to which an electrical supply voltage (See [0034] [0058], [0059]) comprising three superimposed (See Fig 1, 2) electrical excitation forms is applied (See abstract), comprising a first excitation form, which is formed by a high frequency voltage (See claim1) with a frequency of 1 MHz to 10 GHZ (See claim 1), and a third excitation form, formed by a pulsed d.c voltage or a.c. voltage with a frequency of between 10 kHz and 100 kHz (claims 1).
But silent on second excitation form in the form of high-power impulses with a frequency of 100 Hz to 5 kHz.
However, NPL by Chang teaches super imposition of second excitation form in the form of high-power impulses with a frequency of 100 Hz to 5 kHz. (See Fig 1 page 978 experimental details chapter 2 and column 2 paragraph 1, 2).
Hence, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant application, to incorporate the teachings of Chang and incorporate the lower frequency wave (100 Hz to 5 kHz) superimpose three excitations on the target in the Burns magnetron sputtering method of depositing layers in order to achieve the advantages achieve the high metal ion energy during film growth, suppression of arcing and target poisoning, and enhanced deposition rates.
Referring to claim 2 Burns reference as modified by Chang teaches the method according to claim 1, Burns further teaches wherein at least two of the three excitation forms, preferably all three excitation forms, are fed in a time-synchronized manner (See Fig 1, 2 claim 1)..
Referring to claim 3 Burns reference as modified by Chang teaches the method according to claim 1, Burns further teaches wherein the high-power impulses have a pulse length of more than 10 us and a pulse power of between 15 kW and 10 MW. (See abstract, claim 1 and paragraph [0060]
Referring to claim 4 Burns reference as modified by Chang teaches the method according to claim 1, Chang further teaches wherein a substrate carrier arranged in the deposition chamber is exposed to an electrical bias signal (See Fig 1 bias circuit and page 979 column 1).
Referring to claim 5 Burns reference as modified by Chang teaches the method according to claim 4, Chang further teaches wherein the bias signal is synchronized with at least one of the three excitation forms of the magnetron (Fig 1 and abstract).
Referring to claim 6 Burns reference as modified by Chang teaches the method according to claim 4, Chang further teaches wherein the bias signal comprises a DC signal, a high-frequency signal, and/or a pulse signal. (see Fig 1 and abstract).
Referring to claim 7 Burns reference as modified by Chang teaches the method according to claim 6, Chang further teaches wherein the pulse signal of the bias signal is time-delayed relative to the second excitation form. ( See Fig and abstract).
Referring to claim 8 Burns reference as modified by Chang teaches the method according to claim 1, Chang further teaches wherein a single magnetron is used and in that a reference potential for all three excitation forms is a ground potential (See Fig 1 abstract).
Referring to claim 9 Burns reference as modified by Chang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein short pre-pulses are emitted before the high-power impulses of the second excitation form in order to increase the ionization in the deposition chamber (See Fig 1-5 claim 1).
Referring to claim 10 Burns Fig 1-5 teaches a magnetron sputtering unit (Fig 1 abstract and claim1) for depositing layers on a substrate (See Fig 1 item substrate 5 paragraph [0068]), comprising a deposition chamber( item 4), a substrate holder ( Fig 4, 5 item 8 paragraph [0074]), and at least one magnetron (item 1, 2 paragraph [0068]) arranged in the deposition chamber (item 4), which is connected to at least one power supply (item 6 paragraph [0072]), whose output emits three excitation forms to the at least one magnetron, comprising a first excitation form that is formed by a high-frequency voltage with a frequency of 1 MHz to 10 GHz, and a third excitation form that is formed by a pulsed d.c. voltage or a.c. voltage with a frequency of between 10 kHz and 100 kHz. But Burns is silent on a second excitation form that is formed by high-power impulses with a frequency of 100 Hz to 5 kHz (See paragraphs [0034] , [0058], [0059], abstract and claim1).
But silent on second excitation form in the form of high-power impulses with a frequency of 100 Hz to 5 kHz.
However, NPL by Chang teaches super imposition of second excitation form in the form of high-power impulses with a frequency of 100 Hz to 5 kHz. (See Fig 1 abstract, page 978 experimental details chapter 2 and column 2 paragraph 1, 2).
Hence, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant application, to incorporate the teachings of Chang and incorporate the lower frequency wave (100 Hz to 5 kHz) superimpose three excitations on the target in the Burns magnetron sputtering method of depositing layers in order to achieve the high metal ion energy during film growth, suppression of arcing and target poisoning, and enhanced deposition rates.
Referring to claim 11 Burns reference as modified by Chang teaches the magnetron sputtering unit according to claim 10, Burns Fig 4, 5 teaches wherein the power supply for the provision of three excitation forms has separate generators (See paragraph [0072]).
Referring to claim 12 Burns reference as modified by Chang teaches the magnetron sputtering unit according to claim 10, wherein it has a synchronization system for synchronizing at least two of the three excitation forms. (See claim 1).
Referring to claim 13 Burns reference as modified by Chang teaches the magnetron sputtering unit according to one of claim 12, Chang teaches wherein the substrate holder is isolated relative to the deposition chamber and is connected to at least one BIAS power supply. (See Fig 1 and abstract, page 979).
Referring to claim 14 Burns reference as modified by Chang teaches the magnetron sputtering unit according to claim 13, Chang further teaches wherein the synchronization system is designed to synchronize the BIAS power supply with the at least one power supply. (See Fig 1 and abstract, page 979).
Referring to claim 15 Burns reference as modified by Chang teaches the magnetron sputtering unit according to claim 13, Chang teaches wherein the at least one BIAS power supply is designed to emit the following output voltages to the substrate holder: d.c. voltage, high-frequency a.c. voltage with a frequency of 1 MHz to 10 GHz, and/or high-power impulses with a frequency of 10 kHz to 100 kHz. (See abstract, Fig. 1 and pages 978, 979).
Referring to claim 16 Burns reference as modified by Chang teaches the magnetron sputtering unit according to one of claim 15, Chang teaches, wherein the synchronization system is connected to at least one measuring circuit, which is connected to the outputs of the at least one power supply and optionally also to the output of the BIAS power supply, which measuring circuit of the synchronization system produces a correction signal for controlling the at least one power supply and optionally also the BIAS power supply. (See Fig 1 and abstract pages 978, 979).
Conclusion
Claims 1-16 are rejected over prior art.
The prior of art made of record and not relied upon is considered to pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the notice of references cited PTOL 892 attached here with. The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicants. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SRINIVAS SATHIRAJU whose telephone number is (571)272-4250. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-3:30PM, 5PM -8:30PM.
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, ALEXANDER H TANINGCO can be reached at 5712728048. 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 andhttps://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.
SRINIVAS . SATHIRAJU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2844
05/01/2026
Prosecution Insights