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
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending in the current application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/25 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 ,7, 10-11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyer (US 4849087).
As to claim 1, Meyer discloses a surface treatment apparatus comprising:
A workpiece in a chamber (figure 1: workpiece 12 in deposition apparatus 10);
A flat electrode facing the workpiece that releases target particles to the workpiece (figure 1: target cathode plate 22);
A gas supply pipe installed along an outer periphery of the electrode and has longitudinally arranged gas ejection ports along a longitudinal direction of the pipe (figure 1: gas distribution tubes 47/48 along periphery of cathode 22);
The ports supplying inert or reactive gas for sputtering to the electrode (figure 1: outlets 44; figure 3: supplying argon [inert] and/or oxygen [reactive] gases to supply tubes and outlet ports);
The supply tubes and ports arranged for uniform gas distribution (abstract; col 4 lines 20-31: uniform gas distribution).
As to claim 5 and 10, Meyer discloses a horizontally mounted target [electrode] and gas supply pipe (figure 2: target 22 and supply pipes 47/48).
As to claim 7 and 11, Meyer discloses a sputtering apparatus (abstract).
As to claim 13, Meyer discloses the gas distribution comprises two branches along the periphery of the electrode (figure 1, 3: showing ‘branches’ 44 and 46 from common supply 36 on opposing sides of cathode target 22).
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(s) 2-3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato (US 20100015811).
As to claims 2-3 and 8 Meyer discloses a uniform gas distribution system, but is silent as to increased diameters of gas ports or changes in port intervals to increase uniformity.
Sato discloses a substrate plasma processing apparatus (abstract) and knowledge in the art that gas flow uniformity through a supply with a plurality of nozzles can be solved by either increasing pitch or hole diameter from upstream to downstream side (paragraph 59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use increased diameters and/or changes in nozzle pitch, as disclosed by Sato, in the system of Meyer, because this allows for increased gas flow uniformity.
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Sato, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Lin (US 20100156300).
As to claims 4 and 9, Meyer and Sato disclose gas introduction systems for processing systems, but are silent as to adjustable nozzles.
Lin discloses a plasma processing system in which gas uniformity is precisely controlled by provided individually adjustable gas supply nozzles (abstract; paragraph 63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide controllable nozzles, as disclosed by Lin, in the system of Meyer in view of Sato, because this allows for increased control and uniformity.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davis (US 20050115823).
As to claim 6, Meyer discloses a sputter deposition system with a substrate, but is silent as to mounting or rotation mechanisms.
Davis discloses a sputter deposition system in which multiple targets and gas supply systems are provided (abstract; figure 1-2) and the substrate is rotatable in a first and second direction to allow deposition uniformity (paragraph 37) and deposition from different sources in sequence (figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow rotation in multiple directions, including directions parallel to the gas distribution of at least one source, as disclosed by Davis, in the system of Meyer, because this allows for increased uniformity and deposition from multiple sources in a single chamber with a disc or plate substrate.
As to claim 12, Meyer discloses a sputtering apparatus (abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON BERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5265. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-4.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON BERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794