Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/766,794

SPUTTERING APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 09, 2024
Examiner
BRAYTON, JOHN JOSEPH
Art Unit
1794
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
70%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allow Rate
338 granted / 707 resolved
-17.2% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
735
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
55.8%
+15.8% vs TC avg
§102
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
§112
18.6%
-21.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 707 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 1, 2025 has been entered. 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 1-7, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 6,210,539) in view of Oueliet (US 5,935,395). Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches a sputtering apparatus comprising: a chamber (1, Fig. 1); a target (14) disposed inside the chamber; a coil (20) disposed adjacent to the target; a moving member (32) on which the coil (20) is disposed, wherein the moving member adjusts a position of the coil (Fig. 1-3); and a coil shield (18) disposed inside the chamber to overlap the coil (20). Takata does not teach a coil shield with a plurality of openings is defined in the coil shield through a top surface of the coil shield, wherein the coil shield is movable, and wherein an opening ratio of each of the plurality of openings is adjusted when the coil shield moves. Oueliet is directed to baffles 29a which shield infrared lamps (41, fig. 5). It teaches a coil shield (29a) with a plurality of openings (40) is defined in the coil shield (29) through a top surface of the coil shield, (Fig. 5), wherein the coil shield (29a) is movable, and wherein an opening ratio of each of the plurality of openings is adjusted when the coil shield moves (col. 8, ln. 48-51, col. 11, ln. 1-7). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the coil shield of Takata by providing a coil shield with a plurality of openings is defined in the coil shield through a top surface of the coil shield, wherein the coil shield is movable, and wherein an opening ratio of each of the plurality of openings is adjusted when the coil shield moves, as taught by Oueliet, because it would provide protection of components within the reactor from deposition of PVD material (col. 8, ln. 50). Regarding claim 2, Tanaka teaches the coil (20) is movable in a first direction (vertical) which is a direction perpendicular to a plane (horizontal) on which the coil is disposed (col. 4, ln. 12-20) Regarding claim 3, Tanaka teaches a substrate (8) disposed inside the chamber (1), wherein the target (14) includes a material to be deposited on the substrate, wherein one surface of the substrate faces a plane on which the coil is disposed, and wherein the coil is disposed between the substrate (8) and the moving member (Fig., 1). Regarding claim 4, Tanaka teaches the moving member is a stage (28) which adjusts a height at which the coil is disposed (col. 4, ln. 10-20). Regarding claim 5, Tanaka teaches the moving member (30) includes a screw or a cylinder (col. 4, ln. 14-20) Regarding claim 6, Tanaka teaches the screw or the cylinder is provided in plural, and the moving member adjusts a height at which the coil is disposed (col. 4, ln. 10-20). Regarding claim 7, Tanaka teaches the coil shield (18) is disposed between the substrate (8) and the coil (20). Regarding claim 12, Oueliet teaches the coil shield has a quadrangular cross section (29, fig. 5). Regarding claim 13, Tanaka teaches the coil shield includes a first end portion (48) and a second end portion (50), and wherein the coil shield includes a protrusion at each of the first end portion and the second end portion (Fig. 3). Regarding claim 14, Tanaka teaches the coil includes a first portion including an elastic material or a flexible material (Fig. 1-3). Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka and Oueliet as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Angelo (US 6,235,163). Regarding claim 15, Tanaka does not teach at least a portion of the first portion corresponds to an inlet through which a refrigerant flows therein. Angelo teaches an RF coil wherein at least a portion of the first portion corresponds to an inlet through which a refrigerant flows therein (col. 3, ln. 1-22). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the coil of Tanaka by providing a portion of the first portion corresponds to an inlet through which a refrigerant flows therein, as taught by Angelo, because it would provide a lower coil temperature (col. 3, ln. 1-22). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 16-20 are allowed. Claim 8 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claims 8 and 16, Tanaka teaches a movable coil and associated coil shield but does not teach a first coil shield and second coil shield in contact with each other and wherein one of the first coil shield and the second coil shield is slidably movable. The closest prior art Wang (US 2022/0384157) teaches a first sleeve 121 and a second sleeve 122 as two shielding bodies in contact with one another and slidably movable that shield a bellows assembly 11 from radio frequency [0056]. The Examiner notes Tanaka’s coil emits a radio frequency to generate plasma and assist with the sputtering process. The combination of Wang with the coil of Tanaka and shield of Oueliet would not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it would result in impermissible hindsight. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 09, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 20, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 26, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 24, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604683
SEMICONDUCTOR PROCESSING EQUIPMENT PART AND METHOD FOR MAKING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595552
MODULE FOR FLIPPING SUBSTRATES IN VACUUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12559834
THERMALLY STABLE METALLIC GLASS FILMS VIA STEEP COMPOSITIONAL GRADIENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12555743
PLASMA PRODUCING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12505990
GLASS PALLET FOR SPUTTERING SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
48%
Grant Probability
70%
With Interview (+22.3%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 707 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month