CTNF 18/783,713 CTNF 87016 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by LIM et al. (US 8,591,709) . Regarding claim 18, LIM teaches a shield assembly for a sputter deposition chamber abstract . LIM teaches an outer sleeve 105 with a gas inlet 110 (introducing gas through an inlet) column 2 lines 42-61 and conducting through gas channels 120a-d to gas outlets 128 into the chamber, figs. 1 and 2 and column 3 lines 46-59 . LIM teaches the gas channels are formed from an inner and outer sleeves 115 and 105 (shielding structure), column 2 lines 42-61 . The aperture ring 125 and gas shield ring 140 correspond to the claimed cover ring. The gas follows a path from inlet 110 to outlets 128 using channels 120A-D . As shown in Fig. 3 the outlet 128 and runway 150 open on the inner surface of the shield while the inlet 110 is on the outer surface. There are a plurality of openings (outlets 128 ). The outlets feed towards the gas chamber Fig. 2 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 2, and 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al.(US 2017/0229295) in view of ENDO et al. (US 2010/0213048) Regarding claim 1, KIM teaches a modified surface for a sputtering target to make a particle trap abstract . The particle trap is a roughness (first surface roughness) formed on the sidewall (first portion of an edge) of the sputtering target abstract . The sidewall can correspond to the first transition point 38 and third transition point 44 , [0031]-[0033] shown on the profile of the sputtering target in Fig. 3 . The reference also notes that the particle trap can be positioned on the sidewall 44, transition point 44 , and flange 34 , [0035] . The remaining portion then corresponds to the second portion of the edge with a second surface roughness. The particle trap is formed by mechanical abrasion [0042] and chemical/plasma etching [0047] . The parts of the target that are not roughened to form a particle trap are relatively less rough. The reference does not expressly teach the height/thickness of the first portion region of at most 6mm as measured from the first surface. However, a sputtering target by nature of being sputtered decreases in thickness by the nature of the process as material is expelled from the target and deposited on the substrate. ENDO generally teaches that thicker targets can be used to decrease how frequently sputtering targets need to be replaced [0006] . At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to make a thicker overall sputtering target to reduce the frequency of target replacement. When increasing the overall thickness of the sputtering target, the thickness of the respective profile sections of KIM will also be increased to any desired amount including up 6mm for the sections associated with particle trapping.Regarding claim 2, The mechanical abrasion can be bead (abrasive) blasting [0042] which is considered to be abrasive blasting. Regarding claim 5, ENDO generally teaches that thicker targets can be used to decrease how frequently sputtering targets need to be replaced [0006] . When initially placing or replacing a target in a PVD chamber the target is necessarily transferred to the chamber. The claim also requires the chamber wall and the first portion of the target to be a “threshold distance”. However, the parent claim states that the processing step is a roughening step. It is not clear how the roughening materially changes the distance between the edge of the target and the chamber wall. However, without specifying the threshold distance, any positioning between the sputtering target and the chamber wall can be considered within a “threshold distance”. Regarding claim 6, KIM teaches the sputtering target assembly includes a backing plate 12 with the target 14 bonded [0004] . Regarding claim 7, KIM shows the sputtering surface 32 is inside the sidewall area (smaller diameter) as shown in Fig. 3 . Regarding claim 8, The claim requires a third surface roughness but notes that it is equal to the second surface roughness. Accordingly, the same surface can correspond to the second and third surface roughness. Regarding claim 9, KIM teaches bead blasting [0042] which is considered the same process as shot peening, because they both shoot a stream of materials (beads/shot) towards the substrate. Regarding claim 10, KIM teaches surface roughness can be done by knurling [0038]. Regarding claim 11, KIM teaches the particle trap can be positioned on the sidewall 44, transition point 44 , and flange 34 , [0035] . The reference does not expressly teach if the particle trap is uniformly formed at the same height for the target. However, in embodiments where the particle trap extends onto slope 36 in Fig. 3 , it is implied that the trap is formed over the whole perimeter (i.e. is uniform). Regarding claim 12, KIM teaches the particle trap can be positioned on the sidewall 44, transition point 44 , and flange 34 , [0035] . The examiner noted above that there is an implication that the trap is formed at a uniform height around the perimeter of the target. However, the reference does not expressly require uniformity. For example, the shape of the particle trap can be changed by roughening or not roughening slope 36 as suggested in different embodiments. Not roughening slope 36 is part of the disclosure when the particle trap is only formed on sidewall 40 . Changing the height and shape of the particle trap is considered prima facie obvious as a change in shape without changing the operation of the particle trap, MPEP 2144.04.IV . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3, 4, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al.(US 20170229295) in view of ENDO et al. (US 2010/0213048) further in view of LIM et al. (US 8,591,709) . Regarding claim 3, KIM teaches making a sputtering target but does not expressly teach the PVD process itself other than generally stating the use of a PVD apparatus [0004] and Fig. 1 . However, LIM teaches a shield assembly for a sputter deposition chamber abstract . LIM teaches an outer sleeve 105 with a plurality of gas inlet 110 (introducing gas through an inlet) column 2 lines 42-61 and conducting through gas channels 120a-d to gas outlets 128 into the chamber, figs. 1 and 2 and column 3 lines 46-59 . At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a gas inlet according to LIM when performing a sputtering process. Regarding claims 4, 14, and 15 LIM teaches the gas channels are formed from an inner and outer sleeves 115 and 105 (inner and outer sidewalls), column 2 lines 42-61 . The inner sleeve is considered to be facing the volume space of the PVD chamber and the gas moves radially column 4 line 61 to column 5 line 9 . In addition, an aperture flange 130 and gas shield flange 145 direct the gas from the outlets 128 towards the center of the chamber (toward axis A-A’) shown in Fig. 3 . The gas it conducted using paths with at least one curve shown in Fig. 2 . Regarding claim 16, KIM teaches gas outlets and notes that a shim can be used, but does not specifically teach their shape column 3 lines 20-45 . However, changing the shape of the outlet for gas does not change the operation of how gas is flowing into the PVD chamber. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a gas outlet of any shape as a change in shape MPEP 2144.04.IV. Regarding claim 17, The particle trap in KIM is design to accumulate contaminates [0048] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM et al. (US 8,591,709) in view of FINK (US 2003/0092278) . Regarding claims 19 and 20, LIM teaches a shield assembly that supplies gas for a plasma sputtering chamber. The reference does not teach conducting gas through a first and second opening with different cross-sectional shapes. However, FINK teaches that when using plasma apparatuses, gas can be provided through baffles with various shapes abstract , [0014] and fig. 2A . The use of the baffles allows for the control of uniformity and plasma density [0016] . At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a plasma baffle to control uniformity and plasma density in the plasma sputtering chamber of LIM. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5. 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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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. /AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/783,713 Page 2 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/783,713 Page 3 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/783,713 Page 4 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/783,713 Page 5 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/783,713 Page 6 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/783,713 Page 7 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/783,713 Page 8 Art Unit: 1712
Prosecution Insights