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 .
Specification
Applicant’s amendments and arguments on pg. 8-10 have overcome the previously presented objections to the claims and thus the objections are withdrawn.
The amendment filed 7/9/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
In paragraph 0055, the applicant has amended the specification to recite the “chamber 110 defines a component holder 168 for the chuck” where the element 168 is newly added into Figure 5. This amendment introduces new matter because the original specification appears to be stating that the chamber as a hole defines the component holder for the chuck and not a specific element located next to the chuck as indicated in the amended Figure 5. Additionally, it is unclear what the portion indicated as the “component holder” in the amended specification was intended to be the component holder at the time of filing. Therefore, the amendment to the specification introduces new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In claim 1, the limitation “means for flexibly adjusting the position and the orientation of at least one of the first magnetron and the second magnetron with respect to the surface of the component” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it uses the word “means” modified by functional language (means for flexibly adjusting) and is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. The specification describes the position and orientation of the magnetrons with respect to the component may be achieved by a rotary assembly connected to magnetrons, a rotary assembly with a motor connected to the component/holder, or flexible tubes. Therefore, the limitation “means for flexibly adjusting” will be interpreted to require a rotary assembly/motor connected to the magnetron or component/holder, flexible tubes, or equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and arguments on pg. 8-10 have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and thus the rejections are withdrawn.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
In claim 15, the limitation “a wall of the chamber” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation is intended to refer to the wall recited in claim 1 or intended to require a second/additional wall of the chamber formed by the component holder.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (KR 20180086069 A) in view of Gum (US 11015244 B2) and Herrera (US 6494999 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Jeon (KR 20180086069 A) teaches an apparatus for manufacturing semiconductors comprising a CVD reactor 1 (chamber), a sputtering device for high impulse magnetron sputtering comprising metal targets and ionizers (first and second magnetron) disposed within the chamber for supplying a coating material to a bell jar 20 (semiconductor equipment component) surface, wherein the bell jar 20 (component) is held by an outer rotating plate 141 at least partially located within the chamber 1, wherein the ionizers (12, 13) (first and second magnetron) are configured to be positioned and oriented adjacent the surface of the bell jar to be coated and where the ionizers/magnetrons are capable/configured to move with respect to the outer rotating plate using an inner rotating plate 142 (means for flexibly adjusting) and the component holder is configured to move with respect to the first and second magnetrons/ionizers during the coating process, wherein the inner rotating plate rotating the magnetrons relative to the bell jar amounts to adjusting the position and the orientation of at least one of the first magnetron and the second magnetron with respect to the surface of the component. (para 0001-0002, 0032-0033, 0039-0040, 0042-0044, 0046; Fig. 1). Additionally, or in the alternative, the metal ionizer 13 (second magnetron) may be moved up and down in addition to rotating, thus necessitating a means for adjusting the position and orientation of the second magnetron with respect to the bell jar (component) (para 0051).
Jeon fails to explicitly teach a component holder disposed within the chamber and configured to hold the component, wherein the component holder forms at least a center part of a wall of the chamber. However, Gum (US 11015244 B2), in the analogous art of coating, teaches coating an inner surface of a bell jar chamber enclosure 108 by sputtering, where the enclosure is secured to a base plate 106 and a deposition base plate 300 that seals the enclosure to form a deposition chamber (col 4 line 5-67, col 5 line 1-17; Fig. 2-3). Jeon teaches a bell jar 20 disposed on an outer rotating plate 141 with apparent openings between the inner rotating plate 142 and outer rotating plate 141 (para 0042, 0070; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a deposition base plate, as described by Gum, connected to the rotating plates and bell jar of Jeon to seal the chamber and create a vacuum environment. As a result, the combination of Jeon and Gum includes a deposition base plate and outer rotating plate that combine to form a component holder configured to hold the bell jar (component) and forming a bottom wall of the chamber, including at least a center part and at least partially disposed within the formed vacuum chamber (e.g., an inner surface of the deposition base plate is disposed within the chamber).
Alternatively, or in addition, the combination of Jeon and Gum fails to explicitly teach the ionizers are magnetrons. However, Herrera (US 6494999 B1), in the analogous art of magnetron sputtering, teaches a magnetron sputtering apparatus including a target assembly connected to a magnetron housing having a magnetron 145 for sputtering onto a substrate (col 19 line 49-67, col 20 line 1-5; Fig. 18). Jeon teaches the layers are formed by magnetron sputtering from a target (para 0021, 0032-0033, 0054). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a magnetron and magnetron housing, as described by Herrera, associated with each target of Jeon for performing magnetron sputtering.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jeon, Gum, and Herrera teaches the movement of the first magnetron and second magnetron with respect to the component holder is realized in that the outer rotating plate 141 (component holder) is configured in a fixed position outside of the targets and magnetrons and the first and second magnetron are configured to be moved within the chamber 1 relative to the component by the inner rotating plate 142 (Jeon para 0042-0044, 0047-0048; Fig. 1). Alternatively, or in addition, the apparatus of Jeon is necessarily capable of rotating the inner rotating plate while keeping the outer rotating plate (component holder) stationary/fixed.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jeon, Gum, and Herrera teaches the film can be formed through operation of the targets and magnetrons/ionizers while the targets and magnetrons are rotating/moving (Jeon para 0047-0048).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jeon, Gum, and Herrera teaches the component is a bell jar 20 that combines with the base deposition plate to form a vacuum chamber (forms at least part of the wall of the chamber), where the “wall” of the chamber is defined as combined wall/enclosure formed by the bell jar and base deposition plate (Jeon para 0038, 0045, 0052, Fig. 1; Gum col 4 line 5-67, col 5 line 1-17, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, the previous combination of Jeon, Gum, and Herrera teaches each target has an individual magnetron (Herrera col 19 line 49-67, col 20 line 1-5; Fig. 18) and therefore the first and second magnetron operate as single magnetrons.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jeon, Gum, and Herrera teaches the component is a bell jar 20 (liner) lining the inner surface of a CVD reactor 1 (chamber) (Jeon para 0045, 0052; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Jeon, Gum, and Herrera teaches the component is a bell jar 20 (liner) lining the inner surface of the CVD reactor 1 (chamber) and the first and second magnetron associated with targets (T2, T3) are configured to be disposed adjacent a head portion 22 (inner surface) of the liner while a third and fourth magnetron associated with targets T1 are configured to be disposed adjacent to a wall portion 21 (outer surface) of the liner (Jeon para 0039, 0045, 0052; Fig. 1).
Alternatively, Jeon fails to explicitly teach multiple targets T1 adjacent to the wall; however, Jeon teaches multiple metal targets T2 and metal targets T3 (para 0022, 0025, 0039) and therefore the first magnetron and second magnetron may be interpreted as the magnetrons associated with the multiple targets T3 near the head portion 22 while the third and fourth magnetron are interpreted as the targets T1 and T2 adjacent to the wall portion 21.
Alternatively, or in addition, it would have been obvious to include an additional target T1 adjacent to the wall to increase deposition rate and because the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jeon, Gum, and Herrera teaches the first and second ionizers/magnetrons (12, 13) are mounted on an inner rotating plate 142 (rotary assembly) (Jeon para 0042-0044, 0047-0048; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Jeon, Gum, and Herrera teaches the component holder includes the outer rotating plate 141 (is a rotary assembly) (Jeon para 0042, 0046; Fig. 1) or alternatively the deposition base plate 300 (component holder) (Gum Fig. 3) is mounted to/on the outer rotating plate (rotary assembly).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Jeon, Gum, and Herrera teaches the magnetrons contain a magnetron housing (internal volume) that is sealed from the vacuum pressure space and may be operated at ambient pressure (sealed from the interior of the chamber) (Herrera col 19 line 49-67, col 20 line 1-5, claim 16; Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Jeon, Gum, and Herrera teaches the magnetron housings (internal volume) that is sealed from the vacuum pressure space and may be operated at ambient pressure while the chamber is at vacuum (maintained at atmospheric pressure when the chamber is maintained at vacuum) (Herrera col 19 line 49-67, col 20 line 1-5, claim 16; Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Jeon, Gum, and Herrera teaches the outer rotating plate 141 (part of the component holder) extends through the wall of the bell jar 20 and CVD reactor 1 (chamber) (Jeon Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Jeon, Gum, and Herrera teaches the outer rotating plate 141 (Jeon Fig. 1) and deposition base plate 300 (Gum Fig. 3) form at least part of the wall of the vacuum chamber formed by the bell jar and deposition base plate.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Jeon, Gum, and Herrera teaches the ionizers/magnetrons are configured to rotate with respect to the outer rotating plate 141 (part of the component holder) and the outer rotating plate (part of the component holder) is configured to rotate with respect to the ionizers/magnetrons on the inner rotating plate 142 during coating of the bell jar 20 (component) (Jeon para 0042-0048; Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (KR 20180086069 A) in view of Gum (US 11015244 B2) and Herrera (US 6494999 B1), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of S Maul (US 20060046075 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jeon, Gum, and Herrera fails to explicitly teach the component is an electrostatic chuck or a window. However, Jeon teaches the component is a bell jar (para 0021). Additionally, Maul (US 20060046075 A1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches a bell jar for CVD processes may be made of a transparent quartz glass (window) (para 0114). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the bell jar material of Jeon with the transparent quartz glass bell jar material of Maul because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (KR 20180086069 A) in view of Gum (US 11015244 B2) and Herrera (US 6494999 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sidhwa (US 20070032072 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Jeon, Gum, and Herrera fails to explicitly teach the magnetrons are used together with reactive gas to deposit a film of Al2O3, AlN, AlON, AlOF, Y2O3, YOF, YAG, YF3, Er2O3, ErOF, DLC, or doped DLC. However, Sidhwa (US 20070032072 A1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches that a nucleation layer coating may be applied on the interior of a bell jar by sputtering in the presence of oxygen gas (reaction gas) where the deposited layer may be yttrium oxide (Y2O3) where the nucleation layer improves defect density of wafers pre-cleaned in the bell jar (Abstract, para 0032-0035). Jeon teaches depositing a reflective film on a bell jar interior surface (Jeon para 0021). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sputter a Y2O3 film, as described by Sidhwa, on the inner surface of the bell jar of Jeon using the yttrium targets and oxygen reactive gas in order to improve defect density of wafers treated in the bell jar.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10-12, filed 7/9/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gum (US 11015244 B2).
Gum teaches a bottom plate/wall surface, which includes a center part of a wall of the chamber, below the bell jar in a similar formation process in order to seal the environment during treatment for performing vacuum deposition.
The applicant should note that the current art rejection could be overcome by amending claim 1 to include the limitations of claim 8 and further specifying that the “inner surface” and “outer surface” of the liner are on opposite surfaces of the liner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 at (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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights