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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented objections and thus the objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 11-15 and 20 are 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 11, the limitation “the tubular cathode” in line 6 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the “tubular cathode” is intended to refer to a particular one of the “at least one rotatable tubular cathode”, each of the tubular cathodes, or a different cathode.
In claim 12, the limitation “controlling the tilt” is indefinite because it is unclear whether “the tilt” refers to the magnet tilt, the cathode tilt, or both tilts. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered to refer to at least one of a magnet tilt, a cathode tilt, or both tilts.
In claim 15, the limitation “a substrate to be coated” are indefinite because it is unclear whether these limitations are intended to refer to the substrate recited in claim 1 or a different substrate. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “the substrate to be coated”.
In claim 20, the limitation “a substrate to be coated” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation are intended to refer to the substrate recited in claim 11 or a different substrate. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “the substrate to be coated”.
Claims 13-14 are indefinite by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim.
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, 3-5, 7, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vergohl (US 20210164092 A1) in view of Demura (US 20200002806 A1) and Portka (US 20190003039 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vergohl (US 20210164092 A1) teaches a magnetron sputtering system including at least one substrate to be coated and magnetron sputtering device including two cylindrical rotatable magnetron electrodes (6, 7) (at least one rotatable tubular cathode) and sets of magnets disposed within the targets and configured to be tilted (tiltably supported inside the tubular cathode) (para 0012, 0135-0139, 0155-0157 0161-0163, claim 22, 33; Fig. 3-5). Vergohl also teaches a mask, or correction aperture, disposed between the magnetron electrode sources and the substrate (positioned between the cathode and the substrate) (para 0012-0013, 0017, 0138, claim 34; Fig. 4-5).
Vergohl fails to explicitly teach the system comprises a controller configured to control a tilt of the at least one magnet and/or the tilt of the at least one rotatable tubular cathode with respect to the substrate to be coated for tuning coating uniformity on the substrate. However, Demura (US 20200002806 A1), in the analogous art of magnetron sputtering, teaches a controller 9 for controlling operation of a film forming apparatus including adjusting (controlling) the position/tilt of a magnet 24 within a target 21 with respect to the base material 4 (substrate) to improve the film thickness uniformity (tuning coating uniformity on the substrate) (para 0022, 0027, 0043-0048). Vergohl teaches the desire for depositing layers with very good uniformity where the magnets in the electrodes may be tilted and/or rotated, wherein the rotational angle/tilt of the magnets can control the layer distribution (Abstract, para 0027, 0051, 0157, claim 33). 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 process controller in the system of Vergohl for controlling the magnet tilt/angle such that a more uniform film can be deposited.
The combination of Vergohl and Demura fails to explicitly teach the controller is configured to control a tilt of the at least one rotatable tubular cathode with respect to the substrate. However, Portka (US 20190003039 A1), in the analogous art of magnetron sputtering, teaches tubular magnetron cathodes may be inclined/tilted (tilt of the at least one rotatable tubular cathode) with respect to the substrate to allow for a more homogenous coating on non-uniform substrates, where the inclining may be done in addition to pivoting/tilting the magnet system around the axis of the tubular magnetron, and wherein digital control systems (controller) can be used for the control of sputtering sources (para 0015-0016, 0044-0048, 0063; Fig. 3A). Vergohl teaches the desire for depositing layers with very good uniformity where the magnets in the electrodes may be tilted and/or rotated, wherein the rotational angle/tilt of the magnets can control the layer distribution (Abstract, para 0027, 0051, 0157, claim 33). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the targets of Vergohl to be tiltable/inclinable relative to the substrate by the process controller, as described by Portka, to allow for increased deposition control and enable improved uniformity when the substrate is uneven.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Vergohl, Demura, and Portka teaches the correction aperture (mask) is symmetrical with respect to the targets (Vergohl Fig. 4-5). Alternatively, the mask is inherently either symmetrical or asymmetrical.
Regarding claim 4, the previous combination of Vergohl, Demura, and Portka fails to explicitly teach the magnet is tiltable by +/-180°. However, Demura teaches that a magnet may be made turnable within an angular range of 180° (tiltable by +/-180°) (para 0039). 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 tilting range of Vergohl with the tilting range of Demura because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 5, the previous combination of Vergohl, Demura, and Portka teaches the rotatable tubular cathodes have a rotation axis and the magnet is tiltable around the inside of the target (around the rotation axis or an axis parallel to the rotation axis) (Vergohl para 0012, 0157; Fig. 3-5). Alternatively, Demura teaches a cathode having a rotation axis O and the magnet 24 is rotated relative to the rotation axis O by a magnet case shaft 23 (mechanically tiltable) (para 0027; Fig. 1A). 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 rotating mechanism of Vergohl with the rotating mechanism of Demura containing a magnet case shaft for rotating the magnet around the target rotational axis because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Vergohl, Demura, and Portka teaches a plurality of rotatable tubular cathode targets (6, 7) (Vergohl para 0133, 0135; Fig. 3-5). Additionally, the targets (6, 7) are identically constructed at least in terms of shape (Vergohl Fig. 1, 3-5, 7).
Regarding claim 11, Vergohl (US 20210164092 A1) teaches controlling a film thickness distribution on a substrate to be coated in a magnetron sputtering system including the substrate, two cylindrical rotatable magnetron electrodes (6, 7) (at least one rotatable tubular cathode), and sets of magnets disposed within the targets and configured to be tilted (at least one magnet tiltably supported inside the tubular cathode) (para 0012, 0027, 0047, 0104, 0135-0139, 0155-0157 0161-0163, claim 22, 33; Fig. 3-5). Vergohl also teaches a mask, or correction aperture, disposed between the magnetron electrode sources and the substrate (positioned between the cathode and the substrate) (para 0012-0013, 0017, 0138, claim 34; Fig. 4-5).
Vergohl fails to explicitly teach the method comprises controlling a tilt of the at least one magnet and/or a tilt of the at least one rotatable tubular cathode with respect to the substrate to be coated for tuning coating uniformity on the substrate. However, Demura (US 20200002806 A1), in the analogous art of magnetron sputtering, teaches a controller 9 for controlling operation of a film forming apparatus including adjusting (controlling) the position/tilt of a magnet 24 within a target 21 with respect to the base material 4 (substrate) to improve the film thickness uniformity (tuning coating uniformity on the substrate) (para 0022, 0027, 0043-0048). Vergohl teaches the desire for depositing layers with very good uniformity where the magnets in the electrodes may be tilted and/or rotated, wherein the rotational angle/tilt of the magnets can control the layer distribution (Abstract, para 0027, 0051, 0157, claim 33). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Vergohl method to include a process controller that controls the magnet tilt/angle such that a more uniform film can be deposited.
The combination of Vergohl and Demura fails to explicitly teach controlling a tilt of the at least one rotatable tubular cathode with respect to the substrate. However, Portka (US 20190003039 A1), in the analogous art of magnetron sputtering, teaches tubular magnetron cathodes may be inclined/tilted (tilt of the at least one rotatable tubular cathode) with respect to the substrate to allow for a more homogenous coating on non-uniform substrates, where the inclining may be done in addition to pivoting/tilting the magnet system around the axis of the tubular magnetron, and wherein digital control systems (controller) can be used for the control of sputtering sources (para 0015-0016, 0044-0048, 0063; Fig. 3A). Vergohl teaches the desire for depositing layers with very good uniformity where the magnets in the electrodes may be tilted and/or rotated, wherein the rotational angle/tilt of the magnets can control the layer distribution (Abstract, para 0027, 0051, 0157, claim 33). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the targets of Vergohl to be tiltable/inclinable relative to the substrate, as described by Portka, and to control the targets tilt/incline to enable increased deposition control and improved uniformity when the substrate is uneven.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Vergohl, Demura, and Portka teaches measuring the thickness of the layer (layer thickness distribution) on the substrate for process control by optical monitoring, ellipsometry, or another means (Vergohl para 0114-0118).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Vergohl, Demura, and Portka teaches the measuring of the thickness is performed during deposition by a photometer or ellipsometry flange within the chamber (in-situ) (Vergohl para 0101, 0133; Fig. 1). Alternatively, the measuring is necessarily either in-situ or ex-situ.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Vergohl, Demura, and Portka teaches the measuring is performed by ellipsometry (Vergohl para 0114-0118, 0133).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Vergohl, Demura, and Portka teaches a system according to claim 1, as described above, configured to improve uniformity on a coated substrate (compensating for variations in a layer thickness) (Vergohl Abstract, para 0041-0048, 0051, 0163).
Regarding claim 17, the previous combination of Vergohl, Demura, and Portka fails to explicitly teach the magnet is tiltable by +/-45°. However, Demura teaches that a magnet may be made turnable within an angular range of 180° (tiltable by +/-45°) (para 0039). 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 tilting range of Vergohl with the tilting range of Demura because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 18, the previous combination of Vergohl, Demura, and Portka fails to explicitly teach the magnet is tiltable by +/-20°. However, Demura teaches that a magnet may be made turnable within an angular range of 180° (tiltable by +/-20°) (para 0039). 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 tilting range of Vergohl with the tilting range of Demura because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 19, the previous combination of Vergohl, Demura, and Portka fails to explicitly teach the magnet is tiltable by +/-15°. However, Demura teaches that a magnet may be made turnable within an angular range of 180° (tiltable by +/-15°) (para 0039). 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 tilting range of Vergohl with the tilting range of Demura because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Vergohl, Demura, and Portka teaches a method according to claim 11, as described above, configured to improve uniformity on a coated substrate (compensating for variations in a layer thickness) (Vergohl Abstract, para 0041-0048, 0051, 0163).
Claim(s) 2, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vergohl (US 20210164092 A1) in view of Demura (US 20200002806 A1) and Portka (US 20190003039 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shidoji (US 20040026240 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Vergohl, Demura, and Portka teaches monitoring the thickness of the layer (layer thickness distribution) on the substrate by measuring for process control by optical monitoring, ellipsometry, or another means (measuring means) (Vergohl para 0114-0118). The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the controller is configured to control tilt of the at least one magnet based on the measured layer thickness distribution. However, Shidoji (US 20040026240 A1), in the analogous art of magnetron sputtering, teaches that a controller may control parameters affecting an amount of film deposition, such as the angle of the target relative to the substrate, based upon film thickness measurement results to improve film uniformity (para 0011, 0019, 0044-0045, 0047). Vergohl also teaches that the film thickness measurement may be used for process control and the tilt/angle of magnets affects the film thickness distribution (para 0027, 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 control the magnet tilt/angle, as well as other parameters, based on the measured film thickness to improve film uniformity.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Vergohl, Demura, Portka, and Shidoji teaches a measuring means configured to measure the layer thickness distribution may be a photometer for monitoring the thickness during the sputtering process (in-situ), wherein the measuring means may be by ellipsometry using an ellipsometry flange 17 within the chamber (Vergohl para 0101, 0114-0118, 0133; Fig. 1). Alternatively, the measuring means is necessarily either in-situ or ex-situ.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Vergohl, Demura, Portka, and Shidoji teaches a measuring means for measuring the thickness of the film during the sputtering process (Vergohl para 0101, 0114-0118) and controlling the tilt of the magnets based upon the measured thickness (Vergohl para 0027, 0114; Shidoji para 0011, 0019, 0044-0045, 0047). Therefore, the aforementioned combination is necessarily capable of iteratively performing measurement of the layer thickness and controlling the tilt of the magnets. See MPEP 2114(II).
Alternatively, the previous combination of Vergohl, Demura, Portka, and Shidoji fails to explicitly teach the sputtering system is configured to iteratively perform measurement of the layer thickness distribution and controlling the tilt of the magnet. However, Shidoji teaches that the film thickness control may be a stepwise feedback control (iteratively) by changing control parameters to correct the difference between a current film thickness and a target film thickness and therefore form a uniform film with a desired thickness (para 0107, 0113, 0201). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the magnet tilt, and other control parameters, based upon the target and measured thicknesses in a stepwise/iterative fashion, as described by Shidoji, in order to improve film uniformity and more accurately achieve a desired film thickness.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Vergohl, Demura, Portka, and Shidoji teaches the measuring means may be a photometer 16 or ellipsometry flange 17 to monitor the thickness during the sputtering process and located in the sputtering apparatus (included in the magnetron sputtering device) (Vergohl para 0101, 0133; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Vergohl, Demura, Portka, and Shidoji teaches the controller 9 may be part of the film forming apparatus (included in the magnetron sputtering device) (Demura para 0022; Fig. 1A).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vergohl (US 20210164092 A1) in view of Portka (US 20190003039 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Vergohl (US 20210164092 A1) teaches a magnetron sputtering system including at least one substrate to be coated and magnetron sputtering device including two cylindrical rotatable magnetron electrodes (6, 7) (at least one rotatable tubular cathode) and sets of magnets disposed within the targets and configured to be tilted (tiltably supported inside the tubular cathode) (para 0012, 0135-0139, 0155-0157 0161-0163, claim 22, 33; Fig. 3-5). Vergohl also teaches a mask, or correction aperture, disposed between the magnetron electrode sources and the substrate (positioned between the cathode and the substrate) (para 0012-0013, 0017, 0138, claim 34; Fig. 4-5).
Vergohl fails to explicitly teach a controller configured to control a tilt of the at least one rotatable tubular cathode with respect to the substrate to be coated for tuning coating uniformity of the substrate. However, Portka (US 20190003039 A1), in the analogous art of magnetron sputtering, teaches tubular magnetron cathodes may be inclined/tilted (tilt of the at least one rotatable tubular cathode) with respect to the substrate to allow for a more homogenous coating on non-uniform substrates (tuning coating uniformity), where the inclining may be done in addition to pivoting/tilting the magnet system around the axis of the tubular magnetron, and wherein digital control systems (controller) can be used for the control of sputtering sources (para 0015-0016, 0044-0048, 0063, 0102; Fig. 3A). Vergohl teaches the desire for depositing layers with very good uniformity where the magnets in the electrodes may be tilted and/or rotated, wherein the rotational angle/tilt of the magnets can control the layer distribution (Abstract, para 0027, 0051, 0157, claim 33). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the targets of Vergohl to be tiltable/inclinable relative to the substrate by a process controller, as described by Portka, to allow for increased deposition control and enable improved uniformity when the substrate is uneven.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 14-15, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 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 Portka (US 20190003039 A1).
Applicant argues that Demura locks the magnet in position for the duration of the sputtering and would not permit iteratively performing measurement of the layer thickness distribution and controlling the tilt of the magnet based on the iterative measurements. This argument is not persuasive because the magnets of Demura would necessarily be capable of being unlocked and readjusted after a step of deposition. Additionally, Vergohl does not teach the magnets are locked in place and the modification of Vergohl with Demura is only to include a controller and not necessarily the locking mechanism of Demura.
Applicant argues that Shidoji is not monitoring for uniformity of the coating but for being close to the endpoint of the desired thickness of each sublayer and is comparing to an existing profile to determine completion not iteratively performing measurement of the layer thickness distribution and controlling the tilt of the magnet from the measurement obtained. This argument is not persuasive because Shidoji describes measuring the film thickness during deposition and a controller that controls parameters affecting an amount of deposition in a stepwise/iterative manner based upon the measurements, resulting in iteratively performing measurement and controlling the parameters, such as tilt/angle, based upon the measurement because a measurement is performed before controlling based upon measurement multiple times. It should be noted that the claims do not require “monitoring for uniformity” and comparing the measurement to an existing profile to advise the control action taken satisfies the claim limitations. It should also be noted that claim 8 is directed to a sputtering system configured to iteratively perform measurement and control the tilt and therefore the apparatus only needs to be capable of iteratively measuring and controlling (which the combination of Vergohl and Shidoji in the claim 2 rejection is). Additionally, it should be noted that the iterative measuring and controlling are optional in claim 12 and thus do not need to be taught by the prior art.
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