DETAILED ACTION
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 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 3 and 7-15 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.
Amended claim 3 recites “a screw configured to fix the support part to the second shield member; and a shield cap configured to prevent a screw from being exposed to a processing space of the processing chamber” (emphasis added), rendering the claim unclear as to whether “prevent a screw” is intended to refer back to “a screw configured to fix the support part to the second shield member” or to a distinct ‘screw’ thereof. Claims 7-15 are also rejected as depending on claim 3.
Amended claim 3 recites the limitation "the center". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 7-15 are also rejected as depending on claim 3.
Amended claim 15 recites “a surface of the shield cap and a surface of the second shield member are blast treatment surfaces” (emphasis added), rendering the claim unclear as to how ‘blast treatment surfaces’ further defines the “shield cap” and ‘second shield member” (e.g. are each grit or bead ‘blasted’? Are each ‘blasted’ with heat in a furnace? Are each ‘blasted’ with plasma? Etc.).
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 1-3 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al (US 11,193,200) in view of Ishihara (US 2015/0034481).
With respect to claim 1, Maeda discloses in fig. 1 a physical vapor deposition (PVD) processing apparatus (i.e. claimed “substrate processing apparatus”) [10] comprising: a processing chamber [23] having a “ceiling portion” [23a] (col. 4, lines 11-33); a cathode part installed at the ceiling portion [23a] and configured to sputter a target [29] (col. 4, lines 61-67); and wherein the ceiling portion [23a] has an engagement portion around the target [29] as further shown in fig. 3 (col. 2, lines 12-13; col. 5, lines 55-56). Fig. 3 depicts the cathode part includes: a “cover member” (i.e. claimed “first shield member”) [290] having an attachment portion to be attached to the engagement portion of the ceiling portion [230a], wherein the processing chamber [23] (which includes the ceiling portion [23a]) is grounded (col. 4, lines 22-24), and the first shield member [290] is formed of a conductor and “grounded via the ceiling portion” [23a] (col. 5, lines 59-62); thus the ceiling portion [23a] and first shield member [290] are electrically connected.
However Maeda is limited in that a fastening structure or member for attaching the attachment portion of the first shield member [280] to the engagement portion of the ceiling portion [23a] is not specifically suggested.
Ishihara teaches in fig. 1 a sputtering device (i.e. substrate processing apparatus) having shields (i.e. first shield members) [5],[9] each attached via attachment portion to an engagement portion of a ceiling portion (para 0021, 0030, and 0035), similar to the substrate processing apparatus [10] and first shield member [290] of Maeda. Ishihara further teaches in fig. 2A a fastening structure or member for attaching each of the first shield members [5],[9] to the ceiling portion (para 0037), also similar to Maeda’s attaching of the first shield member [290] to the ceiling portion [23a]. Fig. 2A further depicts: each fastening structure comprises a “head section” [101] and an “externally threaded portion” [106a] (para 0037-0039), e.g. the fastening structure is a hexagonal bolt or screw (para 0040), wherein the externally threaded portion [106a] of the screw is spiral-shaped; the externally threaded portion [106a] is suggested to be plated with a “soft metal” (e.g. elastic metal) for lubricating purposes, suppressing particle generation, and preventing galling of threaded portions when a shield is fastened (para 0009-0011), thus the elastic metal is a spiral-shaped body on the externally threaded portion [106a], thereby forming a conductive seal member on the externally threaded portion [106a].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the fastening member of Ishihara to attach the attachment portion of the first shield member [290] to the engagement portion of the ceiling portion [23a] of Maeda to gain the advantages of lubrication in addition to prevention of galling of the externally threaded portion and undesirable particle generation.
With respect to claim 2, Ishihara further depicts in fig. 2A “fixing part” (i.e. the engagement portion) [103] of the ceiling portion and attachment portion with “shaft section” (i.e. claimed “protrusion”) [106] fitting with “threaded hole” (i.e. claimed “recess”) [115] (para 0037-0039), wherein the conductive seal member (applied to the externally threaded portion [106a]) is disposed between the recess [115] and protrusion [106] (para 0009-0010 and 0037-0039).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of references Maeda and Ishihara each teaches: a support part rotatable and penetrating through the ceiling portion (Maeda, fig. 1, supporting part [34] through the ceiling portion [23a]; Ishihara fig. 1, supporting part attached to shutter [10] through the ceiling portion); and a second shield member supported by the supporting part and having an opening corresponding to the target by rotation of the support part (Maeda, fig. 1, second shield member [33] attached to the support part [34]; Ishihara fig. 1, second shield member [10] attached to the support part). Each of fig. 1 of Maeda and Ishihara also show that the second shield member [33] or [10] is attached to the support part via attachment means; while a specific attachment means is not suggested, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any one or more of a variety of attachment means (e.g. screw, bolt, nail, pin, bonding, etc.) to yield the predictable result of attaching the second shield member [33] or [10] to the support shaft (MPEP 2143). Each of fig. 1 of Maeda and Ishihara further shows that the second shield member [33], or [10] also provides a portion (e.g. shield cap) that covers a location of the attachment means, thereby preventing the attachment means (e.g. screw, bolt, nail, pin, bonding, etc.) from being exposed to a processing space of the processing chamber.
With respect to claims 7-10, modified Maeda further discloses in fig. 4 the second shield member [33] comprises a second temperature adjustment mechanism comprising a “heater” (i.e. claimed “second heat source”) [332] embedded (i.e. bonded) in the second shield member [33], wherein fig. 4 shows power is supplied or flowed in a curvature (i.e. claimed “second flow path”) adjacent to the second heat source [332] (col. 6, lines 40-51).
With respect to claim 11, modified Maeda further discloses the processing chamber (which includes sidewall [23b]) is grounded (e.g. third flow path of electricity) (col. 4, lines 23-29), and fig. 1 depicts a “gas supply path” (i.e. claimed “fourth flow path”) [37c] formed in the support part [34] (col. 7, lines 11-17); thus the third and fourth flow paths are different from each other.
With respect to claim 12, Maeda further depicts in fig. 4 the second temperature adjustment mechanism comprises the second heat source [332] having an inner-ring shape and an outer ring-shape (col. 6, lines 40-51); thus fig. 4 shows plural second heat sources and second flow paths, wherein one of the second flow paths (e.g. outer-ring shape) is adjacent to an outer periphery of the second shield member [33] and another one of the second flow paths (e.g. inner-ring shape) is adjacent to a center [A] of the second shield member [33].
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al (US 11,193,200) and Ishihara (US 2015/0034481) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Black et al (US 6,881,305).
With respect to claims 4-6, the combination of references Maeda and Ishihara is cited as discussed for claim 1. However the combination of references is limited in that a first temperature adjustment mechanism of the first shield member [290] is not specifically suggested.
Black teaches a heated and cooled vacuum chamber shield (Abstract); fig. 2 shows the chamber shield (i.e. first shield member) [46] disposed around a ceiling of a chamber [30] having a target [54] (col. 5, lines 29-28 and 58-62), similar to the first shield member [2960] and target [29] of Maeda. Figs. 3-4 show the first shield member [46] surrounded by a “heater strip” (i.e. claimed “first heat source”) [147] adjacent a “shield passage” (i.e. claimed “first flow path”) [141] through which a “thermally-conductive gas” (i.e. claimed “temperature adjustment medium”) flows (col. 6, lines 21-64), thereby forming the claimed “first temperature adjustment mechanism” [141],[147]. Black cites the advantage of the first temperature adjustment mechanism as providing even heating to the first shield [46] to approximate sputter-deposited material to avoid releasing or peeling of the sputter-deposited material from the first shield member [46] while acting as a heat sink to cool hot surfaces of the first shield member [46] (col. 6, lines 56-64; col. 8, lines 15-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the first temperature adjustment mechanism of Black to the first shield member [290] of the combination of references to gain the advantages of avoiding releasing or peeling of sputtered material on the first shield member while also cooling the first shield member.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al (US 11,193,200) and Ishihara (US 2015/0034481) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al (US 9,322,092).
With respect to claims 13-15, the combination of references Maeda and Ishihara is cited as discussed for claim 3. However the combination of references is limited in that while the shield cap is generally shown in Maeda’s fig. 1, specific structures of the shield cap are not specifically suggested.
Yamaguchi teaches in figs. 1 and 15 a substrate processing apparatus [1] comprising a processing chamber [2] having a ceiling, a target [4], a first shield member around the target [4], and a shutter (i.e. second shield member) [14] (col. 3, lines 42-43; col. 4, lines 9-11 and 31-62), similar to the substrate processing apparatus with the second shield member [33] of Maeda. Yamaguchi further depicts in fig. 15 the second shield member [14] comprising a shield cap including a flange (near detail [40c] and a gap between the second shield member [14] and the flange; although a particular dimension of the gap is not suggested, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, IV, A). In this case, the gap would function the same regardless of being the claimed “2 mm or less” or 2.1 mm or more. Yamaguchi further suggests to fabricate the second shield member [14] (which includes the shield cap) of stainless steel, and to blast the second shield member [14] (which again includes the shield cap) (col. 5, lines 43-67; col. 1-12; col. 9, lines 42-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the shield cap having the flange and gap of Yamaguchi as the shield cap of the second shield member [33] the combination of references, since the combination of references fails to specify particular structures of the shield cap, and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation for success in making the modification since Yamaguchi has shown success for a similar second shield member [33] as the combination of references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 6-11 filed 10/13/2025 are addressed below.
112 Rejections
Claim 3 has been amended to clarify “screw”; the previous 112(b) rejection is maintained for the new reasoning set forth above in the rejection.
Claims 8 and 12 have each been amended to provide antecedent basis; these previous 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Claim 15 has been amended to clarify “blast treatment surfaces”; the previous 112(b) rejection is maintained for the new reasoning set forth above in the rejection.
102 and 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 7-11 to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references Maeda and Ishihara being applied in the current rejection.
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 MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794