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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 204. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “214” has been used to designate both shields and a wafer in Fig. 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “112” has been used to designate both a peak in Fig. 1A and a concave region in Fig. 1B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Priority
It has been determined that the specification provides sufficient support for the claimed “semiconductor processing chamber” because of the combination of reciting a “semiconductor workpiece fabrication process” in paragraph 0047 and a process chamber that a wafer/workpiece is disposed within (see paragraph 0037). Therefore, the claims are at least entitled to the priority of application 16596109 filed 10/8/2019. However, the claims do not seem to be supported by the provisional application filed 10/29/2018 and thus are not entitled to the priority date of the provisional application.
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 5-12 and 14-18 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 5, the limitation “the other regions of the main structure” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because there is no previous recitation of “other regions” and therefore it is unclear what “other regions” are being referred to. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “other regions of the main structure” by deleting the word “the”.
In claim 6, the limitation “other regions of the main structure” is indefinite because it is unclear whether these “other regions” are intended to refer to the other regions recited in claim 5 or different regions. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “the other regions of the main structure”.
In claims 7 and 14, the limitation “the magnetic assembly” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because there is no previous recitation of a “magnetic assembly” and therefore it is unclear what is being referred to.
Claims 8-12 and 15-18 are indefinite by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11488814 in view of Tepman (US 5919345 A).
Regarding claim 1, the reference patent teaches a magnetic assembly comprising an inner permeance annulus and an outer permeance annulus connected to the inner permeance annulus via magnets, the outer permeance annulus comprising a peak region with a width greater than other regions of a main portion of the outer permeance annulus, and the outer permeance annulus includes a main structure that is a single continuous piece and a permeance extension structure that is a separate piece from the main structure, where the magnetic assembly may be included in a chamber for deposition onto a wafer (claim 1, 9-12). Additionally, the reference patent teaches the permeance extension structure is adhered to the peak region (claim 6, 9) and therefore the width of the peak region is necessarily greater than other regions of the outer permeance annulus because the peak region is thicker than other portions of the main structure already.
The reference patent fails to explicitly teach a semiconductor processing chamber containing the magnetic assembly. However, Tepman (US 5919345 A), in the analogous art of magnet assemblies, teaches a magnet assembly having an inner pole piece 74 (inner permeance annulus) and outer pole piece 76 (outer permeance annulus) connected by magnets 62, where the magnet assembly is within a chamber for fabricating semiconductor devices (semiconductor processing chamber) (col 1 line 9-15, col 6 line 35-65; Fig. 1, 3). 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 substitute the chamber of the reference patent with the semiconductor processing chamber of Tepman because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 2, the reference patent teaches the width is along a plane aligned with a surface of the outer permeance annulus and the main structure of the outer permeance annulus has a uniform thickness along a dimension orthogonal to the plane (claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, the reference patent fails to explicitly teach the magnets each comprise a respective first end and second end, wherein the inner permeance annulus is connected to the first end of the magnets and the outer permeance annulus is at the second end of the magnets. However, Tepman teaches the magnets may have south poles 66 (first ends) attached to the inner pole piece 74 (inner permeance annulus) and north poles 68 (second ends) attached to the outer pole piece 76 (outer permeance annulus) (col 6 line 43-64; Fig. 3). 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 magnets connecting the inner and outer permeance annulus of the reference patent with the magnets of Tepman because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of the reference patent and Tepman teaches the first ends 66 are south poles and the second ends 68 are north poles (Tepman col 6 line 55-64; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, the reference patent teaches an inner permeance annulus, outer permeance annulus connected to the inner permeance annulus via magnets, where the outer permeance annulus comprises a main structure that is a single continuous piece and a permeance extension structure that is a separate piece from the main structure where the main structure comprises a peak region having a tip of the peak region having a tip that extends more toward the inner permeance annulus than the other regions of the main structure of the outer permeance annulus, where the assembly may be within a chamber for deposition onto a wafer (claim 1-2, 9-12).
The reference patent fails to explicitly teach a semiconductor processing chamber containing the magnetic assembly. However, Tepman (US 5919345 A), in the analogous art of magnet assemblies, teaches a magnet assembly having an inner pole piece 74 (inner permeance annulus) and outer pole piece 76 (outer permeance annulus) connected by magnets 62, where the magnet assembly is within a chamber for fabricating semiconductor devices (semiconductor processing chamber) (col 1 line 9-15, col 6 line 35-65; Fig. 1, 3). 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 substitute the chamber of the reference patent with the semiconductor processing chamber of Tepman because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 6, the reference patent teaches the peak region has a width greater than other regions of the main structure of the outer permeance annulus (claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, the reference patent teaches the peak region is aligned with one of the magnets along an axis that bisects the magnetic assembly (claim 3).
Regarding claim 8, the reference patent teaches the peak region comprises a convex feature that faces a concave feature along the inner permeance annulus (claim 4).
Regarding claim 9, the reference patent teaches the permeance extension structure has a convex shape aligned with the convex feature of the peak region of the main structure of the outer permeance annulus (claim 5).
Regarding claim 10, the reference patent teaches an adhesive material, wherein the permeance extension structure is adhered to the peak region of the main structure of the outer permeance annulus structure via the adhesive material (claim 6).
Regarding claim 11, the reference patent teaches a mechanical fastener, wherein the permeance extension structure is adhered to the peak region of the main structure of the outer permeance annulus via the mechanical fastener (claim 7).
Regarding claim 12, the reference patent teaches the permeance extension structure has a width smaller than all regions of the main structure of the outer permeance annulus (claim 8).
Regarding claim 13, the reference patent teaches a magnetic assembly comprising an inner permeance annulus and outer permeance annulus connected to the inner permeance annulus via magnets, where the outer permeance annulus comprises a main structure that is a single continuous piece and a permeance extension structure that is a separate piece from the main structure, where the main structure comprises a peak region with a concave feature and a convex feature and the permeance extension structure is adhered to the peak region of the main structure of the outer permeance annulus via an adhesive material, where the assembly may be within a chamber for deposition onto a wafer (claim 9-12).
The reference patent fails to explicitly teach a semiconductor processing chamber containing the magnetic assembly. However, Tepman (US 5919345 A), in the analogous art of magnet assemblies, teaches a magnet assembly having an inner pole piece 74 (inner permeance annulus) and outer pole piece 76 (outer permeance annulus) connected by magnets 62, where the magnet assembly is within a chamber for fabricating semiconductor devices (semiconductor processing chamber) (col 1 line 9-15, col 6 line 35-65; Fig. 1, 3). 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 substitute the chamber of the reference patent with the semiconductor processing chamber of Tepman because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 14, the reference patent teaches the magnetic assembly is configured to rotate around an axis in the chamber to generate an electromagnetic field that moves ions toward a target contained within the chamber (claim 10-11).
Regarding claim 15, the reference patent teaches the magnetic assembly is configured to rotate around the axis to generate the electromagnetic field with the ions (claim 11).
Regarding claim 16, the reference patent teaches the permeance extension structure has a width smaller than all regions of the main structure of the outer permeance annulus (claim 8).
Regarding claim 17, the reference patent teaches the electromagnetic field is configured to erode the target along an even gradient over time (claim 13).
Regarding claim 18, the reference patent teaches the electromagnetic field is configured to sputter the target without a peak or trough along a surface of the target (claim 14).
Regarding claim 19, the reference patent teaches the permeance extension structure is made of a same material as the main structure of the outer permeance annulus (claim 15).
Regarding claim 20, the reference patent teaches the permeance extension structure is made of a different material than the main structure of the outer permeance annulus (claim 16).
Conclusion
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