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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 20-23 are pending in the current application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 2/18/26 does not render the application allowable.
Status of the Rejections
All rejections from the previous office action are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura (US 20210087672).
As to claim 20, Nakamura discloses a target comprising:
A first peripheral flange with surface configured to interface with a sealing ring (figure 1: target 10 with flange 20 containing horizontal surfaces capable of contacting a sealing structure);
The peripheral flange surface is flat and devoid of grooves, slots and scallops (figure 1).
As to the claim limitations with respect to the use of the target with a sealing ring and isolation ring and installation within a chamber, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structure limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, the target contains the flange surface, devoid of ‘grooves, vent slots’ etc. configured to contact the further claimed components intended to seal the target to the chamber. Because the target contains the structure required to interact with the other components, the claimed target structure is disclosed by Nakamura.
As to claim 21, claim 20, from which claim 21 depends is directed towards a sputtering target. As the target of Nakamura meets all the structure limitations of the target of claim 21 and claim 22 is directed towards intended use, Nakamura anticipates claim 22 as well as the target of Nakamura would be necessarily capable of attachment to any number of desired rings within a chamber.
Claim(s) 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong (US 20030217913).
As to claim 20, Hong discloses a target comprising:
A first surface configured to interface with a sealing ring (figure 14: target 90 with flange surface contacting ring 148);
The surface is flat and devoid of grooves, slots and scallops (figure 14: target illustrated with flat contact surface).
As to the claim limitations with respect to the use of the target with a sealing ring and isolation ring and installation within a chamber, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structure limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
As to claim 21, Hong discloses the target installed in a PVD chamber (figure 14: sputter chamber 140) and containing the ‘sealing ring’ (figure 14: ring 148) and an ‘isolation ring’ on the opposite side of the sealing ring not contacting the target surface (figure 14: ring 150 [spacing adaptor] isolating target and ring 148 from chamber walls 142).
As to claim 22, Hong discloses an isolation ring comprising:
A first surface configured to selectively interface with a sealing ring, the first surface is flat (figure 14: ring 150, ‘isolating’ sealing ring 148 and target from wall 142 and containing a surface contacting ring 148);
A step-out portion configured to interface with a rim of the sealing ring (figure 14: showing shape of ring 150 with ‘L’ shaped cut out contacting ring 148).
As to the claim limitations with respect to the use of the isolation ring with a sealing ring, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structure limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, Hong teaches an isolation ring with all the structure recited and is therefore ‘capable’ or ‘configured to’ interact with further structures as desired. Because only an ‘isolation ring’ is claimed, further structures intended to operate with the isolation ring are not part of the structural limitations of the isolation ring.
As to claim 23, Hong discloses the cut out is at 90 degrees (figure 14: right angle/90° cut out in ring 150).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the prior art, Nakamura and Hong, do not disclose the target forming a vacuum seal with a sealing ring and isolation ring when installed in a PVD chamber. Instant claim 20 is directed towards a sputtering target and recites the target is ‘configured to’ contact further structure including the sealing and isolation rings. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structure limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114. Applicant does not appear to argue that the structure of the targets of Nakamura and Hong are different than the instantly claimed structures – and as discussed above both references teach all structure required by this claim.
Similarly, Applicant argues that Hong does not teach the isolation ring contacting a sealing ring with the structure recited in the claims. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structure limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114. Claim 22 is directed towards an isolation ring. Because Hong teaches all structure required of the isolation ring, it anticipates the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
/JASON BERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794