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 because the reference numbers appear to be handwritten and as a result some of the reference numbers are unclear. For example, the right-most reference number in Fig. 6 is unclear. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 15 (Fig. 3-4). 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, the limitation “the eccentrical shaft” should be amended to read “the eccentric shaft” to align with the previously recited limitation.
In claim 14, the limitation “a coating plant of claim 1” should be amended to read “the coating plant of claim 1” to clarify that the limitation is not referring to a different coating plant.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14-15 and 17-18 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 14, the limitation “attaching the pre-assembled unit” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim is intended to refer to the “pre-assembled unit” recited in claim 1, the “new pre-assembled unit”, or each pre-assembled unit.
In claim 14, the limitations “the remaining coating plant” in line 4 and 10 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the “remaining coating plant” is intended to refer to the coating plant of claim 1 or another coating plant or if the limitation is intended to require the coating plant to have another property.
In claims 15 and 18, the limitation “the pre-assembled unit” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim is intended to refer to the “pre-assembled unit” recited in claim 1, the “new pre-assembled unit”, or each pre-assembled unit.
In claim 17, the limitation “at least one additional threaded connection” is indefinite because claim 13 recites a connecting section but not a threaded connection and therefore it is unclear whether this limitation is intended to require a threaded connection for supplying the electric current and/or coolant of claim 13 along with at least one additional threaded connection or if the limitation may be met by a single threaded connection for providing electric current and/or coolant.
In claim 17, the limitation “the area of said connecting section” is indefinite because there is no previous recitation of an “area” of the connecting section and therefore it is unclear what area is being referred to. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “an area of said connecting section”.
Claims 15 and 18 are indefinite by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Odagi (JP H04311568 A).
Regarding claim 1, Odagi (JP H04311568 A) teaches a vacuum chamber 1 (coating plant) for coating substrates by sputtering including a magnetic generating means 11 (magnet system), a earth shield 7 (dark space shield), an evaporation material 9 (target), and a backing plate 10, where the dark space shield, target, and target backing plate form a evaporation source 5 (pre-assembled unit) that can be introduced and removed from the chamber as a unit, wherein the shield may be separated from the target by an insulating material 15 (electrically insulated from each other), and wherein the coating plant comprises a lever or bolt (coupling mechanism) that allows the pre-assembled unit to be attached to the wall 3 of the vacuum chamber/coating plant and removed, where the coupling mechanism connects the flange 4 to the wall 3 and thus at least interacts with the dark space shield 7 attached to the flange 4 through bolts 8 (para 0002, 0007-0008, 0010; Fig. 1, 4). Alternatively, the bolt 8 connecting the earth shield 7 and the flange 4 is considered a coupling mechanism that helps allow the pre-assembled unit to be attached to the chamber via the flange 4 and the bolt (coupling mechanism) is fixed to (or interacts with) the earth shield 7 (dark space shield) (para 0010; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Odagi teaches the lever or bolt (coupling mechanism) and the earth shield 7 (dark space shield) are both connected to the flange 4, which is separated from the target 9 by an insulating material 15 (electrically insulated) (para 0007, 0010; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Odagi teaches the pre-assembled unit is detached and removed from the chamber (coating plant) by releasing the flange using the lever (by operating the coupling mechanism), components of the unit are replaced and then a new pre-assembled unit is attached to the flange and introduced to the chamber and fixed (attached) to the chamber using the lever (by operating the coupling mechanism) (para 0007, 0010).
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) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odagi (JP H04311568 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imakita (US 20200381226 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Odagi teaches the vacuum chamber (coating plant) includes a vacuum area 1 inside the wall 3 of the vacuum chamber and the bolt 8 (coupling mechanism) is located entirely within the vacuum area (para 0010; Fig. 1). Odagi fails to explicitly teach the vacuum area is evacuated for a coating process. However, Imakita (US 20200381226 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that sputtering is performed after regulating the inside of the chamber (vacuum area) to a predetermined pressure by an exhaust device that evacuates the inside of the chamber (para 0023, 0054). Odagi teaches a sputtering target/source (para 0007, 0010). 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 an exhaust device, as described by Imakita, in the chamber of Odagi for evacuating and controlling the pressure in the chamber for a sputtering process.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Odagi and Imakita teaches the bolts 8 for holding the earth shield 7 are completely within the chamber and thus the vacuum area must be opened by removing the flange in order to separate the shield from the pre-assembled unit (to allow manual operation of the coupling mechanism) (Odagi para 0007, 0010; Fig. 1, 3).
Claim(s) 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odagi (JP H04311568 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US 20200105511 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Odagi fails to explicitly teach the magnet system can be displaced with respect to the pre-assembled unit of dark space shield, target, and target backing plate in three spatial directions. However, Wang (US 20200105511 A1), in the analogous art of magnetron sputtering, teaches that a magnetron 300 behind a target holder 120 including a magnetic element 310 that is configured to rotate (first spatial direction) relative to the target, be moved horizontally by a telescopic arm relative to the target (second spatial direction), and tilted relative to the back surface of the target holder in a vertical direction (third spatial direction) to achieve more uniform consumption of the target (para 0020-0022, 0026-0028, 0030, 0034-0035; Fig. 1-2, 5). 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 magnet system of Odagi with the magnet arrangement of Wang to improve target consumption control and because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Odagi and Wang teaches the magnet system can be tilted with respect to the target (pre-assembled unit) (Wang para 0030, 0034-0035; Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odagi (JP H04311568 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wolf (US 5482610 A).
Regarding claim 13, Odagi fails to explicitly teach the coating plant comprises a connecting section via which electric current and/or a coolant can be supplied into the pre-assembled unit of dark space shield, target, and target backing plate. However, Wolf (US 5482610 A), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches a sputtering target 29 having a magnet arrangement (4, 5) within a backing plate shell 27, where coolant lines are supplied to the space within the shell/backing plate via threaded connections (9, 10) (connecting section) to provide coolant to the target assembly (col 2 line 1-29; Fig. 1). Odagi teaches a sputtering target 9 attached to a backing plate 10 with a magnet system 11 disposed therein (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 add threaded connections and associated cooling passages, as described by Wolf, to the backing plate of Odagi in order to prevent overheating of the target and magnets.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Odagi and Wolf teaches a plurality of threaded connections (9, 10) (at least one additional threaded connection) in the area of the connecting section (Wolf col 2 line 1-29; Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned references fail to teach the coupling mechanism comprises an eccentric shaft. Additionally, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the references to meet the claim limitation. Therefore, claim 2 contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 3-8 depend on claim 2 and thus would be allowable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, the aforementioned references fail to teach the coupling mechanism comprises an eccentric shaft and wherein detaching and attaching the pre-assembled unit is performed by rotating an operating section of the eccentric shaft. Additionally, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the references to meet the claim limitation. Therefore, claim 15 contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 18 depends on claim 15 and thus would be allowable for the same reasons.
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
Prosecution Insights