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 1-8, 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.
Claim 1, line 10, is indefinite because “the peripheral area” lacks antecedent basis. This should be “the periphery are”
Claim 3, lines 1 and 2, both occurrences of “the cooling grooves” should be “the curved grooves”.
Claim 3, line 2, is indefinite because “close” lacks basis for comparison. How “close”?
Claim 4, line 2, is indefinite because “curve grooves” should be “curved grooves”.
Claim 15, line 3, is indefinite because “insect” should be “intersect”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-5, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pavloff (U.S. PGPUB. 2009/0090620 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Pavloff teaches a target, comprising: a center area including a center; a periphery area extends around the center area; an edge spaced apart from the center area, the edge extends around the periphery area and the center area; a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface; and a plurality of curved grooves that extend into the first surface of the target, each respective curved groove of the plurality of curved grooves terminates before reaching the second surface, the plurality of curved grooves are curved and extend from the center to the edge by extending across the center area and the peripheral area, and each respective groove of the plurality of grooves converges with other respective grooves of the plurality of grooves at the center, the plurality of curved grooves are configured to, in operation, overlap an orbital pattern of at least one magnet when depositing a material onto a semiconductor substrate present within a substrate process chamber. (Figs. 2, 3, 6; Paragraphs 0016-0031)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
Regarding claim 2, Pavloff teaches wherein the plurality of grooves are in an impeller shaped formation. (See Fig. 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
Regarding claim 3, Pavloff teaches wherein a first density of the cooling grooves in close within the center area is greater than a second density of the cooling grooves within the periphery area. (See Fig. 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
Regarding claim 4, Pavloff teaches a plurality of first circular grooves that intersect the plurality of curve grooves. (See Fig. 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
Regarding claim 5, Pavloff teaches wherein the plurality of first circular grooves includes: a first group of the plurality of first circular grooves that are concentric with each other; and a second group of the plurality of first circular grooves that are concentric with each other and are spaced apart from the first group of the plurality of first circular grooves. (See Fig. 3)
PNG
media_image1.png
509
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
Regarding claim 16, Pavloff teaches a method, comprising: depositing a material from a target onto a semiconductor substrate in a semiconductor substrate process chamber, (Paragraphs 0035, 0048) the depositing including: moving a first magnet within a cooling space (Fig. 6, Paragraphs 0014, 0022-0028, 0042-0045); circulating coolant in the cooling space to expose a top surface of the target to the coolant circulated through the cooling space, the top surface delimits the cooling space and includes a plurality of curved grooves that are exposed to the coolant circulated through the cooling space (Paragraphs 0004,0046); and depositing a film of the material on the semiconductor substrate (Paragraphs 0035, 0048).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
Regarding claim 17, Pavloff teaches wherein the moving the first magnet within the cooling space includes rotating the magnet within the cooling space. (Fig. 6, Paragraphs 0014, 0022-0028, 0042-0045)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
Regarding claim 18, Pavloff teaches moving a second magnet within the cooling space. (Fig. 6, Paragraphs 0014, 0022-0028, 0042-0045)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavloff (U.S. PGPUB. 2009/0090620 A1) in view of Maass (U.S. Pat. 5,284,564).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein moving the second magnet within the cooling space includes rotating the second magnet around the first magnet.
Maass teach rotating a second magnet around a first magnet. (See Fig. 3; Column 3 lines 39-68; Column 4 lines 1-4)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the plurality of curved grooves includes at least one of at least one first circular groove based on a first orbital pattern of the first magnet, at least one second circular groove based on a second orbital pattern of the second magnet, and respective curved grooves of the plurality of curved grooves that define an impeller shape.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of references teach the claimed subject matter including the impeller shape. (See Pavloff Fig. 3)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Maass is that it allows for achieving uniform coating. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Pavloff by utilizing the features of Maass because it allows for achieving uniform coating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-14 allowed.
Claims 6-8 (due to the dependence on claim 1 rejected under 112 2nd paragraph) and 15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 6-8 are indicated as being allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach the claimed subject matter including further comprising a plurality of second circular grooves that intersect the plurality of curved grooves, the first group of the plurality of first circular grooves, and the second group of the plurality of first circular grooves.
Claims 9-14 are allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach a plurality of first circular grooves that extend into the first surface of the target, each respective first circular groove of the plurality of first circular grooves is concentric with each other; a plurality of second circular grooves that extend into the first surface of the target, the plurality of second circular grooves are concentric with each other and are eccentric relative to the respective first circular grooves of the plurality of first circular grooves, and wherein: the plurality of first circular grooves are configured to, in operation, overlap at least one respective orbital pattern of at least one of a first magnet or a second magnet when depositing a material onto a semiconductor substrate present within a semiconductor substrate process chamber, and the plurality of second circular grooves are configured to, in operation, overlap at least one respective orbital pattern of at least one of the first magnet or the second magnet when depositing the material onto the semiconductor substrate present within the semiconductor substrate process chamber.
Claim 15 is indicated as being allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach the claimed subject matter including further comprising a plurality of third circular grooves that are concentric about the center of the center area, and at least one of the plurality of third circular grooves intersect at least one of the plurality of first circular grooves and intersect at least one of the plurality second circular grooves.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
December 18, 2025