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 § 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) 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chia et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2014/0196848 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
Regarding claim 10, Chia et al. teach a shutter disc for use in a physical vapor deposition (PVD) processing chamber, comprising: a body, comprising: a center region comprising a center of the body and a cross-sectional wave shape, and an outer region comprising an outer edge of the body that is planar. (Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0016-0033; Annotated Figure Below)
PNG
media_image1.png
650
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the cross-section wave shape extends between the center and the outer region.
Regarding claim 11, Chia et al. teach wherein the cross-section wave shape extends between the center and the outer region. (See Figs. 1, 2)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a plurality of concentric crest portions of wave shapes extend between the center and the outer edge.
Regarding claim 12, Chia et al. teach wherein a plurality of concentric crest portions of wave shapes extend between the center and the outer edge. (See Annotated Figure above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a plurality of concentric trough portions of wave shapes extend between the center and the outer edge.
Regarding claim 13, Chia et al. teach wherein a plurality of concentric trough portions of wave shapes extend between the center and the outer edge. (Figs. 1, 2, Annotated Figure above)
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) 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chia et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2014/0196848 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a thickness of the body at the center region is in a range from 1.7 millimeters to 2.0 millimeters.
Regarding claim 15, From Fig. 2 and the measurement 250 it appears that the center region can range from 1.5 mm to 7.6 mm. (Paragraph 0019; See Fig. 2 above; at 0.06 inches or 1.5 mm the center region is about 3 times this. 4.5 mm)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a thickness of the body at the outer region is in a range from 4.5 millimeters to 5.5 millimeters.
Regarding claim 16, From Fig. 2 and the measurement 250 it appears that the outer region can range from 1.5 mm to 7.6 mm. (Paragraph 0019; See Fig. 2 above; at 0.06 inches or 1.5 mm the center region is about 3 times this. 4.5 mm)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Chia et al. is that it allows for improving pasting uniformity. (Paragraph 0005)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Chia et al. because it allows for improving the pasting uniformity.
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, 8, 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,827,970. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 8-20 teach the required shutter disk and deposition tool of the claims. Specifically:
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Claims 8 and 9 of U.S. Pat. 11,827,970 teach a shutter disc for use in a physical vapor deposition (PVD) processing chamber, comprising: a body, comprising: a portion having a top surface with a cross-sectional wave-shape and a backside surface with a corresponding cross-sectional wave-shape, the cross-sectional wave-shape comprising: a plurality of concentric crest portions, and a plurality of concentric trough portions.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
Regarding claim 8, Claim 12 of U.S. Pat. 11,827,970 teaches further comprising a diameter in a range from 305 millimeters to 310 millimeters.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
Regarding claim 9, Claim 13 of U.S. Pat. 11,827,970 teaches wherein a thickness of the body between the top surface and the backside surface is in a range from 1.7 millimeters to 2.0 millimeters.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 10-13, 15-18, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,827,970 in view of Chia et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2014/0196848 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the body further comprises a planar section at an outer region of the body.
Chia et al. teach a shutter disc with a planar section at an outer region of the body. (See Figs. 1, 2; Annotated Fig. above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the cross-sectional wave-shape extends between a center of the shutter disc and the planar section.
Regarding claim 4, Chia et al. teach wherein the cross-sectional wave-shape extends between a center of the shutter disc and the planar section. (See Figs. 1, 2; Annotated Fig. above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising an interior recess.
Regarding claim 5, Chia et al. teach wherein the shutter disc comprises an interior recess. (See Fig. 2)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a depth of the interior recess is included in a range from 2.5 millimeters to 3.5 millimeters.
Regarding claim 7, Chia et al. teach the depth of the interior recess is in a range of from 2.5 millimeters to 3.5 millimeters. (Paragraph 0022)
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
Regarding claim 10, Claims 8 and 9 of U.S. Pat. 11,827,970 teach a shutter disc for use in a physical vapor deposition (PVD) processing chamber, comprising: a body, comprising a center region comprising a center of the body (inherent).
The difference between claims 8, 9 of U.S. Pat. 11,827,970 and pending claim 10 is that a center region comprising a center of the body and a cross-sectional wave shape, and an outer region comprising an outer edge of the body that is planar is not discussed.
Chia et al. teach a center region comprising a center of the body and a cross-sectional wave shape, and an outer region comprising an outer edge of the body that is planar. (See Figs. 1, 2; Annotated Fig. above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the cross-section wave shape extends between the center and the outer region.
Regarding claim 11, Chia et al. teach wherein the cross-section wave shape extends between the center and the outer region. (See Figs. 1, 2; Annotated Fig. above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a plurality of concentric crest portions of wave shapes extend between the center and the outer edge.
Regarding claim 12, Chia et al. teach wherein a plurality of concentric crest portions of wave shapes extend between the center and the outer edge. (See Annotated Figure above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a plurality of concentric trough portions of wave shapes extend between the center and the outer edge.
Regarding claim 13, Chia et al. teach wherein a plurality of concentric trough portions of wave shapes extend between the center and the outer edge. (Figs. 1, 2, Annotated Figure above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
Regarding claim 15, Claim 13 of U.S. Pat. 11,827,970 teach wherein a thickness of the body at the center region is in a range from 1.7 millimeters to 2.0 millimeters.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
Regarding claim 16, Claim 15 of U.S. Pat. 11,827,970 teach wherein a thickness of the body at the outer region is in a range from 4.5 millimeters to 5.5 millimeters.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
Regarding claim 17, Claims 17-20 of U.S. Pat. 11,827,970 teach a deposition tool comprising: a substrate support component; and a shutter disc included on the substrate support component, the shutter disc inherently comprises a center region.
The differences between Claims 17-20 of U.S. Pat. 11,827,970 and the pending claim 17 is that a center region comprising a top surface with a cross-sectional wave-shape and a backside surface with a corresponding cross-sectional wave-shape; and an outer region comprising a planar surface is not discussed.
Chia et al. teach a center region comprising a center of the body and a cross-sectional wave shape, and an outer region comprising an outer edge of the body that is planar. (See Figs. 1, 2; Annotated Fig. above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a peak-to-peak width between two crests of the cross-sectional wave-shape is in a range from 30 millimeters to 31 millimeters.
Regarding claim 18, Chia et al. teach wherein the peak to peak width of the plurality of concentric crest portions is in a range of 30.0 mm to 31.0 mm where 1 inch is close to this range. (Paragraph 0019 - 1 inch) A prima facie case of obviousness exists where ranges are close. See MPEP 2144.05 – A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
DEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
Regarding claim 20, Claim 20 of U.S. Pat. 11,827,970 teach wherein the backside surface comprises a plurality of concentric wave shapes.
The motivation for utilizing the feature of Chia et al. is that it allows for improving pasting uniformity. (Paragraph 0005)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Chia et al. because it allows for improving the pasting uniformity.
Claims 1-3, 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,215,414. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Pat. 12,215,414 teach the required shutter disk and deposition tool of the claims. Specifically:
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Claims 1, 14-16, 19 of U.S. Pat. 12,215,414 teach a shutter disc for use in a physical vapor deposition (PVD) processing chamber, comprising: a body, comprising: a portion having a top surface with a cross-sectional wave-shape and a backside surface with a corresponding cross-sectional wave-shape, the cross-sectional wave-shape comprising: a plurality of concentric crest portions, and a plurality of concentric trough portions.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
Regarding claim 2, Claim 3 of U.S. Pat. 12,215,414 teach wherein the body further comprises a planar section at an outer region of the body.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
Regarding claim 3, Claim 4 of U.S. Pat. 12,215,414 teach wherein a thickness of the body in the planar section is greater than a thickness of the body in the portion having the top surface with the cross-sectional wave-shape and the backside surface with the corresponding cross-sectional wave-shape.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
Regarding claim 5, Claim 6 of U.S. Pat. 12,215,414 teaches an interior recess.
Claims 4, 7, 8, 10-14, 16-18, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,215,414 in view of
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the cross-sectional wave-shape extends between a center of the shutter disc and the planar section.
Regarding claim 4, Chia et al. teach wherein the cross-sectional wave-shape extends between a center of the shutter disc and the planar section. (See Figs. 1, 2; Annotated Fig. above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a depth of the interior recess is included in a range from 2.5 millimeters to 3.5 millimeters.
Regarding claim 7, Chia et al. teach the depth of the interior recess is in a range of from 2.5 millimeters to 3.5 millimeters. (Paragraph 0022)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising a diameter in a range from 305 millimeters to 310 millimeters.
Regarding claim 8, Chia et al. teach a diameter in a range of from 305 millimeters to 310 millimeters. (Paragraph 0033)
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
Regarding claim 10, Claims 1, 14-16, 19 of U.S. Pat. 12,215,414 teach a shutter disc for use in a physical vapor deposition (PVD) processing chamber, comprising: a body, comprising: a center region comprising a center of the body and a cross-sectional wave shape, and an outer region comprising an outer edge of the body that is planar.
The difference between claims 1, 14-16, 19 of U.S. Pat. 12,215,414 and pending claim 10 is that a center region comprising a center of the body and a cross-sectional wave shape, and an outer region comprising an outer edge of the body that is planar is not discussed.
Chia et al. teach a center region comprising a center of the body and a cross-sectional wave shape, and an outer region comprising an outer edge of the body that is planar. (See Figs. 1, 2; Annotated Fig. above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the cross-section wave shape extends between the center and the outer region.
Regarding claim 11, Chia et al. teach wherein the cross-section wave shape extends between the center and the outer region. (See Figs. 1, 2; Annotated Fig. above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a plurality of concentric crest portions of wave shapes extend between the center and the outer edge.
Regarding claim 12, Chia et al. teach wherein a plurality of concentric crest portions of wave shapes extend between the center and the outer edge. (See Annotated Figure above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a plurality of concentric trough portions of wave shapes extend between the center and the outer edge.
Regarding claim 13, Chia et al. teach wherein a plurality of concentric trough portions of wave shapes extend between the center and the outer edge. (Figs. 1, 2, Annotated Figure above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a thickness of the body at the outer region is thicker than a thickness of the body at the center region.
Regarding claim 14, Claim 4 of U.S. Pat. 12,215,414 teach wherein a thickness of the body in the planar section is greater than a thickness of the body in the portion having the top surface with the cross-sectional wave-shape and the backside surface with the corresponding cross-sectional wave-shape.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a thickness of the body at the outer region is in a range from 4.5 millimeters to 5.5 millimeters.
Regarding claim 16, Claim 7 of U.S. Pat. 12, 215,414 teach wherein a thickness of the body at the outer region is in a range from 4.5 millimeters to 5.5 millimeters.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
Regarding claim 17, Claims 7-13 of U.S. Pat. 12,215,414 teach a deposition tool comprising: a substrate support component; and a shutter disc included on the substrate support component, the shutter disc inherently comprises a center region.
The differences between Claims 7-13 of U.S. Pat. 12,215,414 and the pending claim 17 is that a center region comprising a top surface with a cross-sectional wave-shape and a backside surface with a corresponding cross-sectional wave-shape; and an outer region comprising a planar surface is not discussed.
Chia et al. teach a center region comprising a center of the body and a cross-sectional wave shape, and an outer region comprising an outer edge of the body that is planar. (See Figs. 1, 2; Annotated Fig. above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a peak-to-peak width between two crests of the cross-sectional wave-shape is in a range from 30 millimeters to 31 millimeters.
Regarding claim 18, Claim 12 of U.S. Par. 12,215,414 teach wherein a peak-to-peak width between two crests of the cross-sectional wave-shape is in a range from 30 millimeters to 31 millimeters.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the backside surface comprises plurality of concentric wave shapes.
Regarding claim 20, Claim 11 of U.S. Pat. 12,215,414 teach wherein the backside surface comprises a plurality of concentric wave shapes.
The motivation for utilizing the feature of Chia et al. is that it allows for improving pasting uniformity. (Paragraph 0005)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Chia et al. because it allows for improving the pasting uniformity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6 is indicated as being allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach the claimed subject including wherein the interior recess comprises a diameter in a range from 270 millimeters to 280 millimeters.
Claim 19 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 wherein a width of the planar surface is in a range from 28.7 millimeters to 29.7 millimeters.
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 17, 2025