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 Objections
Claims 12, 13, 2, 7, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, 7, and 8 depend on claim 12 which follows them. This appears to be improper renumbering of the claims. See MPEP 608.01.
Claim 13, line 1, the word “system” is missing.
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 1-20 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 3, is indefinite because the term “quasi-cylinder” is unclear. What are the metes and bounds of “quasi”?
Claim 6, line 2, is indefinite because “near” is unclear. How “near”?
Claim 7, line 4, is indefinite because “the object” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 7, line 5, is indefinite because “the first generating operation” lacks antecedent basis. Should this be “the first generating”?
Claim 7, line 6, is indefinite because “the second generating operation” lacks antecedent basis. Should this be “the second generating”?
Claim 8, line 3, is indefinite because “the object” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 10, line 1, is indefinite because “the object” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 12, lines 1, 2, is indefinite because “the inverted magnetron sputtering system” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 12, line 2, is indefinite because “the surface of the object” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 12, line 5, is indefinite because “the sputter a target holder electrode” is unclear. Should this be “the sputter target holder electrode”?
Claim 12, line 7, is indefinite because “the negative DC pulse” should be “the high-current negative direct current (DC) pulse”.
Claim 17, line 1, is indefinite because “sets” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 17, line 3, is indefinite because “the centerline” of “the hollow target” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 18, line 1, is indefinite because “sets” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 19, line 2 and 3, is indefinite because “the ends of the apparatus” lacks antecedent basis. Should this be “ends of the vacuum apparatus”?
Claim 20, line 1, is indefinite because “the object” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 20, line 2, should “HiPIMS” should be “high-power impulse magnetron sputtering (HiPIMS)”?
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) 1, 2, 6-9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,178,739) in view of Alami et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2010/0236919 A1), Rose (U.S. Pat. 5,228,963) and Ruzic et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2018/0358213 Al).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Barnes et al. teach a system comprising: a sputter target (Column 3 line 49 – target 12) shaped in the form of a cylinder (Fig. 2; Column 3 line 39), and made of sputter target material (Column 4 lines 2-3 – copper) transferable, in operation of the system, to a substrate (Column 3 lines 43 – substrate 19); and a magnetic element array including multiple sets of permanent magnets arranged along an outward face of the sputter target (Figs. 1-3; Column 3 lines 45-47); wherein the magnetic element array is positioned relatively outwardly in relation to the sputter target (Figs. 1-3; Column 3 lines 45-47) so that, in operation, one or more localized Hall-Effect regions are generated that facilitate magnetron plasma discharge from an inward facing surface of the sputter target (Fig.3),
PNG
media_image1.png
644
953
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein each region, of the one or more localized Hall-Effect regions, extends over an effective area of the sputter target (Figs. 1-3) wherein, during a magnetron plasma discharge operation, the system is configured to generate and control an ion and neutral particle flux by: providing a vacuum apparatus containing a sputter target electrode (Figs. 1-3); and generating a magnetron plasma discharge by applying one or more voltage potential patterns to the sputter target electrode (Column 3 lines 59-65; Column 4 lines 18-20; Applying DC power at a constant level)
The difference between Barnes et al. and claim 1 is that generating 0.1A/cm² to 10A/cm² plasma discharge current density in the effective area during a magnetron plasma discharge operation is not discussed (Claim 1), providing a sputter target holder electrode is not discussed (Claim 1), and providing, during operation, a direct current high-power impulse magnetron
sputtering (direct current HiPIMS) operation is not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding generating 0.1A/cm² to 10A/cm² plasma discharge current density in the effective area during a magnetron plasma discharge operation (Claim 1), Alami et al. teach that the current density during magnetron plasma discharge should be 0.05 to 5A/cm². (Paragraph 0071)
Regarding providing a sputter target holder electrode (Claim 1), Rose suggest using a target holder, which is electrically conductive and is applied with a DC power to apply power to the sputtering target. (Column 5 lines 1-19 - A suitable electrical potential for creating a plasma is achieved by electrically configuring the end sections 12 and 16 as anodes and the target 60 as a cathode. FIG. 2 contains a simple electrical schematic 94 which depicts the basic DC electrical connections. In the preferred embodiment, the walls 20 and 40 are electrically conductive, as are the jacket end caps 70 and 72 and walls 64 and 66 of the cooling jacket 62. In the preferred embodiment, and in typical utilizations, the target 60 is also electrically conductive.)
PNG
media_image2.png
499
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding providing, during operation, a direct current high-power impulse magnetron
sputtering (direct current HiPIMS) operation (Claim 1), Ruzic et al. teach wherein the magnetic array is configured to provide the magnetron plasma discharge for performing a direct current high-power impulse magnetron sputtering (direct current HiPIMS) operation, and wherein the inverted magnetron sputtering system is configured to modify the surface of the object by generating and controlling an ion and neutral particle flux by: first generating a high-power pulsed plasma magnetron discharge with a high- current negative direct current (DC) pulse to the sputter a target holder electrode; and second generating a configurable positive voltage kick pulse to the sputter target holder electrode after terminating the negative DC pulse. (Paragraph 0012, 0049, 0057, 0060)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the inverted magnetron sputtering system is configured to modify the surface of the object by generating and controlling an ion and neutral particle flux by: first generating a high-power pulsed plasma magnetron discharge with a high- current negative direct current (DC) pulse to the sputter a target holder electrode; and second generating a configurable positive voltage kick pulse to the sputter target holder electrode after terminating the negative DC pulse.
Regarding claim 12, Ruzic et al. teach wherein the magnetic array is configured to provide the magnetron plasma discharge for performing a direct current high-power impulse magnetron sputtering (direct current HiPIMS) operation, and wherein the inverted magnetron sputtering system is configured to modify the surface of the object by generating and controlling an ion and neutral particle flux by: first generating a high-power pulsed plasma magnetron discharge with a high- current negative direct current (DC) pulse to the sputter a target holder electrode; and second generating a configurable positive voltage kick pulse to the sputter target holder electrode after terminating the negative DC pulse. (Paragraph 0012, 0049, 0057, 0060)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein during the second generating, a program processor configured logic circuitry issues a control signal to control a kick pulse property of the configurable positive voltage kick pulse taken from the group consisting of: onset delay, amplitude and duration.
Regarding claim 2, Ruzic et al. teach wherein during the second generating, a program processor configured logic circuitry issues a control signal to control a kick pulse property of the configurable positive voltage kick pulse taken from the group consisting of: onset delay, amplitude and duration. (Paragraph 0012, 0049, 0057, 0060)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the magnetic element array is arranged to
create a magnetic null or minimum near the object or a centerline of the sputter target.
Regarding claim 6, In Barnes et al. Fig. 3 the magnetic element array is arranged to create
a magnetic null or minimum near the object or a centerline of the sputter target. (Fig. 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the system is configured to further carry out a
continuous hybrid production process including both a layer deposition operation and an etch
process operation, wherein the continuous hybrid process is performed: without removing the
object from a chamber within the system, and by varying a timing and/or an amplitude of a pulse
during the first generating operation and/or the second generating operation.
Regarding claim 7, Ruzic et al. teach wherein the system is configured to further carry
out a continuous hybrid production process including both a layer deposition operation and an
etch process operation, wherein the continuous hybrid process is performed: without removing
the object from a chamber within the system, and by varying a timing and/or an amplitude of a
pulse during the first generating operation and/or the second generating operation. (Paragraph
0030, 0047, 0049, 0063, 0090, 0091, 0092, 0096)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the system is configured to further carry out a continuous hybrid production process that is configurable such that a multi-stage process is performable on the object occurs without process stoppage, and wherein the multi-stage process comprises two or more operations taken from the group consisting of: cleaning, etching, ion implantation, stress management, deposition, mixing, adhesion, and/or layer control.
Regarding claim 8, Ruzic et al. teach wherein the system is configured to further carry out a continuous hybrid production process that is configurable such that a multi-stage process is performable on the object occurs without process stoppage, and wherein the multi-stage process comprises two or more operations taken from the group consisting of: cleaning, etching, ion implantation, stress management, deposition, mixing, adhesion, and/or layer control. (Paragraph 0030, 0047, 0049, 0063, 0090, 0091, 0092, 0096)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein, during a magnetron plasma discharge operation, the system is configured to modify the surface of an object by generating and controlling an ion and a neutral particle flux by applying a voltage bias to the object.
Regarding claim 9, Barnes et al. teach wherein, during a magnetron plasma discharge operation, the system is configured to modify the surface of an object by generating and controlling an ion and a neutral particle flux by applying a voltage bias to the object. (Column 4 lines 58-60)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the sputter target comprises an elongated
sputtering electrode material tube.
Regarding claim 11, Barnes et al. teach wherein the sputter target comprises an elongated sputtering electrode material tube. (See Barnes Fig. 2)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the magnetic element array is located external to the vacuum apparatus.
Regarding claim 14, Barnes et al. teach wherein the magnetic element array is located external to the vacuum apparatus. (See Fig. 1)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein sets of permanent magnets of the magnetic element array are shaped to generate magnetic field cusps with a magnetic field gradient towards the centerline of the hollow sputter target.
Regarding claim 17, Barnes et al. teach wherein sets of permanent magnets of the magnetic element array are shaped to generate magnetic field cusps with a magnetic field gradient towards the centerline of the hollow sputter target. (See Fig. 1)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the centerline magnetic minimum or null creates a virtual electrode for low-impedance current return along the axis to electrodes located at the ends of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 19, Barnes et al. teach wherein the centerline magnetic minimum or null creates a virtual electrode for low-impedance current return along the axis to electrodes located at the ends of the apparatus. (Fig. 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the vacuum apparatus feeds the object continuously through the magnetron plasma discharge comprising one or more localized HiPIMS plasma discharge regions.
Regarding claim 20, Rose discussed above teaches feeding the substrate continuously. (See Rose Fig. 2) Ruzic teaches HiPIMs conditions. (See Ruzic above)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Alami et al. is that it allows for coating workpieces with little heating. (Paragraph 0005, 0008)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Rose is that it allows for supporting the target. (Column 5 lines 1-19)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Ruzic et al. is that it allows for directing ion flux. (Paragraph 0002)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Barnes et al. by utilizing the features of Alami et al., Rose and Ruzic et al. because it allows for coating workpieces without heating, supporting the target and direction flux.
Claim(s) 3, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. in view of Alami et al., Rose and Ruzic et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20 above, and further in view of Okamura et al. (JP 01-309964).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the magnetic element array and the sputter target relatively rotate along a common lengthwise axis.
Regarding claim 3, Okamura et al. teach rotating magnets via a motor. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would apply the teachings of Okamura et al. in Barnes et al. because rotating the magnets will produce uniform films. (See Abstract; Fig. 1 - motor 12)
PNG
media_image3.png
303
362
media_image3.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the sputter target is stationary.
Regarding claim 13, Okumura et al. teach the sputtering target is stationary. (See Fig. 1)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Okamura et al. is that it allows for producing uniform films. (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 utilized the features of Okamura et al. because it allows for producing uniform films.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. in view of Alami et al., Rose and Ruzic et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20 above, and further in view of Le et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2006/0272935 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the magnetic element array is physically arranged to create at least one Hall-effect region in a continuous serpentine path.
Regarding claim 4, Le et al. teach utilizing a magnet element array that is physically arranged to create at least one Hall-Effect region in a continuous serpentine path. (See Fig. 3, Fig. 4)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the continuous serpentine path comprises a turnaround profile magnetic assembly, wherein the turnaround profile magnet assembly is magnetically tailored to produce a desired magnetron plasma discharge density change relative to a centerline of the continuous serpentine path.
Regarding claim 5, Le et al. teach a turnaround for a magnetron. (See Fig. 4)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the magnetic element array comprises one or more circular, rectangular, or other continuous loops to generate magnetic fields near the sputter target.
Regarding claim 16, Lee et al. teach a magnetic element array having a continuous loop. (See Fig. 4)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Le et al. is that it allows for increasing the sputtering rate. (Paragraph 0024)
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 Le et al. because it allows for increasing the sputtering rate.
Claim(s) 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. in view of Alami et al., Rose and Ruzic et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20 above, and further in view of Brachet et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2017/0287578).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the object is nuclear fuel.
Regarding claim 10, Brachet et al. teach producing nuclear fuel by sputtering. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Brachet et al. is that it allows for producing nuclear fuel. (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 utilized the features of Brachet et al. because it allows for producing nuclear fuel.
Claim(s) 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. in view of Alami et al., Rose and Ruzic et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20 above, and further in view of Kuriyama (U.S. Pat. 4,221,652).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the magnetic element array is immersed in a liquid coolant, situated proximal to the sputter target and any sputter target holder electrode.
Kuriyama teaches the magnetic element array is immersed in a liquid coolant, situated proximal to the sputter target and any sputter target holder electrode. (See Fig. 2a)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Kuriyama is that it allows for cooling. (Column 3 lines 45-48)
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 Kuriyama et al. because it allows for cooling.
Claim(s) 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. in view of Alami et al., Rose and Ruzic et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20 above, and further in view of Teer (U.S. Pat. 5,556,519).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein sets of permanent magnets of the magnetic element array are poled in one direction and paired with a corresponding set of oppositely poled permanent magnets to generate an unbalanced magnetic configuration.
Regarding claim 18, Teer teach utilizing sets of permanent magnets poled in one direction and paired with a corresponding set of oppositely poled permanent magnets to generate an unbalanced magnetic configuration. (See Fig. 1, 8; Column 5 lines 54-59)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Teer is that it allows for increasing ion bombardment of the substrate. (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 utilized the features of Teer because it allows for increasing ion bombardment of the substrate.
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 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,211,679. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-26 of U.S. Pat. No. 12,211,679 require “a plasma coverage area fraction equals a ratio of a sum total area of the effective area of the one or more localized Hall-Effect regions to an outer surface area of the sputter target facing the magnetic array” and “wherein the magnetic element array is configured such that the plasma coverage area fraction, during direct current HiPIMS operation, is less than one half.”. Pending Claims 1-20 do not require these limitations. However all the limitations of the current pending claims 1-20 are suggested by Claims 1-26 of U.S. Pat. No. 12,211,679 and therefore would be obvious over claims 1-26 of U.S. Pat. No. 12,211,679.
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
January 15, 2026