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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “46” has been used to designate both an angle (Fig. 3F) and a target body (Fig. 7), reference character “28c” has been used to designate both a front piece of a cathode and a back piece of a cathode (Fig. 3F), reference character “214” has been used to designate both a center point and a distance (Fig. 9), and reference character “136” has been used to designate both an object 136 (Fig. 10B) and an end part or base (Fig. 10C). 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. 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)(4) because reference characters "28a" and "28c" have both been used to designate the front piece of the cathode (Fig. 3E and 3F). 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4 of pg. 4, “at least surface” should be amended to read “at least one surface” to improve clarity.
In line 21 of pg. 5 and line 2 of pg. 12, “that each extends” should read “that each extend” to correct grammar.
In line 23 of pg. 5, line 6 of pg. 12, and line 5 of pg. 23, “at near” should read “at or near”.
In line 6 of pg. 27, the distance and center point are both referred to by reference number 212.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
In claim 14, the limitation “sliding the surface to be modified from atmospheric pressure into the vacuum chamber” does not have antecedent basis in the specification because the specification only mentions “sliding” with respect to the surface to be modified relative to the ion source and sputtering target. Rather, the specification recites “feeding” the surface to be modified into the chamber from atmospheric pressure into the vacuum chamber, which does not necessarily mean “sliding”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 9-11, and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 14 of claim 1, the limitation “from a first cross-sectional area closer to the ion source than a second cross-sectional area” should likely be amended to read “from a first cross-sectional area closer to the ion source to a second cross-sectional area”.
In claim 1, the limitation “the hollow portion of the ion beam” in line 16 should be amended to recite “the hollow part of the ion beam” to align with the recitation in line 3 of the claim.
In claim 9, the limitation “so that sputtering target” should be amended to read “so that the sputtering target”.
In claims 2-4, 10-11, and 13-14, a comma should be added between the reference claim number and the word “wherein”.
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 1-14 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 claims 1 and 3-4, the limitation “a surface to be modified” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this surface is intended to be the “surface of an object to be modified” recited previously or a different surface to be modified. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claims to recite “the surface to be modified”.
In claim 1, the limitation “the cross-sectional area of at least part of the target body” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because it is unclear what cross-sectional area is being referred to. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “a cross-sectional area of at least part of the target body”.
In claim 1, the limitations “substantially smaller” and “substantially larger” are indefinite because it is unclear how much “smaller” or “larger” the cross-sectional area must be to meet the claim limitation or if any amount smaller or larger would meet the claim limitation. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “smaller” and “larger” by deleting the word “substantially” in these cases.
In claim 2, the limitation “the cross sectional area of the external periphery of target body” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because claim 1 only recites a cross-sectional area of an external periphery of the “hollow ion beam” and of “at least part of the target body” but not the external periphery of the target body.
In claim 9, the limitation “the target surface” is indefinite because it is unclear which of the “at least one target surface” recited in claim 1 is being referred to. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “the at least one target surface”.
In claim 12, the limitations “the ion beam axis” in line 8 and “the cross-sectional area” in line 9 lack antecedent basis and thus are indefinite because it is unclear what beam axis and cross-sectional area are being referred to. These rejections may be overcome by amending the claims to recite “an ion beam axis” and “a cross-sectional area”.
In claim 12, the limitation “a surface to be modified” in line 12-13 is indefinite because it is unclear whether this surface is intended to be the “surface to be modified” recited previously or a different surface to be modified. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claims to recite “the surface to be modified”.
Claims 5-8, 10-11, and 13-14 are indefinite by virtue of depending on indefinite claims.
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) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maishev (US 6238526 B1) in view of Sato (JP H0625844 A).
Regarding claim 12, Maishev (US 6238526 B1) teaches a method of sputtering an object (surface to be modified) including locating a sputtering target 520b defined as an inner disk having at least one target surface and adjacent to a hollow ion source 500, where the target forms a passage with another target, creating a vacuum by evacuation within a vacuum chamber at least partly defined by an ion source housing 440 associated with the sputtering apparatus, generating a hollow ion beam with the ion source and directing the hollow ion beam such that an ion beam axis is coaxial with an axis of the target body, wherein the target is shaped such that particles sputtered toward the surface to be modified are sputtered in radially extending sputter directions from the target and extending away from the beam axis, and wherein the beam axis is substantially coaxial with an axis of the target body (col 3 line 62-64, col 7 line 12-67, col 8 line 1-5; Fig. 4-5, see annotated Fig. 4).
Maishev fails to explicitly teach the cross-sectional area of at least part of the target body in a plane perpendicular to the beam axis increases in a direction away from the ion source. However, Sato (JP H0625844 A), in the analogous art of ion beam sputtering, teaches a target material 60 to be sputtered by an ion beam that is tapered to prevent contamination of the ion source by sputtered particles (para 0031-0036; Fig. 1(B)). Both Maishev and Sato teach ion beam sputtering through a target passage (Maishev Fig. 4; Sato Fig. 1(B)). 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 substitute the straight target passages of Maishev with tapered target passages, as described by Sato, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of sputtering target material while minimizing contamination. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). As a result, the target is narrower at the ion beam inlet near the ion source and wider at the ion beam outlet near the surface to be modified along the direction perpendicular to the beam axis (cross-sectional area of at least part of the target body increases in a direction away from the ion source).
Annotated Fig. 4 (Maishev)
PNG
media_image1.png
520
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maishev (US 6238526 B1) in view of Sato (JP H0625844 A), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Watanabe (US 20170352540 A1) and Kim (US 20110132755 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Maishev and Sato fails to explicitly teach the surface to be modified is slid relative to the ion source and sputtering target. However, Watanabe (US 20170352540 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches transferring a substrate (surface to be modified) from an atmospheric pressure supply chamber to a load lock chamber and then to a vacuum deposition chamber by a transfer robot (para 0096, 0098, 0106). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transport the substrate/object of Maishev from an atmospheric chamber to the vacuum deposition chamber, as described by Watanabe, so that the substrates in the vacuum chamber may be replaced with a new substrate to perform a further deposition process. As a result, the surface to be modified is moved relative to the ion source and the sputtering target at least when being transferred to the chamber.
Under one interpretation, the transferring of the substrate by the transfer robot may be considered “sliding”. Alternatively, Kim (US 20110132755 A1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches transferring substrates continuously along a bottom surface by conveyor units (sliding) (para 0020, 0034; 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 substitute the transfer robot arrangement of Watanabe with a conveyor based transfer means, as described by Kim, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of transferring substrates. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Maishev, Sato, Watanabe, and Kim teaches the substrate is transferred from an atmospheric chamber to a vacuum chamber (Watanabe para 0096, 0098, 0106) by sliding/conveying the substrate (Kim para 0020, 0034; Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 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:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art to the claimed invention is Maishev (US 6238526 B1) and Sato (JP H0625844 A). Maishev teaches an ion beam sputtering apparatus comprising an ion source configured to generate a hollow ion beam along a beam axis located in a hollow part of the beam and a sputtering target having a target body that defines at least one target surface, the target body comprising sputterable particles, the target body being located relative to the ion source so that the ion beam hits the at least one target surface to sputter particles from the target body toward a surface of an object to be modified, wherein the target body is shaped so that the particles sputtered toward the surface to be modified are generally sputtered from the sputtering target in radially extending sputter directions relative to the beam axis, the sputter directions extending away from the beam axis, wherein the axis of the target body is substantially coaxial with the beam axis. Sato teaches the cross-sectional area of at least part of the target body, in a plane perpendicular to the beam axis, increases in a direction away from the ion source from a first cross-sectional area closer to the ion source than a second cross-sectional area further from the ion source. However, the aforementioned references fail to teach the combination of the first cross-sectional area being “smaller than a cross-sectional area of the hollow portion of the ion beam” and the second cross-sectional area being “larger than a cross-sectional area of an external periphery of the hollow ion beam”. Additionally, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to meet the claimed limitations. Therefore, claim 1 contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1 and thus would be allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Maishev2 (US 6153067 A) teaches the target surface may have a portion directly facing the ion source which would also sufficiently teach the limitations of claim 12 when combined with Sato.
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