DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's response to the Office Non-Final Action filed on 7/22/2026 is acknowledged.
The applicant’s argument (REMARKS, third paragraph in page 7), “The rejection identifies alleged Grochla elements 70, 72, 80, and 81 and quotes alleged [0004] as stating that "a magnetron 70 positioned in back of the target 34 projects its magnetic field in front of the target 34 to create a high-density plasma region 72." Those element numbers and that quoted disclosure are not found in the Grochla publication identified in the Office Action. The quoted statement instead corresponds to Hong's discussion of its magnetron sputtering reactor.” Grochla et al. (US 2025/0100004) did not disclose a structured substrate 81 (Fig. 4, paragraph 0010) incorporating a plurality of surface features (80 and 70 in Fig. 4, paragraph 0010) extending from a substrate surface (bottom surface of 81 in Fig. 4) such that the applicant’s argument is persuasive and the current office action becomes non-final.
Applicant amended claim 1.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sick et al. (US 2025/0100001) (hereafter Sick), in view of Hong et al. (US 2005/0133365) (hereafter Hong).
Regarding claim 1, Sick discloses an active energy-exchange device comprising:
a structured substrate 418 (Fig. 4, paragraph 0138);
an opposing surface 413 (Fig. 4, paragraph 0134) positioned relative to the structured substrate 418 (Fig. 4, paragraph 0138) to define an inter-surface gap 405 (Fig. 4, paragraph 0133) there between, wherein the inter-surface gap 405 (Fig. 4) has dimensions configured (see paragraph 0144, wherein “the controller 426 controls the DBD device 112 to continuously apply a plasma discharge to the backside 204 of the mesh 104 as the mesh 104 moves through the air gap 405”) to enable field confinement;
at least one activation electrode (402 and 404 in Fig. 4, paragraph 0133) disposed on or near at least one of the structured substrate 418 (Fig. 4) or the opposing surface, the at least one activation electrode (402 and 404 in Fig. 4; and see paragraph 0137, wherein “the first electrode 402 of the DBD device 112, is electrically coupled to the control unit 114 via a power lead 416. The power lead 114 supplies a voltage to the first electrode, resulting in the DBD device 112 generating a plasma discharge, also referred to as a dielectric barrier discharge, that is directed to (i.e., applied to) the backside 204 of the carrier mesh 104 for plasma-activating the backside 204”) configured to receive electrical drive signals and generate a time-varying activation field across the inter-surface gap 405 (Fig. 4); and
a gap-control subsystem (114 in Fig. 4 and “distance sensors” in paragraph 0136) comprising:
at least one sensor (“distance sensors” in paragraph 0154) configured to measure (see paragraph 0154, wherein “identifying the distance of elevations”) a spacing of the inter-surface gap 405 (Fig. 4);
at least one actuator (“actuators” in paragraph 0148) mechanically coupled (see Fig. 4, wherein 428 is coupled to 418) to at least one of the opposing surface or the structured substrate 418 (Fig. 4), the at least one actuator (“actuators” in paragraph 0148) configured to adjust (see paragraph 0148, wherein “moving the support structure 418 for adjusting/setting the width of the air gap 405”) a relative position between the opposing surface 413 (Fig. 4) and the structured substrate 418 (Fig. 4); and
control electronics 426 (Fig. 4, paragraph 0150) in communication (see paragraph 0150, wherein “the controller 426 includes software that is configured to automatically determine a desired width of the air gap 405 based on, e.g., operator input to the controller 426, as described above, and/or on data collected by system sensors (not shown) of the distributed positioning system 428”) with the at least one sensor (“distance sensors” in paragraph 0154) and the at least one actuator (“actuators” in paragraph 0148), the control electronics 426 (Fig. 4) configured to execute feedback control to maintain the inter-surface gap 405 (Fig. 4) at a target value based on measurements from the at least one sensor (“distance sensors” in paragraph 0154);
an electrical drive system 430 (Fig. 4, paragraph 0143) electrically connected to the at least one activation electrode 402 (Fig. 4, paragraph 0143), the electrical drive system 430 (Fig. 4; and see paragraph 0143, wherein “the power source 430 to apply, via one or more power switches (not shown), a voltage of up to and including 40 kV to the first electrode 402 of the DBD device 112 via the power lead 416”) configured to generate the electrical drive signals with controllable characteristics.
Sick does not disclose a structured substrate incorporating a plurality of surface features extending from a substrate surface, the surface features configured to provide a field-shaping geometry that influences spatial distribution, gradient, orientation, or intensity of electromagnetic fields; and
wherein the field-shaping geometry of the surface features, in combination with the maintained inter-surface gap and the time-varying activation field, creates field confinement and effective field sharpness within the inter-surface gap that modulates energy density distribution and enables energy exchange between the opposing surface and the structured substrate.
Hong discloses a structured substrate (horizontal portion of 70 in Fig. 17) incorporating a plurality of surface features (vertical portion of 70 in Fig. 17) extending from a substrate surface (bottom surface of horizontal portion of 70 in Fig. 17), the surface features (vertical portion of 70 in Fig. 17) configured to provide a field-shaping geometry (vertical portion of 70 in Fig. 17; and see paragraph 0004, wherein “increase the plasma density”) that influences spatial distribution, gradient, orientation, or intensity of electromagnetic fields; and
wherein the field-shaping geometry (vertical portion of 70 in Fig. 17) of the surface features, in combination with the maintained inter-surface gap (S in Fig. 17, paragraph 0068) and the time-varying activation field, creates (see paragraph 0010, wherein “confine the plasma and also guide sputtered ions towards the wafer”) field confinement and effective field sharpness within the inter-surface gap (S in Fig. 17) that modulates energy density distribution and enables energy exchange between the opposing surface (top surface of 34 in Fig. 17) and the structured substrate (horizontal portion of 70 in Fig. 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sick to form a structured substrate incorporating a plurality of surface features extending from a substrate surface, the surface features configured to provide field-shaping geometry that influences spatial distribution, gradient, orientation, or intensity of electromagnetic fields; and wherein the field-shaping geometry of the surface features, in combination with the maintained inter-surface gap and the time-varying activation field, creates field confinement and effective field sharpness within the inter-surface gap that modulates energy density distribution and enables energy exchange between the opposing surface and the structured substrate, as taught by Hong, since the magnetron (Hong, paragraph 0004) projects a magnetic field across the face of the target to trap electrons and hence increase the plasma density.
Regarding claim 2, Sick in view of Hong discloses the active energy-exchange device of claim 1, however Sick does not disclose the plurality of surface features comprise substrate posts having geometries selected from the group consisting of conical structures, cylindrical pillars, pyramidal structures, mesa structures with flat top surfaces, nanowire bundles, and combinations thereof.
Hong discloses the plurality of surface features (vertical portion of 70 in Fig. 17) comprise substrate posts having geometries selected from the group consisting of conical structures, cylindrical pillars (see paragraph 0010, wherein “cylindrical magnets”), pyramidal structures, mesa structures with flat top surfaces, nanowire bundles, and combinations thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sick to form the plurality of surface features comprise substrate posts having geometries selected from the group consisting of conical structures, cylindrical pillars, pyramidal structures, mesa structures with flat top surfaces, nanowire bundles, and combinations thereof, as taught by Hong, in order to produce an unbalanced magnetron (Hong, paragraph 0010) which projects its unbalanced magnetic portion towards the wafer to thereby confine the plasma and also guide sputtered ions towards the wafer.
Regarding claim 5, Sick further discloses the active energy-exchange device of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor (“distance sensors” in paragraph 0136) comprises a capacitive sensor (see paragraph 0136, wherein “capacitive distance sensors”) configured to measure the inter-surface gap based on capacitance between electrodes associated with the opposing surface and the structured substrate.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sick in view of Hong as applied to claims 2 and 1 above, and further in view of Jeong et al. (US 2025/0239436) (hereafter Jeong).
Regarding claim 3, Sick in view of Hong discloses the active energy-exchange device of claim 2, however Sick and Hong do not disclose at least a portion of the substrate posts have tip radii less than 100 nanometers to create localized regions of enhanced field concentration.
Jeong discloses at least a portion of the substrate posts (MZ1 and MZ2 in Fig. 5, paragraph 0075) have tip radii (see paragraph 0076, wherein “diameter of D1 of 180 nm” such that the radius is 90 nm) less than 100 nanometers to create (see paragraph 0078, wherein “by forming several magnetic zones above an upper electrode on a concentric circle of the semiconductor wafer, plasma density distribution may be further improved”) localized regions of enhanced field concentration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sick in view of Hong to form at least a portion of the substrate posts have tip radii less than 100 nanometers to create localized regions of enhanced field concentration, as taught by Jeong, since by forming several magnetic zones above an upper electrode on a concentric circle of the semiconductor wafer, plasma density distribution may be further improved. In addition, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Sick in view of Hong discloses the active energy-exchange device of claim 2, however Sick and Hong do not disclose the plurality of surface features are arranged in an array pattern across the substrate surface with a pitch spacing between adjacent surface features ranging from 10 nanometers to 100 micrometers.
Jeong discloses the plurality of surface features (MZ1 and MZ2 in Fig. 5, paragraph 0075) are arranged in an array pattern across the substrate surface with a pitch (see D1 in Fig. 5 and paragraph 0076, wherein “diameter of D1 of 180 nm” such that the pitch is 90 nm) spacing between adjacent surface features ranging from 10 nanometers to 100 micrometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sick in view of Hong to form the plurality of surface features are arranged in an array pattern across the substrate surface with a pitch spacing between adjacent surface features ranging from 10 nanometers to 100 micrometers, as taught by Jeong, since by forming several magnetic zones above an upper electrode on a concentric circle of the semiconductor wafer, plasma density distribution may be further improved. In addition, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sick in view of Hong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pandey et al. (US 2016/0061590) (hereafter Pandey).
Regarding claim 4, Sick in view of Hong discloses the active energy-exchange device of claim 1, however Sick and Hong do not disclose the inter-surface gap is maintained at a separation distance in the range of 1 nanometer to 10 micrometers.
Pandey discloses the inter-surface gap is maintained (d in Fig. 8, paragraph 0089) at a separation distance (see paragraph 0080, wherein “between 10 nm and 50 nm”) in the range of 1 nanometer to 10 micrometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sick in view of Hong to the inter-surface gap is maintained at a separation distance in the range of 1 nanometer to 10 micrometers, as taught by Pandey, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sick in view of Hong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kadyshevitch et al. (US 2014/0132299) (hereafter Kadyshevitch).
Regarding claim 6, Sick in view of Hong discloses the active energy-exchange device of claim 1, however Sick and Hong do not disclose the at least one actuator comprises a piezoelectric actuator, an electrostatic actuator, a magnetostrictive actuator, or a thermal expansion actuator.
Kadyshevitch discloses the at least one actuator (see paragraph 0045, wherein “actuators such as voice coils and piezo-electric elements”) comprises a piezoelectric actuator, an electrostatic actuator, a magnetostrictive actuator, or a thermal expansion actuator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sick in view of Hong to form the at least one actuator comprises a piezoelectric actuator, an electrostatic actuator, a magnetostrictive actuator, or a thermal expansion actuator, as taught by Kadyshevitch, since the gap distance (Kadyshevitch, paragraph 0044) may be controlled within a tolerance for a desired gap distance.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2026 have been fully considered.
2. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAMONT B KOO whose telephone number is (571)272-0984. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached on (571)270-0373. 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.
/L.B.K/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights