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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-12, 14-15, 18-19 are pending in the current application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/23/2026 has been entered.
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 7, 9-12 and 19 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.
Independent claims 7 and 11 require a method of forming a target of claim 1 with a broader relative density (at least 98% claim 7/11] vs at least 99% [claim 1]) and broader average crystal diameter (400 micron or less vs 45 micron or less). It is therefore unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art whether the narrower properties of the target of claim 1 is required within these claims, or the broader limitation recited in these claims is permitted in contrast to the referenced product.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuwen in view of Abenthung.
As to claim 1, Wuwen discloses a sputtering target with molybdenum of 99.99% purity, a theoretical density of over 98%, and average crystal grain size of less than 150 micron (paragraph 63: targets including Mo and properties).
Wuwen, while disclosing a molybdenum sputtering target with low crystal grain diameters and a theoretic density of at least 98% (paragraph 46), is silent as to specific properties including under 45 micron grain diameters and over 99% theoretical density for the target.
Abenthung discloses a molybdenum target with higher theoretical density, including 99% and a small grain size under 50 micron (abstract; paragraph 3, 48) for obtaining uniform erosion of the target without contamination of the substrate (paragraph 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a high density low grain size molybdenum target, as disclosed by Abenthung, in the target of Wuwen, because this allows for uniform target erosion and avoids contamination of the substrate (Abenthung at paragraph 12).
As to the claim limitations directed towards the specific method of determining grain size (length measurement, grain count, and subsequent division), although Wuwen and Abenthung do not disclose the specific method of determining grain size, the claim requirement is a target physical property – which is taught as discussed above - and the recitation to the method of determining the property does not further limit the property in a patentable way in this claim. Because the prior art teaches the resulting/measured property, grain size, this limitation is taught by the prior art.
As to the claim limitation of the resulting properties of the particle size and count during the target’s use, this limitation is believed to be met by the above discussed combination of Wuwen and Abenthung for two reasons. First, as discussed in the instant specification, the properties of the target – including the claimed purity, grain size, density – are what result in the reduction in large size particle count during use. Therefore, because the prior art teaches these properties it will necessarily follow it will be capable of obtaining the same results during use. Second, the deposition film properties (including particle size and count), although dependent upon the target properties, is further dependent upon the conditions applied during sputtering. Various factors, including the chamber orientation (ex: angled/curved duct with magnetic particle filtering), power applied (arcing, intended or accidental from high powers, generates larger particles), among others. Therefore, the target of Wuwen in view of Abenthung would be further capable of producing the required results depending upon the conditions applied. As a further extreme example – if a target was used to generate a film only 0.001 micrometers thick, it would be unlikely any particles with diameter greater than 0.07 micrometers would be in the film.
As to claim 7, Wuwen discloses a method of producing a sputtering target comprising preparing a molybdenum powder, subjecting the powder to hot pressing, and subjecting the compact obtained to hot isostatic pressing at 1500°C (claim 2: hot pressing the powder, and subsequently hot isostatic pressing; paragraph 63: target of molybdenum; paragraph 49: hot isostatic pressing at 1500°C).
Wuwen, while disclosing a target production method from powder with hot pressing followed by hot isostatic pressing, only discloses the temperature of the HIP, not the hot pressing step. However, because Wuwen discloses the suitable HIP temperature for molybdenum to be about 1500°C, it would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an optional (within the embodiments of Wuwen) first hot pressing step to occur at the same or similar temperature. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the hot pressing of the powder at 1500°C as Wuwen discloses using this temperature for the HIP step which either occurs after the hot pressing or without the hot pressing of the powder.
As to claim 10, Wuwen discloses performing the HIP 30000 psi [2100kg/cm2] or less (paragraph 49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 1300-2000kg/cm2 for the HIP load, as Wuwen discloses embodiments of which less than 2100kg/cm2 is used and this range falls directly below the disclosed ‘less than’ value of Wuwen.
As to claims 14, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structure limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Because Wuwen discloses the required target and properties of claim 1, it is believed that the same structure will operate in the same manner as required by claims 13-14.
Claims 3-4, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuwen in view of Abenthung, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lemon (US 20080193798).
As to claim 4, Wuwen discloses a molybdenum target with purity higher than 99.99% (paragraph 63), but is silent as to specifically having 99.999% purity.
Lemon discloses a molybdenum sputtering target with high purity and small grain size for use in specific semiconductor applications (abstract, paragraph 79), the purity being at least 99.999% in some instances (paragraph 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 5N purities, as disclosed by Lemon, in the target of Wuwen, because this allows for high purity materials for specialized semiconductor applications (Lemon at abstract).
As to claim 3 and 15, although neither Lemon nor Wuwen explicitly disclose the radiation dose of the target, they do explicitly disclose the target purity being 5N or greater. Therefore, it will necessarily follow that the radiation dose will be low as the high purity of molybdenum prevents a high concentration of elements that would create radiation to be present within the target. Therefore, it believed the disclosure of Wuwen in view of Lemon disclose the requisite radiation dose of claim 3.
As to claim 18, Wuwen discloses formation of the Mo target into any desired 3-d shape (paragraph 9) including more complicated shapes relative to the prior art disclosed disc (figures 7-8), but is silent as to specifically forming disc or plate shapes.
Lemon discloses knowledge in the art of forming Mo targets into discs, plates [rectangles/squares] or any other desired shape for sputter deposition (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any desired shape, including disc or plate, as disclosed by Lemon, in the product of Wuwen and Abenthung, to allow a deposition profile as desired.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuwen in view of Abenthung, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yi (US 20020102849).
As to claims 9 and 11, Wuwen discloses formation of a molybdenum target by hot pressing and isostatic pressing, but is silent as to hot press load and times of pressing.
Yi discloses a method of forming a sputtering target including molybdenum (abstract) in which powder hot pressing steps are used, the steps including at hot press at 200-1000psi (paragraph 50) for times of 30-240 minutes (table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use desired times and pressures of Yi, in the method of Wuwen, because this allows for effective densification of a target to a desired final structure (paragraphs 63-64).
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuwen in view of Abenthung, as applied to claim 7 and 11 above, and further in view of Ibaraki (US 20050061106).
As to claim 12 and 19, Wuwen discloses a method of forming a high purity low grain size molybdenum target, but is silent as to the specific starting powder properties.
Ibaraki discloses a method of forming a molybdenum target with high purity and low particle generation during operation (abstract). Ibaraki discloses obtaining this target by starting with a 4N pure powder with 2 to 4 micron size (paragraph 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a high purity low grain size powder, as disclosed by Ibaraki, in the method of Wuwen, because this allows for generation of a high purity low particle generation target (Ibaraki at abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON BERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5265. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON BERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794