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, 4, 6-7, 9-11 are pending in the current application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 12/3/25 does not render the application allowable.
Status of the Rejections
All rejections from the previous office action are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1, 4, 7, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferrasse (US 20170287685, as cited in IDS).
As to claim 1, Ferrasse discloses a method of building up a sputtering target comprising:
A target comprising a base plate and target material (abstract; paragraph 50);
Using an additive method for direct energy deposition comprising laser cladding (paragraph 56);
As to the claim limitation of the additive method forming predefined and non-randomly distributed microgaps, it is believed that Ferrasse inherently obtains this result, although not explicitly stated within its disclosure, for two reasons:
First, the target of Ferrasse is formed by the same method of the instant application – an additive direct energy formation method including laser cladding. It is therefore believed that the same formation technique will result in the same structure including non-randomly distributed microgaps absent any further evidence in difference in formation technique.
Second, Ferrasse, as in the instant application, forms the target structure by an additive laser cladding method. As illustrated in the figures of Ferrasse (figures 5-8: schematic and not to scale, but illustrating the techniques deposition process), this technique involves repetitive deposition of individual discrete ‘blobs’ of material. Therefore, the process will inherently introduce imperfections, including microgaps, between the discrete deposition points as perfectly uniform and homogenous ‘meshing’ of the deposition sites cannot absolutely be obtained.
As to claim 4, Ferrasse discloses the additive method is based on powder material using a powder mixture during the additive method to build up the target (paragraph 60: additive method with powder mixing; paragraph 106: exemplary Ti/Cu and Cu/Cr powder mixtures).
As to claim 7, Ferrasse discloses applying material directly to the target base in forming a new target (figure 4: formation of target material 40 directly on base 42).
As to claim 9, Ferrasse discloses a mechanical flattening step (paragraph 97: final machining step by polishing).
As to claim 10, Ferrasse discloses formation of the target of claim 1 with different target material directly on the base plate (figure 4, paragraph 50: exemplary Al/Cu backing with W target).
As to claim 11, Ferrasse discloses a method comprising:
using directed energy deposition by laser cladding (paragraph 56);
to build up and finalize a target directly onto a base plate (figure 4).
As to the claim limitation of the additive method forming predefined and non-randomly distributed microgaps, it is believed that Ferrasse inherently obtains this result, although not explicitly stated within its disclosure, for two reasons:
First, the target of Ferrasse is formed by the same method of the instant application – an additive direct energy formation method including laser cladding. It is therefore believed that the same formation technique will result in the same structure including non-randomly distributed microgaps absent any further evidence in difference in formation technique.
Second, Ferrasse, as in the instant application, forms the target structure by an additive laser cladding method. As illustrated in the figures of Ferrasse (figures 5-8: schematic and not to scale, but illustrating the techniques deposition process), this technique involves repetitive deposition of individual discrete ‘blobs’ of material. Therefore, the process will inherently introduce imperfections, including microgaps, between the discrete deposition points as perfectly uniform and homogenous ‘meshing’ of the deposition sites cannot absolutely be obtained.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrasse, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aimone (US 20020112955).
As to claim 6, Ferrasse discloses a method of forming a target by an additive manufacturing technique, including laser cladding, electron beam or plasma arc (paragraph 57), to add target material to a backing plate. Ferrasse, however, is silent as to using its method to repair or refill the target.
Aimone discloses a method in which eroded targets comprising target material and a backing plate can be rejuvenated by adding target material by laser or electron beam scanning to repeatedly restore a target for use in an economical manner (abstract; paragraphs 7-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repair or refill a target, as disclosed by Aimone, in the method of Ferrasse, because this allows for cost savings and unlimited reuse of a target (Aimone at paragraph 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues in the remarks that Ferrasse, as applied in the 35 USC 102 and subsequent 103 rejections, does not anticipate the instant claims as the layer relied upon as the ‘target material’ is in fact an interlayer and has the actual target material bonded thereupon. This argument is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
First, the fact that the intermediate product anticipates the instant application is not negated by further processing steps. Nothing in the instant application precludes any further processes being performed on the ‘built up’ layer which Ferrasse discloses. Second, as to the layer being an ‘interlayer’ and not a ‘target material’ layer, this is an argument of terminology and intended use. No structural limitation is inferred onto the layer by being a ‘target material’ other than it capable of being exposed to plasma and sputtered (possibly only excluding gas phase materials). The interlayer of Ferrasse is therefore anticipates a ‘target material’.
Applicant argues in the remarks that the deposition method of Ferrasse does not inherently deposit a layer with non-random micro-gaps as required by the instant claims. Applicant argues that the process of Ferrasse will only introduce random microgaps from the inherent random variations in deposition conditions. This argument is not found persuasive as Applicant has not provided any additional information as to why Ferrasse, which deposits a layer by the same method of the instant claims, will obtain different results. While the premise of random microgap formation may be true, the instant claims do not preclude both the formation of the non-random gaps from the process methodology (arrayed discrete deposition method) and random gaps from variations in conditions during deposition (as argued by Applicant – pressure, size, etc. variations during deposition). Nothing in the arguments appears to indicate why the same method of deposition contained within Ferrasse as in the instant claims will have a different result. The instant specification appears to indicate that the additive method of deposition is what “allows for predefined microgaps…” (instant specification page 5, first partial paragraph).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/JASON BERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794