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, 9-11 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/20/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Instant claims 1 and 11 requires the predefined and non-randomly distributed microgaps “forming cooling channels” are realized. The instant specification at page 4 last- page 5 first paragraph (beginning “According to a fourth aspect…”) contains the sentence “Another advantage is that with 3D printing in the target material itself cooling channels for water cooling or air cooling can be foreseen which allows for a very efficient cooling approach.” No other mention of forming cooling channels appears within the specification. Because there is not an indication that it is the microgaps forming the cooling channels in the original specification, the claim amendment requiring the microgaps to form cooling channels is new matter. Claims 4, 6, 9-10 are rejected for their dependence upon claim 1.
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, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferrasse (US 20170287685).
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: formation of interlayer on base plate);
Using an additive method for direct energy deposition comprising laser cladding (paragraph 56);
Wherein the target base plate is coated with the target material directly on the base plate to realize a new target (figure 7: formation of interlayer 80 on backing plate 71 with laser cladding system 64).
As to the claim limitation of the additive method forming predefined and non-randomly distributed microgaps realizing cooling channels, 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 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); and
building up and finalize a target directly onto a base plate (figure 4);
Wherein the target base plate is coated with the target material directly on the base plate to realize a new target (figure 7: formation of interlayer 80 on backing plate 71 with laser cladding system 64).
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 the prior art (Ferasse) does not disclose deposition of target material onto a backing plate to realize a finalized target (as instantly amended). While it is true that the prior art teaches the steps of taking a backing plate (or spent target), depositing an interlayer by the requisite additive method, and then further processing steps including adding target material, because the term ‘target material’ is intended use and not an actual structural limitation, there is no reason the ‘interlayer’ material of Ferasse could not be exposed to plasma and sputtered and therefore differs from the claim only in pure terminology used. The fact that Ferasse performs further steps after the required steps of the claim is not precluded by the instant claim language. Applicant repeatedly argues that an ‘interlayer’ is not a target material. However, ‘target material’ is any material which is capable of being sputtered (exposed to plasma, or other energetic partcles [ion beam, arc, etc.]) – generally only structurally requiring a liquid or solid material.
Applicant additionally argues that Ferasse does not inherently create the ‘predefined and non-randomly’ distributed microgaps as required by the instant claims. Applicant points to a reference indicating the formation of microgaps during laser-assisted metal deposition and argues the reference indicates the microgaps are randomly formed. However, the reference does not appear to indicate clearly what orientation the microgaps form – whether random or not-random. It is therefore unclear how this proves Ferasse does not anticipated the instant claims. Additionally, it is unclear how the instant specification forms the microgap structure with the additive 3-d printing method, including laser cladding, while the prior art, using the same deposition method, obtains a different structure. The instant specification does not appear to contain any method steps to differentiate the deposition process to lead one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that Ferasse obtains different results in its formation method.
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
Prosecution Insights