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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/18/2026 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 1-11 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.
In claim 1, the limitation “the average depth of microcracks is 3.5 μm or less” is not fully supported by the specification because the only mention of an average depth value is in Table 3; however, table 3 only provides examples of average microcrack depths of 1.7 and 3.5 μm and not support for the entire claimed range of “3.5 μm or less”. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected for lacking written description support.
Claims 2-11 are rejected by virtue of depending on a claim that lacks written description support.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hara (US 20220017424 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hara (US 20220017424 A1) teaches forming a sputtering target of Cr-Si (ceramic) that is microcrack-free and does not require grinding (para 0017, 0025, 0074-0083) and therefore the target inherently contains an amount of microcracks of 0 micrometers/mm (50 micrometer/mm or less) in a cross-sectional structure observed with an electron microscope, a maximum value of depth of microcracks is 0 micrometers (4 micrometers or less), the average depth of microcracks is 0 micrometers (3.5 micrometers or less), and an area ratio of peeled particles of approximately 0% (1.0% or less) that may be confirmed by observing the cross-sectional structure with an electron microscope after a peel test on the sputtering surface. Alternatively, or in addition, the claim does not specifically define what “peel test” is performed and therefore the claimed limitation of 1.0% or less is inherently met by the target of Hara when a peel test is performed with a weak adhesive tape unlikely to peel particles, performed in a small sample area where fewer particles are peeled, or performed using a completely different method (e.g., peeling by hand).
Regarding claim 2, Hara teaches the amount of microcracks is 0 micrometers/mm (40 micrometers/mm or less) (para 0083).
Regarding claim 3, Hara teaches the amount of microcracks is 0 micrometers/mm (30 micrometers/mm or less) (para 0083).
Regarding claim 4, Hara teaches there are no microcracks and grinding is not required (para 0074, 0083) and therefore an area ratio of peeled particles is inherently 0.5% or less. Alternatively, or in addition, the claim does not specifically define what “peel test” is performed and therefore the claimed limitation of 0.5% or less is inherently met by the target of Hara when a peel test is performed with a weak adhesive tape unlikely to peel particles, performed in a small sample area where fewer particles are peeled, or performed using a completely different method (e.g., peeling by hand).
Regarding claim 5, Hara teaches there are no microcracks and grinding is not required (para 0074, 0083) and therefore an area ratio of peeled particles is inherently 0.3% or less. Alternatively, or in addition, the claim does not specifically define what “peel test” is performed and therefore the claimed limitation of 0.3% or less is inherently met by the target of Hara when a peel test is performed with a weak adhesive tape unlikely to peel particles, performed in a small sample area where fewer particles are peeled, or performed using a completely different method (e.g., peeling by hand).
Regarding claim 7, Hara teaches the target is CrSi (comprising Si) (para 0074, 0083).
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) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (US 20220017424 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kardokus (US 20080289958 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hara fails to explicitly teach a surface roughness Ra of 0.05 to 0.50 micrometers. However, Kardokus (US 20080289958 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches a sputtering target may be machined to have a roughness Ra of less than 16 microinches, or less than 0.4064 micrometers, wherein the target may be chromium silicide, to reduce arcing (para 0039, 0043-0044). Hara teaches a chromium silicide target that may be shaped using a surface grinding machine (Abstract, para 0045). 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 target roughness of Hara with a target roughness of less than 16 microinches (less than 0.4064 micrometers), as described by Kardokus, to reduce arcing because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Though the combination of Hara and Kardokus fails to explicitly teach a surface roughness of 0.05 to 0.50 micrometers, one would have expected the use of any value within the Kardokus range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values less than 0.4064 micrometers, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senda (JP 2003183820 A) in view of Saito (JP 2004204356 A) and Sera (WO 2016027540 A1, see machine translation included).
Regarding claim 1, Senda (JP 2003183820 A) teaches a ceramic sputtering target, such as ITO, having microcracks in an amount of 5 or less per 2.5 mm or width of a cross section of the sputtering surface (frequency of microcracks of 2/mm or less) where the microcracks have a depth of 5 micrometers to 10 micrometers, resulting in an average depth of microcracks less than or equal to 10 micrometers and thus resulting in an “amount of microcracks” less than or equal to (2/mm)*(10 micrometers), or 20 micrometers/mm or less (an amount of microcracks is 50 micrometers/mm or less when a cross-sectional structure is observed with an electron microscope) (para 0007, 0009, 0013, 0021-0023). The claim does not specifically define what “peel test” is performed and therefore the claimed limitation of 1.0% or less as an area ratio of peeled particles confirmed by observing the cross-sectional structure is inherently capable of being met by the target of Senda when a certain type of peel test is performed such as a peel test performed in a small sample area where fewer particles are peeled or by a method likely to peel few particles. The claim is directed toward the sputtering target and not the method of making or evaluating the sputtering target and therefore the claimed area ratio only needs to be capable of being observed by an electron microscope after any kind of peel test.
Alternatively, Senda fails to explicitly teach, after performing a peel test on the sputtering surface, an area ratio of peeled particles confirmed by observing the cross-sectional structure with an electron microscope is 1.0% or less. However, Saito (JP 2004204356 A), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches that multiple oscillation ultrasonic cleaning of a sputtering surface may be performed so that a number of adhered particles having an average diameter of 0.2 micrometers or more present in an area of 100 micrometers x 100 micrometers is less than 100, resulting in reduced nodule formation and reduced arcing, wherein the target may be ITO formed by grinding a sintered body (para 0003, 0006, 0009, 0011-0016). Senda teaches that preventing arcing is desirable and the target is ITO (para 0008, 0013, 0018). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to clean the target of Senda with multiple oscillation ultrasonic cleaning such that a number of adhered particles with an average diameter of 0.2 micrometers or more in an area of 100 micrometers x 100 micrometers is less than 100 in order to reduce arcing.
The combination of Senda and Saito fails to explicitly teach after performing a peel test on the sputtering surface, an area ratio of peeled particles confirmed by observing the cross-sectional structure with an electron microscope is 1.0% or less; however, the combination contains less than 100 adhered particles with an average diameter of 0.2 micrometers or more, wherein the adhered particles with an average diameter of 0.2 micrometers or more are defined as potential “peeled particles”, in an area of 100 micrometers x 100 micrometers, resulting in a maximum area ratio of peeled particles (if all potential peeled particles are peeled by a peel test) of about (0.2*100)/(100*100) = 0.002, or 0.2% when the average diameter is 0.2 micrometers and the number of adhered particles is 100. Though the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach an area ratio of 1.0% or less, one would have expected the use of any values within the Saito ranges to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values of average diameter greater than or equal to 0.2 micrometers and any number of adhered particles less than or equal to 100, including values resulting in a maximum area ratio within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
The combination of Senda and Saito teaches the microcracks having a depth equal to or greater than a specific value may be eliminated including having no microcracks with a depth of 5 micrometers or more (Senda para 0018-0023), thus indicating the maximum microcrack depth may be 5 micrometers or less. The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the microcracks have a maximum depth of 4 micrometers or less or an average depth of 3.5 micrometers or less. However, Sera (WO 2016027540 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches forming an ITO target with a maximum crack depth of 4 micrometers (pg. 6, 10, 15-18, Table 1 – Example 3). Therefore, because Senda teaches that the microcracks greater than a specific value may be eliminated and the target may also be made of ITO (Senda para 0013, 0018-0023), 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 maximum microcrack depth of the Senda target with a maximum microcrack depth of 4 micrometers, as described by Sera, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Alternatively, or in addition, Sera teaches that likelihood of arcing and nodule formation depend on the maximum depth of microcracks (pg. 6, 15), thus recognizing the maximum depth of microcracks to be a result-effective variable. 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 determine the optimum or workable ranges of maximum microcrack depth by routine optimization, which can include a maximum depth of 4 micrometers or less. See MPEP 2144.05(II). As a result, an amount of microcracks defined by a frequency of microcracks multiplied by an average depth of microcracks would be equal to 0 micrometers/mm when the “frequency of microcracks” is defined as a frequency of microcracks with depths above the set value of 4 micrometers.
Alternatively, Senda teaches that the number of microcracks in a range below the specific maximum value affects arcing and problems occurring in sputtering and are typically controlled to a number of 5 or less per 2.5 mm of width (para 0022-0023). 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 control the number of microcracks such that they are in an amount of 5 or less per 2.5 mm of width to reduce arcing and improve sputtering quality. As a result, because the microcracks of the target have an average depth of less than or equal to 4 micrometers due to the maximum depth being 4 micrometers, the target has an “amount of microcracks” less than or equal to (2/mm)*(4 micrometers), or 8 micrometers/mm or less (an amount of microcracks is 50 micrometers/mm or less when a cross-sectional structure is observed with an electron microscope).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Senda, Saito, and Sera teaches the amount of microcracks is 8 micrometers/mm or less (amount of microcracks is 40 micrometers/mm or less) (Senda para 0022-0023; Sera Table 1). Alternatively, an amount of microcracks defined by a frequency of microcracks multiplied by an average depth of microcracks would be equal to 0 micrometers/mm when the “frequency of microcracks” is defined as a frequency of microcracks with depths above the set value of 4 micrometers.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Senda, Saito, and Sera teaches the amount of microcracks is 8 micrometers/mm or less (amount of microcracks is 30 micrometers/mm or less) (Senda para 0022-0023; Sera Table 1). Alternatively, an amount of microcracks defined by a frequency of microcracks multiplied by an average depth of microcracks would be equal to 0 micrometers/mm when the “frequency of microcracks” is defined as a frequency of microcracks with depths above the set value of 4 micrometers.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Senda, Saito, and Sera, as described in the claim 1 rejection, teaches that the area ratio of peeled particles may be 0.2% (0.5% or less) (Saito para 0016). Though the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach an area ratio of 0.5% or less, one would have expected the use of any values within the Saito ranges to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values of average diameter greater than or equal to 0.2 micrometers and any number of adhered particles less than or equal to 100, including values resulting in an area ratio within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Senda, Saito, and Sera, as described in the claim 1 rejection, teaches that the area ratio of peeled particles may be 0.2% (0.3% or less) (Saito para 0016). Though the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach an area ratio of 0.3% or less, one would have expected the use of any values within the Saito ranges to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values of average diameter greater than or equal to 0.2 micrometers and any number of adhered particles less than or equal to 100, including values resulting in an area ratio within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Senda, Saito, and Sera teaches the target may be made of a ceramic material comprising indium (In), zinc, (Zn), aluminum (Al), tin (Sn), magnesium (Mg), tantalum (Ta), or silicon (Si) (Senda para 0013).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Senda, Saito, and Sera teaches the target may be made of ITO with 10 mass% SnO2 (Sn content of 1 to 15% by mass in terms of SnO2) (Senda para 0035).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senda (JP 2003183820 A) in view of Saito (JP 2004204356 A) and Sera (WO 2016027540 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaijo (WO 2020170950 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Senda, Saito, and Sera fails to explicitly teach a surface roughness Ra of the sputtering surface is 0.05 to 0.50 micrometers. However, Kaijo (WO 2020170950 A1), in the analogous art of ceramic sputtering targets, teaches the surface roughness Ra is preferably less than 0.5 micrometers so that arcing is less likely to occur, wherein the target may be an oxide containing indium, tin, and zinc, and wherein the surface roughness may be adjusted by surface grinding (para 0039-0040, 0106). Senda teaches the surface roughness may be less than 1.0 micrometers, wherein the target may be any oxide target material, and wherein the object of the invention is to prevent arcing (para 0008, 0013, 0026-0027). 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 reduce the roughness Ra of the sputtering target surface to less than 0.5 micrometers to reduce the likelihood of arcing.
Though the combination of Senda, Saito, Sera, and Kaijo fails to explicitly teach the surface roughness Ra is 0.05 to 0.50 micrometers, one would have expected the use of any value within the Kaijo range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any value of surface roughness Ra less than 0.5 micrometers, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senda (JP 2003183820 A) in view of Saito (JP 2004204356 A) and Sera (WO 2016027540 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagayama (US 20060172127 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Senda, Saito, and Sera teaches the target may by an IZO target (Senda para 0013) but fails to explicitly teach the Zn content is 1 to 15% by mass in terms of ZnO. However, Nagayama (US 20060172127 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches that an IZO sputtering target may contain 10.7 mass% of ZnO (Zn content is 1 to 15% by mass in terms of ZnO) (para 0054, 0056, 0087, 0093). 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 IZO target composition of Senda with an IZO composition of 10.7 mass% ZnO, as described by Nagayama, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senda (JP 2003183820 A) in view of Saito (JP 2004204356 A) and Sera (WO 2016027540 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mazaki (JP 2016014191 A).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Senda, Saito, and Sera fails to explicitly teach the target is IGZO with In content of 10 to 60% by mass in terms of In2O3, a Ga content of 10 to 60% by mass in terms of Ga2O3, and a Zn content of 10 to 60% by mass in terms of ZnO. However, Mazaki (JP 2016014191 A), in the analogous art of ceramic sputtering targets, teaches an IGZO target having an In content of 40 to 60 mass% (10 to 60%) in terms of In2O3, a Ga content of 20 to 40 mass% (10 to 60%) in terms of Ga2O3, and a Zn content of 10 to 30 mass% (10 to 60%) in terms of ZnO, wherein IGZO is an alternative ceramic target material like ITO and AZO (para 0012). Senda teaches that the target material is not particularly limited and may be oxides such as ITO, IZO, and AZO (para 0013). 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 ceramic sputtering target composition of Senda with the ceramic sputtering target composition of Mazaki including IGZO having the recited composition because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Senda, Saito, and Sera teaches the target may be ZnO-Al2O3 (AZO) (Senda para 0013) but fails to explicitly teach an Al content of 0.1 to 5% by mass in terms of Al2O3. However, Mazaki (JP 2016014191 A), in the analogous art of ceramic sputtering targets, teaches an AZO target having an Al content of 0.1 to 5 mass% in terms of Al2O3 (para 0012). 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 AZO target composition of Senda with an AZO composition of 0.1 to 5 mass% Al2O3, as described by Mazaki, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-12, filed 5/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sera (WO 2016027540 A1).
Sera (WO 2016027540 A1) is relied upon to teach a maximum value of microcrack depth equal to 4 micrometers.
It should also be noted that Hara (US 20220017424 A1), which was previously cited in the office action mailed 9/8/2025, is now recited to teach several claims because no lower bound is required in the peel test.
It should also be noted that the current claims recite an amount of microcracks but do not specify whether this limitation must refer to every microcrack in the target or a subset of microcracks, such as microcracks above a certain depth and length.
Applicant’s argument that the present invention discloses a process that by grinding the final target surface with a sponge instead of a grindstone, low processing damage processing is performed to reduce the depth and frequency of microcracks on the target surface” and when surface grinding is used with a grinding wheel the maximum depth of microcracks exceeds 5 micrometers is not persuasive because reference example 1 of the instant application demonstrates that a maximum depth of 1.7 micrometers (less than 4 micrometers) may be achieved with a grindstone (see Table 1 and 3). Additionally, it should be noted that Senda teaches the microcracks may be removed by various methods including a grinding stone, laser treatment, or dry etching (see para 0028).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights