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 .
Drawings
Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome the previously presented objections to the drawings and thus the objections are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented objection and thus the objection is withdrawn.
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) 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).
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 0.001% or more and 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 0.001% or more and 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 0.001% or more and 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 0.001% or more and 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.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Senda and Saito teaches the amount of microcracks is 20 micrometers/mm or less (amount of microcracks is 40 micrometers/mm or less) (Senda para 0022-0023).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Senda and Saito teaches the amount of microcracks is 20 micrometers/mm or less (amount of microcracks is 30 micrometers/mm or less) (Senda para 0022-0023).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Senda and Saito, 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 and Saito, 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 and Saito 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 and Saito teaches the target may be made of ITO with 10 mass% SnO2 (Sn content of 1 to 15% by mass in terms of SnO2) (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), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaijo (WO 2020170950 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Senda and Saito 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, 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), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagayama (US 20060172127 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Senda and Saito 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), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mazaki (JP 2016014191 A).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Senda and Saito 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 and Saito 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 filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the Hara reference are rendered moot as the Hara reference is no longer relied upon.
Applicant argues that no grinding or mechanical processing is performed in Senda so no minute deposits are generated and the area ratio of peeled particles would be considered to be zero. This argument is not persuasive because Senda teaches that polishing with a grinding stone may be used to eliminate microcracks even if it is not the most preferred method (see paragraph 0028) and therefore at least some peeled particles would be present.
Applicant argues that there is no reason to apply ultrasonic cleaning of Saito to Senda because no grinding powder particles are left behind by sputtering, laser treatment, or dry etching, so no peeling particles would be present. This argument is not persuasive because, as described above, Senda teaches that a grinding stone may be used to remove microcracks and therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Saito with Senda to reduce arcing when a grinding stone is used.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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