DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “one or more active elements” in claim 1 has been interpreted as ‘one or more elements of oxygen (O), iron (Fe), sulfur (S), hydrogen (H), and chromium (Cr), wherein the one or more elements have particular ranges from the Specification, resulting in the one or more elements being carbon getters’, as is consistent with para 0055-0056, 0058, 0060,0064-0065, 0067, and 0078 of Applicant’s Specification.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 (dependent on amended claim 1) recites “the CuMn […] has a purity of at least about 99.999%” (emphasis added), however claim 1 now recites that oxygen must be present “at a concentration of about 100 parts per million (ppm) to about 4000 ppm, based on the total weight of the sputtering target”, or the concentration is about 0.01 wt% to 0.4 wt%, meaning the purity of the CuMn based on amended claim 1 would be at most about 99.99% to 99.6% based on the oxygen concentration, thus contradicting and rendering claim 2 indefinite by reciting “99.999%”.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al (WO 2015/099119) in view of Aoki et al (US 9,028,658) and Otsuki et al (US 2019/0085442).
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nagata et al (WO 2015/099119, machine translation cited below).
With respect to claim 1, Nagata discloses in Table 1, Comparative Examples 1-6 (CE1-6) a CuMn sputter target comprising Cu at purity 4N-6N (99.99%-99.9999%) and Mn at a “high-purity” and a wt% between 0.1-20, with an oxygen concentration of between 0.1-150 wtppm of a total weight of the CuMn sputter target (p. 4), with Table 1 having CE2 of Cu at purity 6N (99.9999%), Mn at 0.5 wt%, and the oxygen concentration of 120 wtppm of the total weight of the CuMn sputter target (p. 4); although CE1-6 would be considered nonpreferred embodiments by Nagata, Nagata is still “relevant as prior art for all they contain” since “nonpreferred and alternative embodiments constitute prior art” (MPEP 2123, I-II). In addition Nagata states that “high-purity copper used as the material for the sputtering target of the present invention means copper having a purity of 4N (99.99%) or higher” (p. 2), thus Nagata defines the phrase “high-purity” to mean 99.99% or higher; as such, one or ordinary skill would expect or find obvious that the “high-purity” for the Mn is then 99.99% or higher. Since Nagata is silent as to any carbon defects being present, the CuMn sputter target is considered to have a “low carbon defect” as required by the preamble of claim 1. Furthermore Nagata’s Table 1 CE2 teaches the CuMn sputter target comprises the oxygen concentration of 120 wtppm, with the oxygen concentration of 120 wtppm being sufficient as a “carbon getter” to provide the low carbon defect according to Applicant’s Specification para 0055-0056, 0058, ,0064, 0067, and 0078; as such the oxygen concentration 120 wtppm in the CuMn sputter target is “one or more active elements” that provide the CuMn sputter target to have the “low carbon defect” required by claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, Nagata further discloses in Table 1 CE1-6 the CuMn sputter target comprises the oxygen concentration of 60-150 wtppm and a carbon concentration of 40-90 wtppm, and CE2 has the oxygen concentration of 120 wtppm and carbon concentration of 50 wtppm; Nagata is silent as to any other amounts of impurities or elements present. Thus the CuMn sputter target of Nagata is considered to have a purity of at least about 99.999%.
With respect to claims 3-7, Nagata discloses the CuMn sputter target required by claim 1. The limitations required by claims 3-7 are product-by-process limitations and have not been given patentable weight, since “patentability of a product [i.e. sputter target] does not depend on its method of production. If the product [i.e. sputter target] in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (MPEP 2113).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 8-9 filed 2/13/2026 are addressed below.
112 Rejections
Claim 1 has been amended by deleting the limitation “said sputtering target has less than three carbon based defects”; the previous 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
102 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 8-9 with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference Nagata being applied in the current rejection.
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 MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794