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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/18/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 8/18/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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, 4-5, 8, 12, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 20180012739 A1) in view of Endo (US 20160284858 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki (US 20180012739 A1) teaches a sputtering target having a first region of insulating material and second region of conductive material where the first region includes In-M1-Zn oxide where M1 is Ga (In-Ga-Zn oxide) and where the second region comprises an indium zinc (In-Zn) oxide, where the first and second region are separated from each other, wherein the first and second region have a crystalline structure (crystal grain) and have a diameter of less than 10 micrometers (para 0075-0079; Fig. 7) and the regions necessarily have a crystal grain boundary between them.
Yamazaki fails to explicitly teach a content of Ga in the first metal oxide is higher than a content of In in the first metal oxide. However, Endo (US 20160284858 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches that a sputtering target for forming an InGaZn oxide insulator may have an atomic ratio of In:Ga:Zn of 1:3:2 (para 0153-159). Yamazaki teaches that the composition of the sputtering target is not limited to the recited examples and teaches that the raw materials of the insulating material may be mixed and molded separately from the raw materials of the conductive material (para 0087, 0133, 0141; Fig. 4-5). 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 InGaZn oxide insulating region composition of Yamazaki with the InGaZn oxide insulator target composition of Endo including a ratio of In:Ga:Zn or 1:3:2 (content of Ga in the first metal oxide is higher than a content of In in the first metal oxide) because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Yamazaki fails to explicitly teach the diameters are greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 10 micrometers. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Yamazaki 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 within less than 10 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.
The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach a crystal grain boundary is observed between the first region and the second region. However, the combination of Yamazaki and Endo teaches a similar target composition and structure as the instant application. Similar compositions with similar structures must necessarily yield similar results. Therefore, the target of Yamazaki in view of Endo must necessarily yield a crystal grain boundary that is observable between at least some of the first regions and the second regions, especially considering the observable boundaries between grains/regions in Fig. 7 of Yamazaki. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yamazaki and Endo teaches the crystal structures of each region may be different (Yamazaki para 0222, 0232).
Regarding claim 5, Yamazaki (US 20180012739 A1) teaches a sputtering target having a first region and second region where the first region In-M1-Zn oxide where M1 is Ga (In-Ga-Zn oxide) and where the second region comprises an In-M2 oxide, where M2 may be Sn (In-Sn oxide), where the first and second region are separated from each other, wherein the first and second region have a crystalline structure (crystal grain) and have a diameter of less than 10 micrometers (para 0075-0079; Fig. 7) and the regions necessarily have a crystal grain boundary between them.
Yamazaki fails to explicitly teach a content of Ga in the first metal oxide is higher than a content of In in the first metal oxide. However, Endo (US 20160284858 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches that a sputtering target for forming an InGaZn oxide insulator may have an atomic ratio of In:Ga:Zn of 1:3:2 (para 0153-159). Yamazaki teaches that the composition of the sputtering target is not limited to the recited examples and teaches that the raw materials of the insulating material may be mixed and molded separately from the raw materials of the conductive material (para 0087, 0133, 0141; Fig. 4-5). 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 InGaZn oxide insulating region composition of Yamazaki with the InGaZn oxide insulator target composition of Endo including a ratio of In:Ga:Zn or 1:3:2 (content of Ga in the first metal oxide is higher than a content of In in the first metal oxide) because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Yamazaki fails to explicitly teach the diameters are greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 10 micrometers. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Yamazaki 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 within less than 10 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.
The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach a crystal grain boundary is observed between the first region and the second region. However, the combination of Yamazaki and Endo teaches a similar target composition and structure as the instant application. Similar compositions with similar structures must necessarily yield similar results. Therefore, the target of Yamazaki in view of Endo must necessarily yield a crystal grain boundary that is observable between at least some of the first regions and the second regions, especially considering the observable boundaries between grains/regions in Fig. 7 of Yamazaki. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yamazaki and Endo teaches the crystal structures of each region may be different (Yamazaki para 0222, 0232).
Regarding claim 12, Yamazaki (US 20180012739 A1) teaches a sputtering target having a first region and second region where the first region In-M1-Zn oxide where M1 is Ga (In-Ga-Zn oxide) and where the second region comprises an indium zinc (In-Zn) oxide, where the first and second region are separated from each other, wherein the first and second region have a crystalline structure (crystal grain) and have a diameter of less than 10 micrometers (para 0075-0079; Fig. 7) and the regions necessarily have a crystal grain boundary between them.
Yamazaki fails to explicitly teach a content of Ga in the first metal oxide is higher than a content of In in the first metal oxide. However, Endo (US 20160284858 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches that a sputtering target for forming an InGaZn oxide insulator may have an atomic ratio of In:Ga:Zn of 1:3:2 (para 0153-159). Yamazaki teaches that the composition of the sputtering target is not limited to the recited examples and teaches that the raw materials of the insulating material may be mixed and molded separately from the raw materials of the conductive material (para 0087, 0133, 0141; Fig. 4-5). 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 InGaZn oxide insulating region composition of Yamazaki with the InGaZn oxide insulator target composition of Endo including a ratio of In:Ga:Zn or 1:3:2 (content of Ga in the first metal oxide is higher than a content of In in the first metal oxide) because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Yamazaki fails to explicitly teach the diameters are greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 10 micrometers. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Yamazaki 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 within less than 10 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.
The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach a crystal grain boundary is observed between the first region and the second region. However, the combination of Yamazaki and Endo teaches a similar target composition and structure as the instant application. Similar compositions with similar structures must necessarily yield similar results. Therefore, the target of Yamazaki in view of Endo must necessarily yield a crystal grain boundary that is observable between at least some of the first regions and the second regions, especially considering the observable boundaries between grains/regions in Fig. 7 of Yamazaki. See MPEP 2112.
Yamazaki also teaches the target contains a third region defined as a space between a first region 11 and a second region 12 (para 0075; Fig. 7), which necessarily includes a mixture of the first and second oxides (third metal oxide formed by combining a part of the first metal oxide and part of the second metal oxide).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Yamazaki and Endo teaches the crystal structures of the first and second region may be different (Yamazaki para 0222, 0232).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Yamazaki and Endo teaches the sputtering target is used for forming a metal oxide film including a channel formation region of a transistor (Yamazaki para 0060, 0086, 0257, 0277).
Alternatively, the limitation merely states the intended use of the apparatus. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). The combination of Yamazaki and Endo teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, which is necessarily capable of being used to form a metal oxide film including a channel formation region of a transistor.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Yamazaki and Endo teaches the sputtering target may include polycrystalline structures in each of the first and second region, wherein the diameter of each particle/grain in each of the first and second region may be less than 10 micrometers (microcrystal) (Yamazaki para 0076-0077).
Alternatively, the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the crystal structures include a microcrystal. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Yamazaki 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 within less than 10 micrometers as the diameter of the crystal structures, including values resulting in a microcrystal structure, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Yamazaki and Endo teaches the sputtering target is used for forming a metal oxide film including a channel formation region of a transistor (Yamazaki para 0060, 0086, 0257, 0277).
Alternatively, the limitation merely states the intended use of the apparatus. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). The combination of Yamazaki and Endo teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, which is necessarily capable of being used to form a metal oxide film including a channel formation region of a transistor.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Yamazaki and Endo teaches the sputtering target may include polycrystalline structures in each of the first and second region, wherein the diameter of each particle/grain in each of the first and second region may be less than 10 micrometers (microcrystal) (Yamazaki para 0076-0077).
Alternatively, the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the crystal structures include a microcrystal. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Yamazaki 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 within less than 10 micrometers as the diameter of the crystal structures, including values resulting in a microcrystal structure, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Yamazaki and Endo teaches the sputtering target is used for forming a metal oxide film including a channel formation region of a transistor (Yamazaki para 0060, 0086, 0257, 0277).
Alternatively, the limitation merely states the intended use of the apparatus. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). The combination of Yamazaki and Endo teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, which is necessarily capable of being used to form a metal oxide film including a channel formation region of a transistor.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Yamazaki and Endo teaches the sputtering target may include polycrystalline structures in each of the first and second region, wherein the diameter of each particle/grain in each of the first and second region may be less than 10 micrometers (microcrystal) (Yamazaki para 0076-0077).
Alternatively, the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the crystal structures include a microcrystal. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Yamazaki 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 within less than 10 micrometers as the diameter of the crystal structures, including values resulting in a microcrystal structure, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Claim(s) 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 20180012739 A1) in view of Endo (US 20160284858 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Koyama (US 20160285369 A1).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Yamazaki and Endo teaches the first metal oxide may have an atomic ratio of In:Ga:Zn = 1:3:2 (Endo para 0158) but fails to explicitly teach the second metal oxide has an atomic ratio of In:Zn = 1:1. However, Koyama (US 20160285369 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches an InZn oxide sputtering target may have a composition ratio of In to Zn from 20:1 to 1:1 (para 0060). Yamazaki teaches that the composition of the sputtering target is not limited to the recited examples and teaches that the raw materials of the conducting material may be mixed and molded separately from the raw materials of the insulating material (para 0087, 0133, 0141; Fig. 4-5). 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 InZn oxide conductive region (second metal oxide) composition of Yamazaki with the InZn oxide target composition of Endo including a ratio of In: Zn ranging from 20:1 to 1:1 because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Though the combination of Yamazaki, Endo, and Koyama fails to explicitly teach the atomic ratio of the second metal oxide is 1:1, one would have expected the use of any value within the Koyama 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 within 20:1 to 1:1, 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.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Yamazaki and Endo teaches the first metal oxide may have an atomic ratio of In:Ga:Zn = 1:3:2 (Endo para 0158) but fails to explicitly teach the second metal oxide has an atomic ratio of In:Zn = 1:1. However, Koyama (US 20160285369 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches an InZn oxide sputtering target may have a composition ratio of In to Zn from 20:1 to 1:1 (para 0060). Yamazaki teaches that the composition of the sputtering target is not limited to the recited examples and teaches that the raw materials of the conducting material may be mixed and molded separately from the raw materials of the insulating material (para 0087, 0133, 0141; Fig. 4-5). 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 InZn oxide conductive region (second metal oxide) composition of Yamazaki with the InZn oxide target composition of Endo including a ratio of In: Zn ranging from 20:1 to 1:1 because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Though the combination of Yamazaki, Endo, and Koyama fails to explicitly teach the atomic ratio of the second metal oxide is 1:1, one would have expected the use of any value within the Koyama 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 within 20:1 to 1:1, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6-7, filed 8/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 5, and 12 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 Endo (US 20160284858 A1).
Koyama (US 20160285369 A1) is also recited to teach limitations of newly added claims.
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