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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Katsuta et al. (JP 63-213665).
It should be noted that “suitable for semiconductor manufacturing” is viewed as intended use in the claims and is given no weight.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Katsuta et al. teach a target material structure suitable for semiconductor manufacturing, comprising: a target material structure, which is an alloy made of a first metal and a second metal, and has a sputtering surface, wherein the target material structure comprises a lower section adjacent to the sputtering surface and an upper section away from the sputtering surface wherein an atomic weight of the first metal is less than an atomic weight of the second metal, and an atomic ratio of the first metal to the second metal decreases from the lower section to the upper section. (See Machine Translation; Abstract – The Tb and Fe vary. Tb atomic weight is greater than Fe atomic weight. The reference teaches gradually reducing or gradually increasing the content of rare earth metal toward the rear of a target from the sputtering surface.)
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
Regarding claim 9, Katsura et al. teach method for manufacturing a target material structure suitable for a semiconductor process, comprising: forming a target material structure which is an alloy made of a first metal and a second metal, and has a sputtering surface, wherein the target material structure comprises a lower section adjacent to the sputtering surface and an upper section away from the sputtering surface wherein an atomic weight of the first metal is less than an atomic weight of the second metal, and an atomic ratio of the first metal to the second metal decreases from the lower section to the upper section. (See Machine Translation; Abstract – The Tb and Fe vary. Tb atomic weight is greater than Fe atomic weight. The reference teaches gradually reducing or gradually increasing the content of rare earth metal toward the rear of a target from the sputtering surface.)
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 5, 13:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising a middle section between the upper section and the lower section.
Regarding claims 5, 13, From the figures there is a middle section. (See Figures)
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 6, 14:
The difference not yet discussed is an atomic percentage values of the first metal and the second metal decrease gradually from the lower section, the middle section to the upper section.
Regarding claims 6, 14, Katsuta et al. teach an atomic percentage values of the first metal and the second metal decrease gradually from the lower section, the middle section to the upper section. (See Machine Translation; Abstract – The Tb and Fe vary. Tb atomic weight is greater than Fe atomic weight. The reference teaches gradually reducing or gradually increasing the content of rare earth metal toward the rear of a target from the sputtering surface.)
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 8, 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the target material structure is used in a physical vapor deposition (PVD) machine.
Regarding claims 8, 16, Katsuta et al. teach sputtering which inherently requires using a PVD machine to do the sputtering. (See Abstract)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuta et al. (JP 63-213665) in view of Hirai et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2003/0080391 A1).
Katsuta et al. is discussed above and all is applies above.
The difference between Katsuta et al. and the claims is that using the target for semiconductor manufacturing is not discussed.
Hirai et al. teaching form films of TbFe by sputtering. (Paragraph 0082)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Hirai et al. is that it allows manufacturing semiconductor devices with magnetic films. (Paragraph 0082)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Katsuta et al. by utilizing the features of Hirai et al. because it allows for manufacturing semiconductor devices with magnetic films.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 7, 10-12, 15, 17 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2 and 10 are indicated as being allowable because the prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter in combination with wherein the first metal comprises aluminum and the second metal comprises titanium.
Claims 3 and 11 are indicated as being allowable because the prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter in combination with wherein an atomic ratio of the first metal to the second metal is 1:1 in the lower section.
Claims 4 and 12 are indicated as being allowable because the prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter in combination with wherein the atomic ratio percentage value of the first metal and the second metal is less than 0.3 in the upper section.
Claims 7 and 15 are indicated as being allowable because the prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter in combination with wherein an atomic percentage values of the first metal and the second metal are fixed in any section of the lower section, the middle section or the upper section.
Claims 17 and 18 are indicated as being allowable because the prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter in combination with wherein the method for forming the target material structure further comprises: providing a first metal powder and a second metal powder which are mixed with each other in a first ratio; performing a pressing step to make the first metal powder and the second metal powder into a first alloy layer; providing the first metal powder and the second metal powder again, and mixing with each other in a second ratio, wherein the second ratio is different from the first ratio; performing another pressing step to make the first metal powder and the second metal powder into a second alloy layer and stack the second alloy layer on the first alloy layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed March 31, 2026 have been fully considered and over come the previous prior art rejections. However a new prior art rejection has been applied to address the new claim amendments. The new prior art to Katsuta et al. teach a target where the Tb and Fe vary. Tb atomic weight is greater than Fe atomic weight. Katsuta et al. teach gradually reducing or gradually increasing the content of rare earth metal toward the rear of a target from the sputtering surface.
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 RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
June 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights