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
In claim 1, the limitations “the amount of Mo is greater than that of Cr”, “the amount of Cr is greater than that of C”, and “the amount of C is greater than that of B” are not specific as to what units the amounts of Mo, Cr, C, and B are in; therefore, the limitation may be interpreted to mean one amount is greater than another in any of wt%, at%, or vol%.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US 20060185771 A1) in view of Clark (US 20050269201 A1), Ponnambalam (NPL – “Fe–Mn–Cr–Mo–(Y,Ln)–C–B (Ln = Lanthanides) bulk metallic glasses as formable amorphous steel alloys”), Shin (US 20160076137 A1), Nayar (US 4126451 A), Michaluk (US 20040186810 A1), and MicrotoNano (NPL – “EM-Tec Disc or Annular Sputter Targets for EM Sputter Coaters”).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue (US 20060185771 A1) teaches an alloy sputtering target layer in an amorphous state without a grain boundary and without any crystal growth (including an amorphous phase in a fraction of 98.0% or more), wherein the alloy target is formed from an alloy powder with a diameter (size) of 1 nm to 50 micrometers (para 0013, 0025, 0043-0045, 0051-0054, claim 2, Table 1).
Though Inoue does not explicitly teach the alloy powder has a size of 40 micrometers or less, one would have expected the use of any value within the Inoue 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 1 nm to 50 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.
Inoue fails to explicitly teach a plate that the alloy target layer is provided on. However, Clark (US 20050269201 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches bonding a sputtering target to a backing plate, wherein the target can have any suitable composition (para 0003-0005). Because Clark teaches that such backing plates were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the target of Inoue to a backing plate with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
The combination of Inoue and Clark fails to explicitly teach the target layer includes an iron-based alloy including Cr, Mo, B, and C, wherein the content of B and C is 10 wt% or less, respectively, and wherein the amount of Mo is greater than that of Cr, the amount of Cr is greater than that of C, and the amount of C is greater than that of B. However, Ponnambalam (NPL), in the analogous art of amorphous alloys, teaches forming Fe-Mn-Cr-Mo-(Y,Ln)-C-B bulk metallic glasses (amorphous alloys) having high mechanical strength and having a C content of 15 at% and B content of 6 at% (pg. 3046-3047, Table 1), which result in a C and B wt% each under 10 wt%. For example, in the composition including 51 at% Fe, 10 at% Mn, 4 at% Cr, 12 at% Mo, 2 at% Y, 15 at% C and 6 at% B (Ponnambalam Table 1), the wt% of C is about 3.5 wt% and the wt% of B is about 1.3 wt%. Inoue teaches a metallic glass sputtering target formed by sintering a mixed powder, wherein the target may include Fe as the primary component and may additionally include Cr, Mo, B, C, and Y (Abstract, para 0026, 0036, 0043-0044). Additionally, Inoue teaches that powder metallurgy is a superior method to injection molding or other conventional metal glass forming methods (para 0006-0007) and Ponnambalam teaches forming the metal glass by injection molding (pg. 3046, Table 1). 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 iron based alloy of Inoue with the iron based alloy of Ponnambalam, wherein the alloy is formed by powder metallurgy, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Furthermore, the combination of Inoue, Clark, and Ponnambalam includes an alloy atomic composition of 51 at% Fe, 10 at% Mn, 4 at% Cr, 12 at% Mo, 2 at% Y, 15 at% C and 6 at% B, which is equivalent to mass compositions of about 22.6 wt% Mo, 4.08 wt% Cr, 3.54 wt% C, and 1.27 wt% B (the amount of Mo is greater than that of Cr, the amount of Cr is greater than that of C, and the amount of C is greater than that of B).
The combination of Inoue, Clark, and Ponnambalam fails to explicitly teach the porosity of the target layer is 0.1% or less. However, Shin (US 20160076137 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches a multi-component alloy target that may be amorphous, wherein the target may contain Fe, Mo, and Cr or be any other amorphous/glass forming alloy with three or more components, and wherein the target is sintered and heat treated such that the porosity of the amorphous alloy is controlled to be less than or equal to 0.1% (para 0043-0044, 0054, 0110-0114). Additionally, Nayar (US 4126451 A), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches forming plates to be used as sputtering targets, wherein the plates are pressed and rolled to increase the density of the target (reduce porosity), wherein the target may be made of transition metals such as iron, chromium, and molybdenum (col 3 line 16-64). Inoue teaches that high density (low porosity) is desirable for preventing arcing and particle generation as well as producing a more uniform and higher quality film (para 0048, 0074). Therefore, because Shin and Nayar teach that such densities/porosities were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat treat and roll the target of Inoue in view of Chou such that the porosity is less than or equal to 0.1% in order to improve film uniformity and quality with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Alternatively, or in addition, Inoue recognizes that the density (and thus porosity) influences the film quality and uniformity (para 0048, 0074). Therefore, the porosity/density is a recognized result-effective variable and 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 porosity by routine optimization, which can include a porosity of less than or equal to 0.1%. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
The combination of Inoue, Clark, Ponnambalam, Shin, and Nayar fails to explicitly teach the thickness of the target layer is 300 to 450 micrometers. However, Michaluk (US 20040186810 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches that sputtering targets made from powders may have any suitable thickness (para 0022-0023, 0025). Additionally, MicrotoNano (NPL) teaches that targets may have variable thicknesses, including thicknesses of 0.3 mm or 0.4 mm (300 to 400 micrometers) (pg. 4). Because Michaluk and MicrotoNano teach that such target thicknesses were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sputtering target layer with a thickness of 0.3 or 0.4 mm with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Inoue, Clark, Ponnambalam, Shin, Nayar, Michaluk, and MicrotoNano teaches the backing plate 16 is a single plate having a target 14 directly bonded thereto (Clark para 0004-0005; Fig. 1), wherein the alloy target layer has a uniform structure with an even composition (single composition) (Inoue para 0025, 0047, 0074).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6-7, filed 7/11/2025, 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 a new interpretation of Ponnambalam (NPL).
The previously presented rejection relied upon the atomic percentages taught by Ponnambalam to teach the claimed relative “amounts” while the new rejection uses the weight percentages of the composition of Ponnambalam to teach the relative “amounts” because the claim does not specifically require what units are being considered when comparing the amounts.
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