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 § 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 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamitsu (JP 2022006690 A) in view of Nakamura (NPL – “Pressure Sintering Characteristics with Chemical Reaction between Dissimilar Metal Powders by DC Pulse Resistance Sintering Process”), Maruko (US 20220275499 A1), and Chen (NPL – “Investigation of Al—Cr alloy targets sintered by various powder metallurgy methods and their particle generation behaviors in sputtering process”).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamitsu (JP 2022006690 A) teaches a CuAl alloy target (binary alloy of Cu and Al) that may include a Cu composition of 33.3 at% to 38 at% (para 0043) and thus an Al content of 62 at% to 66.6 at% (content of Cu and Al satisfies the relational expression of Al/(Cu+Al) being greater than or equal to 0.48 and less than or equal to 0.70).
Nakamitsu fails to explicitly teach the target is composed of a sintered body having a relative density of 95% or more. However, Nakamura (NPL), in the analogous art of CuAl, teaches forming a sintered CuAl material by spark plasma sintering at 800 °C or hot pressing at 400 MPa of mechanical alloy powder mixtures of CuAl, wherein the sintered body has a relative density of up to about 100% (95% or more) by controlling the temperature and pressure of the sintering process (Abstract, Fig. 9, 13). Additionally, Maruko (US 20220275499 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering targets teaches that alloy sputtering targets are formed by sintering powder mixtures by spark plasma sintering or hot pressing (para 0006, 0111). Nakamitsu teaches an Al-Cu target but is silent to its density. Therefore, because Nakamura and Maruko teach that such sintering/pressing methods 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 CuAl target of Nakamitsu using a spark plasma sintering method or hot pressing method, as described by Nakamura, to achieve a high density 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)). By performing the sintering of the Nakamitsu target using the methods of Nakamura, the relative density would inherently be greater than 95%, especially because one skilled in the art would expect the CuAl binary alloy to achieve a similar density under similar sintering conditions regardless of the exact composition and the specification recitation that the relative density is improved when carried out at 550°C or higher (see specification para 0047).
Alternatively, or in addition, Chen (NPL), in the analogous art of sputtering target formation, teaches a binary aluminum alloy target that is fully dense (density of about 100%) can be achieved by hot-pressing, where the density may be increased by increasing temperature, and wherein undesirable arcing and particle generation during sputtering occurs more frequently in targets with lower density (pg. 53, 56; Table 1). Therefore, the target 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 target density by routine optimization, which can include a density of 95% or more. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nakamitsu, Nakamura, Maruko, and Chen fails to explicitly teach that the binary alloy of Cu and Al comprises an intermetallic compound of CuAl2 and/or CuAl. However, the aforementioned combination teaches a similar target formation process and target composition as the instant application. Similar processes for making similar compositions must necessarily yield similar results. Therefore, the target of the aforementioned combination must necessarily contain at least some CuAl2 or CuAl intermetallic compound, especially considering that a binary Cu-Al alloy formed by a similar method with a different composition forms CuAl (Nakamura Fig. 22, 23) and therefore the composition of Nakamitsu would be expected to form similar intermetallic compounds in different amounts. See MPEP 2112.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamitsu (JP 2022006690 A) in view of Nakamura (NPL – “Pressure Sintering Characteristics with Chemical Reaction between Dissimilar Metal Powders by DC Pulse Resistance Sintering Process”), Maruko (US 20220275499 A1), and Chen (NPL – “Investigation of Al—Cr alloy targets sintered by various powder metallurgy methods and their particle generation behaviors in sputtering process”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aravind (NPL – “Formation of Al2Cu and AlCu intermetallics in Al(Cu) alloy matrix composites by reaction sintering”).
Regarding claim 2, the previous combination of Nakamitsu, Nakamura, Maruko, and Chen fails to explicitly teach when the Al content is measured by inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry for a total of 5 points of a sputtering surface of the sputtering target at a center position, an outer peripheral position, and an intermediate position therebetween, which line on two mutually orthogonal straight lines extending from a center to an outer periphery of the sputtering surface, a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of each content is 0.2 at% or less. However, Maruko (US 20220275499 A1) teaches the difference in composition of the sputtering target in the in-plane direction may be less than 1%, wherein the target is measured, for example by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy, at the center S1, an outer peripheral position (S4, S9), and an intermediate position therebetween (S5, S8) formed on two mutually orthogonal straight lines (L) extending from the center to the outer periphery, wherein the composition deviation is reduced by forming a raw material of aluminum alloy materials with aluminum as a matrix, forming the raw material into an atomized powder, and sintering the atomized powder to produce a sintered target (para 0044, 0052, 0105-0118, 0128; Fig. 1). Maruko also teaches that the variation in composition is suppressed by reducing the number of sites of single aluminum or single alloying element by forming intermetallic compounds (para 0022-0023). Additionally, Aravind (NPL), in the analogous art of sintering AlCu, teaches forming intermetallic compounds of AlCu and AlCu2 by sintering and quenching hypereutectic AlCu powders (e.g., 50 wt% (30 at%) Cu) (pg. 385-386, Table 1; Fig. 3), thus indicating that AlCu may function similarly to the Al alloys of Maruko. Because Maruko and Aravind teach that such powder atomizing, sintering, and cooling methods 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 atomize Al and Cu powders after forming a raw material of AlCu with Cu dispersed in an Al matrix, sinter the atomized powder, and cool the sintered body, as described by Maruko and Aravind, such that the compositional variation within the body is minimized. 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 Nakamitsu, Nakamura, Maruko, Chen, and Aravind teaches the variation is suppressed to less than 1% (Maruko para 0044, 0128) but fails to explicitly teach the difference between maximum and minimum content is 0.2 at% or less. However, Maruko teaches that the variance in composition can lead to a varying sputtering rate during film formation and the film may have different characteristics (para 0044), thus recognizing the compositional variance as a result-effective variable. 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 determine the optimum or workable ranges of compositional variation by routine optimization, which can include a composition variation with a difference between maximum and minimum value of Al content equal to 0.2 at% or less when measured at 5 points by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nakamitsu, Nakamura, Maruko, and Chen fails to explicitly teach when analyzed by an X-ray diffractometer and quantitatively analyzed using an RIR (reference intensity ratio) method for the results, a mass ratio of a total value of CuAl2 and CuAl is 95% or more. However, Aravind (NPL), in the analogous art of sintering AlCu, teaches sintering AlCu powders, wherein the powder composition may be hypereutectic, such as a Cu weight percent of 50 wt% (about 30 at% Cu), and wherein the sintered body after cooling or oil quenching a hypereutectic composition contains only Al2Cu and AlCu phases according to XRD (pg. 385-386, Table 1; Fig. 3). Nakamitsu teaches that the CuAl target may contain CuAl alloy with Cu in a range of 30 at% to 40 at% (para 0043). Because Aravind teaches that such sintering and cooling methods 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 cool the sintered body, as described by Aravind, such that the body contains intermetallic phases of AlCu and Al2Cu 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 Nakamitsu, Nakamura, Maruko, Chen, and Aravind teaches that the sintered body contains only AlCu and Al2Cu phases in X-ray diffraction (XRD) (Aravind Table 1, Fig. 3) and therefore would necessarily have a mass ratio of a total value of CuAl2 and CuAl of 95% or more when analyzed by X-ray diffractometer and reference intensity ratio.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nakamitsu, Nakamura, Maruko, and Chen fails to explicitly teach the binary alloy of Cu and Al comprises an intermetallic compound of CuAl2 and/or CuAl. However, Aravind (NPL), in the analogous art of sintering AlCu, teaches sintering AlCu powders, wherein the powder composition may be hypereutectic, such as a Cu weight percent of 50 wt% (about 30 at% Cu), and wherein the sintered body after cooling or oil quenching a hypereutectic composition contains only Al2Cu and AlCu phases according to XRD (pg. 385-386, Table 1; Fig. 3). Nakamitsu teaches that the CuAl target may contain CuAl alloy with Cu in a range of 30 at% to 40 at% (para 0043). Because Aravind teaches that such sintering and cooling methods 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 cool the sintered body, as described by Aravind, such that the body contains intermetallic phases of AlCu (CuAl) and Al2Cu (CuAl2) 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)).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamitsu (JP 2022006690 A) in view of Nakamura (NPL – “Pressure Sintering Characteristics with Chemical Reaction between Dissimilar Metal Powders by DC Pulse Resistance Sintering Process”), Maruko (US 20220275499 A1), and Chen (NPL – “Investigation of Al—Cr alloy targets sintered by various powder metallurgy methods and their particle generation behaviors in sputtering process”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujioka (JP 2010280992 A).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nakamitsu, Nakamura, Maruko, and Chen fails to explicitly teach an oxygen content is 50 to 1000 mass ppm. However, Fujioka (JP 2010280992 A), in the analogous art of producing sputtering targets, teaches when metal powder is the raw material for the sintered target material, the amount of oxygen is controlled by setting the powder mixing time, mixing atmosphere, and sintering atmosphere, wherein the target material may include AlCu and have an oxygen content of 300 ppm or less (para 0036-0038, 0073-0075, Table 13). Because Fujioka teaches that such target production methods 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 control the oxygen content in the CuAl target to less than 300 ppm 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)).
Though Fujioka fails to explicitly teach oxygen content of 50 to 1000 mass ppm, one would have expected the use of any value within the Fujioka 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 reference' s range, including values less than 300 ppm, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details. The “ppm” disclosed by Fujioka seems to be molar ppm instead of mass ppm; however, the disclosed range would still overlap with the mass ppm limitations (see example calculation).
Example Calculation
O
x
y
g
e
n
m
a
s
s
p
p
m
=
300
1000000
*
32
g
m
o
l
300
1000000
*
32
g
m
o
l
+
0.333
*
63.546
g
m
o
l
+
0.666
*
26.98
g
m
o
l
*
1000000
=
~
245
m
a
s
s
p
p
m
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nakamura teaches away from using HP sintering because it requires several hours and thus has low productivity. This argument is not persuasive because Nakamura teaches that both SPS and HP sintering can be performed and does not discredit or disavow the use of HP sintering, rather Nakamura establishes SPS as a preferred method.
Applicant argues that paragraph 0010 of the specification does not indicate the problem is limited to only rolling and forging and a Cu-Al alloy with higher Al content is prone to cracking so it also can break under high pressure. This argument is not persuasive because there is no evidence provided to support the applicant’s claim.
Applicant argues that the CuAl alloy target of Nakamitsu cannot be produced with the conditions disclosed in Nakamura due to the different composition and in order to obtain a relative density close to 100%, the temperature must be 800°C which is much higher than the melt point of CuAl2. This argument is not persuasive because the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that a similar hot pressing or SPS method to that described by Nakamura would not achieve a high density target. It should also be noted that the combination of Nakamitsu and Nakamura does not necessarily require using the same exact operating conditions, especially in view of Chen teaching that the density may be improved/optimized by adjusting the sintering/hot pressing conditions.
Applicant argues and provides evidence that the melting point of CuAl2 is about 600°C and that changes in melting point due to changes in pressure are minimal. This argument is not persuasive because the citation of the melting point only refers to the intermetallic compound CuAl2 and not a sputtering target/powder mixture including Cu and Al in a 1:2 ratio, which is not necessarily made of entirely CuAl2 intermetallic compound, as evidenced by the instant application’s description and claims stating that the alloy may include CuAl2 and/or CuAl intermetallic compounds. Additionally, this argument is not persuasive because the change in melting point shown by the citation appears to only relate to Cu and Al metals and not to the mixture/alloy of them both.
Applicant argues that the target studied in Chen is an Al-Cr target and so the sintering conditions cannot be simply adopted or easily optimized. This argument is not persuasive because one skilled in the art would know how to optimize the target density in a similar way regardless of the target material by adjusting the pressing/sintering conditions to produce a higher density target. One skilled in the art would understand that the operating conditions of the sintering/hot pressing processes are not the same for different materials but could similarly be optimized to achieve a maximum possible density. As a result, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to optimize the density of the Nakamitsu target to prevent arcing during sputtering, which may result in a target density above 95%.
It should also be noted that Kim (“Effect of Intermetallic Compounds on the Thermal and Mechanical Properties of Al-Cu composite materials fabricated by Spark Plasma Sintering”), which was cited in the IDS filed 10/7/2025, describes that materials of AlCu with high Al content may be sintered by spark plasma sintering to achieve a relative density well above 95% (see Fig. 2b and Table 2), thus indicating that the AlCu mixture of Nakamitsu can be sintered to reach the claimed relative density at least by spark plasma sintering.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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