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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-9, 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 5, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 17-19, 21, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically it is unclear where there is support for “a combination thereof” from claim 1.
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, 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilliam (GB 1384692) in view of Rastogi et al. (WO 2007/037796 A2) and Pinter et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2018/0051370 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Quilliam teaches a sputtering target comprising a support plate and a chalcogenide glass composition having an amorphous content of 90% or more. (Page 1 lines 69- 85; Page 2 lines 10-12, lines 34-40; Claims 1-15 esp. 15 - The target is 100% vitreous amorphous semiconductor. The softening occurs below the crystallization range to maintain the amorphous target and bone to the steel support plate.)
Quilliam teaches the chalcogenide glass composition comprises GeAsSeS. (Page 1 lines 20-70 – selecting sulphur and selenium and germanium and arsenic from the list of elements)
PNG
media_image1.png
110
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
56
370
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The difference between Quilliam and claim 1 is that the target having an amorphous content of 90% or more is not discussed (Assuming arguendo that Quilliam is not 100% amorphous) and the composition having if present 10-35 wt% of germanium, 2-40 wt% of arsenic, 1-20 wt% of antimony, 25-80 wt% of selenium, 1-40 wt% of indium, 1-40 wt% of tellurium, and 0.5-25 wt% of silicon and
Regarding the target having an amorphous content of 90% or more is not discussed. (Assuming arguendo that Quilliam is not 100% amorphous)(Claim 1):
It is the examiner’s position that that target is 100% amorphous because Quilliam state that the target is 100% vitreous amorphous semiconductor. The softening occurs below the crystallization range to maintain the amorphous target and bone to the steel support plate.
However assuming arguendo that this is not the case Rastogi et al. teach a target that is 100 vol % amorphous as a sputtering target blank. (Page 9 lines 3-4)
Regarding the weight % of materials in the target (Claim 1), Pinter et al. teach a sputtering target having germanium, arsenic, selenium and sulphur. (Paragraph 0016) Pinter et al. teach the weight percent of the elements that can be present. (Paragraph 0018)
PNG
media_image3.png
244
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the chalcogenide glass composition has a compositional homogeneity of 5 at% or less.
Regarding claim 4, Rastogi et al. teach the PVD target can have a compositional accuracy within +/- 2 atomic %. (Page 8 lines 32-33)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the chalcogenide glass composition has a relative density of 0.990 or more.
Regarding claim 5, Rastogi et al. teach a relative density of 100% or more. (Page 9 lines 4)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Pinter is that it allows for forming non-volatile memory devices. (Paragraph 0004)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Rastogi et al. is that it allows for depositing thin films of phase change memory material. (Page 1 lines 25-26)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Quilliam by utilizing the features of Rastogi et al. and Pinter et al. because it allows for depositing thin films of phase change memory material and non-volatile memory devices.
Claim(s) 3, 17, 18, 21, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilliam in view of Rastogi et al. and Pinter et al. as applied to claims 1, 4, 5 above, and further in view of Nazabal et al. “Fabrication and characterization of chalcogenide films”, Proc. Of SPIE Vol. 5956, (2005).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the chalcogenide glass composition has an aspect ratio from 10 to 250 at a thickness from 1 to 20 mm and a diameter from 50 mm to 500 mm.
Regarding claim 3, Nazabal et al. teach that chalcogenide glass composition sputtering targets can have a thickness of 2-4 mm and 50 mm and 20 mm in diameter. (See 2-Experimental) At a thickness of 2 mm and 50 mm diameter the aspect ratio would be 25.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the chalcogenide glass composition has an aspect ratio from 20 to 100 at a thickness from 1 to 20 mm and a diameter from 50 mm to 500 mm.
Regarding claim 17, Nazabal et al. teach that chalcogenide glass composition sputtering targets can have a thickness of 2-4 mm and 50 mm and 20 mm in diameter. (See 2-Experimental) At a thickness of 2 mm and 50 mm diameter the aspect ratio would be 25.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the chalcogenide glass composition has an aspect ratio from 10 to 250 at a thickness from 1 to 20 mm and a diameter from 50 mm to 200 mm.
Regarding claim 18, Nazabal et al. teach that chalcogenide glass composition sputtering targets can have a thickness of 2-4 mm and 50 mm and 20 mm in diameter. (See 2-Experimental) At a thickness of 2 mm and 50 mm diameter the aspect ratio would be 25.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 21:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the chalcogenide glass composition has a compositional homogeneity of 5 at% or less.
Regarding claim 21, Rastogi et al. discussed above teach the PVD target can have a compositional accuracy within +/- 2 atomic %. (Page 8 lines 32-33)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 22:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the chalcogenide glass composition has a relative density of 0.990 or more.
Regarding claim 22, Rastogi et al. discussed above teach a relative density of 100% or more. (Page 9 lines 4)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Nazabal et al. is that it allows for producing integrated planar optical circuits. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Nazabal et al. because it allows for producing integrated planar optical circuits.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilliam in view of Rastogi et al. and Pinter et al. and Nazabal et al. as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 17-18, 21, 22 above, and further in view of Kardokus et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2007/0099332 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the chalcogenide glass composition has an aspect ratio from 10 to 250 at a thickness from 1 to 20 mm and a diameter from 200 mm to 400 mm.
Regarding claim 19:
Nazabal et al. teach 2-4 mm thick targets and 50 mm diameter targets. (See Nazabal et al.)
Kardokus et al. teach that targets can have a diameter of 13.8 inches or greater. (Paragraph 0046 – 13.8 inches = 350 mm)
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the diameter of Nazabal et al. with the teachings of Kardokus et al. to arrive at the claimed aspect ratio (i.e. 175)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Kardokus et al. is that it allows for processing a larger volume. (Paragraph 0046)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Kardokus et al. because it allows for processing a larger volume.
Claim(s) 20, 23, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilliam (GB 1384692) in view of Rastogi et al. (WO 2007/037796 A2) and Nazabal et al. “Fabrication and characterization of chalcogenide films”, Proc. Of SPIE Vol. 5956, (2005).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
Regarding claim 20, Quilliam teaches a sputtering target comprising a support plate and a chalcogenide glass composition having an amorphous content of 90% or more. (Page 1 lines 69- 85; Page 2 lines 10-12, lines 34-40; Claims 1-15 esp. 15 - The target is 100% vitreous amorphous semiconductor. The softening occurs below the crystallization range to maintain the amorphous target and bone to the steel support plate.)
Quilliam teaches the chalcogenide glass composition comprises GeAsSeS. (Page 1 lines 20-70 – selecting sulphur and selenium and germanium and arsenic from the list of elements)
PNG
media_image1.png
110
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
56
370
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The difference between Quilliam and claim 20 is that the target having an amorphous content of 90% or more is not discussed (Assuming arguendo that Quilliam is not 100% amorphous) and wherein the chalcogenide glass composition has an aspect ratio from 20 to 250 at a thickness from 1 to 20 mm and a diameter from 50 mm to 500 mm.
Regarding the target having an amorphous content of 90% or more is not discussed. (Assuming arguendo that Quilliam is not 100% amorphous)(Claim 20):
It is the examiner’s position that that target is 100% amorphous because Quilliam state that the target is 100% vitreous amorphous semiconductor. The softening occurs below the crystallization range to maintain the amorphous target and bone to the steel support plate.
However assuming arguendo that this is not the case Rastogi et al. teach a target that is 100 vol % amorphous as a sputtering target blank. (Page 9 lines 3-4)
Regarding wherein the chalcogenide glass composition has an aspect ratio from 20 to 250 at a thickness from 1 to 20 mm and a diameter from 50 mm to 500 mm (Claim 20), Nazabal et al. teach that chalcogenide glass composition sputtering targets can have a thickness of 2-4 mm and 50 mm and 20 mm in diameter. (See 2-Experimental) At a thickness of 2 mm and 50 mm diameter the aspect ratio would be 25.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 23:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the aspect ratio is 20 to 100 at a thickness from 1 to 20 mm and a diameter from 50 mm to 500 mm.
Regarding claim 23, Nazabal et al. teach that chalcogenide glass composition sputtering targets can have a thickness of 2-4 mm and 50 mm and 20 mm in diameter. (See 2-Experimental) At a thickness of 2 mm and 50 mm diameter the aspect ratio would be 25.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 24:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the aspect ratio is 20 to 100 at a thickness from 1 to 20 mm and a diameter from 50 mm to 200 mm.
Regarding claim 24, Nazabal et al. teach that chalcogenide glass composition sputtering targets can have a thickness of 2-4 mm and 50 mm and 20 mm in diameter. (See 2-Experimental) At a thickness of 2 mm and 50 mm diameter the aspect ratio would be 25.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Rastogi et al. is that it allows for depositing thin films of phase change memory material. (Page 1 lines 25-26)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Nazabal et al. is that it allows for producing integrated planar optical circuits. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Quilliam by utilizing the features of Rastogi et al. and Nazabal et al. because it allows for depositing thin films of phase change memory material and non-volatile memory devices and for producing integrated planar optical circuits.
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilliam in view of Rastogi et al. and Nazabal et al. as applied to claims 20, 23, 24 above, and further in view of Kardokus et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2007/0099332 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 25:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the chalcogenide glass composition has an aspect ratio from 10 to 250 at a thickness from 1 to 20 mm and a diameter from 200 mm to 400 mm.
Regarding claim 25:
Nazabal et al. teach 2-4 mm thick targets and 50 mm diameter targets. (See Nazabal et al.)
Kardokus et al. teach that targets can have a diameter of 13.8 inches or greater. (Paragraph 0046 – 13.8 inches = 350 mm)
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the diameter of Nazabal et al. with the teachings of Kardokus et al. to arrive at the claimed aspect ratio (i.e. 175)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Kardokus et al. is that it allows for processing a larger volume. (Paragraph 0046)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Kardokus et al. because it allows for processing a larger volume.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that the prior art of record does not teach the amended claimed subject matter of a sputter target comprising a support plate and a chalcogenide glass composition having an amorphous content of 90% or more, wherein the chalcogenide glass composition comprises GeAsSeS, GeAsSeInSi, GeAsSeln, GeAsSeSi, or a combination thereof, and if present in the composition, 10-35 wt% of germanium, 2-40 wt% of arsenic, 1-20 wt% of antimony, 25-80 wt% of selenium, 1-40 wt% of indium, 1-40 wt% of tellurium, and 0.5-25 wt% of silicon, it is argued that Quilliam teaches a sputtering target comprising a support plate and a chalcogenide glass composition having an amorphous content of 90% or more. (Page 1 lines 69- 85; Page 2 lines 10-12, lines 34-40; Claims 1-15 esp. 15 - The target is 100% vitreous amorphous semiconductor. The softening occurs below the crystallization range to maintain the amorphous target and bone to the steel support plate.) Quilliam teaches the chalcogenide glass composition comprises GeAsSeS. (Page 1 lines 20-70 – selecting sulphur and selenium and germanium and arsenic from the list of elements) Pinter et al. teach a sputtering target having germanium, arsenic, selenium and sulphur. (Paragraph 0016) Pinter et al. teach the weight percent of the elements that can be present. (Paragraph 0018)
In response to the argument that the prior art of record does not teach the claimed subject matter including the aspect ratio, thickness and diameter, it is argued that Nazabal et al. teach that chalcogenide glass composition sputtering targets can have a thickness of 2-4 mm and 50 mm and 20 mm in diameter. (See 2-Experimental) At a thickness of 2 mm and 50 mm diameter the aspect ratio would be 25. Furthermore Kardokus et al. teach modifying the diameter to meet the aspect ratio of 20 to 250.
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
February 12, 2026