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 Interpretation
Each of independent claims 1, 7, and 13 has been amended to recite in each preamble closed-ended language of “A sputter target, consisting of: […].” (emphasis added), and thus each of claims 1, 7, and 13 explicitly excludes any elements not specifically recited in each claim as per MPEP 2111.03.
Election/Restrictions
Newly amended claim 15 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 15 now requires that “the metal” is solely “iridium”, which was non-elected as per Response to Election filed 10/31/2024.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 15 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blackman et al (Dual Source atmospheric pressure chemical vapour deposition of TiP films on glass using TiCl4 and PH2But)), as evidenced by Makino et al (US 9,530,628).
With respect to claims 1, 6, and 21, Blackman discloses a solid consisting of Ti3P (Abstract), the solid having a molecular weight of 174.575; the P (phosphorus) is a n-type dopant according to claim 1. Thus the sputter target consists of only Ti and P, wherein a concentration of the n-type dopant of P is about 17.74% by weight. The solid being a “sputter target” (claim 1) and “A process chamber including the sputter target of claim 1” (claim 6) relates to the intended use of the solid, with the solid of Blackman fully capable of being used in the claimed manner, as evidenced by Makino teaching (see Abstract; Tables 2-3) that a solid of Ti and P is usable as a sputter target.
Claims 7, 12, 24-25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by American Elements “Ditungsten Boride Sputtering Target” (www.americanelements.com; see attached PTO-892, Reference U) having a publicly known date of 7/7/2017 from web/archive.org (e.g. Internet Wayback Machine; see attached PTO-892, Reference V).
With respect to claims 7 and 25, American Elements discloses a sputter target of chemical formula W2B of molecular weight 378.49; the B (boron) is a p-type dopant according to claim 7. Thus the sputter target consists of only W and B, wherein B is the p-type dopant at about 2.86% by weight.
With respect to claim 12, American Elements discloses the sputter target of W2B is used in “semiconductor, chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and physical vapor deposition” and “designed to work with both older sputtering devises as well as the latest process equipment”; thus the sputter target is intended to be included in a process chamber.
With respect to claims 24 and 28, as discussed above for claim 7, claim 7 recites that the sputter target has “a metal being only one of titanium, molybdenum, niobium, nickel, cobalt, tungsten, or iridium” (emphasis added), and claims 24 and 28 each recites “the metal is titanium”; ‘the metal being only titanium’ is an optional limitation due to the alternative “or” language in claim 7, and thus claims 24 and 28 are not required. As such, claims 24 and 28 are also rejected for the same reasoning set forth above for claim 7.
Claims 13-14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by American Elements “Titanium Carbide Sputtering Target” (www.americanelements.com; see attached PTO-892, Reference W) having a publicly known date of 6/22/2021 from web/archive.org (e.g. Internet Wayback Machine; see attached PTO-892, Reference X).
With respect to claims 13-14 and 18, American Elements discloses a sputter target of chemical formula TiC 59.877; the C (carbon) is a dopant according to claim 13. Thus the sputter target consists of only Ti and C, wherein C is the dopant at about 20% by weight.
With respect to claim 20, American Elements discloses the sputter target of TiC is used in “semiconductor, chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and physical vapor deposition” and “designed to work with both older sputtering devices as well as the latest process equipment”; thus the sputter target is intended to be included in a process chamber.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackman et al (Dual Source atmospheric pressure chemical vapour deposition of TiP films on glass using TiCl4 and PH2But)), as evidenced by Makino et al (US 9,530,628).
With respect to claim 4, Blackman discloses the P is the dopant at about 17.74%% by weight; it has been held that: 1) a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (MPEP 2144.05, I); and 2) differences in concentration will not support patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical since it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05, II, A).
Claims 10 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over American Elements “Ditungsten Boride Sputtering Target” (www.americanelements.com; see attached PTO-892, Reference U) having a publicly known date of 7/7/2017 from web/archive.org (e.g. Internet Wayback Machine; see attached PTO-892, Reference V).
With respect to claims 10 and 26, American Elements discloses the B is the p-type dopant at about 2.86% (~3%) by weight; it has been held that: 1) a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (MPEP 2144.05, I); and 2) differences in concentration will not support patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical since it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05, II, A).
Claims 17, 19, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over American Elements “Titanium Carbide Sputtering Target” (www.americanelements.com; see attached PTO-892, Reference W) having a publicly known date of 6/22/2021 from web/archive.org (e.g. Internet Wayback Machine; see attached PTO-892, Reference X).
With respect to claims 17, 19, and 27, American Elements discloses the C is the dopant at about 20% by weight; it has been held that: 1) a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (MPEP 2144.05, I); and 2) differences in concentration will not support patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical since it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05, II, A).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackman et al (Dual Source atmospheric pressure chemical vapour deposition of TiP films on glass using TiCl4 and PH2But)), as evidenced by Makino et al (US 9,530,628), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakadai et al (US 6,723,213).
With respect to claim 22, the combination of reference Blackman and Makino is cited as discussed for claim 1. However the combination of references is limited in that while Makino suggests for the sputter target to be a “disk-shaped target” (col. 4, lines 21-25), a particular diameter for the disk-shaped target is not suggested.
Nakadai teaches a sputter target of Ti that is “disk-like” with a diameter of 300 mm (Abstract; Example 1, col. 7, lines 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the sputter target (e.g. solid) of the combination of references have a diameter of 300 mm taught by Nakadai since the combination of references fails to specify the particular diameter of the disk-shaped target, and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation for success in making the modification since Nakadai has shown success for a sputter target of Ti that is disk-shaped with a diameter of 300 mm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 5-7 filed 10/29/2025 are addressed below.
112 Rejections
Claims 25 and 26 have each been amended for clarity; the previous 112(b) rejection have been withdrawn.
102 & 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 5-7 with respect to claims 1, 7, and 13 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new references being applied in the current rejections.
On p. 7 regarding dependent claims 14, 18-19, 24, and 27, as discussed during the interview on 10/24/2025 (see interview summary mailed 10/28/2025), titanium is one of many listed alternative metals recited in independent claims 7 and 13, and thus is an optional limitation for claims 7 and 13. As such, any dependent claim that recites only titanium is also an optional claim.
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 MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794