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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/15/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-12 are directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), claims 14-20, directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 7/8/2024 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 15, the limitation “the alloying component is tungsten” is indefinite because claim 14 recites the alloying component is selected from the group consisting of titanium, aluminum, and molybdenum, which does not include tungsten. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite the alloying component is “titanium”.
In claim 19, the limitation “a copper alloy backing plate” is indefinite because it Is unclear whether this limitation is intended to refer to the copper alloy backing plate recited in claim 14 or a different copper alloy backing plate. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “the copper alloy backing plate”.
In claim 20, the limitation “wherein forming an adhesion layer includes forming an adhesion layer” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this step of forming an adhesion layer is intended to refer to the step of forming an adhesion layer in claim 14 or a different step for forming a different adhesion layer. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “wherein forming the adhesion layer includes forming an adhesion layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5-6, filed 9/15/2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 3/26/2025 has been withdrawn.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art to the claimed invention is Ohhashi (US 5693203 A) and Slattery (US 5693203 A). Ohhashi teaches a sputtering target assembly comprising a tungsten containing sputtering target comprising 0 wt% to 50 wt% of an alloying component selected from the group consisting of titanium, aluminum, and molybdenum, a copper alloy backing plate attached to the tungsten containing sputtering target, and an interlayer positioned between and diffusion bonding the tungsten containing sputtering target and copper alloy backing plate, the interlayer including a first and second copper layer immediately adjacent to each other and the backing plate, where the diffusion bond has an average bond strength of at least 10 ksi. Slattery teaches an adhesion layer may be included between a tungsten target and interlayers between the target and backing plate to improve adhesion. However, the aforementioned references fail to explicitly teach the combination of the first copper layer adjacent to the adhesion layer having “a thickness of 0.01 inches to 0.1 inches” and the second copper layer adjacent to the copper alloy backing plate having a thickness of 0.1 to 0.3 inches. Additionally, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the aforementioned references to have interlayers with the claimed thicknesses, especially while maintaining the claimed bond strength and in view of the applicant’s declaration (see declaration filed 9/15/2025) demonstrating that a second copper layer thickness below the claimed range would result in cracking. Therefore, claim 1 is allowed.
Claim 14 contains all limitations that made claim 1 allowable and thus is allowed for similar reasons.
Claims 2-12 and 16-18 depend on claims 1 and 14 and thus are allowed for the same reasons.
Claims 15 and 19-20 depend on claim 14 and thus would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights