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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 16, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 1 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.
Claim 1 recites “ultra-violet sensitive”, which is indefinite because “sensitive” lacks a basis for comparison.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov (US 2004/0020769) in view of Lee (US 6,280,579) and Li (US 6,482,302).
Regarding claim 1, Ivanov teaches a separator processing device for an electrochemical apparatus, the separator processing device comprising:
a vacuum chamber [0002];
a separator in the vacuum chamber (substrate, [0002]);
and a sputtering target (12’) in the vacuum chamber, the sputtering target comprising target elements (12’) and luminescent elements (dielectric felt 30’, fig. 4, [0034]).
wherein the sputtering target comprises a base layer (backing plate 14, fig. 4), and
a luminescent layer comprising the luminescent elements and stacked under the base layer (14, [0034], Fig. 4),
and a target layer comprising the target elements, stacked under the luminescent layer, and facing the separator ([0013], [0034], Fig. 4).
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40, 100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971)
Ivanov does not teach an opening portion is provided on one surface of the vacuum chamber facing the separator, and the sputtering target is configured to cover the opening portion.
Ivanov does not teach the luminescent elements comprise at least one of an ultraviolet sensitive material or colored metal.
Lee teaches an opening portion is provided on one surface of the vacuum chamber (106, Fig. 1) facing the separator wherein the sputtering target (110) is configured to cover the opening portion (Fig. 1); and an adapter (152) interposed between the sputtering target (110) and the vacuum chamber (106, col. 6, ln. 27-40).
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.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the vacuum chamber of Ivanov by providing an opening portion is provided on one surface of the vacuum chamber facing the separator, and the sputtering target is configured to cover the opening portion and an adapter interposed between the sputtering target and the vacuum chamber, because 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.
Ivanov does not teach a colored metal. The Examiner takes the position that all metals have color.
Li directed to a sputtering target with a template 56 coated with sputtered material 80. Li teaches the template 56 can comprise copper-tin, therefore it teaches the colored metal comprises tin (sn) (col. 6, ln. 23-25).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the luminescent material of the target of Ivanov by providing the colored metal comprises at least any one of lead (Pb), aluminum (Al), nickel (Ni), magnesium (Mg), tin (Sn), antimony (Sb), zinc (Zn), and titanium (Ti), as taught by Li, because it would provide a more ductile material for deformability and formation of a container shape (col. 6, ln. 23-27).
The Examiner takes the position that the following claim amendments represent function language in the apparatus of claim 1: wherein when the sputtering target reaches a limit lifespan, the target layer is consumed, the luminescent layer is exposed to an outside of the target layer; and the target elements and luminescent elements are deposited on the separator positioned below the sputtering target. The prior art only needs to be inherently capable of meeting the following functional limitations. Each of Ivanov and Li meets these functional limitations because it teaches when the sputtering target reaches a limit lifespan (full life, [0054] the target layer is consumed (penetration [0054-0055], the luminescent layer is exposed to an outside of the target layer (visual inspection [0055]), and the target elements and luminescent elements are deposited on the separator positioned below the sputtering target (formation of particles and splats on the substrate [0056-0057]).
Regarding claim 5, Ivanov teaches a magnetron ([0004]).
Regarding claim 16, Ivanov teaches the target element comprises precious metal (pg. 2, [0011]).
Regarding claim 17, Ivanov teaches the target element comprises at least any one of platinum (Pt), iridium (Ir), and gold (Au) (pg. 2, [0011]).
Regarding claim 20, Ivanov does not teach the colored metal comprises at least any one of lead (Pb), aluminum (Al), nickel (Ni), magnesium (Mg), tin (Sn), antimony (Sb), zinc (Zn), and titanium (Ti).
Li directed to a sputtering target with a template 56 coated with sputtered material 80. Li teaches the template 56 can comprise copper-tin, therefore it teaches the colored metal comprises tin (sn) (col. 6, ln. 23-25).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the luminescent material of the target of Ivanov by providing the colored metal comprises at least any one of lead (Pb), aluminum (Al), nickel (Ni), magnesium (Mg), tin (Sn), antimony (Sb), zinc (Zn), and titanium (Ti), , as taught by Li, because it would provide a more ductile material for deformability and formation of a container shape (col. 6, ln. 23-27).
Claims 6, 8, 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov (US 2004/0020769) in view of Lee (US 6,280,579) and Li (US 6,482,302).
Regarding claim 6, Ivanov teaches a separator processing device for an electrochemical apparatus, the separator processing device comprising:
a vacuum chamber [0002];
and a sputtering target (12’) provided on the vacuum chamber and comprising target elements and luminescent elements that are configured to be deposited on the separator [0034] [0057].
the sputtering target comprises:
a base layer (14);
a luminescent layer (30’) comprising the luminescent elements and stacked under the base layer (14, fig. 4)
and a target layer (12, fig. 4) comprising the target elements, stacked under the luminescent layer (30;, Fig. 4) and facing the separator (substrate [0002]); and
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40, 100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971)
Ivanov does not teach a susceptor provided in the vacuum chamber and configured to allow a separator to be seated thereon.
Ivanov does not teach the luminescent elements comprise at least one an ultraviolet-sensitive material or colored metal.
Lee teach a susceptor 114 provided in the vacuum chamber and configured to allow a separator 112 to be seated thereon (Fig. 2)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the vacuum chamber of Ivanov by providing a susceptor provided in the vacuum chamber and configured to allow a separator to be seated thereon, as taught by Lee, because it would hold the substrate in the vacuum chamber (Fig. 2).
Ivanov does not teach an opening portion is provided on one surface of the vacuum chamber facing the separator, and the sputtering target is configured to cover the opening portion.
Lee teaches an opening portion is provided on one surface of the vacuum chamber (106, Fig. 1) facing the separator wherein the sputtering target (110) is configured to cover the opening portion (Fig. 1); and an adapter (152) interposed between the sputtering target (110) and the vacuum chamber (106, col. 6, ln. 27-40).
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.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the vacuum chamber of Ivanov by providing an opening portion is provided on one surface of the vacuum chamber facing the separator, and the sputtering target is configured to cover the opening portion and an adapter interposed between the sputtering target and the vacuum chamber, because 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.
Ivanov does not teach a colored metal.
Li directed to a sputtering target with a template 56 coated with sputtered material 80. Li teaches the template 56 can comprise copper-tin, therefore it teaches the colored metal comprises tin (sn) (col. 6, ln. 23-25).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the luminescent material of the target of Ivanov by providing the colored metal comprises at least any one of lead (Pb), aluminum (Al), nickel (Ni), magnesium (Mg), tin (Sn), antimony (Sb), zinc (Zn), and titanium (Ti), , as taught by Li, because it would provide a more ductile material for deformability and formation of a container shape (col. 6, ln. 23-27).
The Examiner takes the position that the following claim amendments represent function language in the apparatus of claim 1: wherein when the sputtering target reaches a limit lifespan, the target layer is consumed, the luminescent layer is exposed to an outside of the target layer; and the target elements and luminescent elements are deposited on the separator positioned below the sputtering target. The prior art only needs to be inherently capable of meeting the following functional limitations. Each of Ivanov and Li meets these functional limitations because it teaches when the sputtering target reaches a limit lifespan (full life, [0054] the target layer is consumed (penetration [0054-0055], the luminescent layer is exposed to an outside of the target layer (visual inspection [0055]), and the target elements and luminescent elements are deposited on the separator positioned below the sputtering target (formation of particles and splats on the substrate [0056-0057]).
Regarding claim 8, Ivanov does not teach an insulator member interposed between the target layer and the vacuum chamber.
Lee teach an insulator member (172) interposed between the target layer (110) and the vacuum chamber (106) because it would insulate the sputtering target from the grounded adapter ring assembly (col. 6, ln. 27-40).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the vacuum chamber of Ivanov by providing an insulator member interposed between the target layer and the vacuum chamber, as taught by Lee, because it would insulate the sputtering target from the grounded adapter ring assembly (col. 6, ln. 27-40).
Regarding claim 10, Ivanov teaches the target element comprises precious metal (pg. 2, [0011]) wherein the target element comprises at least any one of platinum (Pt), iridium (Ir), and gold (Au) [0011]).
Regarding claim 12, Ivanov teaches luminescent element comprises at least any one of an ultraviolet-sensitive material and colored metal (pg. 2, ]0011]).
Regarding claim 14, Ivanov teaches a magnetron ([0004]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov and Lee and Li as applied to claim 1 above in view of Nukeaw (US 2009/0026065).
Regarding claim 4, Ivanov does not teach a flow rate controller configured to adjust a supply flow rate of a reactant gas to be supplied into the vacuum chamber.
Nukeaw teaches a flow rate controller (MFC 3, 11, fig. 1) configured to adjust a supply flow rate of a reactant gas to be supplied into the vacuum chamber because it would supply oxygen for reactive sputtering [0021].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the vacuum chamber of Ivanov by providing a flow rate controller configured to adjust a supply flow rate of a reactant gas to be supplied into the vacuum chamber, as taught by Nukeaw, because it would supply oxygen for reactive sputtering [0021].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov, Lee and Li as applied to claim 6 above in view of Nukeaw (US 2009/0026065).
Regarding claim 13, Ivanov does not teach a flow rate controller configured to adjust a supply flow rate of a reactant gas to be supplied into the vacuum chamber.
Nukeaw teaches a flow rate controller (MFC 3, 11, fig. 1) configured to adjust a supply flow rate of a reactant gas to be supplied into the vacuum chamber because it would supply oxygen for reactive sputtering [0021].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the vacuum chamber of Ivanov by providing a flow rate controller configured to adjust a supply flow rate of a reactant gas to be supplied into the vacuum chamber, as taught by Nukeaw, because it would supply oxygen for reactive sputtering [0021].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and deletion of “or colored metal”.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No prior art teaches the sputtering target of claim 1 with wherein the ultraviolet- sensitive material comprises at least any one of silver chloride (AgCI), silver bromide (AgBr), silver iodide (AgI), spirooxazines, spiropyrans, fulgides, benzophenone, zinc oxide, and titanium dioxide.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 16, 2026 with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 on 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.
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights