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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 22 August 2023. These drawings are accepted.
Status of Claims
Responsive to the preliminary amendment, claims 1-7 are amended. Claims 1-7 are currently under examination.
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 1-7 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.
The presence of a trademark or trade name in a claim is not, per se, improper under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, but the claim should be carefully analyzed to determine how the mark or name is used in the claim. It is important to recognize that a trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and is not the name of the goods themselves. Thus a trademark or trade name does not define or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. See definitions of trademark and trade name in MPEP § 608.01(v).
If the trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982).
Claim 1 states that a CI value of the measurement points is measured by OIM software. While confidence index values may be measured in different ways, applicant invokes the trade name of a software package for invoking the CI values. The trade name of OIM for the EBSD software appears to be owned by EDAX/AMETEK. The owner of the trade name is able to change parameters for measuring the orientation and determining a confidence index in a number of different ways. In addition the user of the software is able to change settings that directly affect the measurement which are not disclosed. and the steps that would be required by claim 1 are therefore subject to change depending on the software version or custom settings of the software. Would a hand calculation of the confidence index of the crystal orientation be the same? What number of Hough Bands are counted in the analysis? What was the operation time? The point of infringement of claim 1 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Each of claims 2-7 depends from claim 1 and is indefinite for the same reasons.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100132851 A1 (hereinafter “Gao”).
Regarding claim 1, it is noted that the claim is indefinite. Please see discussion above.
Gao teaches a copper alloy sheet (plate) made from a Cu-Ti material (see [0002] or SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION). Gao teaches that the sheet is hot rolled (See [0011] or [0083]). Gao teaches that the composition of the sheet may include 1.0 wt% or less of Al, 1.0 wt% or less of Mg, and 1.0% or less Ag (see [0030]-[0033]). More specifically Gao teaches that the Mg is added to the alloy in order to desulfurize the metal and also to improve stress relaxation resistance (see [0064]). Gao teaches that the Al is added in order to form intermetallic deposits with the Ti ([0065]). Gao teaches examples of the steel sheet at [0101]-[0116] and Table 1-4).
The composition of the alloy of Gao overlaps the claimed composition and establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have selected a composition in the range as claimed because Gao teaches the same utility over an overlapping range. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.05. In the alternative Gao teaches that the function of the Mg is to desulfurize the metal and also to improve stress relaxation resistance (see [0064]), and that the Al is added in order to form intermetallic deposits with the Ti ([0065]). The addition of the elements Mg and Al and their amounts is established as a results-effective variable by the teachings of Gao, and it would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan to have optimized their amounts in the copper alloy sheet to obtain the purposes clearly described.
Gao teaches that the grain size is 5 to 25 µm (see [0027]). The grain size falls entirely in the range as claimed, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding wherein the area is measured by EBSD techniques and the orientation difference is 5% or less, and the KAM value is 2.0 or less, Gao does not teach this feature. Gao teaches that the orientation is measured by a XRD technique (see [0056] and [0069]-[0079]). Gao teaches that the orientation is such that a ratio of intensities relative to a standard copper powder is I{420}/I0{420}>1.0, and I{220}/I0{220}>4.0 ([0056]). Gao teaches that this means that the crystal orientation is highly aligned such that the crystals would be easily deformed in one direction ([0069]-[0079]).
While the crystal orientation ratio is not the same as the Kernel Average Misorientation as claimed, the orientation of the crystals is an indicia that the mismatch would have been relatively low. In addition the composition of the copper sheet overlaps what is claimed, and the grain size and hot rolling are the same as what is claimed.
The copper sheet having the properties as claimed would have flowed naturally from following the teachings of the prior art, where the composition were chosen to be the same, the grain size and hot rolling are the same, and the crystal orientation of the copper is highly textured.
Regarding claim 2, Gao does not teach a standard deviation value of the grain size. However Gao teaches that a parameter of a difference between a maximum grain size and a minimum grain size divided by the mean is not greater than 0.20, and is preferred to be lower ([0055] and [0068])). The copper sheet having the properties as claimed would have flowed naturally from following the teachings of the prior art, where the composition were chosen to be the same, the grain size and hot rolling are the same, and the difference between maximum and minimum grain size is desired to be minimized.
Regarding claim 3, Gao does not describe what an aspect ratio of the grains is. The copper sheet having the properties as claimed would have flowed naturally from following the teachings of the prior art, where the composition were chosen to be the same, the grain size and hot rolling are the same, and the crystal orientation of the copper is highly aligned.
Regarding claim 4, Gao does not describe a value of a low angle boundary of 2-15 degrees and a total of low and high angle boundaries is <10%. The copper sheet having the properties as claimed would have flowed naturally from following the teachings of the prior art, where the composition were chosen to be the same, the grain size and hot rolling are the same, and the crystal orientation of the copper is highly textured.
Regarding claim 5, Gao does not describe a hardness value as claimed. The copper sheet having the properties as claimed would have flowed naturally from following the teachings of the prior art, where the composition were chosen to be the same, the grain size and hot rolling are the same, and the crystal orientation of the copper is highly textured.
Regarding claim 6, Gao teaches that the inclusion of Fe is optional ([0061]). Gao does not specify and amount of S. The more pure material would have been a prima facie obvious matter to the skilled artisan. Purer forms of known products may be patentable, but the mere purity of a product, by itself, does not render the product nonobvious. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.04 VII.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation of a “sputtering target” is an intended use of the sheet material. During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim. See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In the instant case the description of a “sputtering target” does not require or imply any structure in the sheet absent what is already required by claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11427888 B2 describes a similar sputter target. US 20150318153 A1 describes a hot rolled copper plate for sputter target.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1759