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 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 1-7 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.
Amended claim 1 recites “An IGZO sputtering target, comprising constituent elements consisting of indium (In), gallium (Ga), zinc (Zn), zirconium (Zr), and oxygen (O), and a balance consisting of inevitable impurities” (emphasis added). There is no support in the Specification that “Zr” is one of the “constituent elements”. Examiner notes that para 0024 states “In the case of the IGZO sputtering target in the present invention, Among the constituent elements In, Ga, Zn, and O, indium oxide (In2O3), gallium oxide (Ga2O3), and zinc oxide (ZnO), excluding O, are used as oxides of elements for calculating the theoretical density” (emphasis added). Claims 2-7 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
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.
Amended claim 1 recites “An IGZO sputtering target, comprising constituent elements consisting of indium (In), gallium (Ga), zinc (Zn), zirconium (Zr), and oxygen (O), and a balance consisting of inevitable impurities, wherein the IGZO sputtering target comprises Zr as one of the inevitable impurities at 1 ppm or more and less than 20 mass ppm (emphasis added). It is unclear as to how “Zr” is both one of the claimed “constituent elements” and also one of the claimed “inevitable impurities”. Claims 2-7 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawashima et al (US 8,623,511).
With respect to claims 1-6, Kawashima discloses a sputter target of In, Ga, Zn, O, and “metal element (X)” with a balance of inevitable impurities (Abstract; col. 5, lines 50-60; col. 6, lines 19-62; col. 7, lines 1-10), wherein the metal element (X) is Zr at 10 ppm (col. 7, lines 24-40); thus a IGZO sputter target that comprises constituent elements consisting of In, Ga, Zn, O, and Zr; the limitation of the Zr being the claimed “one of the inevitable impurities” is directed to a product-by-process limitation, since the claimed end product and Kawashima’s end product both contain Zr at 10 ppm (MPEP 2113, I). Kawashima further discloses the IGZO sputter target having: a relative density range of 90% or more and “more preferably 99% or more” (col. 7, lines 16-18; col. 12, lines 22-32; col. 28, lines 4-11); a bulk resistance range of 0.1-100 mWcm or 1x10-2 Wcm or less (col. 7, lines 18-21); an “average crystalline particle diameter” (i.e. “average crystal grain size”) range of 20 mm or less and “preferably 5 mm or less” (col. 7, lines 11-13; col. 23, lines 18-22); and a bending strength range of 12 kg/mm2 or more (~117.68 MPa or more) (col. 28, lines 48-52).
With respect to claim 7, Kawashima further discloses the IGZO sputter target is formed in a “disc configuration” (e.g. “disc shape”) (Example A, col. 49, lines 10-48); thus the IGZO sputter target has the claimed disc shape.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajiyama (WO 2018/179556, machine translation cited below).
With respect to claim 1, Kajiyama discloses a IGZO sputter target comprising constituent elements consisting of In, Ga, Zn, Zr, and O, and a balance consisting of inevitable impurities (Abstract; p. 3), the IGZO sputter target having a relative density of at least 96% and Zr greater than 0 ppm to 100 ppm (p.3); ; the limitation of the Zr being the claimed “one of the inevitable impurities” is directed to a product-by-process limitation, since the claimed end product and Kajiyama’s end product both contain Zr at 10 ppm (MPEP 2113, I). It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges (i.e. 1 ppm-20 ppm) “overlap or lie inside ranges (i.e. greater than 0 ppm to 100 ppm) disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05, I).
With respect to claim 2, Kajiyama further discloses the IGZO sputter target has the relative density between 96-100% (Abstract; p. 5).
With respect to claim 3, as discussed above for claim 1, Kajiyama discloses the IGZO sputter target having the claimed In, Zn, Ga, Zr, and O and relative density, wherein the IGZO sputter target is made by a method at p. 5-7, similar to Applicant’s method at para 0033-0044. Since Kajiyama teaches the claim requirements of claim 1 (in addition to Kajiyama teaching other aspects of the IGZO sputter target recited by claims 2 and 4-7) with the IGZO sputter target formed by a similar method as Applicant, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established that Kajiyama also teaches the resulting IGZO sputter target having a property of “100 mWcm or less” (MPEP 2112.01, I).
With respect to claims 4 and 5, Kajiyama further discloses the IGZO sputter target has an average crystal grain size of at most 30.0 mm (Abstract), and further suggests a lower limited for the average crystal grain to be 5.0 or 7.0 mm (p. 4).
With respect to claim 6, Kajiyama further discloses the IGZO sputter target has a bending strength of 100 MPa (p. 5).
With respect to claim 7, Kajiyama further discloses the IGZO sputter target has a “rectangular flat plate” (p. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 3-7 filed 12/11/2025 are addressed below.
102 Rejections
On p. 4, Applicant argues that Kawashima teaches the Zr at 10 ppm is a raw material in forming the sputter target, and thus is not necessarily at 10 ppm in the end product of the sputter target in claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since Kawashima specifically states that the Zr at 10 ppm is in the end product of the sputter target (col. 7, lines 24-27; col. 22, lines 61-67; col. 23, lines 1-2); no mention is made that the 10 ppm of Zr is in the forming of the sputter target or is a raw material.
On p. 4-5, Applicant argues that the claim 1 sputter target and Kawashima’s sputter target are made differently, and thus the sputter targets containing Zr are different.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since Applicant’s argument is directed to product-by-process limitations, whereas the claimed sputter target is a product claim. In this case, both claimed and Kawashima’s sputter targets (i.e. end products) each contain Zr at 10 ppm; whether the Zr is called a constituent element, inevitable impurity, or some other name is a product-by-process limitation, and thus immaterial to the end product (MPEP 21123, I).
103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 5-6 to Kajiyama are similar to those made on p. 4-5 to Kawashima, and thus have been similarly addressed (Examiner notes that Applicant cites certain paragraph numbers of Kajiyama, however the rejection above relies upon a machine translation that does not have paragraph numbers. As such, it is unclear as to what specific citations of the machine translation Applicant is relying upon for the arguments).
Double Patenting Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 6-7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections have been withdrawn.
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