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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/30/2026 has been entered.
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 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 Onomi et al (JP No. 2014024738, machine translation cited below).
With respect to claim 1, Onomi discloses a IGZO sputter target comprising In, Ga, Zn, O, Zr, and a balance consisting of inevitable impurities (para 0001, 0013, and 0020-0021), and to include the Zr at 20-100 mass ppm to have the IGZO sputter target with a relative density of 95% or higher (para 0010, 0013, and 0015). 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 Onomi’s end product both contain Zr at about 20 mass ppm (MPEP 2113, I); it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges (less than 20 mass ppm) and prior art ranges (20-100 mass ppm) 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). In this case, Onomi states that if Zr is “less than 20 ppm, there is no effect on the relative density and strength of the sintered body” (para 0014); thus the relative density would remain the same of being 95% or higher regardless of the Zr being 20 ppm or less than 20 ppm.
With respect to claim 2, Onomi further discloses the IGZO sputter target has the relative density being 98% or higher (para 0015).
With respect to claims 3-5, as discussed above for claim 1, Onomi 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 para 0019-0033, similar to Applicant’s method at para 0033-0044. Since Onomi teaches the claim requirements of claim 1 (in addition to Onomi teaching other aspects of the IGZO sputter target recited by claims 2 and 6) 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 Onomi also teaches the resulting IGZO sputter target having properties of “100 mWcm or less” (claim 3) and an “average crystal grain size of 12 mm or less” (claims 4-5) (MPEP 2112.01, I).
With respect to claim 6, Onomi further discloses the IGZO sputter target has a “flexural strength” (i.e. claimed “bending strength”) of 100 MPa or more (para 0010 and 0016).
With respect to claim 7, Onomi further discloses the IGZO sputter target has a cylindrical shape or rectangular plate shaped (para 0016 and 0035-0036).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 3-7 filed 3/30/2026 are addressed below.
112 Rejections
Claim 1 has been amended by deleting “constituent elements consisting of”; the previous 112(a) and 1129b) rejections have been withdrawn.
102 Rejections
On p. 4-6, Applicant argues that Kawashima teaching the Zr at 10 ppm in the oxide sintered body does not take into account inevitable impurities of Zr from using zirconia beads.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since Kawashima specifically states that the Zr at 10 ppm is in the end product of the oxide sintered body (that is the sputter target) (col. 7, lines 24-27; col. 22, lines 61-67; col. 23, lines 1-2), and also teaches that zirconia beads are one of many options in addition to several non-zirconia methods (e.g. ultrasonic device and/or alumina or SiC beads) for mixing powders to form the oxide sintered body (col. 13, lines 48-52; col. 24, lines 46-55); thus no extra Zr would be expectantly present if the non-zirconia methods for mixing the powders are used. As such, the Zr at 10 ppm in the end product of the sputter target does take into account inevitable impurities of Zr being present, in particular when non-zirconia methods are used to form the sputter target.
103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 6-7 with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference Onomi being applied in the current rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP No. 2017193477 is relevant for teaching a sputter target comprising In, Ga, Zn, and oxygen in addition to Zr, the sputter target having a relative density of 95%; however JP No. 2017193477 teaches the Zr in an amount of 50-500 ppm instead of 1-20 ppm as presently required by claim 1.
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
Prosecution Insights