Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/747,743

Method for Manufacturing ScAlN Target

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 19, 2024
Examiner
LIANG, ANTHONY M
Art Unit
1734
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Lam Research Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
548 granted / 659 resolved
+18.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
696
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
44.0%
+4.0% vs TC avg
§102
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
§112
33.9%
-6.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 659 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I: claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 3/6/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden for the examiner to examine both groups. This is not found persuasive because the two groups fall into two different classifications, as set forth in the Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed 1/6/2026, which necessitates different searches and search strategies for each individual invention. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 7-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/6/2026. 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. Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 110562936), hereinafter “Wu,” wherein an English machine translation is used and cited herein. Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a target material for preparing a scandium aluminum nitride film, the target material (i.e., target body) including Sc, Al, and N (Abstract, [0002], [0012]). Wu further discloses that its target material (i.e., target body) has a maximum grain size of 20-200 µm, wherein the grain size of the target material is less than or equal to the maximum value (e.g., ≤ 20µm) (Abstract, [0010]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of smaller than 10 microns. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Note that the limitation “for forming a scandium aluminum nitride film in a pulsed laser deposition process” is an intended use limitation.“If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” See MPEP §2111.02 (II). Wu teaches a target material for preparing a scandium aluminum nitride film, the target composed of the same chemical elements and having an overlapping grain size, and thus, the target material of Wu is considered capable of the same intended use as claimed. Regarding claims 2 and 3, Wu teaches wherein the target material has a relative density of 70.0-99.2% (Abstract, [0008]), which overlaps with the ranges recited. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. As to claims 4 and 5, Wu teaches wherein the target material comprises 2-50 at% Sc (Abstract, [0007]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed Sc content ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. With respect to claim 6, Wu discloses that its target material (i.e., target body) has a maximum grain size of 20-200 µm, wherein the grain size of the target material is less than or equal to the maximum value (e.g., ≤ 20µm) (Abstract, [0010]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of smaller than 1 micron. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY M LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0483. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1177. 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. /ANTHONY M LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 19, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601038
NON-ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET, MOTOR CORE, AND PRODUCTION METHODS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601037
STEEL HAVING HIGH MECHANICAL PROPERTIES AND MANUFACTURING PROCESS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601039
FERRITIC STAINLESS STEEL AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584183
MOLTEN IRON DEPHOSPHORIZATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583032
METHOD FOR PREPARING A LOW-TEMPERATURE SINTERING SILVER PASTE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+9.9%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 659 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month