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 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 1-20 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.
Claim 1, line 3, “a ratio of the orientation area fraction of the {111} plane is 0.45 or more” is unclear. Is this a ratio based on the sum of the {001} plane, the {101} plane and the {111} plane or something else?
Claim 2, line 3, “the ratio of the orientation area fraction of the {111} plane is 0.60 or more” is unclear. Is this a ratio based on the sum of the {001} plane, the {101} plane and the {111} plane or something else?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 11-13, 15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carpenter et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2007/0209741 A1).
(All rejections made are based on the interpretation that the ratio of the claims is derived from the sum of only the {001} plane, a {101} plane and a {111} plane. In other words the ratio is from this equation Ratio = {111} plane/{001} plane + {101} plane + {111} plane.)
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Carpenter et al. teach a metal material comprising a metal having a body-centered cubic structure (Carpenter et al. Claim 58), wherein with respect to a sum of orientation area fractions of a {001} plane, a {101} plane and a {111} plane, a ratio of the orientation area fraction of the {111} plane is 0.45 or more (Claim 58, Fig. 7 –
{111} = 0.551,
{101} = 0.009
{001} = 0.153
Sum of the {111}+{101}+{001} = 0.713
Ratio of the orientation area fraction of the {111} is 0.551/0.713 = 0.772
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
Regarding claim 2, Carpenter et al. teach comprising the metal having a body-centered cubic structure (Carpenter et al. claim 58), wherein with respect to the sum of the orientation area fractions of the {001} plane, the {101} plane and the {111} plane, the ratio of the orientation area fraction of the {111} plane is 0.60 or more. (Claim 58, Fig. 7 –
{111} = 0.551,
{101} = 0.009
{001} = 0.153
Sum of the {111}+{101}+{001} = 0.713
Ratio of the orientation area fraction of the {111} is 0.551/0.713 = 0.772
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
Regarding claim 3, Carpenter et al. teach wherein the orientation area fraction of the {111} plane of the metal is 20% or more. (See Fig. 7; Claim 58 – primarily {111} throughout the target; “primarily interpreted as 50% or greater”. Further it is known from Fig. 7 that there is 0.551 in the area. That is 55.1 % which is 20% or more.)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
Regarding claim 5, Carpenter et al. teach wherein the orientation area fraction of the {001} plane of the metal is 20% or less. (See Fig. 7 - {001} = 0.153 = 15.3%)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
Regarding claim 7, Carpenter et al. teach wherein the metal has an average grain size of 200 micrometers or less. (Paragraph 0064)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
Regarding claim 8, Carpenter et al. teach wherein the metal having a body-centered cubic structure is at least one selected from the group consisting of chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), rubidium (Rb), niobium (Nb), molybdenum (Mo), tantalum (Ta), vanadium (V) and tungsten (W). (Carpenter et al. Claim 58)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
Regarding claim 11, Carpenter et al. teach wherein the metal is a sputtering target material. (Paragraph 0021)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
Regarding claim 12, Carpenter et al. teach producing films by sputtering the targets. (Paragraphs 0005, 0039, 0068)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
Regarding claim 13, Carpenter et al. teach wherein the orientation area fraction of the {111} plane of the metal is 20% or more. (See Fig. 7; Claim 58 – primarily {111} throughout the target; “primarily interpreted as 50% or greater”. Further it is known from Fig. 7 that there is 0.551 in the area. That is 55.1 % which is 20% or more.)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
Regarding claim 15, Carpenter et al. teach wherein the orientation area fraction of the {001} plane of the metal is 20% or less. (See Fig. 7 - {001} = 0.153 = 15.3%)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
Regarding claim 17, Carpenter et al. teach wherein the metal has an average grain size of 200 micrometers or less. (Paragraph 0064)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
Regarding claim 18, Carpenter et al. teach wherein the metal having a body-centered cubic structure is at least one selected from the group consisting of chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), rubidium (Rb), niobium (Nb), molybdenum (Mo), tantalum (Ta), vanadium (V) and tungsten (W). (Carpenter et al. Claim 58)
DEPEDENT CLAIM 19:
Regarding claim 19, Carpenter et al. teach wherein the metal having a body- centered cubic structure is at least one selected from the group consisting of chromium, molybdenum, vanadium and tungsten. (Paragraph 0040 – Group VB – Vanadium, Niobium, Tantalum)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
Regarding claim 20, Carpenter al. teach wherein the metal having a body-centered cubic structure is at least one selected from the group consisting of chromium, molybdenum, vanadium and tungsten. (Paragraph 0040 – Group VB – Vanadium, Niobium, Tantalum)
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al. (CN 110438350 A).
(All rejections made are based on the interpretation that the ratio of the claims is derived from the sum of only the {001} plane, a {101} plane and a {111} plane. In other words the ratio is from this equation Ratio = {111} plane/{001} plane + {101} plane + {111} plane.)
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Jiang et al. teach a metal material comprising a metal having a body-centered cubic structure (Mo is a BCC metal), wherein with respect to a sum of orientation area fractions of a {001} plane, a {101} plane and a {111} plane, a ratio of the orientation area fraction of the {111} plane is 0.45 or more. (See Abstract; Paragraph 0010)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
Regarding claim 3, Jiang et al. teach wherein the orientation area fraction of the {111} plane is 20% or more. (See Abstract; Paragraph 0010)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
Regarding claim 5, Jiang et al teach wherein the orientation fraction of the {001} plane of the metal is 20% or less. (See Abstract; Paragraph 0010)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
Regarding claim 7, Jiang et al. teach wherein the metal has an average grain size of 200 micrometers or less. (Paragraph 0032)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
Regarding claim 8, Jiang et al. teach wherein the metal having a body-centered cubic structure is at least one selected from the group consisting of chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), rubidium (Rb), niobium (Nb), molybdenum (Mo), tantalum (Ta), vanadium (V) and tungsten (W). (Jiang et al. Abstract; Paragraph 0010)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Carpenter et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2007/0209741 A1) in view of Matera et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2005/0247386 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 4, 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the orientation area fraction of the {111} plane of the metal is 80% or more.
Regarding claims 4, 14, Carpenter et al. teach the {111} can be the primary texture. (Claim 58) Matera et al. teach that the primary texture can be over 50%. (Paragraph 0053)
“Over 50%” overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of 80% or more. In the case where a range lies inside or overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05- I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS - In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 6, 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the orientation area fraction of the {001} plane of the metal is 5% or less.
Regarding claims 6, 16, Carpenter et al. teach that the area fraction of the {001} can be 3%. (Fig. 5) While the other area fractions in Fig. 5 do not meet claim 1 it would be obvious to modify Fig. 7 in light of the teachings of Fig. 5 to have an area fraction of 5% or less.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Matera et al. is that it allows for more consistent grain size and/or crystal orientation. (Paragraph 0007)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Carpenter et al. by utilizing the features Matera et al. because it allows for more consistent grain size and/or crystal orientation.
Claim(s) 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2007/0209741 A1) in view of Oda et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2016/0208377 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is forming the metal by performing a pressurization step of performing a pressurization treatment on an ingot formed of a metal having a body-centered cubic structure at a pressurizing temperature of 500°C or higher and a pressurizing rate of less than 15 mm/s to obtain a processed ingot, and a heat treatment step of treating the processed ingot at 850°C or higher.
Regarding claim 9:
Carpenter et al. teach performing a pressurization step of performing a pressurization treatment (Paragraph 0045 – rolling) on an ingot (Paragraph 0014) formed of a metal having a body-centered cubic structure (Carpenter et al. Claim 58) at a pressurizing temperature of 500°C or higher (Paragraph 0045 – hot rolling at a temperature of 25 degrees C or higher. and to obtain a processed ingot, and a heat treatment step of treating the processed ingot at 850°C or higher (Paragraph 0051 – annealing from 700-1500 degrees C).
Regarding the hot rolling temperature being 25 degrees C or higher, Applicant claims 500 degrees C or higher and Carpenter et al.’s range either falls inside or overlaps this range. In the case where a range lies inside or overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05- I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS - In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Regarding the heat treatment temperature of 850 degrees C or higher, Applicant claims 850 degrees C or higher and Carpenter et al.’s heat treatment range either falls inside or overlaps this range. In the case where a range lies inside or overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05- I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS - In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
With regard to the pressurizing rate of less than 15 mm/s, Oda et al. teach the rolling process should be as low as possible specifically 10 m/min or less. (Paragraph 0058)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the pressurization treatment in the pressurization step is performed twice or more.
Regarding claim 10, Carpenter et al. teach utilizing one or more pressurization steps. (i.e. rolling steps). (Paragraph 0045)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Oda et al. is that it allows for controlling the orientation of the metal and target. (Paragraph 0061)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Carpenter et al. because it allows for controlling the orientation of the metal and target.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
December 11, 2025