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 § 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) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mesuda et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2013/0273346 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Mesuda et al. teach a gallium nitride green body having a Ga/(Ga+N) ratio of greater than 0.5. (Example 5; Paragraphs 0139-0141)
The Examiner interprets green body to be one that is CIP produced without heat (i.e. sintering).
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) 1, 2, 4-7, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Evelyn et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2003/0086856 A1) in view of Kido et al. (JP 02-228470 A).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, D’Evelyn et al. teach a gallium nitride sintered body. (See Abstract; Paragraph 0004)
The difference between claim 1 and D’Evelyn et al. is that the gallium nitride body having a standard deviation of a porosity of 1.0% or less as determined from a scanning electron microscope image of a cross section of the gallium nitride sintered body.
Regarding the gallium nitride body having a standard deviation of a porosity of 1.0% or less as determined from a scanning electron microscope image of a cross section of the gallium nitride sintered body (Claim 1):
The combination of D’Evelyn et al. with Kido et al. teach the same process steps as disclosed and claimed by Applicant and it is therefore expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the same product characteristics including the gallium nitride body having a standard deviation of a porosity of 1.0% or less as determined from a scanning electron microscope image of a cross section of the gallium nitride sintered body. Explanation of the process steps follow and how they align with Applicant’s disclosed and claimed process steps which result in the same claimed product.
SAME PROCESS STEPS EXPLANATION:
D’Evelyn et al. teach the same process steps as Applicant. Specifically D’evelyn et al. teaches preparing a green body by molding a powder (Paragraphs 0026, 0028 – pressing powder into the form of a pill) the Ga/(Ga+N) ratio being greater than 0.5 and contains gallium nitride and gallium metal (Paragraph 0019 – utilizing GaN powder and Ga metal added to the GaN powder. The Ga being present from about 0.01% and 10 % by volume fraction. The Ga metal being present as a sintering aid. At 10 vol% there is 0.53 Ga.
Calculation:
Ga metal density 5.91 g/cm3
GaN density 6.15 g/cm3
Assuming 1 cm3 total volume
Ga metal volume = 0.10 cm3
GaN powder volume = 0.90 cm3
Convert to masses:
M(Ga) = 0.10 * 5.91 = 0.591 g
M(GaN) = 0.90 * 6.15 = 5.535 g
Convert masses to moles:
(MW of Ga = 69.72)
Mol Ga = 0.591/69.72 = 0.00847
(MW of GaN = 83.73)
Mol GaN = 5.535/83.73 = 0.0661
GaN contributes:
Ga: 0.0661 mol
N: 0.0661 mol
Total Ga:
0.00847 + 0.0661 = 0.07457 mol
Total N:
0.0661 mol
Ga/(Ga + N) = 0.07457/(0.07457+0.0661)
Denominator:
0.07457+0.0661 = 0.14067
Final Ratio:
Ga/(Ga+N) ratio = 0.07457/0.14067 = 0.530
Sintering the green body. (Paragraph 0028, 0029 –press into pill form THEN insert into container press for 3 minutes and 20 seconds THEN heat the under pressure and temperature. See also Paragraph 0009)
With regard to the ratio being greater than 0.5, it is noted that the amount of Ga metal as the sinter aid to be used can be 0.01% to 10% by volume. This overlaps applicant’s claimed range. 10% was selected above. 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) (See MPEP 2144.05 – overlapping ranges)
D’Evelyn et al. does not teach sintering in a nitriding atmosphere.
Kido et al. teach sintering in a nitriding atmosphere for producing dense and highly strong GaN bodies. (See Abstract; Machine Translation - Example 2 Purified GaN powder similar to that of Example 1 was placed in a rubber mold and pressure molded under the condition of a water pressure of 4 ton / cl 112 by a CIP method, and this compact was heated at N2 gas, 5 atm, at a temperature of 450 ° C. It was sintered in an electric furnace set to the conditions. The obtained GaN sintered body was bonded to a backing plate made of Cu in the same manner as in Example 1 to produce a sputtering target.
The motivation for modifying D’Evelyn et al. with the teachings of Kido is that using N2 during sintering over the prior art use of air or Ar improves the density and strength of the GaN body. (See Abstract and Machine Translation)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified D’Evelyn et al. by utilizing the features of Kido et al. to arrive at Applicant’s claimed product and process because it allows for improving strength and density of the GaN body.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the average porosity is 25% or less.
Regarding claim 2, As discussed above the combination of D’Evelyn et al. with Kido et al. teach the same process steps as disclosed and claimed by Applicant and it is therefore expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the same product characteristics including the average porosity is 25% or less. See the process steps discussed above.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a ratio of a molar amount of gallium to a total molar amount of the gallium and nitrogen is 0.5 or less.
Regarding claim 4, D’Evelyn et al. teach the molar amount of gallium to be from about 49% to 55%. (See Claim 1) This range overlaps Applicant’s claims. 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) (See MPEP 2144.05 – overlapping ranges)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the bulk density is 4.0 g/cm3 or greater.
Regarding claim 5, D’Evelyn et al. teach a density of 5.5 to 6.1 g/cm3. (Claim 1)
As discussed above the combination of D’Evelyn et al. with Kido et al. teach the same process steps as disclosed and claimed by Applicant and it is therefore expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the same product characteristics.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the method comprises the steps of preparing a green body by molding a powder that has a Ga/(Ga+N) ratio of greater than 0.5 and contains gallium nitride and gallium metal; and sintering the green body in a nitriding atmosphere.
As discussed above:
D’evelyn et al. teaches preparing a green body by molding a powder (Paragraphs 0026, 0028 – pressing powder into the form of a pill) the Ga/(Ga+N) ratio being greater than 0.5 and contains gallium nitride and gallium metal (Paragraph 0019 – utilizing GaN powder and Ga metal added to the GaN powder. The Ga being present from about 0.01% and 10 % by volume fraction. The Ga metal being present as a sintering aid. At 10 vol% there is 0.53 Ga.
Calculation:
Ga metal density 5.91 g/cm3
GaN density 6.15 g/cm3
Assuming 1 cm3 total volume
Ga metal volume = 0.10 cm3
GaN powder volume = 0.90 cm3
Convert to masses:
M(Ga) = 0.10 * 5.91 = 0.591 g
M(GaN) = 0.90 * 6.15 = 5.535 g
Convert masses to moles:
(MW of Ga = 69.72)
Mol Ga = 0.591/69.72 = 0.00847
(MW of GaN = 83.73)
Mol GaN = 5.535/83.73 = 0.0661
GaN contributes:
Ga: 0.0661 mol
N: 0.0661 mol
Total Ga:
0.00847 + 0.0661 = 0.07457 mol
Total N:
0.0661 mol
Ga/(Ga + N) = 0.07457/(0.07457+0.0661)
Denominator:
0.07457+0.0661 = 0.14067
Final Ratio:
Ga/(Ga+N) ratio = 0.07457/0.14067 = 0.530
Sintering the green body. (Paragraph 0028, 0029 –press into pill form THEN insert into process container press for 3 minutes and 20 seconds THEN heat the under pressure and temperature. See also Paragraph 0009)
With regard to the ratio being greater than 0.5, it is noted that the amount of Ga metal as the sinter aid to be used can be 0.01% to 10% by volume. This overlaps applicant’s claimed range. 10% was selected above. 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) (See MPEP 2144.05 – overlapping ranges)
D’Evelyn et al. does not teach sintering in a nitriding atmosphere.
Kido et al. teach sintering in a nitriding atmosphere for producing dense and highly strong GaN bodies. (See Abstract; Machine Translation - Example 2 Purified GaN powder similar to that of Example 1 was placed in a rubber mold and pressure molded under the condition of a water pressure of 4 ton / cl 112 by a CIP method, and this compact was heated at N2 gas, 5 atm, at a temperature of 450 ° C. It was sintered in an electric furnace set to the conditions. The obtained GaN sintered body was bonded to a backing plate made of Cu in the same manner as in Example 1 to produce a sputtering target.
The motivation for modifying D’Evelyn et al. with the teachings of Kido is that using N2 during sintering over the prior art use of air or Ar improves the density and strength of the GaN body. (See Abstract and Machine Translation)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified D’Evelyn et al. by utilizing the features of Kido et al. to arrive at Applicant’s claimed product and process because it allows for improving strength and density of the GaN body.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the step of preparing the green body is a step of subjecting the powder to uniaxial pressing to from a primary green body and then subjecting the primary green body to CIP molding.
Regarding claim 7, D’Evelyn et al. teach preparing a primary green body by cold pressing to produce a cold pressed pill. (Claim 18, Paragraphs 0026, 0028) This is uniaxial pressing to produce the pill in that one pressing direction is utilized to produce the pill and typically utilizes a die which is contemplated at Paragraph 0021 as die pressing.
D’Evelyn et al. teach placing the pill into a container and then cold pressing for 3 minutes and 20 seconds. (Paragraph 0029) This is cold isostatic pressing because for that time no heat is applied and the machine is utilized to eventually hot isostatic press. (See Paragraph 0009) Further in support thereof Kido et al. teach molding and CIP before sintering. (See Machine Translation)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is a gallium nitride green body having a Ga/(Ga+N) ratio of greater than 0.5.
Regarding claim 9, D’Evelyn et al. teaches preparing a green body by molding a powder (Paragraphs 0026, 0028 – pressing powder into the form of a pill) the Ga/(Ga+N) ratio being greater than 0.5 and contains gallium nitride and gallium metal (Paragraph 0019 – utilizing GaN powder and Ga metal added to the GaN powder. The Ga being present from about 0.01% and 10 % by volume fraction. The Ga metal being present as a sintering aid. At 10 vol% there is 0.53 Ga.
Calculation:
Ga metal density 5.91 g/cm3
GaN density 6.15 g/cm3
Assuming 1 cm3 total volume
Ga metal volume = 0.10 cm3
GaN powder volume = 0.90 cm3
Convert to masses:
M(Ga) = 0.10 * 5.91 = 0.591 g
M(GaN) = 0.90 * 6.15 = 5.535 g
Convert masses to moles:
(MW of Ga = 69.72)
Mol Ga = 0.591/69.72 = 0.00847
(MW of GaN = 83.73)
Mol GaN = 5.535/83.73 = 0.0661
GaN contributes:
Ga: 0.0661 mol
N: 0.0661 mol
Total Ga:
0.00847 + 0.0661 = 0.07457 mol
Total N:
0.0661 mol
Ga/(Ga + N) = 0.07457/(0.07457+0.0661)
Denominator:
0.07457+0.0661 = 0.14067
Final Ratio:
Ga/(Ga+N) ratio = 0.07457/0.14067 = 0.530
Upon cold pressing to produce the cold pill the amount or ratio does not change due to the cold temperature related to cold pressing.
With regard to the ratio being greater than 0.5, it is noted that the amount of Ga metal as the sinter aid to be used can be 0.01% to 10% by volume. This overlaps applicant’s claimed range. 10% was selected above. 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) (See MPEP 2144.05 – overlapping ranges)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
The difference not yet discussed is the GaN body as a sputtering target.
Regarding claim 10, D’Evelyn et al. teach utilizing GaN body as a sputtering target. (Paragraph 0004) Kido et al. also teach utilizing GaN bodies as sputtering targets. (See Machine Translation - Example 2 Purified GaN powder similar to that of Example 1 was placed in a rubber mold and pressure molded under the condition of a water pressure of 4 ton / cI 112 by a CIP method, and this compact was heated at N 2 gas, 5 atm, at a temperature of 450 ° C. It was sintered in an electric furnace set to the conditions. The obtained GaN sintered body was bonded to a backing plate made of Cu in the same manner as in Example 1 to produce a sputtering target. When the obtained sputtering target was placed in a vacuum chamber and a gas of Ar: N 2 - 1: 1 was introduced into the chamber, magnetron sputtering was performed. As a result, GaN A thin film could be formed and no cracking of the target was observed during sputtering.)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the sputter target is utilized to produce a film.
Regarding claim 11, Kido et al. teach wherein the sputtering target can be utilized to produce a film. (See Machine Translation - Example 2 Purified GaN powder similar to that of Example 1 was placed in a rubber mold and pressure molded under the condition of a water pressure of 4 ton / cI 112 by a CIP method, and this compact was heated at N 2 gas, 5 atm, at a temperature of 450 ° C. It was sintered in an electric furnace set to the conditions. The obtained GaN sintered body was bonded to a backing plate made of Cu in the same manner as in Example 1 to produce a sputtering target. When the obtained sputtering target was placed in a vacuum chamber and a gas of Ar: N 2 - 1: 1 was introduced into the chamber, magnetron sputtering was performed. As a result, GaN A thin film could be formed and no cracking of the target was observed during sputtering.)
The motivation for modifying D’Evelyn et al. with the teachings of Kido is that using N2 during sintering over the prior art use of air or Ar improves the density and strength of the GaN body. (See Abstract and Machine Translation)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified D’Evelyn et al. by utilizing the features of Kido et al. to arrive at Applicant’s claimed product and process because it allows for improving strength and density of the GaN body.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Evelyn et al. in view of Kido et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meshida et al. (JP 2020-172437 A).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is where the oxygen content is 0.4 atom% or less.
Meshida et al. teach that a GaN body/target should have an oxygen content of 0.4 atom% or less. (Table 2 examples 3-5)
PNG
media_image1.png
550
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The motivation for utilizing a low oxygen content in a GaN target is that it allows for producing films with less impurities and higher crystallinity. (See Machine Translation -By reducing the oxygen content in the sintered body, when it is used as a sputtering target, it is possible to reduce the mixing of oxygen as an impurity during film formation and obtain a film having higher crystallinity.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the combination of D’Evelyn et al. and Kido et al. with the features of Meshida et al. because it allows for producing films with less impurities and higher crystallinity.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Evelyn et al. in view of Kido et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Mesuda et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2013/0273346 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the nitriding atmosphere includes at least one gas selected from the group of a nitrogen-hydrogen mixture gas, an ammonia gas, a hydrazine gas and alkylamine gas.
Regarding claim 8, Mesuda et al. teaches utilizing ammonia to nitride the oxide therein for oxide reduction. (See Paragraphs 0038, 0040).
The motivation for utilizing ammonia is that it allows for reducing oxides. (See Paragraphs 0038, 0040)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the combination of D’evelyn et al. and Kido et al. with the features of Mesuda et al. because it allows for reducing oxides in the GaN body.
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
RMNovember 21, 2025
Prosecution Insights