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
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 1,2, 7, 8, 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Abeshaus (US 2016/0311020).
Regarding claim 1 and 9, Abeshaus teaches a target for an ion source comprising:
a target body (44) that defines a central bore (22) along a central axis of the target body (Fig. 1a, 1b), wherein the central axis extends between two planar ends of the target body (Fig. 1a, 1b),
Abeshaus teaches the target body (44) has an effective density of less than 0.5, or less than 0.1, in a region around the central bore (22) and wherein the effective density is a solid volume of the region divided by an overall volume of the region because it teaches a target body with an integrated conduit for heating, cooling or gas. This conduit is hollow to allow a medium to flow within. A region taking part of this conduit into account would reads on “a region” with the claimed effective density because the region of claim 1 is not specific to a specific area of the target body.
Regarding claim 2, Abeshaus teaches the target body is cylindrical (Fig. 1a, 1b).
Regarding claim 7, Abeshaus teaches the target body includes a lattice structure around the central bore because the structure presents space (14) that extends through the body of target (44).
Regarding claim 8, Abeshaus teaches the region extends from the central bore (22) to an exterior surface of the target body opposite the central bore (Fig. 1a, 1b).
Regarding claim 19, Abeshaus teaches a method comprising: forming a target body (44) using additive manufacturing [0037], wherein the target body defines a central bore (22) along a central axis of the target body (44, fig. 1a, 1b), wherein the central axis extends between two planar ends of the target body (Fig. 1a, 1b).
Abeshaus teaches the target body (44) has an effective density of less than 0.5, in a region around the central bore (22) and wherein the effective density is a solid volume of the region divided by an overall volume of the region because it teaches a target body with an integrated conduit for heating, cooling or gas. This conduit is hollow to allow a medium to flow within. A region taking part of this conduit into account would reads on “a region” with the claimed effective density because the region of claim 1 is not specific to a specific area of the target body.
Claim 1-9, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Rauchenecker, Johannes et al., Additive manufacturing of aluminum nitride ceramics with high thermal conductivity via digital light processing Open Ceramics 9 (2022) as cited on IDS.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Rauchenecker teaches a target for an ion source comprising:
a target body that defines a central bore along a central axis of the target body, wherein the central axis extends between two planar ends of the target body (Fig. 10),
and wherein the target body has an effective density of less than 0.5 in a region of the target body around the central bore, and wherein the effective density is a solid volume of the region divided by an overall volume of the region.
Rauchenecker teaches the target body has an effective density of less than 0.5, or less than 0.1, in a region around the central bore and wherein the effective density is a solid volume of the region divided by an overall volume of the region because it teaches a target body with as shown inf figure 10 with a hollow core and honeycomb like body surrounding this core. Taking part of the body would read on “a region” with the claimed effective density because the region of claim 1 is not specific to a specific area of the target body.
The Examiner takes the position that “for an ion source” contained in the preamble is an intended use of the apparatus and while considered does not bear patentable weight.
Regarding claim 2, Raucheneker teaches the target body is cylindrical (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 3, Raucheneker teaches the target body defines at least one circular groove along the central axis of the target body, wherein each circular groove has a larger diameter than that of the central bore (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 4, Raucheneker wherein the target body includes at least two circular grooves (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 5, Raucheneker teaches each circular groove extends only partly into the target body (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 6, Raucheneker teaches the target body includes at least one groove around an exterior surface (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 7, Raucheneker teaches the target body includes a lattice structure around the central bore (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 8, Raucheneker teaches the region extends from the central bore to an exterior surface of the target body opposite the central bore (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 11, Raucheneker teaches the target body is a metal-doped ceramic material including AlN doped with aluminum or a homogenous ceramic material including AlN (pg. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Raucheneker teaches a method comprising: forming a target body using additive manufacturing (pg. 1-3), wherein the target body defines a central bore along a central axis of the target body (fig. 10), wherein the central axis extends between two planar ends of the target body (Fig. 10).
While Raucheneker does not specifically address the claim limitation of “effective density”, this is considered to be an intrinsic property resulting from following the method steps taught by the reference(s), which are the same as those instantly claimed [or, which meet the instantly claimed method steps], absent any clear and convincing evidence and/or arguments to the contrary. As a reasonable anticipated rejection has been set forth on the record, and because the USPTO does not possess the laboratory facilities to test and compare the prior art to the claimed invention, the burden shifts to Applicant to demonstrate otherwise.
Regarding claim 20, Racheneker teaches the target body is a metal-doped ceramic material including AlN doped with aluminum or a homogenous ceramic material including AlN (pg., 2).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abeshaus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanjo (US 2012/0255490).
Regarding claim 10, Abeshaus does not teach a surface area. However surface area of a target for an ion source for sputtering is a well-known result effective variable.
Tanjo recognizes that increasing sputterable area of a target as large as possible allows the stable generation of ions for a long period of time [0081]. Therefore Tanjo recognizes that a sputterable surface area of a target is a well-known result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide “the target body has a surface area from 3,000 mm2 to 15,000 mm2” since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abeshaus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanjo (US 2012/0255490).
Regarding claim 12, Abeshaus does not teach an arc chamber with a repeller. It is however directed to ion sources and ion implantation [0038].
Tanjo teaches an arc chamber, wherein the target body (41) is disposed in the arc chamber (204, Fig. 1); a repeller (42) disposed through the central bore of the target body (41, fig. 9); and an indirectly heated [0051] cathode (31)disposed in the arc chamber opposite of the repeller (42).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the target body of Abeshaus by providing an arc chamber, wherein the target body is disposed in the arc chamber, a repeller disposed through the central bore of the target body and an indirectly heated cathode disposed in the arc chamber opposite of the repeller, as taught by Tanjo, because it would increase a sputterable surface area as large as possible while facilitating not only simplification of a mounting structure for a target member but also decreasing the size of the repeller structure [0018].
Regarding claim 13, Tanjo teaches a repeller shaft (42) of the repeller is threadably received within the central bore of the target body (41, fig. 11b).
Claim 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanjo (US 2012/0255490) in view of Abeshaus (US 2016/0311020).
Regarding claims 14 and 17, Tanjo teaches a method comprising: directing a stream of electrons and ions at a repeller (41) and a target body (42) that includes a metal ([0019],[0055]),
wherein the target body (42) defines a central bore along a central axis of the target body that the repeller (41) is disposed within (Fig. 9), and eroding metal ions from the target body using the stream of electrons and ions [0055].
Tanjo does not teach the target body has an effective density of less than 0.5 in region around the central bore.
Abeshaus teaches the target body (44) has an effective density of less than 0.5, or less than 0.1, in a region around the central bore (22) and wherein the effective density is a solid volume of the region divided by an overall volume of the region because it teaches a target body with an integrated conduit for heating, cooling or gas [0038]. This conduit is hollow to allow a medium to flow within. A region taking part of this conduit into account would reads on “a region” with the claimed effective density because the region of claim 1 is not specific to a specific area of the target body.
Tanjo is directed to an ion source for Ga ion implantation. Tanjo teaches an arc chamber, wherein the target body (41) is disposed in the arc chamber (204, Fig. 1); a repeller (42) disposed through the central bore of the target body (41, fig. 9); and an indirectly heated [0051] cathode (31)disposed in the arc chamber opposite of the repeller (42). Like Tanjo, Abeshaus teaches an arc chamber ([0055]) is well known for ion implantation [0038]. Because Abeshaus teaches targets with low effective densities are operable for ion implantation it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions to have used a target body with effective density of less than 0.5 or less than 0.1 in region of the target body around the central bore (Fig. 1a, 1b) wherein the effective density is a solid volume of the region divided by an overall volume of the region with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion under obviousness inquiry is that all the claimed element were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the element as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the target body of Tanjo by providing the target body has an effective density of less than 0.5 or less than 0.1 in region around the central bore, as taught by Abeshaus, because it would allow the temperature of the target to be controlled and because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the element as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. A.
Regarding claim 15, Tanjo teaches the eroding includes physical sputtering and/or a chemical reaction [0055].
Regarding claim 18, Tanjo recognizes that increasing sputterable area of a target as large as possible allows the stable generation of ions for a long period of time [0081]. Therefore Tanjo recognizes that a sputterable surface area of a target is a well-known result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide “the target body has a surface area from 3,000 mm2 to 15,000 mm2” since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanjo and Abeshaus as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Ikejiri (US 2011/0139613).
Regarding claim 16, Tanjo does not teach the target body is a metal-doped ceramic material including AlN doped with aluminum or a homogenous ceramic material including AlN or Al2O3.
Ikejiri teaches the target body is a metal-doped ceramic material including AlN doped with aluminum or a homogenous ceramic material including AlN or Al2O3 [0038], [0040],[0054].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the target body of Tanjo by providing it is a metal-doped ceramic material including AlN doped with aluminum or a homogenous ceramic material including AlN or Al2O3, as taught by Ikejiri, because it would provide a desired material for use in an ion beam [0040].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abeshaus as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Ikejiri (US 2011/0139613).
Regarding claim 20, Abeshaus does not teach the target body is a metal-doped ceramic material including AlN doped with aluminum or a homogenous ceramic material including AlN or Al2O3.
Ikejiri teaches the target body is a metal-doped ceramic material including AlN doped with aluminum or a homogenous ceramic material including AlN or Al2O3 [0038], [0040],[0054].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the target body of Abeshaus by providing it is a metal-doped ceramic material including AlN doped with aluminum or a homogenous ceramic material including AlN or Al2O3, as taught by Ikejiri, because it would provide a desired material for use in an ion beam [0040].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Applicant is directed above to the new grounds of rejection in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant argues the skilled artisan would not combine Tanjo solid target and Abeshaus target with integrated conduit.
The Examiner does not agree because each target bears a solid exterior for sputtering.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant argues that Tanjo and Abeshaus do not provide a teaching of the required materials. Ikejiri cited above teaches the required materials.
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 JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights