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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 29, 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 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 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);
wherein the annular region extends axially between the two planar ends and radially from a surface of the target body adjacent to the central bore to an exterior surface of the target body (fig. 10),
wherein the effective density is a solid volume of the annular region divided by an overall volume of the annular region, wherein the overall volume of the annular region includes volumes of gaps or openings in the target body within the annular region, wherein the overall volume of the annular region excludes a volume of the central bore, and
wherein the gaps or openings define internal target material reaction surface of the target body that form part of a reaction surface are of the target body (Fig. 10).
While Rauchenecker does not specifically address the claim limitation “the target body has an effective density of less than 0.5”, this is considered to be an intrinsic property resulting from following the method steps taught by the reference, which are the same as those instantly claimed, 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 in view of Wright (US 2020/0157675).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Rauchenecker teaches a target 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),
wherein the annular region extends axially between the two planar ends and radially from a surface of the target body adjacent to the central bore to an exterior surface of the target body (Fig. 10),
wherein the overall volume of the annular region includes volumes of gaps or openings in the target body within the annular region (Fig. 10),
wherein the overall volume of the annular region excludes a volume of the central bore, and
wherein the gaps or openings define internal target material reaction surfaces of the target body that form part of a reaction surface area of the target body (Fig. 10).
Rauchenecker teaches the target body has an effective density of less than 0.5, or less than 0.1 in an annular region of the target body around the central bore, wherein the effective density is a solid volume of the annular region divided by an overall volume of the annular region, because it teaches a target body as shown in figure 10 with a hollow core and honeycomb like body surrounding this core.
Wright teaches a target body comprising of an open cell foam with a porosity of greater than 50% and greater than 90 % which the Examiner takes the position reads on an effective density of less than 0.5 and less than 0.1. ([0006],[0021]).
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 in an annular region of the target body around the central bore of Raucheneker by providing the target body has an effective density of less than 0.5 or less than 0.1, wherein the effective density is a solid volume of the annular region divided by an overall volume of the annular region, as taught by Wright, because it would provide a porous carrier for use in an ion source ([0001-0006]).
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 10, Raucheneker does not teach a surface area.
In the Matter of the application of Percy St. George Kirke, 5, USPQ 539 (1930), the Board of Appeals held that, there is nothing patentable in making a machine or apparatus larger or smaller, if it produces the same result in the same manner.
The Examiner takes the position that 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” because it would only involves increasing or decreasing the size of the body.
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).
Claims 1, 2, 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanjo (US 2012/0255490) in view of Wright (US 2020/0157675).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, 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).
Tanjo teaches a target for an ion source comprising:
a target body (41) 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 (41, Fig. 3),
wherein the target body has an effective density in an annular region of the target body (41) around the central bore (fig. 3);
wherein the annular region extends axially between the two planar ends (41a, fig. 3) and radially from a surface of the target body adjacent to the central bore to an exterior surface of the target body (Fig. 3),
wherein the effective density is a solid volume of the annular region divided by an overall volume of the annular region,
wherein the overall volume of the annular region includes volumes of gaps or openings in the target body within the annular region (Fig. 3), wherein the overall volume of the annular region excludes a volume of the central bore (Fig. 3), and
Tanjo does not teach the target body has an effective density of less than 0.5 or less than 0.1 in region around the central bore. Nor does it teach and wherein the gaps or openings define internal target-material reaction surfaces of the target body that form part of a reaction surface area of the target body.
Wright is directed to a target for an ion source wherein a stream of electrons and ions are directed at a repeller and target body that includes a metal and eroding metal ions from the internal target material reaction surfaces using the stream of electrons and ions ([0002-0004], [0021-0022]). Wright teaches a target body comprising of an open cell foam with a porosity of greater than 50% and greater than 90 % which the Examiner takes the position reads on an effective density of less than 0.5 and less than 0.1. ([0006],[0021]). Therefore Wright teaches a target body has an effective density of less than 0.5 in, and less than 0.1, wherein the effective density is a solid volume of the region divided by an overall volume of the region wherein the overall volume of the region includes volumes of gaps or openings in the target body within the region [0007].
Wright further teaches the gaps or openings define internal target material reaction surfaces of the target body that form part of a reaction surface area of the target body ([0022]).
Like Tanjo, Wright teaches an repeller 120 and electron source wherein the target 800 is connected to the repeller source 123. Because Wright teaches targets with low effective densities are operable for ion implantation ([0004] 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 effective density of the annular region of the target body of Tanjo by providing the target body has an effective density of less than 0.5, or less than 0.1 and wherein the gaps or openings define internal target-material reaction surfaces of the target body that form part of a reaction surface area of the target body, as taught by WRIGHT, 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 2, Tanjo teaches the target body (41) is cylindrical (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Tanjo does not teach the target body includes a lattice structure around the central bore.
Wright teaches the target body includes a lattice structure around the central bore (Fig. 2 and 3, 3a).
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 includes a lattice structure around the central bore, as taught by Wright, 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 8, Tanjo teaches the region extends from the central bore to an exterior surface of the target body opposite the central bore (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, 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).
Regarding claim 11, 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.
Wright teaches the target body is a metal-doped ceramic material including AlN doped with aluminum or a homogenous ceramic material including AlN or Al2O3 ([0007]).
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 Wright, because it would provide a desired material with a known etch rate for ion implantation or deposition ([0004], [0022]).
Regarding claim 12, 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).
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).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanjo (US 2012/0255490) in view of Wright (US 2020/0157675).
Regarding claims 14 and 17, 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).
Tanjo teaches a method comprising: directing a stream of electrons and ions at a repeller (42) and a target body (41) that includes a metal ([0019],[0055]),
wherein the target body (41) defines a central bore along a central axis of the target body that the repeller (42) is disposed within (Fig. 3 and 9),
a target body (41) has an effective density in an annular region of the target body (41) around the central bore (42, Fig. 3), wherein the annular region extends axially between two planar ends of the target body (41, fig. 3) and radially from a surface of the target body adjacent to the central bore to an exterior surface of the target body (41, Fig. 3),
wherein the effective density is a solid volume of the annular region divided by an overall volume of the annular region wherein the overall volume of the annular region includes volumes of gaps or openings in the target body within the annular region, wherein the overall volume of the annular region excludes a volume of the central bore,
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 or less than 0.1 in region around the central bore. Nor does it teach and wherein the gaps or openings define internal target-material reaction surfaces of the target body that form part of a reaction surface area of the target body.
Wright is directed to a method of directing a stream of electrons and ions at a repeller and target body that includes a metal and eroding metal ions from the internal target material reaction surfaces using the stream of electrons and ions ([0002-0004]). Wright teaches a target body has an effective density of less than 0.5 in, and less than 0.1, wherein the effective density is a solid volume of the region divided by an overall volume of the region wherein the overall volume of the region includes volumes of gaps or openings in the target body within the region [0007];
and wherein the gaps or openings define internal target-material reaction surfaces of the target body that form part of a reaction surface area of the target body (pg. 1 [0022]).
Like Tanjo, Wright teaches an repeller 120 and electron source wherein the target 800 is connected to the repeller source 123. Because Wright teaches targets with low effective densities are operable for ion implantation ([0004] 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 effective density of the annular region of the target body of Tanjo by providing the target body has an effective density of less than 0.5, or less than 0.1 and wherein the gaps or openings define internal target-material reaction surfaces of the target body that form part of a reaction surface area of the target body, as taught by WRIGHT, 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 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.
Wright teaches the target body is a metal-doped ceramic material including AlN doped with aluminum or a homogenous ceramic material including AlN or Al2O3 (alumina, [0007]).
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 Wright, because it would provide a desired material with a known etch rate for ion implantation or deposition ([0004], [0022])
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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