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 without traverse of claims 1-5 and 11-20 in the reply filed on 4/11/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-5 and 11-20 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.
In claim 1, the limitation “high purity powder” is indefinite because “high purity” is a relative term not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised to the scope of the invention. In other words, it is unclear how pure the powder must be to meet the claim limitation.
In claims 5 and 14, the limitation “transverse rupture strength is determined by ASTM B528-16” is indefinite because “ASTM B528-16” is a standard that may be revised or updated and therefore it is unclear what the scope of the claims is intended to be. For example, if the standard is updated/revised after issuance of the patent, the scope of the claims would seem to include the updated standard despite the fact that the updates would take place after the time of invention.
In claim 11, the limitation “the powder metallurgy sputtering target” in line 4 lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because there is no previous recitation of a powder metallurgy sputtering target. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “a powder metallurgy sputtering target”.
In claim 13, the limitation “the predetermined value is 150 ksi” is indefinite because claim 11 recites that the predetermined value is 120 ksi and therefore it is unclear whether the claim is intended to require the predetermined value is 120 or 150 ksi or if the claim 11 limitation is intended to recite a predetermined value of “at least” 120 ksi.
In claim 15, the limitation “attaching the powder metallurgy sputtering target to a backing plate” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the “backing plate” is intended to refer to the backing plate recited in claim 11 or a different backing plate. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “the backing plate”.
In claim 16, the limitations “attaching the powder metallurgy sputtering target to a copper alloy backing plate” and “diffusion bonding the powder metallurgy sputtering target to a copper alloy backing plate” are indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation “a copper alloy backing plate” is intended to refer to the copper alloy backing plate of claim 15 or a different copper alloy backing plate. This rejection may be overcome by amending the limitations to recite “the copper alloy backing plate”.
In claim 19, the limitation “a specimen” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this is intended to be the same specimen recited in claim 11 or a different specimen.
Claims 2-5 and 12-20 are indefinite by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) determining a transverse rupture strength of a specimen and selecting a source for powder molybdenum.
The limitations of determining a transverse rupture strength and selecting a source are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim may encompass the user manually calculating a transverse rupture strength based on observations/data and “selecting a source” may encompass the user manually choosing a powder source. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. After the source is selected, nothing is done with it, much less a particular practical application. Additionally, if the transverse rupture strength is determined to be less than a predetermined value, no selection step is needed to be performed. Furthermore, the claim limitations are recited at such a high level of generality that they amount to just generally applying the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), which are not particular applications.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the additional elements of claim 1 include vacuum hot pressing a sample powder of molybdenum, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional (see Kamisaka (JP 2007113033 A)) and thus do not qualify as significantly more than the judicial exception itself (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)). Additionally, none of the dependent claims 2-5 contain additional elements that qualify as significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2 and 4-5 are directed toward the abstract idea and claim 3 includes a limitation that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not contain additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 1-5 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamisaka (JP 2007113033 A) in view of Morales (US 20060201589 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kamisaka (JP 2007113033 A) teaches a method of hot pressing a molybdenum raw material powder (sample powder from a source) into a sintered body and forming a sputtering target (specimen), where the powder is pure Mo (high purity) and where test specimens taken from the Mo sputtering target have their flexural strength (transverse rupture strength) measured (determined) to be 1500 N/mm2 or more (about 217.55 ksi or more), where (powder metallurgy) molybdenum sputtering targets having a flexural strength above 1200 N/mm2 are made using the same raw material powder (selecting the source for powder molybdenum) as the test specimens with high flexural strength greater than or equal to a predetermined value because cracking can be suppressed during steps of manufacturing the sputtering targets (para 0013, 0018, 0020, 0022, 0024, Table 1).
Kamisaka fails to explicitly teach the specimen is formed by vacuum hot pressing. However, Morales (US 20060201589 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches that a molybdenum target having a density of at least 98% can be formed by hot isostatic pressing (HIP) or vacuum hot pressing or a combination of the two (para 0035, 0044, 0048-0049). Kamisaka teaches that pressurized sintering of the Mo raw material powder may be hot isostatic pressing but is not particularly limited and any method that can produce a sintered body with a relative density of 99.0% or higher is acceptable (para 0013). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the hot isostatic pressing for forming the target and specimen of Kamisaka with a vacuum hot pressing method, as described by Morales because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kamisaka and Morales teaches the powder source used for the specimen is selected/used for making a sputtering target, wherein the specimen has a flexural strength of 1500 N/mm2 or more (about 217.55 ksi or more) (Kamisaka para 0018, 0020-0021, 0024, Table 1) and therefore the flexural strength (transverse rupture strength) is greater than or equal to a predetermined value of about 120 ksi (if the transverse rupture strength of the specimen is greater than or equal to a predetermined value).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kamisaka and Morales teaches the powder may be pure Mo powder (consists of molybdenum and inevitable impurities) (Kamisaka para 0020).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kamisaka and Morales teaches the powder source used for the specimen is selected/used for making a sputtering target, wherein the specimen has a flexural strength of 1500 N/mm2 or more (about 217.55 ksi or more) (Kamisaka para 0018, 0020-0021, 0024, Table 1) and therefore the flexural strength (transverse rupture strength) is greater than or equal to a predetermined value of about 150 ksi (if the transverse rupture strength of the specimen is greater than or equal to a predetermined value).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamisaka (JP 2007113033 A) in view of Morales (US 20060201589 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rozak (US 20130299347 A1) and Engineering360 (NPL – “ASTM International – ASTM B528-10”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kamisaka and Morales teaches the flexural strength (transverse rupture strength) is determined by a method including placing the specimens on supports and applying a pressing device to the center and gradually applying a load until fracture occurred (Kamisaka para 0022) but fails to explicitly teach the transverse rupture strength is determined by ASTM B528-16. However, Rozak (US 20130299347 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches molybdenum based sputtering targets may have their transverse rupture strength according to the ASTM B528-10 standard (para 0015, 0034), which also involves pressing a specimen until rupture while placed on supports. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the flexural strength measurement method of Kamisaka with the ASTM B528-10 method described by Rozak because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, Engineering360 (NPL) indicates that the ASTM B528-10 standard has been replaced by a revised standard ASTM B528-16 (pg. 2-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the ASTM B528-10 standard with ASTM B528-16 because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 11-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamisaka (JP 2007113033 A) in view of Sakamoto (JP 7376742 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Kamisaka (JP 2007113033 A) teaches a method of hot pressing a molybdenum raw material powder into a sintered body and forming a sputtering target (specimen), where test specimens taken from the Mo sputtering target have their flexural strength (transverse rupture strength) measured (determined) to be 1500 N/mm2 or more (about 217.55 ksi or more) (selecting a powder molybdenum that produces a specimen having a transverse rupture strength of at least a predetermined value of 120 ksi), where (powder metallurgy) molybdenum sputtering targets having a flexural strength above 1200 N/mm2 are made using the same raw material powder as the test specimens (forming a powder metallurgy sputtering target from the selected powder molybdenum) because cracking can be suppressed during steps of manufacturing the sputtering targets (para 0013, 0018, 0020, 0022, 0024, Table 1).
Kamisaka fails to explicitly teach attaching the powder metallurgy target to a backing plate. However, Sakamoto (JP 7376742 B1), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches a target assembly including a target made of molybdenum attached to a backing plate made of a copper alloy by diffusion bonding with an aluminum insert layer between the target and backing plate, where the backing plate may function to cool the target during sputtering (para 0008, 0011, 0013). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the molybdenum target of Kamisaka to a copper alloy backing plate, as described by Sakamoto, in order to support and cool the sputtering target and to form a target assembly.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kamisaka and Sakamoto teaches the powder may be pure Mo powder (consists of molybdenum and inevitable impurities) (Kamisaka para 0020).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kamisaka and Sakamoto teaches the specimen has a flexural strength of 1500 N/mm2 or more (about 217.55 ksi or more) (Kamisaka para 0018, 0020-0021, 0024, Table 1) and therefore the flexural strength (transverse rupture strength) is greater than or equal to a predetermined value of 150 ksi.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kamisaka and Sakamoto teaches the target is attached to a copper alloy backing plate such as a copper-zinc alloy (Sakamoto para 0008, 0012).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kamisaka and Sakamoto teaches the target assembly is formed by diffusion bonding the molybdenum target to the copper alloy backing plate (para 0008, 0013).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kamisaka and Sakamoto teaches the target is attached to a copper-zinc alloy backing plate (Sakamoto para 0008, 0012).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kamisaka and Sakamoto teaches an aluminum insert (interlayer) is disposed between the copper-zinc backing plate and the molybdenum target (Sakamoto para 0008, 0011-0012).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kamisaka and Sakamoto teaches forming test specimens using the powder molybdenum and measuring/determining a flexural strength (transverse rupture strength), where the sputtering target is formed using a same raw material powder (Kamisaka para 0013, 0020, 0022) and therefore selecting/using the powder in forming subsequent sputtering targets is performed after determining transverse rupture strength of the specimens.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form multiple sputtering targets using the method of Kamisaka to allow for replacement of targets after consumption. As a result, the selecting/using of the powder for subsequent targets would be performed after the determining of strength of test specimens during the previous processing step (before selecting the powder molybdenum a specimen is formed using the powder molybdenum and the transverse rupture strength of the specimen is determined).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kamisaka and Sakamoto teaches forming the powder metallurgy sputtering target includes hot pressing the selected powder molybdenum (Kamisaka para 0013).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamisaka (JP 2007113033 A) in view of Sakamoto (JP 7376742 B1), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Rozak (US 20130299347 A1) and Engineering360 (NPL – “ASTM International – ASTM B528-10”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kamisaka and Sakamoto teaches the flexural strength (transverse rupture strength) is determined by a method including placing the specimens on supports and applying a pressing device to the center and gradually applying a load until fracture occurred (Kamisaka para 0022) but fails to explicitly teach the transverse rupture strength is determined by ASTM B528-16. However, Rozak (US 20130299347 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches molybdenum based sputtering targets may have their transverse rupture strength according to the ASTM B528-10 standard (para 0015, 0034), which also involves pressing a specimen until rupture while placed on supports. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the flexural strength measurement method of Kamisaka with the ASTM B528-10 method described by Rozak because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, Engineering360 (NPL) indicates that the ASTM B528-10 standard has been replaced by a revised standard ASTM B528-16 (pg. 2-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the ASTM B528-10 standard with ASTM B528-16 because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights