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 Interpretation
The phrase “rare earth” of claim 1 has been interpreted to include elements scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), and all elements in the row of Lanthanides as per the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC), which is consistent with the Specification para 0008, 0025, and 0032 in addition to Table 1 suggesting more narrowly the elements of the “rare earth” are selected from holmium (H), gadolinium (Gd), terbium (Tb) and dysprosium (Dy).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 1 recites “any one of the co-sputtering target tubes is an aluminum target tube or a copper target tube” (emphasis added). There is no support in the Specification for impermissibly broadening the co-sputtering target tubes to be other materials besides Al, Cu, Ni, Fe, and Pr as originally filed when one of the co-sputtering tubes is either Al or Cu. Claims 2-4 and 6 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
Amended claim 1 recites “the plurality of sections of rare earth target tubes and the plurality of sections of co-sputtering target tubes are mutually assembled to each other via welding” (emphasis added). There is no support in the Specification that the tubes are welded to each other (as opposed to being welded to the back tube) since Specification para 0011 and 0031 each state that a clearance (i.e. gap) is between the mutually assembled target tubes; thus each of the target tubes appears to not be “mutually assembled” to each other via welding, but “mutually assembled” to the back tube. Claims 2-4 and 6 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
Amended claim 3 recites “a length of any one of the end target tubes is 20-35 mm, a length of any one of the rare earth target tubes and the co-sputtering target tubes are is less than or equal to 300 mm” (emphasis added). There is no support in the Specification for impermissibly broadening: 1) a length for one end target tube to be any range or value when another one of the end target tubes is 20-35 mm; and 2) a length for one or more rare earth or co-sputtering target tubes to be any range or value when one of the rare earth or co-sputtering target tubes is less than or equal to 300 mm.
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 1-4 and 6 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.
Amended claim 1 recites at various instances the “target tubes” being “welded” or assembled via “welding”, however Specification para 0031 teaches “the target tubes are mutually assembled by means of welding. The welding is a low-temperature welding, and the welding can be performed using a low-temperature alloy solder such as indium and tin”, with “welding” and “soldering” being known as similar yet different processes of bonding. Thus claim 1 is indefinite as to whether the recited “welded” and/or “welding” is/are intended to refer to a type of ‘soldering’, a type of ‘welding’, or that ‘welding’ and ‘solder’ are interchangeable or obvious variants. Claims 2-4 and 6 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
Amended claim 3 (dependent on amended claim 1) recites “the length ratio of the rare earth target tubes and the co-sputtering target tubes arranged in the axial middle region is 1.3-20” (emphasis added), rendering claim 3 indefinite as to how “the length ratio […] 1.3-20” further narrows claim 1 reciting “a length ratio of the rare earth target tubes to the co-sputtering target tubes arranged in the axial middle region is 1.8-3.0” (emphasis added) for Al target tubes or “a length ratio of the rare earth target tubes to the co-sputtering target tubes arranged in the axial middle region is 6.0-10.0” (emphasis added) for Cu target tubes.
Claim 6 (dependent on amended claim 1) recites “the target material”, rendering claim 6 indefinite as to whether “the target material” is intended to refer back to the “co-sputtering rare earth rotating target material” of amended claim 1, or a distinct ‘target material’ thereof.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the target material". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 3-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lindenberg (WO 2014/131458).
With respect to claim 1, Lindenberg discloses a “rotatable cathode” (i.e. rotating target material) [100] (Abstract; figs. 1-2; para 0016 and 0020), wherein figs. 1-1a depict the rotating target material [100] comprises a “backing tube” [130] having an outside attached or bonded to “target segments” (i.e. claimed “sections of target tubes”) [120a]-[120f] via “bonding layer” [122] (para 0020). The bonding layer [122] comprises indium and indium alloys (para 0046), which is a welding and/or soldering material according to Applicant’s Specification para 0031, thus the sections of target tubes [120a]-120f] are considered to be welded to the outside of the backing tube [130]. Fig. 1 further shows the backing tube [130] and the sections of target tubes [120a]-[120f] are concentric cylindrical structures (fig. 3; para 0020, 0022, 0030, and 0042), wherein the sections of target tubes [120a]-[120f] comprises: two sections of end target tubes [120a],[120f] of non-rare earth material arranged at an axial end of the rotating target material [100], and sections of target tubes [120b],[120d] of “metal” and sections of co-sputtering target tubes [120c],[120e] of “aluminum” or “copper” between the end target tubes [120a],[120f] along an axial middle region of the rotating target material [100] (fig. 1; para 0020, 0034, and 0049); the term “metal” at para 0034 is considered to encompass all metals of the Periodic Table except for the metals listed on para 0034 (i.e. “titanium, aluminum, copper, [and] molybdenum”), which one of ordinary skill would expect or find obvious that the “metal” then includes rare earth metals of scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), and/or at least one element of the Lanthanides; thus the target tubes [120b],[120d] are rare earth metal target tubes [120b],[120d] with the co-sputtering target tubes [120c],[120e]. Fig. 1 further depicts the rare earth target tubes [120b],[120d] spaced apart from the co-sputtering target tubes [120c],[120e] via joint gaps [136] (para 0020 and 0033), wherein the target tubes [120a]-[120f] are mutually assembled to each other on the backing tube [130] via bonding layer [122] with indium or indium alloy (i.e. welding) (para 0020 and 0046). Lindenberg also discloses the co-sputtering target tubes [120c],[120e] are aluminum (para 0020, 0034, and 0049), with lengths of “at least one” of the sections of target tubes [120a]-[120f] being 250 mm or 600 mm (para 0020); meaning Lindenberg suggests to have the co-sputtering target tubes [120c],[120e] of aluminum have a length of 250 mm and the rare earth target tubes [120b],[120d] have a length of 600 mm, resulting in a length ratio of the rare earth target tubes [120b],[120d] to the co-sputtering target tubes [120c],[120e] of 2.4.
With respect to claims 3, Lindenberg further discloses lengths of “at least one” of the sections of target tubes [120a]-[120f] is 250 mm or 300 mm but also suggests 200 mm is known (para 0020), meaning Lindenberg suggests to have the co-sputtering target tubes [120c],[120e] have a length of 200 mm and the rare earth target tubes [120b],[120d] have a length of 300 mm, resulting in a length ratio of the rare earth target tubes [120b],[120d] to the co-sputtering target tubes [120c],[120e] of 1.5. Although Lindenberg suggests for the end target tubes [120a],[120f] to each have length of 200 mm instead of the claimed “20-35 mm” (para 0020), it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, IV, A). In this case, the end target tubes [120a],[120f] would both be capable of being sputtered as desired by Lindenberg, regardless of having the length of 200 mm or the claimed 20-35 mm.
With respect to claim 4, Lindenberg further discloses the joint gaps (i.e. claimed “clearance d”) [136] between the mutually assembled target tubes [120a]-[120f] (fig. 1; para 0033), wherein each of the joint gaps [136] is “typically 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm” (para 0020 and 0033).
With respect to claim 6, Lindenberg further teaches in fig. 2 the rotating target material [100] is similar to fig. 1 with exception of being a “dog-bone” shape (para 0042-0043); fig. 2 depicts: the end target tubes [220a],[220f] with rare earth target tube [220b] adjacent end target tube [220a] and co-sputtering target tube [220e] adjacent to end target tube [220f], wherein outer diameters of the rare earth target tube [220b] and co-sputtering target tube [220e] are reduced in a direction from respective outer diameter ends to the axial middle region, wherein the outer diameter ends are equal to an diameter of each of the end target tubes [220a],[220f] (para 0043). Lindenberg further teaches that while fig. 2 shows 6 total target segments [120a]-[120f], “another number of segments can be provided”, such as 7 total target segments (para 0041), thereby having the rotating target material [100] of fig. 2 with the 7 total target segments comprising the rare earth target tube [220b] adjacent the end target tube [220], and the co-sputtering target tube [220e] now being a rare earth target tube [220e] that is adjacent to the end target tube [220f].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Lindenberg (WO 2014/131458) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al (US 10,599,001).
With respect to claim 2, the reference is cited as discussed for claim 1. However Lindenberg is limited in that while any rare earth metal is suggested for the rare earth target tubes [120b],[120d] to manufacture transparent conductive oxides (TCOs) (para 0020, 0034, 0049, and 0054), the rare earth target tubes [120b],[120d] being selected from “terbium, dysprosium, holmium, and gadolinium” is not specifically suggested.
Wang teaches in fig. 4K at least one rotatable target material [472]-[474],[476],[478] shaped as tubes for manufacturing transparent conductive oxides (TCOs) (Abstract; col. 7, lines 37-57; col. 50, lines 50-58), similar to the rotatable target material [100] for manufacturing TCOs of Lindenberg. Wang further teaches the at least one rotatable target material [472]-[474],[476],[478] comprises an additive of a metal or rare earth metal selected from “silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), arsenic (As), gold (Au), boron (B), barium (Ba), beryllium (Be), bismuth (Bi), calcium (Ca), cadmium (Cd), cerium (Ce), cesium (Cs), copper (Cu), europium (Eu), gallium, (Ga), gadolinium (Gd), germanium (Ge), hafnium (Hf), mercury (Hg), indium (In), potassium (K), lithium (Li), lanthanum (La), magnesium (Mg), molybdenum (Mo), sodium (Na), niobium (Nb), neodymium (Nd), osmium (Os), protactinium (Pa), lead (Pb), palladium (Pd), polonium (Po), promethium (Pm), praseodymium (Pr), platinum (Pt), radium (Ra), rubidium (Rb), rhenium (Re), antimony (Sb), scandium (Sc), selenium (Se), silicon (Si), samarium (Sm), tin (Sn), strontium (Sr), tantalum (Ta), terbium (Tb), technetium (Tc), tellurium (Te), thorium (Th), titanium (Ti), thallium (Tl) uranium (U), tungsten (W), yttrium (Y), zinc (Zn), and zirconium (Zr)” (emphasis added) (col. 6, lines 11-55), and specifically suggests Gd (col. 6, lines 56-64; col. 48, lines 4-44).
Since Wang recognizes the similarities of Gd and Tb in the field of an additive for TCOs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the general metal or rare earth metal of Lindenberg with the Gd or Tb of Wang as it is merely the selection of functionally similar additives for TCOs recognized in the prior art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. In addition “selection of a known material [i.e. Gd or Tb] based on its suitability for its intended use [i.e. TCOs] supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 4-7 filed 7/14/2026 are addressed below.
112 Rejections
Claim 1 has been amended to provide antecedent basis and clarify the “co-sputtering rare earth rotating target material”; the previous 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim 1 has been amended to clarify that the “target tubes are mutually assembled to each other via welding”; the previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim 1 has been amended to clarify the “target tubes”; the previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Claims 2-3 and 6 have each been amended to provide antecedent basis; the previous 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim 5 has been canceled; the previous 112(b) rejections are moot.
On p. 4, Applicant states that “solder” from Specification para 0031 “refers to a solder material (i.e., low-temperature alloys such as indium and tin) rather than welding”, thus claim 1 is clear and definite.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since Specification para 0031 states “The welding is a low-temperature welding, and the welding can be performed using a low-temperature alloy solder such as indium and tin”, thus the Specification appears to state that using a solder of In or Sn is the claimed “welding”, which is in contrast to Applicant’s statement and the accepted and known definitions of ’soldering’ and ‘welding’. As such, the terms “welded” and “welding” in claim 1 are still considered indefinite.
103 Rejections
On p. 5 Applicant argues that the term “metal” Lindenberg is a general statement compared to “rare earth”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the term “metal” encompasses all the rare earth metals, in particular since a general recitation of “rare earth” is also a general statement. Furthermore secondary reference Wang also specifically teaches the target tubes to be rare earth as cited above for claim 2. Therefore one of ordinary skill would have concluded that the term “metal” encompasses all metals of the Periodic Table, including rare earth metals.
On p. 5-6, Applicant argues that Lindenberg does not suggest the target tubes being spaced from each other, mutually assembled to each other via welding, of different materials, and alternately arranged as recited by amended claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lindenberg depicts in figs. 1 and 4 the target tubes [120a],[120f] spaced apart from each other via “joint gaps” and mutually assembled to each other on the back tube via bonding with In solder (para 0033 and 0046), which Applicant defines as welding at Specification para 0031. Lindenberg also suggests for the target tubes to be different materials (para 0034 and 0049). Claim 1 does not recite the target tubes being alternately arranged.
On p. 6-7, Applicant argues that Lindenberg does not teach as recited by amended claim 1: 1) the alternate arrangement of the rare earth and non-rare earth target tubes; and 2) the claimed length ratio for the target tubes.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding 1), claim 1 does not recite the rare earth and non-rare earth target tubes are in an alternate arrangement.
Regarding 2), Lindenberg reasonably suggests to one of ordinary skill to have the co-sputtering target tubes [120c],[120e] be aluminum (para 0020, 0034, and 0049), with lengths of “at least one” of the sections of target tubes [120a]-[120f] being 250 mm or 600 mm (para 0020); meaning Lindenberg suggests to have the co-sputtering target tubes [120c],[120e] of aluminum have a length of 250 mm and the other target tubes [120b],[120d] (i.e. the rare earth target tubes) have a length of 600 mm, resulting in a length ratio of the rare earth target tubes [120b],[120d] to the co-sputtering target tubes [120c],[120e] of 2.4.
Thus Lindenberg reasonably suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art the claimed length ratio.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2007/0074969 is relevant for teaching an elongated cylindrical rotating target comprising target tubes of aluminum (Al) and rare earth of neodymium (Nd), the target tubes alternatingly arranged with a space or gap therebetween in addition to being bonded to a backing tube via indium solder.
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 MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights