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 1-8 in the reply filed on 6/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 5-8, a comma should be added after the claim numbers (e.g., The method of claim 4, wherein) to improve clarity.
In claim 8, the limitation “wherein powder mixture” should be amended to read “wherein the powder mixture” to clarify that the recited powder mixture is the powder mixture of claim 1 and not a different powder mixture.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (JP 2011214039 A) in view of Lo (US 6299831 B1), Nishihara (US 20100151179 A1), Ivanov (US 20070243095 A1), and Morales (US 20060201589 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hasegawa (JP 2011214039 A) teaches forming a sputtering target comprising a main element of cobalt (Co) and an additional element of titanium (Ti) (cobalt-titanium sputtering target) by powder metallurgy where Ti may be present in 1 at% (0.5 at% titanium to 24.9 at% titanium) with the remainder cobalt and impurities in the target and powder mixture, where the powder mixture may be formed into a target by hot isostatic pressing, wherein the target may be heated to a temperature of 800°C (para 0009, 0011, 0013-0015, Table 1-1 – Example 31).
Hasegawa fails to explicitly teach hot pressing the powder mixture at 800 to 1150 °C at a hydraulic pressure of 2 to 5 ksi and for a hold time of 2 to 5 hours to form a sputtering target having a density of at least 95%. However, Lo (US 6299831 B1), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches that a metal alloy sputtering target may be formed by hot uniaxial pressing as an alternative to hot isostatic pressing, where the hot uniaxial pressing may include blending the raw material powders and then pressing them at a temperature from 950 to 1050°C and a pressure of 1 to 4 ksi for a duration (hold time) of 1-8 hours to produce a target having a density of at least 90% in order to reduce defect generation (col 1 line 61-67, col 2 line 1-22, col 3 line 33-52, col 4 line 5-15). Additionally, Nishihara (US 20100151179 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches that metal alloy sputtering targets preferably have a high density to form a film at a higher speed and with reduced variations/defects, wherein a high density may be achieved by optimizing the conditions of pressure, temperature, and time of a hot pressing process (para 0283-0285). 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 pressing method of Hasegawa with a hot uniaxial pressing method having a pressing temperature from 950 to 1050°C (800 to about 1150°C), pressure of 1 to 4 ksi, and duration of 1-8 hours, as described by Lo in order to produce a target with a high target density of at least 90% and thus improve film deposition speed and reduce defect generation.
The combination of Hasegawa, Lo, and Nishihara fails to explicitly teach a pressure of 2 ksi to about 5 ksi and a hold time of about 2 hours to about 5 hours. However, one would have expected the use of any values within the Lo ranges to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 1 to 4 ksi and 1-8 hours, including values within the claimed ranges, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details. Alternatively, Nishihara describes that the temperature, pressure, and time of hot pressing influence the density of the sputtering target produced (para 00285), thus recognizing the temperature, pressure, and time as result-effective variables. 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 determine the optimum or workable ranges of temperature, pressure, and time of hot pressing Co-Ti targets by routine optimization, which can include a temperature within 800 to 1250°C, a pressure within 2 ksi to about 5 ksi, and a hold time of about 2 hours to about 5 hours. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
The combination of Hasegawa, Lo, and Nishihara fails to explicitly teach the target has a density of at least 95%. However, Ivanov (US 20070243095 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches that a metal alloy sputtering target may be formed from metal powders via hot pressing to have a density of at least 95% and may be further increased to at least 99% density by thermomechanical rolling, wherein lower density targets result in contamination/impurities in the film and undesirable electrical properties of the deposited film (para 0004-0006, 0011, 0013, 0023). 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 control the operating parameters of hot pressing, as described in Nishihara, and performing thermomechanical rolling of the targets after hot pressing to increase the density to at least 99% in order to minimize contamination and improve film quality.
The combination of Hasegawa, Lo, Nishihara, and Ivanov fails to explicitly teach the pressure applied during hot pressing is “hydraulic pressure”. However, Morales (US 20060201589 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches that a vacuum hot press may use hydraulic pressure to compact the powder (para 0038-0041). Lo teaches the hot pressing may be performed in a vacuum hot press machine (col 3 line 45-52). 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 pressure type/method of Lo with a hydraulic pressure, as described by Morales, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of compacting/pressing the powders into a target material. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 2, the previous combination of Hasegawa, Lo, Nishihara, Ivanov, and Morales fails to explicitly teach the titanium powder has a purity of about 3N5 to about 5N. However, Ivanov teaches that the purity of each metal powder may be at least 5N (3N5 to 5N) (para 0006, 0010). 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 titanium powder used in forming the CoTi target of Hasegawa with a titanium powder having a purity of 5N in order to reduce contamination/impurities in the film and because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of forming a sputtering target. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 3, the previous combination of Hasegawa, Lo, Nishihara, Ivanov, and Morales fails to explicitly teach the cobalt powder has a purity of about 3N5 to about 5N. However, Ivanov teaches that the purity of each metal powder may be at least 5N (3N5 to 5N) (para 0006, 0010). 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 cobalt powder used in forming the CoTi target of Hasegawa with a cobalt powder having a purity of 5N in order to reduce contamination/impurities in the film and because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of forming a sputtering target. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 4, the previous combination of Hasegawa, Lo, Nishihara, Ivanov, and Morales teaches hot pressing at a temperature of 950 to 1050°C (Lo col 2 line 12-22, col 3 line 45-52) but fails to explicitly teach a temperature of 1000 to 1150°C. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Lo range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 950 to 1050°C, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details. Alternatively, Nishihara describes that the temperature, pressure, and time of hot pressing influence the density of the sputtering target produced (para 00285), thus recognizing the hot press temperature as a result-effective variable. 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 determine the optimum or workable ranges of temperature of hot pressing Co-Ti targets by routine optimization, which can include a temperature within 1000 to 1150°C. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 5, the previous combination of Hasegawa, Lo, Nishihara, Ivanov, and Morales teaches hot pressing at a pressure of 1 to 4 ksi (Lo col 2 line 12-22, col 3 line 45-52) but fails to explicitly teach a pressure of 2.5 to about 4 ksi. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Lo range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 1 to 4 ksi, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details. Alternatively, Nishihara describes that the temperature, pressure, and time of hot pressing influence the density of the sputtering target produced (para 00285), thus recognizing the hot press pressure as a result-effective variable. 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 determine the optimum or workable ranges of pressure of hot pressing Co-Ti targets by routine optimization, which can include a pressure within 2.5 to 4 ksi. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 6, the previous combination of Hasegawa, Lo, Nishihara, Ivanov, and Morales teaches hot pressing for a duration/hold time of 1-8 hours (Lo col 2 line 12-22, col 3 line 45-52) but fails to explicitly teach a hold time of 2 to 4 hours. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Lo range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 1 to 8 hours, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details. Alternatively, Nishihara describes that the temperature, pressure, and time of hot pressing influence the density of the sputtering target produced (para 00285), thus recognizing the hot press duration/time as a result-effective variable. 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 determine the optimum or workable ranges of duration of hot pressing Co-Ti targets by routine optimization, which can include a hold time of 2 to 4 hours. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 7, the previous combination of Hasegawa, Lo, Nishihara, Ivanov, and Morales teaches the target may be formed to have a density of at least 99% by thermomechanical rolling (Ivanov para 0004-0006, 0011, 0013, 0023).
Regarding claim 8, the previous combination of Hasegawa, Lo, Nishihara, Ivanov, and Morales fails to explicitly teach the powder mixture contains 10 to 20 at% titanium and the remainder cobalt and impurities. However, Hasegawa teaches the target may contain a main element selected from Fe, Co, and Ni with a total content of at least 60 at% where the remainder of the target contains unavoidable impurities and at least one element selected from a group including titanium/Ti (para 0009, 0011), thus teaching an embodiment of a target and associated powder mixture including Co of 60 at% or more and the remainder Ti and impurities, which equates to a Ti content in the powder mixture of less than or equal to about 40 at%. Though the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the titanium content in the powder mixture is 10 to 20 at%, one skilled in the art would have expected the use of any values within the Hasegawa range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values from about 1 to 40 at% Ti, including values within the claimed ranges, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (JP 2011214039 A) in view of Lo (US 6299831 B1), Nishihara (US 20100151179 A1), Ivanov (US 20070243095 A1), and Morales (US 20060201589 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi (WO 0031316 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the previous combination of Hasegawa, Lo, Nishihara, Ivanov, and Morales fails to explicitly teach the powder mixture contains 10 to 20 at% titanium and the remainder cobalt and impurities. However, Takahashi (WO 0031316 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering targets, teaches that a Co-Ti target may be formed by hot pressing or casting, where the target may have a content of 10 at% or 15 at% Ti within a broader range of 0.5 at% to 20 at% Ti (para 0023, 0032, 0043, 0057). Hasegawa teaches the target may contain a main element selected from Fe, Co, and Ni with a total content of at least 60 at% where the remainder of the target contains unavoidable impurities and at least one element selected from a group including titanium/Ti where the target may be formed by casting or powder metallurgy using hot pressing (para 0009, 0011), thus teaching an embodiment of a target and associated powder mixture including Co of 60 at% or more and the remainder Ti and impurities, which equates to a Ti content in the powder mixture of less than or equal to about 40 at%. 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 Co-Ti target/powder composition of Hasegawa with a Co-Ti target/powder composition including 15 at% Ti (10 to 20 at% titanium) and the remainder Co and impurities because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of forming a sputtering target. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Michaluk (US 20040186810 A1) teaches powders for making a sputtering target may include titanium and cobalt metal and may have a purity of 99.95 (3N5) to 99.999 (5N).
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