DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 12/29/2025, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claim 1. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-18 and 21 are examined on the merits with claims 3 and 10 withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they are directed to newly added claim requirements that are specifically addressed hereinafter.
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, 2, 4-6, 8-18 and 21 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-13, 18-19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over JP 2005240171A, hereinafter JP 171 with US Patent Application Publication 20050136188 by Chang, US Patent Application Publication 20120103519 by Aheem et al., EP 2497843, hereinafter EP 843 with JP 2004228500, hereinafter JP 500 alone or with US Patent Application Publication 20080202688 by Wu et al.
JP 171 discloses a method for fabricating a showerhead for a plasma processing chamber, comprising: fabricating a showerhead assembly, the showerhead assembly comprising a perforated plate (001); a plasma spraying yttria intermediate coating (069, 0074, 0104) and then forming a PVD coating yttria by placing a source material containing Yttrium in a vacuum chamber (0097); placing the perforated plate in the vacuum chamber (0096-0097); evaporating or sputtering the source material to perform physical vapor deposition of the source material on the perforated plate (0097-0098); injecting into the vacuum chamber source gas including oxygen gas for promoting oxidation along with argon (0096 and thus is based on the evaporation of the source material and a chemical reaction of the reactive gas, “promoting oxidation”); igniting plasma inside the vacuum chamber in front of the perforated plate (0096, 0099, see “glow discharge”, see also 0099 which discloses oxygen in the plasma); thereby forming a protective coating containing Yttrium on the perforated plate (0038). JP 171 discloses the member is in the chamber via what can reasonably be considered a “holder”, see e.g. Figure 4 and accompanying text, i.e. the member is provided in the chamber and thus held in the chamber by the broadly drafted holder, e.g. bias supply line), a negative bias voltage is applied to the member via the supply line, i.e. the holder, (0099) and generating a plasma in the chamber such that the plasma will reasonably be considered to surround the substrate (see Figure 4 and accompanying text).
JP 171 discloses directing argon gas into the chamber and is directed towards the substrate (see Figure 4) and discloses that a negative bias voltage is supplied to the member (0099) and therefore PVD coating the surface. While the prior art does not disclose the condensing the material, the examiner notes that the prior art satisfies all the claim and structure requirements the applicant discloses is necessary to achieve the claimed results and therefore while the prior art does not explicitly discloses this feature, the examiner maintains that the prior art will necessarily include this results unless the applicant is performing other process steps or other materials that are neither claimed nor disclosed as required. Specifically, the applicant’s disclosure illustrates that the condensing is a result of argon plasma directed at the substrate and negative bias voltage and as the prior art includes these features, the prior art would necessarily have the same results as observed by the applicant.
"The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979).
JP 171 discloses a sprayed coating on the substrate to provide a roughness prior to forming the protective coating containing Yttrium (0106) by spraying and discloses providing a Ra roughness, including 5 microns or less (0035, 0065) and therefore abuts the claimed range. This can reasonably be considered roughening as claimed. Additionally, JP 171 discloses adhesion is improved when the Ra roughness is 1 micron or more (0116) and therefore the roughness of the substrate prior to PVD deposition is a known result effective variable directly affecting the adhesion/anchoring of the film and thus at the very least, providing the desired surface roughness would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to achieve desired adhesion.
As for the protective coating roughness, JP 171 discloses PVD coating as a protective coating containing Yttrium with a roughness (0115) and therefore does not disclose the claimed range. However, JP 171 explicitly disclose the PVD coating and surface roughness is a result effective variable, directly affecting the surface area of the corrosion protection coating that is accessible to the reaction gases (0035) and as such providing the desired and optimum roughness through routine experimentation would have been obvious to achieve the ascertainable and predictable results. Additionally, the examiner cites here Chang, also in the art of Yttria coated ceramic coated components for processing apparatus (abstract) and discloses the desire to have a surface roughness to promote adhesion of the deposits resulting from the use of the yttria coated ceramic coated component used in semiconductor processing (0030) and discloses providing to promote adhesion include 5 to 500 microinches (0.127 microns to 12.7 microns), fully overlapping the claimed range and therefore taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to provide the yttria ceramic coating with the optimum roughness, including 2 to 10 mircons as claimed, to provide and promote the adhesion of materials when using the ceramic coating component during processing.
JP 171 discloses generally discloses PVD vaporization and evaporation of the Y2O3 source; however, fails to disclose the evaporation of the Y2O3 using the electron beam. However, Aheem, also in protecting component parts using Y2O3 film (0036-0037) and discloses evaporation of the Y2O3 using electron beam to evaporate the yttrium oxide (example 1), including using ion assistance (0040-0041) and therefore taking the references collectively, using ebeam for evaporation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because JP 171 discloses using known PVD techniques and evaporation of Y2O3 and Aheem explicitly discloses a known and suitable technique for evaporation of Y2O3 for protective coatings includes using an ebeam to evaporate.
JP 171 taken with Aheem discloses all that is taught above and JP 171 discloses a negative bias voltage is applied to the member (0099) from a voltage source; however, fails to disclose generating a plasma using RF power from an RF source to an antenna positioned in the chamber. However, EP 843, also in the plasma generation and deposition (including PVD deposition similar to that as taught by JP 171) and discloses generating a plasma in the chamber using an RF coil from an RF source external to the chamber (Figure 7 and accompanying text) while using DC bias voltage (Figure 1 and accompanying text). EP 843 discloses RF plasma generation is an alternative to DC plasma (see “DC ionization sources are possible”), EP 843 discloses RF coil internal to the chamber to ionize the gas is preferred during deposition as the RF energy is able to penetrate through the deposits on the coil (0023) and therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to have modified JP 171 to use an RF coil to generate the plasma as EP 843 discloses RF plasma generation is a known and suitable technique for generating plasma in a chamber and a known alternative to DC plasma generation and one would desire to reap the benefits as specifically taught by EP 843.
EP 843 at paragraph 0017 discloses “avoiding/reducing employment of inert gases” and thus EP 843 discloses and makes obvious the employment of argon (albeit in a reduced amount), the claims do not require any specific amount of argon and therefore a plasma that includes argon would meet the claimed requirement.
As for the requirement of lapping the deposited layer, JP 500, also in the art of increasing the service life of showerheads in plasma treatment (see abstract) and discloses using yttria coatings (0019) and discloses lapping the deposited yttria layer (0042) and therefore forming a shower plate with a yttria coating. As such, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to have polished the Yttria layer using lapping as JP 500 explicitly discloses that lapping a yttria layer on the showerhead is a known posttreatment to provide a showerhead with increased service life.
As for the requirement of the showerhead assembly including a perforate plate and a grounding ring, JP 171 discloses SiC for components and therefore fabricating the showerhead and plate from such known materials would have been obvious as predictable (0047). A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Here, the “grounding ring” is merely an intended use of the claimed structure (and it is unclear from this term what the structure of the grounding ring encompasses) and the prior art discloses a shower plate made of SiC and therefore could reasonably encompass the claimed ring, that is the showerhead comprises a perforated plate in combination with another part of the showerhead that meets the claimed “grounding ring”.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner cites here Wu, which discloses the showerhead for plasma chambers and discloses the showerhead includes a plate in combination with a conductive ring (670) described as being “for RF active or grounding purposes”, see 0044. Wu discloses the plate and ring are made of conductive bulk material (0044) and conductive bulk material is SiC, stating “the bulk layer is made of high purity low electrical resistivity hot pressed, or sintered, SiC.” (see 0035). Therefore, taking the reference collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified JP 171 to include the shower head assembly made of a perforated plate and SiC ring as such is taught by Wu as a known arrangement for showerheads for plasma and JP 171 discloses the components that are treating include showerheads and SiC components.
Claim 2: JP 171 discloses SiC for components and therefore fabricating the plate from such known materials would have been obvious as predictable (0047). A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Claim 4: The integrated perforated plate and grounding ring are made obvious for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 6 and 11: JP 171 discloses oxygen and argon (0099).
Claim 9: JP 171 discloses the source gas comprises oxygen containing gas, thereby forming the protective coating of Yttria (0099).
Claim 12-13: JP 171 discloses a plasma spraying yttria intermediate coating (069, 0074, 0104) prior to PVD coating yttria.
Claim 18: JP 171 discloses a porosity of 10% or less so as to provide a higher corrosion resistance (0035) and thus depositing such with the claimed porosity would have been obvious to provide the desired corrosion resistance. Here, the prior art discloses mainly crystal orientation in the plane (0036); however, because mainly encompasses other orientations, such can reasonably be within the scope of “random” as defined by the applicant’s specification. Additionally, a full review of the specification illustrates that the crystal orientation as claimed will result from the roughened surface and thus would flow from deposition on the surface as taught by JP 171. Additionally, as for the random crystal orientation, the prior art discloses each and every process step as claimed and disclosed and thus the result must necessarily be the same unless the applicant is using other process steps or materials to achieve the results.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over JP 171 with Chang, Aheem, EP 843 and JP 500 alone or with Wu taken collectively with WO 2002/054444, hereinafter WO 444.
JP 171 with Chang, Aheem, EP 843 and JP 500 alone or with Wu discloses all that is taught above and discloses coating the showerhead assembly for plasma processing to provide plasma corrosion protection; however, fails to disclose the particulars of the assembly. WO 444 also discloses a showerhead for plasma processing and discloses such include a back plate (see e.g. 80) , support ring (see e.g. 92) (reasonably a grounding ring) and a conductive ring (see e.g. 90), and assembling such to form the shower (abstract, Figure 1 and 2 and accompanying text). Therefore using the known and suitable showerhead assembly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. JP 171 with Chang, Aheem, EP 843 and JP 500 alone or with Wu discloses forming the protective coating and therefore would necessarily package the assembly as claimed, at the very least, it would have been obvious to have provided the coating to envelope the assembly to provide plasma corrosion protection on the exposed parts of the assembly.
As for integration, such would be obvious because it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the perforated plate and grounding ting integral, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over JP 171 with Chang, Aheem, EP 843 and JP 500 alone or with Wu taken collectively with TW200412827, hereinafter TW 827
JP 171 with Chang, Aheem, EP 843 and JP 500 alone or with Wu discloses all that is taught above and discloses coating the showerhead assembly for plasma processing to provide plasma corrosion protection with yttria; however, fails to disclose anodizing prior to placing in the vacuum chamber. However, TW 827 also discloses the yttria coating on a chamber component to provide plasma protection (abstract) and discloses anodizing the component prior to yttria coating (page 4) and therefore it would have been obvious to have modified JP 171 with Chang, Aheem, EP 843 and JP 500 alone or with Wu to anodize as suggested by TW 827 to reap the benefits of pretreating the component prior to yttria coating.
Claims 14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over JP 171 with Chang, Aheem, EP 843 and JP 500 alone or with Wu taken collectively with US Patent Application 20140295670 by Shih et al.
JP 171 with Chang, Aheem, EP 843 and JP 500 alone or with Wu discloses forming the protective coating on any number of chamber components, including focus ring and shield rings (i.e. fabricating focus ring and cover ring) and therefore forming the corrosion protective layer as claimed and discussed above with respect to the showerhead on at least the focus ring or cover ring is taught/made obvious by JP 171; however, JP 171 with Chang, Aheem, EP 843 and JP 500 alone or with Wu fails to disclose the fabricating of the plasm confinement ring. However, plasma confinement rings are known to be fabricated in a plasma chambers as outlined by Shih (Figure 2 and accompanying text, see 206). Therefore, taking the references collectively fabricating a confinement ring would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claims 15-17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over JP 171 with Chang, Aheem, EP 843 and JP 500 alone or with Wu taken collectively with Shih et al. and further with US Patent Application Publication 20040040931 by Koshishi et al.
Claim 15: JP 171 with Chang, Aheem, EP 843 and JP 500 alone or with Wu each with Shih discloses all that is taught above and JP 171 disclose the focus ring and cover ring; however, fails to disclose the single piece composite ring. However, Koshishi discloses a plasma process chamber with a composite ring (0084) to provide the benefits of providing a cover ring that has the desired impedance and therefore taking the reference collectively it would have been obvious to have used a composite ring to reap the benefits of controlling the impedence (and thus control the plasma).
Claim 16: JP 171 discloses chamber components of alumina and therefore using such would have been obvious as a known material, such would be a “single-piece” as claimed due to the applicant’s comprising language.
Claim 17: Koshishi discloses the focus ring is coupled to the RF power supplied and thus forms an extended electrode as claimed (see 0059-0062, figure 1 and accompanying text).
Claim 21 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over JP 171 with Chang, Aheem, EP 843 and JP 500 alone or with Wu taken collectively with US Patent Application Publication 20120031426 by Swami et al. and US Patent 6074488 by Roderick et al.
JP 171 with Chang, Aheem, EP 843 and JP 500 discloses all that is taught above and discloses coating various plasma components for corrosion protection as discussed above; however, fails to disclose the particulars of the instant claim. However, Swami discloses a plasma protected components with a yttria coating includes ring shaped extended electrodes that are placed into the plasma chamber (see 0001, 0010). As for the dimensional relationship, the examiner cites here Roderick which also discloses a bottom electrode, see collar ring, and discloses such is coated with a ceramic coating and is larger in dimension then the showerhead and the diameter of such is selected to increase the active area of the electrode (see figure 3 and accompanying text, column 6-7).
Therefore, taking the references collectively, modifying JP 171 with Chang, Aheem, EP 843 and JP 500 to coat an extension electrode would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because Swami discloses such an extension electrode benefits from the coating of yttria. Additionally, as set forth by Roderick sizing the bottom extension electrode to be larger in diameter than the showerhead would have been obvious as a known and suitable technique for extending the plasma processing and therefore using this know relationship would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, Roderick discloses the diameter of the extension electrode is shown as a result effective variable directly effecting the plasma field and determination of the diameter of the extension electrode would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention through routine experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718