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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to add surface roughness, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2010/0247773 to Wu et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0402772 to Kalita et al, United States Patent Application No. 2013/0327274 to Ohno et al, United States Patent Application No. 2020/0185203 to Lubomirsky et al and United States Patent Application No. 2004/0055709 to Boyd, Jr. et al is presented below.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9 and 11-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2010/0247773 to Wu et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0402772 to Kalita et al, United States Patent Application No. 2013/0327274 to Ohno et al, United States Patent Application No. 2020/0185203 to Lubomirsky et al and United States Patent Application No. 2004/0055709 to Boyd, Jr. et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Wu teaches a support pedestal Fig. 3d, 3e for supporting a substrate (not shown) in a processing chamber 400 [0026] comprising a body 102 having a substrate supporting surface 102a configured to match an outer/bottom surface of the substrate [0020, 0023, 0024], the body comprising a coating 304b only on the top surface and a stem 108 coupled to the body, the stem comprising an outer stem surface 304a that is coated and another portion of the stem having a surface treatment (see sandblasting/roughing of 104) [0018-0029].
PNG
media_image1.png
720
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wu thus expressly teaches selective surface treatments/coatings on a support pedestal which has the same treatment on the stem and on the body, respectively, as the first coating is selectively placed on the body and the stem, as shown in annotated copy of Fig. 3d, 3e above.
Wu does not expressly teach the body has a two part coating.
Kalita teaches a support body (component 400, as shown in Fig. 4A, top plate or puck of a pedestal [0046]) for supporting a substrate in a processing chamber (not shown [0046]), comprising: a body (body of 400) having a substrate-supporting surface 405 configured to match an outer surface of the substrate (as it supports the substrate); and a two-part coating 410, 415 disposed over the substrate-supporting surface of the body (as shown in Fig. 4C), the two-part coating comprising: a first coating layer 415 extending a first radial distance from a center of the body (as it covers the entirety of the component, with complete component), the first coating layer including nickel [0062] and having a thickness of about 5 µm to about 50 µm [0063]; and a second coating layer 410 [0061] having a thickness of about 5 nm to about 500 nm [0055] and disposed over the first coating layer (as shown in Fig. 4C), the second coating layer extending over the first coating layer but may not achieve as complete coverage [0061], the first radial distance greater than the second radial distance (which is implicit as the first coating is coating the component completely and the second coating is less complete), wherein the second coating layer is non-metal (as it is a non-metal oxide layer [0055-0061, 0023-0079].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Wu, and changed the materials of the coating, as an art analogous material for coating a support pedestal body (and thus stem). It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a first and second coating analogous to that of Wu out of the materials and layer order and sizes, as taught by Kalita, as art analogous materials for the surface treatment of a support pedestal, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
Wu in view of Kalita not expressly teach that the second coating layer extends a second radial distance from the center of the body, and wherein the second coating layer is disposed only over the substrate-supporting surface.
Ohno teaches a support body 12 Fig. 1 that has a substrate supporting surface (bottom surface of 14a that is used for accommodating the substrate that is not shown [0021]), has a prevention coating of 18 the is placed only on the bottom surface of the pocket, as shown in Fig. 1, the substrate mounted only on the coating of 18 which prevents closed space sublimation, i.e., protects the substrate [0021-0032].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Wu in view of Kalita to make the surface a substrate supporting surface that is configured to match an outer surface of the substrate (as implicit from the pocket formed of 14a), and to add a coating only in the substrate support surface, as per the teachings of Ohno, as it is known in the prior art of record to selectively coat only a surface on which a substrate is placed thereon. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
However, it is further noted that the limitations drawn to the coating in relation to the substrate, is considered that to be a functional limitation. Specifically, the surface on which a substrate is supported on is dependent on the size and shape of the substrate itself. As such, differences in the size and shape of a substrate would also, implicitly, that of the substrate support surface. As it has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115.
As the apparatus of Wu in view of Kalita and Ohno is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Wu in view of Kalita and Ohno would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to make the substrate support body and the coating of Wu in view of Kalita and Ohno set to the size to match the substrate and only have a second coating layer disposed over the substrate supporting surface, as per the teachings of Ohno, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Wu in view of Kalita and Ohno and that of the claim.
As such, the combined teachings fulfill the claimed limitations. The Examiner further notes that even though the substrate is not shown expressly in Ohno, the substantial match that would be present as a change in the substrate size would still be obvious because Ohno expressly teaches that this selective coating with the wafer/substrate allows for protection of the substrate itself from unwanted off-gassing or other issues that are formed in the substantial coating that is performed on the substrate support and it is independent from the other coatings. The Application of the reference of Ohno is not just an analogous teaching of where to place a selective coating on a substrate support, it creates a motivation to place only a selective coating there, providing the motivation to protect a substrate support only where the contact of the substrate is to create a selective protection that implicitly matches a substrate’s shape and size.
Wu in view of Kalita and Ohno do not expressly teach the first coating layer having a surface roughness average of about 2 µinches to about 64 µinches or that the second coating layer has a surface roughness average of about 2-20 µinches.
Lubomirsky teaches a first coating layer 222 Fig. 2 that has a roughness of 0.10 µm or less [0068] or 0.10 to 2.00 microns [0107] to decrease the thickness of the layer or improve the smoothness of the layer [0068] and then a second coating layer 224 Fig. 2 coated on top of the first layer that is conformal and has a low porosity such that it seals pores and cracks in the first layer [0077; 0025-0119].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Wu in view of Kalita and Ohno, by making the first coating layer have a smoothness of 0.10-2.00 microns (which overlaps the claimed ranges of 2-64 µinches, as it is 3.94 µinches-78.74 µinches), as per the teachings of Lubomirsky. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of providing a surface for the second coating layer such that the conformal second coating layer can be applied such that it seals pores and cracks in the first coating layer are sealed. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Wu in view of Kalita and Ohno and Lubomirsky do not expressly teach that the second coating layer has a surface roughness average of about 2-20 µinches, although Lubomirsky teaches the second coating layer is a conformal layer.
Boyd, Jr teaches that a second coating layer 308 Fig. 3A over a first coating layer surface 106 is conformal, such that the second coating layer matches the roughness of the chuck surface [0031; 0028-0039].
As the teachings of Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno and Lubomirsky teaches the second coating layer is conformal, and Boyd, Jr teaches that conformal layers have the same roughness as the first coating layer top surface, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to make the second coating layer have a roughness of 0.10-2.00 microns (which overlaps the claimed ranges of 2-64 µinches, as it is 3.94 µinches-78.74 µinches), as art analogous teachings of a conformal layer’s roughness structures.
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus the surface roughness of the second coating layer is the same as the first coating layer, as art analogous structures for conformal layers.
Furthermore, as Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno and Lubomirsky and Boyd teaches that the surface roughnesses are result effective variables for crack filling, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have modified the surface roughnesses of Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno and Lubomirsky and Boyd to fall within the claimed ranges.
Thus, the resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 2, Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno, Lubomirsky and Boyd teaches the first coating layer is disposed over an entirety of the substrate-supporting surface of the body, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 3, Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno, Lubomirsky and Boyd teaches the first coating layer is disposed over an entirety of the body, and wherein vertical sides of the body are free of the second coating layer, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 4, Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno, Lubomirsky and Boyd teaches the first coating layer is disposed over a substrate contact surface of the body and over an area of the body outside the substrate contact surface, and wherein the second coating layer is disposed over only the substrate contact surface of the body, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 7, Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno, Lubomirsky and Boyd teaches the first coating layer comprises electroless nickel plating [Kalita 0062], and wherein the second coating layer comprises silicon carbide [Kalita 0056].
In regards to Claim 8, Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno, Lubomirsky and Boyd teaches the first coating layer comprises electroless nickel plating [Kalita 0062], and wherein the second coating layer comprises silicon in the forming of silicon carbide [Kalita 0056].
In regards to Claim 9, Wu teaches a system Fig. 2 comprising: a processing chamber 208, 212, 214, 216, 218 comprising the support body of claim 1 and configured to clean a substrate while the substrate is supported by the support body [0022]; and an epitaxy chamber to grow an epitaxial layer on the substrate [0018-0021], and teaches the epitaxy chamber to grow an epitaxial layer on the substrate after the substrate Is cleaned by the processing chamber [0022-0028].
Furthermore, it has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Wu in view of Kalita and Ohno is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Wu in view of Kalita and Ohno would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to coat after cleaning the substrate, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Wu in view of Kalita and Ohno and that of the claim.
In regards to Claim 11, Wu teaches a system Fig. 2 comprising: a processing chamber 208, 212, 214, 216, 218 comprising the support body of claim 1 and configured to clean a substrate while the substrate is supported by the support body [0022]; and an epitaxy chamber to grow an epitaxial layer on the substrate [0018-0021], and teaches the epitaxy chamber to grow an epitaxial layer on the substrate after the substrate Is cleaned by the processing chamber [0022-0028].
Wu does not teach the lid assembly and showerhead as claimed.
Kalita teaches a system comprising Fig. 1, 2A: a processing chamber 200 configured to clean a substrate [0006-0008; 0030], the processing chamber comprising: a chamber body 200; a lid assembly 216, 218, 214, 217, 225 disposed at an upper end of the chamber body, the lid assembly comprising: a dual channel showerhead 225 having a first set of channels 219/365 providing fluid communication above and below a plane of the showerhead; and a second set of channels 221/375 providing fluid communication with a side port of the chamber body (as it is on a more peripheral region of holes); and a substrate support assembly 400 Fig. 4A, 4C at least partially disposed within the chamber body, the substrate support assembly (component 400, as shown in Fig. 4A, top plate or puck of a pedestal [0046]) configured to support the substrate in the processing chamber [0046], the substrate support assembly comprising: a support body (body of 400) having a substrate-supporting surface 405 configured to match an outer surface of the substrate (as it supports the substrate); a stem coupled to the support body (as shown in Fig. 2A) and a two-part coating 410, 415 disposed over the substrate-supporting surface of the body (as shown in Fig. 4C), the two-part coating comprising: a first coating layer 415 extending a first radial distance from a center of the body (as it covers the entirety of the component, with complete component), the first coating layer including electroless nickel plating [0062] and having a thickness of about 5 µm to about 50 µm [0063]; and a second coating layer 410 [0061] having a thickness of about 5 nm to about 500 nm [0055] and made out of silicon carbide [0056] and disposed over the first coating layer (as shown in Fig. 4C), the second coating layer extending over the first coating layer but may not achieve as complete coverage [0061], the first radial distance greater than the second radial distance (which is implicit as the first coating is coating the component completely and the second coating is less complete), wherein the second coating layer is non-metal (as it is a non-metal oxide layer [0055-0061, 0023-0079].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Wu, by substituting the chamber structure thereof with that of Kalita. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B.
Wu does not expressly teach a two part coating.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Wu, and changed the materials of the coating, as an art analogous material for coating a support pedestal body (and thus stem). It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a first and second coating analogous to that of Wu out of the materials and layer order and sizes, as taught by Kalita, as art analogous materials for the surface treatment of a support pedestal, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
Wu in view of Kalita not expressly teach that the second coating layer extends a second radial distance from the center of the body, and wherein the second coating layer is disposed only over the substrate-supporting surface.
Ohno teaches a support body 12 Fig. 1 that has a substrate supporting surface (bottom surface of 14a that is used for accommodating the substrate that is not shown [0021]), has a prevention coating of 18 the is placed only on the bottom surface of the pocket, as shown in Fig. 1, the substrate mounted only on the coating of 18 which prevents closed space sublimation, i.e., protects the substrate [0021-0032].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Wu in view of Kalita to make the surface a substrate supporting surface that is configured to match an outer surface of the substrate (as implicit from the pocket formed of 14a), and to add a coating only in the substrate support surface, as per the teachings of Ohno, as it is known in the prior art of record to selectively coat only a surface on which a substrate is placed thereon. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
However, it is further noted that the limitations drawn to the coating in relation to the substrate, is considered that to be a functional limitation. Specifically, the surface on which a substrate is supported on is dependent on the size and shape of the substrate itself. As such, differences in the size and shape of a substrate would also, implicitly, that of the substrate support surface. As it has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115.
As the apparatus of Wu in view of Kalita and Ohno is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Wu in view of Kalita and Ohno would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to make the substrate support body and the coating of Wu in view of Kalita and Ohno set to the size to match the substrate and only have a second coating layer disposed over the substrate supporting surface, as per the teachings of Ohno, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Wu in view of Kalita and Ohno and that of the claim.
As such, the combined teachings fulfill the claimed limitations. The Examiner further notes that even though the substrate is not shown expressly in Ohno, the substantial match that would be present as a change in the substrate size would still be obvious because Ohno expressly teaches that this selective coating with the wafer/substrate allows for protection of the substrate itself from unwanted off-gassing or other issues that are formed in the substantial coating that is performed on the substrate support and it is independent from the other coatings. The Application of the reference of Ohno is not just an analogous teaching of where to place a selective coating on a substrate support, it creates a motivation to place only a selective coating there, providing the motivation to protect a substrate support only where the contact of the substrate is to create a selective protection that implicitly matches a substrate’s shape and size.
Wu in view of Kalita and Ohno do not expressly teach the first coating layer having a surface roughness average of about 2 µinches to about 64 µinches or that the second coating layer has a surface roughness average of about 2-20 µinches.
Lubomirsky teaches a first coating layer 222 Fig. 2 that has a roughness of 0.10 µm or less [0068] or 0.10 to 2.00 microns [0107] to decrease the thickness of the layer or improve the smoothness of the layer [0068] and then a second coating layer 224 Fig. 2 coated on top of the first layer that is conformal and has a low porosity such that it seals pores and cracks in the first layer [0077; 0025-0119].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Wu in view of Kalita and Ohno, by making the first coating layer have a smoothness of 0.10-2.00 microns (which overlaps the claimed ranges of 2-64 µinches, as it is 3.94 µinches-78.74 µinches), as per the teachings of Lubomirsky. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of providing a surface for the second coating layer such that the conformal second coating layer can be applied such that it seals pores and cracks in the first coating layer are sealed. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Wu in view of Kalita and Ohno and Lubomirsky do not expressly teach that the second coating layer has a surface roughness average of about 2-20 µinches, although Lubomirsky teaches the second coating layer is a conformal layer.
Boyd, Jr teaches that a second coating layer 308 Fig. 3A over a first coating layer surface 106 is conformal, such that the second coating layer matches the roughness of the chuck surface [0031; 0028-0039].
As the teachings of Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno and Lubomirsky teaches the second coating layer is conformal, and Boyd, Jr teaches that conformal layers have the same roughness as the first coating layer top surface, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to make the second coating layer have a roughness of 0.10-2.00 microns (which overlaps the claimed ranges of 2-64 µinches, as it is 3.94 µinches-78.74 µinches), as art analogous teachings of a conformal layer’s roughness structures.
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus the surface roughness of the second coating layer is the same as the first coating layer, as art analogous structures for conformal layers.
Furthermore, as Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno and Lubomirsky and Boyd teaches that the surface roughnesses are result effective variables for crack filling, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have modified the surface roughnesses of Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno and Lubomirsky and Boyd to fall within the claimed ranges.
Thus, the resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 12, Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno, Lubomirsky and Boyd teaches the first coating layer is disposed over an entirety of the body, as it completely coats the support body and thus implicitly the stem, , and wherein vertical sides of the body are free of the second coating layer, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 13, Wu teaches a system Fig. 2 comprising: a processing chamber 208, 212, 214, 216, 218 comprising the support body of claim 1 and configured to clean a substrate while the substrate is supported by the support body [0022]; and an epitaxy chamber to grow an epitaxial layer on the substrate [0018-0021], and teaches the epitaxy chamber to grow an epitaxial layer on the substrate after the substrate Is cleaned by the processing chamber [0022-0028].
Furthermore, it has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Wu in view of Kalita and Ohno is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Wu in view of Kalita and Ohno would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to coat after cleaning the substrate, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Wu in view of Kalita and Ohno and that of the claim.
In regards to Claim 14, Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno, Lubomirsky and Boyd teaches the second coating layer is disposed over only the substrate contact surface of the body, as per the rejection of Claim 11.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2010/0247773 to Wu et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0402772 to Kalita et al, United States Patent Application No. 2013/0327274 to Ohno et al, United States Patent Application No. 2020/0185203 to Lubomirsky et al and United States Patent Application No. 2004/0055709 to Boyd, Jr. et al, as applied to claims 1-4 and 11-14 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2017/0152968 to Raj et al.
The teachings of Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno, Lubomirsky and Boyd are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claims 5 and 15, Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno, Lubomirsky and Boyd do not expressly teach the second coating layer comprises a perfluorinated film.
Raj teaches a substrate support body 120 Fig. 2 that is formed of an aluminum core coated with a dielectric material [0028] that is coated by using a bond layer made out of nickel that is 10µm thick [0035] onto which a protective coating of 180 formed of PTFE is formed thereon [0034; 0019-0044]. Raj teaches a bonding/protective coating multilayer has improved mechanical properties, improved wear properties and good adhesion.
Raj teaches a substrate support body 120, 154, that supports a substrate thereon during processing that is formed out of an aluminum core coated with a dielectric material [0028], there being another coating 180 that is plated, dipped, electroplated or sprayed thereon, the coating being formed of PTFE, a known perfluorinated film, the coating being formed to protect components from reacting with the corrosive processing gases [0036-0037].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno, Lubomirsky and Boyd, by making the second coating layer out of a perfluorinated film, such as PTFE, as per the teachings of Raj. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of protecting components from the corrosive processing gases.
Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a support body second coating analogous to that of Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno, Lubomirsky and Boyd out of PTFE/perfluorinated material, as taught by Raj, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 5.
In regards to Claim 6, Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno, Lubomirsky and Boyd and Raj does not expressly teach the perfluorinated film comprises a self-assembled monolayer. The Examiner notes however, that this limitation is a product by process limitation. Specifically, this appears to be drawn to how the perfluorinated film is formed (in self-assembly) vs the actual structure of the film itself. Because of this particular nuance in the limitation, the Examiner notes that the teachings of Wu in view of Kalita and Ohno and Raj teach a perfluorinated film that fulfills the structural limitations as claimed, as per MPEP 2113 I.
Claim(s) 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2010/0247773 to Wu et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0402772 to Kalita et al, United States Patent Application No. 2013/0327274 to Ohno et al, United States Patent Application No. 2020/0185203 to Lubomirsky et al and United States Patent Application No. 2004/0055709 to Boyd, Jr. et al, as applied to claims 1-4 and 11-14 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2016/0307740 to Kim et al
The teachings of Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno, Lubomirsky and Boyd are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claims 10 and 16, Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno, Lubomirsky and Boyd does not expressly teach the second coating layer comprises yttrium oxyfluoride or that the second coating layer comprises yttrium oxyfluoride, wherein an individual concentration of yttrium atoms, oxygenatoms, and fluoride atoms in the yttrium oxyfluoride coating is within a range of about 25 atomic % to about 40 atomic %.
Kim teaches a ceramic coating for a substrate processing system [0006-0008, 0040] is made out of yttrium oxyfluoride [0040], where the ceramic layer comprises yttrium oxyfluoride (YxOyFz), wherein x=1, y=1 and z=1 (Claim 1) such that the atomic % of this layer is 33%, as there is 1 of each atom [0024-0070]. Kim further teaches that the YOF ceramic material layer is a ceramic layer that reduces contamination and damage in the chamber as well as being able to omit a seasoning process of the chamber [0070].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno, Lubomirsky and Boyd, to change the second coating layer to be yttrium oxyfluoride, as per the teachings of Kim. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of reducing contamination and damage in the chamber as well as being able to omit a seasoning process of the chamber. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make the second coating layer analogous to that of Wu in view of Kalita, Ohno, Lubomirsky and Boyd out of yttrium oxyfluoride, as taught by Kim, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
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 TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716