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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s RCE dated 05/27/2026.
4. Claims 1-2, 6-12, and 17-18 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1, 17, and 18 have been amended.
6. Claims 3-5 and 13-16 have been cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
7. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/24/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-2, 6-11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al (US 2004/0149214) in view of Sun et al (US 2010/0119843) and Schulz (EP 1241926A2) with substantiating evidence provided by Kim et al (US 2014/0090783).
Regarding claim 1:
Hirose teaches a plasma processing apparatus (vacuum processing apparatus) [fig 6 & 0051] comprising: a plasma processing chamber (processing chamber, 41) whose exterior wall has a structure (deposit shield, 50) [fig 6-7 & 0056]; a loading/unloading port (carrier port, 47) disposed on the exterior wall of the plasma processing chamber (41) to load/unload a substrate (46) into/from the plasma processing chamber (41) [fig 6 & 0054]; and a substrate support (stage, 45) disposed in the plasma processing chamber (41) [fig 6 & 0053].
Hirose does not specifically teach the structure being a multi-layer structure; wherein the multi-layer structure includes a plasma resistant layer, a second layer, a third layer, and an anodic oxide film in that order from inside to outside of the plasma processing chamber.
Sun teaches a multi-layer structure (413/integral surface coating) [fig 4A & 0030, 0040]; wherein the multi-layer structure includes a plasma resistant layer (plasma resistant coating, 315), a second layer (first intermediate layer of 412), a third layer (second intermediate layer of 412), and an anodic oxide film (integral surface coating aluminum oxide formed by anodizing the substrate) in that order from inside to outside of the plasma processing chamber (see fig 4A) [fig 4A & 0030, 0040].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the structure of Hirose (wall) to be a multi-layer structure, as in Sun, to allow for an intermediate layer(s) to provide one or more advantageous characteristics (e.g., high conductivity, high resistance, UV protection, etc.) while also providing for plasma resistance [Kim – 0040].
Hirose modified by Sun does not specifically disclose the second layer being made of a material having a permeability higher than a permeability of aluminum, wherein the material having the permeability higher than the permeability of aluminum is electrical steel; and the third layer being a layer made of an aluminum-containing material.
Schulz teaches a layer being made of a material having a permeability higher than a permeability of aluminum, wherein the material having the permeability higher than the permeability of aluminum is electrical steel (electrical steel) [claim 4]; and a layer being a layer made of an aluminum-containing material (aluminum) [claim 4].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second layer and third layer of modified Hirose (i.e. Sun discloses 412 may be multiple layers) to be made of electrical steel and aluminum, respectively, as in Schulz, because electrical steel and aluminum in combination offers excellent magnetic shielding effects [Schulz – 0029-0030]. As evidentiary support, Kim’783 teaches it is desirable to provide an intermediate layer to shield an electromagnetic field in a plasma processing apparatus [Kim’783 – 0058, 0073].
Regarding claims 2 and 18:
Hirose teaches the loading/unloading port (carrier port, 47) is provided with a shutter (49) configured to open/close the loading/unloading port (47) [fig 6 & 0054, 0058].
Hirose does not specifically teach the shutter having a multi-layer structure; and the multi-layer structure of the shutter has a same layer structure as the multi-layer structure of the exterior wall of the plasma processing chamber.
Sun teaches a component having a multi-layer structure (413/integral surface coating may be formed on plasma chamber components exposed to plasma) [fig 4A & 0007, 0030, 0040]; wherein the multi-layer structure includes a plasma resistant layer (plasma resistant coating, 315), a second layer (first intermediate layer of 412), a third layer (second intermediate layer of 412), and an anodic oxide film (integral surface coating aluminum oxide formed by anodizing the substrate) in that order from inside to outside of the plasma processing chamber (see fig 4A) [fig 4A & 0030, 0040].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the structure of Hirose (shutter) to be a multi-layer structure, as in Sun, to allow for an intermediate layer(s) to provide one or more advantageous characteristics (e.g., high conductivity, high resistance, UV protection, etc.) while also providing for plasma resistance [Kim – 0040].
Hirose modified by Sun does not specifically disclose the second layer being made of a material having a permeability higher than a permeability of aluminum, wherein the material having the permeability higher than the permeability of aluminum is electrical steel; and the third layer being a layer made of an aluminum-containing material.
Schulz teaches a layer being made of a material having a permeability higher than a permeability of aluminum, wherein the material having the permeability higher than the permeability of aluminum is electrical steel (electrical steel) [claim 4]; and a layer being a layer made of an aluminum-containing material (aluminum) [claim 4].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second layer and third layer of modified Hirose (i.e. Sun discloses 412 may be multiple layers) to be made of electrical steel and aluminum, respectively, as in Schulz, because electrical steel and aluminum in combination offers excellent magnetic shielding effects [Schulz – 0029-0030]. As evidentiary support, Kim’783 teaches it is desirable to provide an intermediate layer to shield an electromagnetic field in a plasma processing apparatus [Kim’783 – 0058, 0073].
Regarding claims 6-7:
Modified Hirose teaches the multi-layer structure (413/integral surface coating) further includes a plasma resistant layer formed on a surface which is not exposed to plasma (315 is formed on first intermediate layer of 412) [Sun - fig 4A & 0030, 0040].
The claim limitations “formed on a surface which is not exposed to plasma” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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). Specifically, any surface is capable of not being exposed to plasma depending on the process to be carried out.
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Hirose teaches the plasma resistant layer (315) is an oxide film (Y2O3) [Sun - fig 4A & 0034].
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Hirose teaches the plasma resistant layer (315) is a silicon-containing film (SiC) [Sun - fig 4A & 0034].
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Hirose teaches the plasma resistant layer (315) is a film of a compound containing one or more of group III elements and lanthanoid-based elements (Y2O3) [Sun - fig 4A & 0034].
Regarding claim 11:
The claim limitations “wherein the plasma resistant layer is a film formed by thermal spraying, chemical vapor deposition (CVD), or physical vapor deposition (PVD)” are merely product-by-process limitations. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
10. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al (US 2004/0149214) in view of Sun et al (US 2010/0119843) and Schulz (EP 1241926A2) as applied to claims 1-2, 6-11, and 18 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US 2008/0054194).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 6-11, and 18 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Hirose does not specifically disclose the plasma resistant layer is an anodic oxide film.
Kim’194 teaches a plasma resistant layer (142b) is an anodic oxide film (anodized oxide) [fig 3 & 0048].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plasma resistant layer of modified Hirose to be an anodic oxide film, as in Kim’194, because such is a superior etch resistant material [Kim’194 – 0048]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
11. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al (US 2004/0149214) in view of Sun et al (US 2010/0119843) and Schulz (EP 1241926A2) as applied to claims 1-2, 6-11, and 18 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US 2014/0090783).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 6-11, and 18 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 17:
Modified Hirose does not specifically teach a cover made of a material having a permeability higher than a permeability of aluminum and configured to cover the plasma processing chamber.
Kim’783 teaches a cover (730) made of a material having a permeability higher than a permeability of aluminum (formed of a material including any one of permalloy, Mu-metal, and iron) and configured to cover the plasma processing chamber (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0058].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of modified Hirose to further comprise a cover made of a material having a permeability higher than a permeability of aluminum, as in Kim’783, to reduce loss of the electromagnetic field [Kim’783 – 0074].
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/24/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-2, 6-12, and 15-18 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
The teachings of Schulz (EP 1241926A2) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above to the amended claims.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Parsons et al (US 2003/0084999), O’ Donnell (US 2005/0150866), and Sommers et al (US 2010/0055298) teach a plasma processing chamber whose wall has a multi-layer structure [fig 2, 5, and 2, respectively].
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights