DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant's amendment filed on June 24, 2026 was received. Claims 1 and 26 were amended. Claim 2 was canceled. Claims 6-25 were withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35. U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action Issued April 3, 2026.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun1 (US20140349073) in view of Yamada (US20030059653).
Claim interpretations: current claim 1 contains different limitations than the claim 1 in the amendments filed previously on February 5, 2026. Current claim 1 recites “annealing the coating at a temperature of at least 900º-1300º C” and “a porous ternary oxide coating of one or more of yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG), yttrium aluminum monoclinic (YAM) or yttrium aluminum perovskite (YAP)”, while the claim 1 filed on 2/5/2026 recites “annealing the coating at a temperature in a range of 900º-1300º C” and “porous ternary oxide coating of one or more of yttrium aluminum monoclinic (YAM) or yttrium aluminum perovskite (YAP)”. Thus, the current claim 1 is considered as “currently amended” but not “previously presented”. The current claim 1 is being considered entirely in this office action.
Regarding claim 1, Sun1 teaches a method for coating a component for use in a semiconductor deposition chamber, wherein the coating is resistance to plasma etching (paragraphs 0002 - 0005). Sun1 teaches to provide the component (paragraphs 0012, 0017 and 0019). Sun1 teaches to aerosol depositing a ceramic plasma resistant coating on the surface of the component (abstract, paragraph 0012), wherein the ceramic coating material comprising physical blend of different material in a coating powder, such as yttrium oxide and aluminum oxide to form YAG, YAM (Y4Al2O9) or YAP (paragraphs 0023-0024, 0044) (ternary oxide coating). Sun1 teaches the coating comprises 60-80mol% of yttrium oxide and 20-40mol% of aluminum oxide (paragraph 0024), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. Sun1 further teaches to thermally treating the coated component to about 1200 to about 1600 degrees C (claim 20), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. in addition, while it appears the applicant intended the temperature being heated in the range of 900 to 1300ºC, the actual claimed limitations “annealing the coating at a temperature of at least 900 to 1300ºC” only requires the heating to be at least 900 to 1300ºC without an upper limit, thus, the Sun1’s heating temperature of about 1200 to about 1600 degree C is actually inside of the claimed range. Since the material and method (yttrium oxide powder, aluminum oxide powder to form at least YAG or YAM by aerosol deposition) disclosed by Sun1 are the same as the claimed invention, Sun1’s heating treatment (about 1200 to about 1600 ºC) would at least intricially produce the increase of the porosity of the coating at the lower end of the range (about 1200 to 1300 ºC). A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in than in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949(1999).
Sun1 does not explicitly teaches the porosity of the coating. However, Yamada teaches method of forming a film of yttria-alumina complex oxide (abstract) on a member substrate for plasma process chamber with high peel strength to a member substate (paragraph 0010) and resistive against halogen based gas or its plasma during the plasma processing (paragraph 0008) (same as Sun1’s coating). Yamada teaches to spray a mixed powder of the powdery material of yttria and alumina onto a substate to provide the sprayed film composed of yttria alumina complex oxide (paragraph 0014), such as YAM (paragraph 0046) and YAP (paragraphs 0048-0049), and heat treating the film at a temperature to increase porosity of the film (paragraph 0035 and 0131). Yamada teaches the porosity governs the holding capability of the by-products and particles in the surface layer, and the corrosion resistance of the surface layer as well as the mechanical strength (paragraph 0066) and it is preferably to be between 15 to 30volumn percent (paragraph 0066), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the porosity of the finished coating in the process to yield the desired holding capability of the by-products and particles in the surface layer, and the corrosion resistance of the surface layer as well as the mechanical strength. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. In addition, since Yamada teaches the heat treatment induce the porosity of the film (paragraph 0131), it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize temperature of the heating treatment in the process to yield the desired porosity of the coating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat treat the sprayed coating to achieve the porosity as suggested by Yamada in the method of Sun1 because Yamada teaches the heat treatment increase the porosity of the film (paragraph 0131) and the porosity improves the hold of the coating on the surface of the member anchor effect to reduce the thickness of the deposit on the member during the plasma processing (paragraphs 0023-0024).
Regarding claim 3, Sun1 teaches the article is made of a ceramic material (paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 4, Sun1 teaches the powder comprises aluminum oxide (paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 26, Sun1 teaches the annealed temperature is about 1200 to about 1600 ºC, which overlaps with about 900 to 1100ºC. Since Sun1 interprets “about” as ±10% (paragraph 0015), Sun1’s temperature is 1080 to 1760 ºC. which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Sun1 does not explicitly teaches the porosity of the coating. However, Yamada teaches method of forming a film of yttria-alumina complex oxide (abstract) on a member substrate for plasma process chamber with high peel strength to a member substate (paragraph 0010) and resistive against halogen based gas or its plasma during the plasma processing (paragraph 0008) (same as Sun1’s coating). Yamada teaches to spray a mixed powder of the powdery material of yttria and alumina onto a substate to provide the sprayed film composed of yttria alumina complex oxide (paragraph 0014), such as YAM (paragraph 0046) and YAP (paragraphs 0048-0049), and heat treating the film at a temperature to increase porosity of the film (paragraph 0035 and 0131). Yamada teaches the porosity governs the holding capability of the by-products and particles in the surface layer, and the corrosion resistance of the surface layer as well as the mechanical strength (paragraph 0066) and it is preferably to be between 15 to 30volumn percent (paragraph 0066). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the porosity of the finished coating in the process to yield the desired holding capability of the by-products and particles in the surface layer, and the corrosion resistance of the surface layer as well as the mechanical strength. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. In addition, since Yamada teaches the heat treatment induce the porosity of the film (paragraph 0131), it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize temperature of the heating treatment in the process to yield the desired porosity of the coating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat treat the sprayed coating to achieve the porosity as suggested by Yamada in the method of Sun1 because Yamada teaches the heat treatment increase the porosity of the film (paragraph 0131) and the porosity improves the hold of the coating on the surface of the member anchor effect to reduce the thickness of the deposit on the member during the plasma processing (paragraphs 0023-0024).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun1 (US20140349073) in view of Yamada (US20030059653) as applied to claims 1, 3-4 and 26 above, and further in view of Chang (US20050136188).
Regarding claim 5, Sun1 in view of Yamada teaches all limitation of this claim, except the component is a dielectric window. However, Chang teaches a method of making a yttria coated ceramic component of semiconductor material processing apparatus (abstract, paragraph 0016). Chang discloses the dielectric windows and chamber liner/wall or substrate support etc (Sun1’s substrate, see paragraph 0017) are functionally equivalent substrate for the yttria containing ceramic plasma resistant coating in the plasma processing apparatus (paragraph 0018). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute dielectric window for chamber liner/wall or substrate support as the substrate in the method as disclosed by Sun1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and Declaration filed on June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Yamada teaches to plasma spray the coating, which is different from an aerosol deposited coating and does not provide a coating structure that is as dense as powder that is deposited using aerosol deposition. Heat treatment of plasma sprayed coating would cause the porosity to be much higher than the claimed range (claims 1 and 26). Yamada teaches away from the claimed range of claim 26.
Sun teaches away from increasing the porosity of the coating as Sun1 refers to the annealed coating as a barrier layer which therefor indicates that it is a protective (highly dense and non-porous) layer.
Examiner has conceded that Sun1 does not explicitly teach a heat treatment to increase porosity and cites the Yamada reference for teaching to increase porosity by annealing.
Aerosol depositing and plasma spraying react differently to heat treatment/annealing.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
As disclose above, Sun1’s aerosol deposition and material are the same as the claimed invention, with overlapping heating temperature (about 1200 to about 1600 ºC). Thus, Sun1’s heating treatment (about 1200 to about 1600 ºC) would at least intricially produce the increase of the porosity of the coating at the lower end of the range (about 1200 to 1300 ºC). A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in than in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949(1999). Yamada is only relied upon to show that the porosity is result effective variable because porosity governs the holding capability of the by-products and particles in the surface layer, and the corrosion resistance of the surface layer as well as the mechanical strength (paragraph 0066) and it is preferably to be between 15 to 30volumn percent (paragraph 0066), such reasoning for optimizing the porosity is applicable to any similar coating on a component for use in a semiconductor deposition chamber, including Sun1’s. The rejection does not replace the heat treatment in Sun1’s with Yamada’s as Sun1 teaches the heat treatment as claimed (see claims 1 and 26 rejections above).
There is no evidence to show that claimed method from the aerosol deposition produce a different layer that the Sun1 from the aerosol deposition, thus, the following heat treatment with overlapping heating range of Sun1 would intricially produce porosity in the same coating at least when the heating temperature is around the lower end of the heating temperature range as disclosed by Sun1 (1200 to 1300ºC). While Sun1 teaches a barrier layer is formed in the interface of the substrate and the aerosol coating, Sun1 does not teach such barrier is dense or less porous as argued. Sun1 also does not teach the porosity of the rest of the coating has decreased. Thus, Sun1 does not teach away from the heat treatment being forming more porosity. Regarding the argument that the density would increase in Sun’s heat treatment, such statement is considered as the Applicant’s opinion without factual evident as support. It is well settled that nonpreferred and alternative embodiments constitute prior art and disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123 II). Thus, Sun1’s teaching including 1450ºC does not render the Sun1 teaches away from the heating temperature of about 1200 to about 1600ºC, which includes the temperature of increasing the porosity as claimed.
Examiner didn’t concede that Sun1 does not teach a heat treatment to increase porosity (see rejections above). Yamada is used to show that the porosity is desirable for the coating of the component used in the plasma chamber, with Sun1 teaching the claimed temperature that would generate the porosity in claimed aerosol coating. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Yamada’s teaching of the porosity is applicable to any ternary oxide coating formed by yttrium oxide and aluminum containing powder for the plasma processing chamber, regardless of the method of forming such coating. While Yamada teaches to increase porosity of the coating by heat treatment at the specific temperature (paragraph 0131 and 0066), the rejection does not base the temperature range of Yamada as Sun1 teaches the claimed temperature.
It is noted that Yamada teaches the coating with the porous structure can be formed by spraying, including plasma spraying, sol-gel method, PVD, CVD precipitation reaction from solution or paste application process (paragraph 0080), which are wide range of different technique including some of the room temperature technique, and does not limit to only plasma spraying. Thus, it appears the increase of porosity would be applicable to coating with the same material regardless of the method of making, as long as the temperature range is correct. Since Sun1 teaches the overlapping temperature as the claim, it would be expected that Sun1’s method would produce increased porosity in the coating during the heat treatment at the lower range of the treatment temperature. It is noted that applicant has not provided criticality of the claimed ranges.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Walker (EP4032701A1, paragraph 0003)
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 NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 5712721295. 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.
/N.V.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights