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 .
Considering the response filed 6/7/26, claims 1-6 have been canceled. Claims 21-26 have been added. Claims 7-26 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
Applicant’s election of Group II claims 7-26 (includes newly added claims 21-26) in the reply filed on 6/7/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 (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.
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 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pareek et al. (11,118,263).
Pareek et al. (11,118,263) teaches method of forming a protective coating film for halide plasma resistance includes depositing a seed layer on the surface of the article by ALD and depositing a rare-earth oxide layer on the seed layer also by ALD (abstract). Pareek et al. (11,118,263) teaches the protective layer to include a seed layer of amorphous aluminum oxide (Al2O3) and a rare earth metal oxide having crystallites on chamber components including chamber walls (col. 2, line 54 - col. 3, line 30). Pareek et al. (11,118,263) teaches cleaning the surface of the article, degreasing and drying prior to ALD deposition (col. 4, lines 31-52). Pareek et al. (11,118,263) teaches the amorphous aluminum oxide (Al2O3) can be formed from a precursor of trimethylaluminum (AlCH3) having a thickness of 8-20 nm thickness (col. 5, lines 17-42) and 10-50 micron thickness (col. 5, lines 49-52). Pareek et al. (11,118,263) teaches the ALD temperature is at room temperature – 350C during ALD (would meet the claimed heating step). Pareek et al. (11,118,263) teaches the rare earth metal oxide include yttrium oxide at a thickness of 5nm -200 nm (col. 6, lines 29-50). Pareek et al. (11,118,263) teaches the top layer having a polycrystalline structure as the rare earth containing oxide layer (col. 7, lines 3-15).
Regarding claim 16, Pareek et al. (11,118,263) teaches the ALD temperature is at room temperature – 350C during ALD (would meet the claimed heating step). The protective coating would meet the claimed (protective structure) and this would be formed in the chamber and exposed from the chamber.
Regarding claim 17, Pareek et al. (11,118,263) teaches the ALD temperature is at room temperature – 350C during ALD (would meet the claimed heating step).
Regarding claim 18, Pareek et al. (11,118,263) teaches the amorphous aluminum oxide (Al2O3) can be formed from a precursor of trimethylaluminum (AlCH3) having a thickness of 8-20 nm thickness (col. 5, lines 17-42) and Pareek et al. (11,118,263) teaches the top layer having a polycrystalline structure as the rare earth containing oxide layer (col. 7, lines 3-15).
Claims 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pareek et al. (11,118,263) in combination with Bajaj et al. (2021/0071300).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Pareek et al. (11,118,263) are incorporated here.
Pareek et al. (11,118,263) fails to specifically teach the formation of sublayers as well as placing substrate on a carrier in the chamber and processing.
Bajaj et al. (2021/0071300) teaches a method for forming a protective coating on processing chamber surfaces or components. The protective coating within a processing chamber includes cerium oxide layer applied by ALD and repeating to form multiple layers (abstract). Bajaj et al. (2021/0071300) also teaches forming an intermediate layer on the processing chamber surfaces or components prior to forming the cerium oxide layer with an intermediate layer thickness of 1-100 nanometers. This intermediate layer is also formed by ALD [0008]. The process chamber or components is heated from 50-400 C during ALD processing [0007],[0023]. Bajaj et al. (2021/0071300) teaches the precursors for the ALD deposition include MeCp ligand (methylcyclopentadienyl [0018],[0060]. The thickness of the protective layer can include 0.5nm to 200 nm [0027]. The protective layer can include sublayers formed by ALD [0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pareek et al. (11,118,263) process to include sublayers as well as processing a substrate on a carrier with the protected chamber as evidenced by Bajaj et al. (2021/0071300) with the expectation of protein the process chamber and/or components during processing.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Bajaj et al. (2021/0071300) teaches forming multiple sublayers for the protective coating layers [0028]. The ALD process is known for alternating precursors to form layers and hence stopping and alternating precursors would have bene utilized. The type of precursors would have been within the skill of one practicing in the art and would have been chosen based upon the desired coating being produced.
Regarding claim 21, Bajaj et al. (2021/0071300) teaches a substrate (190) on a pedestal (150-claimed carrier) ([0031]-[0034] and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, the placement of the protective structure within or outside the chamber would have been within the skill of one practicing in the art absent a showing of success of criticality thereof.
Regarding claim 23, both Pareek et al. (11,118,263) in combination with Bajaj et al. (2021/0071300) teach forming protective coatings on processing chamber surfaces or components and hence would suggest that some not all the walls and/or components within the chamber would have a protective coating thereon.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Pareek et al. (11,118,263) teaches the amorphous aluminum oxide (Al2O3) can be formed from a precursor of trimethylaluminum (AlCH3) having a thickness of 8-20 nm thickness (col. 5, lines 17-42) and 10-50 micron thickness (col. 5, lines 49-52). Pareek et al. (11,118,263) teaches the rare earth metal oxide include yttrium oxide at a thickness of 5nm -200 nm (col. 6, lines 29-50).
Regarding claim 26, Pareek et al. (11,118,263) teaches the amorphous aluminum oxide (Al2O3) can be formed from a precursor of trimethylaluminum (AlCH3) having a thickness of 8-20 nm thickness (col. 5, lines 17-42) and 10-50 micron thickness (col. 5, lines 49-52. Pareek et al. (11,118,263) teaches the rare earth metal oxide include yttrium oxide at a thickness of 5nm -200 nm (col. 6, lines 29-50).
Claims 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pareek et al. (11,118,263) in combination with Bajaj et al. (2021/0071300).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Pareek et al. (11,118,263) in combination with Bajaj et al. (2021/0071300) are incorporated here.
Pareek et al. (11,118,263) in combination with Bajaj et al. (2021/0071300) fail to specifically teach the formation of the protective layers on a first and second chamber unit and assembling to form the chamber.
While the Examiner acknowledges the fact that the prior art is silent with respect to the coating of the chamber units separately and then assembling them to form the chamber, the Examiner takes the position that the prior art teaches forming these protective layers on chamber walls as well as components within the processing chamber, including pedestal, showerhead, etc. and the processing step of coating these individually and then assembling vs coating them already assembled would have been within the skill of one practicing the invention with the expectation of similar success.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the coating of one chamber unit and not the other as well as the distance between the first chamber unit and the carrier being less than the distance between the second chamber unit and the carrier would have been within the skill of one practicing in the art absent a showing of criticality thereof.
Regarding claim 10, Pareek et al. (11,118,263) teaches method of forming a protective coating film for halide plasma resistance includes depositing a seed layer on the surface of the article by ALD and depositing a rare-earth oxide layer on the seed layer also by ALD (abstract).
Regarding claim 11, the second protective layer (rare- earth oxide layer) is in direct contact with the first chamber unit.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Bajaj et al. (2021/0071300) teaches forming multiple sublayers for the protective coating layers [0028]. Bajaj et al. (2021/0071300) teaches forming these sublayers any additional times and with any type of materials.
Regarding claim 14, Pareek et al. (11,118,263) teaches the amorphous aluminum oxide (Al2O3) can be formed from a precursor of trimethylaluminum (AlCH3) having a thickness of 8-20 nm thickness (col. 5, lines 17-42). Bajaj et al. (2021/0071300) teaches the precursors for the ALD deposition include MeCp ligand (methylcyclopentadienyl [0018],[0060].
Regarding claim 15, both Pareek et al. (11,118,263) (col. 1, lines 20-55) in combination with Bajaj et al. (2021/0071300) [0003] teaches using the chamber whereby plasma is generated.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights