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 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
Responsive to communication filed 08/04/2026
Claims 1-2, 5-22, 24, and 27-31 are pending
Claims 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 are objected to
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, 20-22, and 27-31 are rejected
Claim 24 has been withdrawn
Claims 1, 2, 5, 28, and 29 have been amended
Claims 30-31 have been added
Claims 3-4 and 25-26 have been cancelled
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, 27-29, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur et al. (US 20030172872) in view of Lubomirsky et al. (US 20200185203) and Morita et al. (US 20020012791).
Regarding Claim 1:
Thakur teaches a substrate support structure (support pedestal 111) for semiconductor processing system, comprising: an outer surface (outer surface of pedestal 111), a substrate support structure body formed from a ceramic (the support pedestal 111 may be formed of a ceramic), the body having: an upper surface (upper surface of pedestal 111) defining a first portion of the outer surface of the substrate support structure; a lower surface (lower surface of pedestal 111) spaced apart from the upper surface and defining a second portion of the outer surface of the substrate support structure; a periphery spanning the upper surface and the lower surface of the substrate support structure body, wherein the ceramic extends contiguously between the upper surface, the lower surface and the periphery of the substrate support structure body (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the pedestal 111 comprises upper, lower, and peripheral surfaces, wherein the upper and lower surfaces are spaced apart from each other); and at least one of a heater element (heater 53A), a coolant circuit, and a temperature sensor embedded within the substrate support structure body and surrounded by the ceramic (heater 53A is embedded within support pedestal 111) [Fig. 2 & 0028-0029].
Thakur does not specifically disclose a substrate support structure body formed from a ceramic composite, and wherein the ceramic composite comprises two or more constituents selected from a group comprising (a) an aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent, (b) an aluminum oxynitride (Al2.81O3.56N0.44, AlON) constituents, (c) an alpha-alumina (a-Al2O3) constituent, (d) a yttrium alumina garnet (Y3Al5O12, YAG) constituent, (e) a yttrium alumina monoclinic (Y4Al2O9 YAM) constituent, and (f) a yttrium alumina perovskite (YAlO3, YAP) constituent.
Lubomirsky teaches a substrate support structure body formed from a ceramic composite (first protective layer 222 may be composed of a plasma resistant ceramic material), and wherein the ceramic composite comprises two or more constituents selected from a group comprising (a) an aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent, (b) an aluminum oxynitride (Al2.81O3.56N0.44, AlON) constituents, (c) an alpha-alumina (a-Al2O3) constituent, (d) a yttrium alumina garnet (Y3Al5O12, YAG) constituent, (e) a yttrium alumina monoclinic (Y4Al2O9 YAM) constituent, and (f) a yttrium alumina perovskite (YAlO3, YAP) constituent (AlN and YAM are possible materials for first protective layer 222. It's also disclosed that the material of first protective layer 222 can be suitably chosen for its resistance to fluorine or chlorine processing environments) [Fig. 2 & 0062-0065, 0071, 0081-0082].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate support structure body of Thakur to be comprised of a ceramic composite, as in Lubomirsky, because Lubomirsky establishes that ceramic composites (such as those comprised of YAG and yttrium oxide) are suitable plasma resistant materials for a substrate support structure [Lubomirsky - 0062-0065]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Regarding Claim 2:
Modified Thakur does not specifically disclose wherein the ceramic composite is formed from sintered powder at a sintering temperature between about 1500 °C and about 1750 °C, wherein the powder is formed by intermixing two or more constituent powders, wherein each of the two or more constituent powders consists of a respective constituent of the two or more constituents.
However, Morita discloses that forming ceramic composites from powders and sintering them between 1500 °C and about 1750 °C is a well-known technique in the art [Fig. 1 & 0035, 0042-0044]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the ceramic composite of modified Thakur using the claimed process, as in Morita, since it would merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143 I. D.).
Regarding Claim 8:
Thakur does not specifically disclose wherein the ceramic composite consists essentially of the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent, the yttrium alumina monoclinic (Y4A12O9, YAM) constituent, and the yttrium alumina perovskite (YAlO3, YAP) constituent.
Lubomirsky teaches wherein the ceramic composite consists essentially of the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent, an yttrium alumina monoclinic (Y4Al2O9, YAM) constituent, and an yttrium oxide (Y2O3) constituent (AlN, YAM, and YAP are possible materials for first protective layer 222. It's also disclosed that the material of first protective layer 222 can be suitably chosen for its resistance to fluorine or chlorine processing environments) [Fig. 2 & 0062-0065, 0071, 0081-0082].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate support structure body of Thakur to be comprised of a ceramic composite, as in Lubomirsky, because Lubomirsky establishes that ceramic composites are suitable plasma resistant materials for a substrate support structure [Lubomirsky - 0062-0065]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. It's also noted that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pedestal 111 of Thakur to be made of any combination of the materials listed for the protective layer 222 of Lubomirsky because the materials listed are all suitable materials for a substrate support structure [Fig. 2 & 0062-0065, 0071, 0081-0082].
Regarding Claim 11:
Thakur does not specifically disclose wherein the ceramic composite consists essentially of the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent, the yttrium alumina garnet (Y3AlO12, YAG) constituent, and the yttrium alumina perovskite (YAlO3, YAP) constituent.
Lubomirsky teaches wherein the ceramic composite consists essentially of the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent, an yttrium alumina monoclinic (Y4Al2O9, YAM) constituent, and an yttrium oxide (Y2O3) constituent (AlN, YAG, and YAP are possible materials for first protective layer 222. It's also disclosed that the material of first protective layer 222 can be suitably chosen for its resistance to fluorine or chlorine processing environments) [Fig. 2 & 0062-0065, 0071, 0081-0082].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate support structure body of Thakur to be comprised of a ceramic composite, as in Lubomirsky, because Lubomirsky establishes that ceramic composites are suitable plasma resistant materials for a substrate support structure [Lubomirsky - 0062-0065]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. It's also noted that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pedestal 111 of Thakur to be made of any combination of the materials listed for the protective layer 222 of Lubomirsky because the materials listed are all suitable materials for a substrate support structure [Fig. 2 & 0062-0065, 0071, 0081-0082].
Regarding Claim 17:
Thakur does not specifically disclose wherein the ceramic composite consists essentially of the aluminum oxynitride (A12.8103.56No.44, AlON) constituent and the yttrium alumina garnet (Y3AlO12, YAG) constituent.
Lubomirsky teaches wherein the ceramic composite consists essentially of the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent, an yttrium alumina monoclinic (Y4Al2O9, YAM) constituent, and an yttrium oxide (Y2O3) constituent (aluminum oxynitride and YAG are possible materials for first protective layer 222. It's also disclosed that the material of first protective layer 222 can be suitably chosen for its resistance to fluorine or chlorine processing environments) [Fig. 2 & 0062-0065, 0071, 0081-0082].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate support structure body of Thakur to be comprised of a ceramic composite, as in Lubomirsky, because Lubomirsky establishes that ceramic composites are suitable plasma resistant materials for a substrate support structure [Lubomirsky - 0062-0065]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. It's also noted that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pedestal 111 of Thakur to be made of any combination of the materials listed for the protective layer 222 of Lubomirsky because the materials listed are all suitable materials for a substrate support structure [Fig. 2 & 0062-0065, 0071, 0081-0082].
Regarding Claim 21:
Thakur teaches wherein the heater element, the coolant circuit, and the temperature sensor are embedded within the substrate support structure body and surrounded by the ceramic composite (heater 53A is embedded within support pedestal 111) [Fig. 2 & 0028-0029].
Regarding Claim 22:
Thakur teaches a gas delivery system (process gas source 530); a reaction chamber (chamber body 105) connected to the gas delivery system; and a showerhead (showerhead 130) and a substrate support structure as recited in claim 1 supported within the reaction chamber, wherein the showerhead fluidly couples the gas delivery system to the substrate support structure (the process gas source is fluidly connected to showerhead 130) [Fig. 1, 2, 5 & 0025, 0027].
Regarding Claim 27:
Thakur does not specifically disclose wherein the ceramic composite forms more than 70% of the substrate support structure body by volume.
Lubomirsky teaches a substrate support structure body formed from a ceramic composite (first protective layer 222 may be composed of a plasma resistant ceramic material) [Lubomirsky - 0062-0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate support structure body of Thakur to be comprised of a ceramic composite, as in Lubomirsky, because Lubomirsky establishes that ceramic composites (such as those comprised of YAG and yttrium oxide) are suitable plasma resistant materials for a substrate support structure [Lubomirsky - 0062-0065]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. It is noted that modifying the pedestal 111 of Thakur to comprise of a ceramic composite would result in the ceramic composite forming all of the pedestal 111.
Regarding Claim 28:
Modified Thakur does not specifically disclose wherein the ceramic composite is formed of a sintered powder, wherein the powder comprises particles such that Dso of the powder is less than about 2 microns, wherein the powder is formed by intermixing two or more constituent powders, wherein each of the two or more constituent powders consists of a respective constituent of the two or more constituents.
However, Morita discloses that forming ceramic composites from powders with particles less than about 2 microns [Fig. 1 & 0035, 0042-0044]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the ceramic composite of modified Thakur using the claimed process, as in Morita, since it would merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143 I. D.).
Regarding Claim 29:
Modified Thakur does not specifically disclose wherein the ceramic composite was formed with a sintering temperature greater than 1550 °C, wherein the powder is formed by intermixing two or more constituent powders, wherein each of the two or more constituent powders consists of a respective constituent of the two or more constituents.
However, Morita discloses that forming ceramic composites from powders and sintering them between 1500 °C and about 1750 °C is a well-known technique in the art [Fig. 1 & 0035, 0042-0044]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the ceramic composite of modified Thakur using the claimed process, as in Morita, since it would merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143 I. D.).
Regarding Claim 31:
Thakur does not specifically disclose wherein the ceramic composite extends monolithically between the upper surface, the lower surface and the periphery of the substrate support structure body.
Lubomirsky teaches a substrate support structure body formed from a ceramic composite (first protective layer 222 may be composed of a plasma resistant ceramic material) [Fig. 2 & 0062-0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate support structure body of Thakur to be comprised of a ceramic composite, as in Lubomirsky, because Lubomirsky establishes that ceramic composites (such as those comprised of YAG and yttrium oxide) are suitable plasma resistant materials for a substrate support structure [Lubomirsky - 0062-0065]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. It is noted that modifying the support of Thakur to comprise of the materials of Lubomirsky would result "wherein the ceramic composite extends monolithically between the upper surface, the lower surface and the periphery of the substrate support structure body," since the body of the support of Thakur would then me comprised entirely of the listed materials.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur et al. (US 20030172872) in view of Lubomirsky et al. (US 20200185203).
Regarding Claim 5:
Thakur teaches a substrate support structure (support pedestal 111) for semiconductor processing system, comprising: an outer surface (outer surface of pedestal 111), a substrate support structure body formed from a ceramic (the support pedestal 111 may be formed of a ceramic), the body having: an upper surface (upper surface of pedestal 111) defining a first portion of the outer surface of the substrate support structure; a lower surface (lower surface of pedestal 111) spaced apart from the upper surface and defining a second portion of the outer surface of the substrate support structure; a periphery spanning the upper surface and the lower surface of the substrate support structure body, wherein the ceramic extends contiguously between the upper surface, the lower surface and the periphery of the substrate support structure body (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the pedestal 111 comprises upper, lower, and peripheral surfaces, wherein the upper and lower surfaces are spaced apart from each other); and at least one of a heater element (heater 53A), a coolant circuit, and a temperature sensor embedded within the substrate support structure body and surrounded by the ceramic (heater 53A is embedded within support pedestal 111) [Fig. 2 & 0028-0029].
Thakur does not specifically disclose wherein the ceramic composite consists essentially of the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent, an yttrium alumina monoclinic (Y4Al2O9, YAM) constituent, and an yttrium oxide (Y2O3) constituent.
Lubomirsky teaches wherein the ceramic composite consists essentially of the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent, an yttrium alumina monoclinic (Y4Al2O9, YAM) constituent, and an yttrium oxide (Y2O3) constituent (AlN, YAM, and yttrium oxide are possible materials for first protective layer 222. It's also disclosed that the material of first protective layer 222 can be suitably chosen for its resistance to fluorine or chlorine processing environments) [Fig. 2 & 0062-0065, 0071, 0081-0082].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate support structure body of Thakur to be comprised of a ceramic composite, as in Lubomirsky, because Lubomirsky establishes that ceramic composites are suitable plasma resistant materials for a substrate support structure [Lubomirsky - 0062-0065]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07]. It's also noted that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pedestal 111 of Thakur to be made of any combination of the materials listed for the protective layer 222 of Lubomirsky because the materials listed are all suitable materials for a substrate support structure [Fig. 2 & 0062-0065, 0071, 0081-0082].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur et al. (US 20030172872) in view of Lubomirsky et al. (US 20200185203) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Teratani et al. (US 20060217259).
The limitations of claim 5 has been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Thakur does not specifically disclose wherein the ceramic composite includes more the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent than the yttrium alumina monoclinic (Y4A12O9, YAM) constituent. Although Teratani does not specifically disclose "wherein the ceramic composite includes more the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent than the yttrium alumina monoclinic (Y4A12O9, YAM) constituent," Teratani does disclose that AlN and Y2O3 percentages are a result effective variable. Specifically, the composition of an AlN sintered body (comprising yttrium oxide and AlN) can be adjusted to obtain desired physical characteristics [Teratani - 0037]. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to find an optimum weight/volume percent for AlN and Y2O3 in the sintered body of Modified Thakur to obtain desired physical characteristics [Teratani - 0037]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur et al. (US 20030172872) in view of Lubomirsky et al. (US 20200185203) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Morita et al. (US 20020012791).
The limitations of claim 5 has been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 30:
Modified Thakur does not specifically disclose wherein the ceramic composite was formed with a sintering temperature greater than 1550 °C, wherein the powder is formed by intermixing two or more constituent powders, wherein each of the two or more constituent powders consists of a respective constituent of the two or more constituents.
However, Morita discloses that forming ceramic composites from powders and sintering them between 1500 °C and about 1750 °C is a well-known technique in the art [Fig. 1 & 0035, 0042-0044]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the ceramic composite of modified Thakur using the claimed process, as in Morita, since it would merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143 I. D.).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur et al. (US 20030172872) in view of Lubomirsky et al. (US 20200185203), as applied to claims 1-2, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, 27-29, and 31 above, and further in view of Bewlay et al. (US 20090050286).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, 27-29, and 31 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 9:
Modified Thakur does not specifically disclose wherein the ceramic composite includes more of the yttrium alumina perovskite (YAlO3, YAP) constituent than the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent.
Although Bewlay does not specifically disclose "wherein the ceramic composite includes more of the yttrium alumina garnet (Y3A15O12, YAG) constituent than the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent, wherein the ceramic composite includes more of the yttrium alumina garnet (Y3AlO12, YAG) constituent than the yttrium alumina perovskite (YAlO3, YAP) constituent," Bewlay does disclose that YAM, YAP, YAG compositions are result effective variables. Specifically, that YAM amount in a ceramic can be adjusted to affect hardness and strength, and YAP and YAG content affect leachability [Bewlay - 0041-0042, 0046]. As such, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to find an optimum composition for the AlN sintered body of Modified Thakur to obtain a desired thermal conductivity. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Teratani et al. (US 20060217259) also discloses that the Yttrium composition of an AlN sintered body can be adjusted to obtain certain physical characteristics [Teratani - 0037].
Claim(s) 12, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur et al. (US 20030172872) in view of Lubomirsky et al. (US 20200185203) and Morita et al. (US 20020012791), as applied to claims 1-2, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, 27-29, and 31 above, and further in view of Komatsu et al. (US 20070161495).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, 27-29, and 31 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Thakur does not specifically disclose wherein the ceramic composite includes more of the yttrium alumina garnet (Y3A15O12, YAG) constituent than the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent, wherein the ceramic composite includes more of the yttrium alumina garnet (Y3AlO12, YAG) constituent than the yttrium alumina perovskite (YAlO3, YAP) constituent.
Although Komatsu does not specifically disclose "wherein the ceramic composite includes more of the yttrium alumina garnet (Y3A15O12, YAG) constituent than the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent, wherein the ceramic composite includes more of the yttrium alumina garnet (Y3AlO12, YAG) constituent than the yttrium alumina perovskite (YAlO3, YAP) constituent," Komatsu does disclose that YAM, YAL, YAG percentages are a result effective variable. Specifically, that the content or intensity of YAG, YAL, or YAM in an AlN sintered body affects the thermal conductivity of the sintered body [Komatsu - 0017-0018, 0056]. As such, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to find an optimum composition for the AlN sintered body of Modified Thakur to obtain a desired thermal conductivity. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 15:
Lubomirsky discloses that AlN, YAG, and aluminum oxynitride are possible materials for first protective layer 222. It's also disclosed that the material of first protective layer 222 can be suitably chosen for its resistance to fluorine or chlorine processing environments. As such, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the protective layer 222 of Lubomirsky to be made of any combination of the materials listed, because the materials listed are all suitable materials for a protective layer [Fig. 2 & 0062-0065, 0081-0082]. It’s also noted that first protective layer 222 may be composed of any ceramic material disclosed herein [Fig. 2 - 0071].
Modified Thakur does not specifically disclose wherein the ceramic composite includes more of the aluminum oxynitride (A12.8103.56No.44, AlON) constituent than the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent and the yttrium alumina garnet (Y3A15012, YAG) constituent.
Although Komatsu does not specifically disclose "wherein the ceramic composite includes between about 25% and about 30% of the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent, between about 55% and about 60% of the aluminum oxynitride (A12.8103.56No.44, AlON) constituent, and between about 10% and about 20% of the yttrium alumina garnet (Y3AlO12, YAG) constituent," Komatsu does disclose that YAM, YAL, YAG percentages are a result effective variable. Specifically, that the content or intensity of YAG, YAL, or YAM in an AlN sintered body affects the thermal conductivity of the sintered body [Komatsu - 0017-0018, 0056]. As such, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to find an optimum composition for the AlN sintered body of Modified Thakur to obtain a desired thermal conductivity. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 18:
Lubomirsky does not specifically disclose wherein the ceramic composite includes more the aluminum oxynitride (A12.8103.56No.44, AlON) constituent than the yttrium alumina garnet (Y3A15012, YAG) constituent.
Although Komatsu does not specifically disclose "wherein the ceramic composite includes more the aluminum oxynitride (A12.8103.56No.44, AlON) constituent than the yttrium alumina garnet (Y3A15012, YAG) constituent," Komatsu does disclose that YAM, YAL, YAG percentages are a result effective variable. Specifically, that the content or intensity of YAG, YAL, or YAM in an AlN sintered body affects the thermal conductivity of the sintered body [Komatsu - 0017-0018, 0056]. As such, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to find an optimum composition for the AlN sintered body of Modified Thakur to obtain a desired thermal conductivity. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It is noted that Lubomirsky discloses that a combination of AlN, AlON, and YAG is a possible material for first protective layer 222, and that the layer may be formed via sintering [Fig. 2 & 0062-0066, 0081-0082].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur et al. (US 20030172872) in view of Lubomirsky et al. (US 20200185203) and Morita et al. (US 20020012791), as applied to claims 1-2, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, 27-29, and 31 above, and further in view of Fukuyama et al. (US 20030176001).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, 27-29, and 31 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 14:
Modified Thakur discloses wherein the ceramic composite consists essentially of the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent, an yttrium alumina monoclinic (Y4Al2O9, YAM) constituent, and an yttrium oxide (Y2O3) constituent (aluminum oxynitride, among other materials, is a possible material for first protective layer 222. It's also disclosed that the material of first protective layer 222 can be suitably chosen for its resistance to fluorine or chlorine processing environments; it's also noted that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pedestal 111 of Thakur to be made of any combination of the materials listed for the protective layer 222 of Lubomirsky because the materials listed are all suitable materials for a substrate support structure) [Lubomirsky - Fig. 2 & 0062-0065, 0071, 0081-0082].
Modified Thakur does not specifically disclose wherein the aluminum oxynitride constituent is a γ-spinel crystalline structure.
Fukuyama teaches wherein the aluminum oxynitride constituent is a γ-spinel crystalline structure (the aluminum oxynitride constituent disclosed in Fig. 2 is a gamma phase structure and has an inverse spinel structure) [Fig. 2 & 0038].
It would be obvious to modify the AlON constituent of Modified Thakur to be a gamma spinel crystalline structure, as in Fukuyama, since the AlON structure of Fukuyama provides high chemical stability and high corrosion resistance [Fukuyama - 0038].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur et al. (US 20030172872) in view of Lubomirsky et al. (US 20200185203) and Morita et al. (US 20020012791), as applied to claims 1-2, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, 27-29, and 31 above, and further in view of Cozzan et al. (US 20190264100).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, 27-29, and 31 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 20:
Modified Thakur teaches wherein the ceramic composite consists essentially of the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent, an yttrium alumina monoclinic (Y4Al2O9, YAM) constituent, and an yttrium oxide (Y2O3) constituent (aluminum oxynitride and YAG are possible materials for first protective layer 222. It's also disclosed that the material of first protective layer 222 can be suitably chosen for its resistance to fluorine or chlorine processing environments; it's also noted that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pedestal 111 of Thakur to be made of any combination of the materials listed for the protective layer 222 of Lubomirsky because the materials listed are all suitable materials for a substrate support structure) [Lubomirsky - Fig. 2 & 0062-0065, 0071, 0081-0082].
Modified Thakur does not specifically disclose the alpha- alumina (alpha-alumina (a-A12O3) constituent.
Cozzan teaches that adding alpha-alumina to a composite with YAG may help with thermal stability and better heat dissipation [Fig. 2a-2c & 0080].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the support of Modified Thakur to include alpha-alumina, as in Cozzan, to improve heat dissipation and thermal stability [Cozzan - Fig. 2a-2c & 0080].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim.
Regarding Claim 7:
Prior art of record whether alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest specific
claim limitations “wherein the ceramic composite includes between about 25% and about 40% of the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent, between about 20% and about 30% of the yttrium alumina monoclinic (Y4A12O9, YAM) constituent, and between about 30% and about 55% of the yttrium oxide (Y2O3) constituent,” in the context of other limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claim 10:
Prior art of record whether alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest specific
claim limitations “wherein the ceramic composite includes between about 15% and about 35% the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent, between about 40% and about 50% of the yttrium alumina garnet (Y3AlO12, YAG) constituent, and between about 20% and about 40% of the yttrium alumina perovskite (YAlO3, YAP) constituent,” in the context of other limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claim 13:
Prior art of record whether alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest specific
claim limitations “wherein the ceramic composite includes between about 15% and about 30% of the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent, between about 15% and about 45% of the yttrium alumina monoclinic (Y4A1209, YAM) constituent, and between about 30% and about 70% of the yttrium alumina perovskite (YAlO3, YAP) constituent,” in the context of other limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claim 16:
Prior art of record whether alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest specific
claim limitations “wherein the ceramic composite consists essentially of the aluminum nitride (AlN) constituent, the aluminum oxynitride (Al2 8103 s6No 44, AlON) constituent, and the yttrium alumina garnet (Y3AlsOi2, YAG)constituent, wherein the ceramic composite includes between about 25% and about 30% of the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent, between about 55% and about 60% of the aluminum oxynitride (A12.8103.56No.44, AlON) constituent, and between about 10% and about 20% of the yttrium alumina garnet (Y3AlO12, YAG) constituent,” in the context of other limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claim 19:
Prior art of record whether alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest specific
claim limitations “wherein the ceramic composite includes between about 60% and about 95% of the aluminum oxynitride (A12.8103.56No.44, AlON) constituent and between about 5% and about 40% of the yttrium alumina garnet (Y3A15012, YAG) constituent,” in the context of other limitations of the claim
The examiner considers Thakur et al. (US 20030172872) in view of Lubomirsky et al. (US 20200185203), Teratani et al. (US 20060217259), Bewlay et al. (US 20090050286), and Komatsu et al. (US 20070161495) as the closest prior art of record.
Although Teratani, Bewlay, and Komatsu disclose result effective variables for the amount of specific compounds, none of the cited references disclose all of the cited compounds in a single body. For example, Teratani discloses that AlN and Y2O3 percentages are result effective variables, but Teratani does not disclose YAM in its sintered body nor does it disclose a result effective variable for YAM. As such, the examiner considers it too distant from the Teratani’s disclosure to assume that adjusting Y2O3 and AlN percentages would necessarily adjust YAM percentage; the examiner has been unable to find a single reference teaching a ceramic body comprising essentially of the claimed compounds with either the claimed percentages or result effective variable disclosures for the individual compounds as claimed.
Furthermore, the examiner believes the result effective rationale is reasonable to disclose if a particular compound is at a higher percentage relative to another compounds, but does not believe it to be reasonable to use that rationale for the specific percent compositions as claimed.
The applicant is asked to consider possible indefiniteness issues within the claims if the objected claims are written in independent form. The examiner considers the allowable features to be the percentage compositions listed. For example, if the limitations of both claims 6 and 7 are brought into claim 5, it would create a conflict since claim 7 recites “wherein the ceramic composite includes between about 25% and about 40% of the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent, between about 20% and about 30% of the yttrium alumina monoclinic (Y4A12O9, YAM) constituent,” as in the claim limitation would include an embodiment wherein the ceramic composite would include more YAM than AlN despite claim 6 reciting “wherein the ceramic composite includes more the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent than the yttrium alumina monoclinic (Y4A12O9, YAM) constituent.”
The applicant is also asked to consider that claims 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 comprise mutually exclusive structures, and as such, would require different independent claims. Furthermore, each claim limitation if brought into independent form requires all the limitations of any claims that they depend upon. For example, if the limitations of claim 10 were to be brought up into claim 1, the limitations of claim 8 would be required in the amended claim 1 as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/04/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/04/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, 20-22, and 27-31 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the combination of references does not disclose the claim limitations because the references do not specifically disclose a ceramic “composite.” The examiner disagrees because the applicant has not provided information from their disclosure or another reference that specifically identifies knowledge to one of ordinary skill in the art that would give a composite the specific, narrow definition as argued by the applicant. The limitations are construed in light of the disclosure to define a composite as a body comprising two or more constituents. As such, the examiner believes it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to consider a ceramic body comprising at least two different constituents as a ceramic composite.
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 JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights