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
Claims 1-22, 24, and 27-29 are pending
Claims 24 has been withdrawn
Claims 1, 2, and 21 have been amended
Claims 27-29 have been added
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/16/2026 has been entered.
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, 5, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, and 27-29 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), with Morita et al. (US 20020012791), Nakahara et al. (US 6383964), Kobayashi et al. (US 20050013761, Nakahara et al. (US 20080283499), and Nishida et al. (US 5296421).
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, (f) a yttrium alumina perovskite (YAlO3, YAP) constituent, and (g) a yttrium oxide (Y2O3) 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, (f) a yttrium alumina perovskite (YAlO3, YAP) constituent, and (g) a yttrium oxide (Y2O3) constituent (first protective layer may be composed of YAG and a yttrium oxide containing solid solution) [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].
Regarding Claim 2:
Claim 2 is written as a product by process claim, and in product by process claims, 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) (See MPEP 2113 I). The product, as currently claimed, is merely a ceramic composite comprising at least two of the listed materials; the examiner has shown that the product as claimed has been disclosed by the prior art (see the rejection of claim 1). As such, the combination of references would read upon the limitations of the product by process claims.
Morita et al. (US 20020012791), Nakahara et al. (US 6383964), and Kobayashi et al. (US 20050013761) also disclose that sintering powders to form ceramic composites at temperatures between 1500 degrees Celsius and 1750 degrees Celsius is a well-known technique in the art [Morita - 0042-0044; Nakahara - Col. 9 lines 52-62, Col. 12 lines 7-35; Kobayashi - 0058].
Regarding Claim 5:
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].
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:
Claim 2 is written as a product by process claim, and in product by process claims, 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) (See MPEP 2113 I). The product, as currently claimed, is merely a ceramic composite comprising at least two of the listed materials; the examiner has shown that the product as claimed has been disclosed by the prior art (see the rejection of claim 1). As such, the combination of references would read upon the limitations of the product by process claims.
Morita et al. (US 20020012791), Nakahara et al. (US 20080283499) and Nishida et al. (US 5296421) also disclose powders with particle sizes of less than about 2 micrometers [Morita - 0035; Nakahara - 0046; Nishida - Col. 3 lines 53-61].
Regarding Claim 29:
Claim 29 is written as a product by process claim, and in product by process claims, 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) (See MPEP 2113 I). The product, as currently claimed, is merely a ceramic composite comprising at least two of the listed materials; the examiner has shown that the product as claimed has been disclosed by the prior art (see the rejection of claim 1). As such, the combination of references would read upon the limitations of the product by process claims.
Morita et al. (US 20020012791), Nakahara et al. (US 6383964), and Kobayashi et al. (US 20050013761) also disclose that sintering powders to form ceramic composites at temperatures between 1500 degrees Celsius and 1750 degrees Celsius is a well-known technique in the art [Morita - 0042-0044; Nakahara - Col. 9 lines 52-62, Col. 12 lines 7-35; Kobayashi - 0058].
Claim(s) 3-4 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), with Morita et al. (US 20020012791), Nakahara et al. (US 6383964), Kobayashi et al. (US 20050013761, Nakahara et al. (US 20080283499), and Nishida et al. (US 5296421) as evidentiary references, as applied to claim 1-2, 5, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, and 27-29 above, and further in view of Ootsuka et al. (US 20030071260).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, and 27-29 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Thakur teaches wherein the ceramic composite consists essentially of the aluminum nitride (AlN) constituent and the yttrium oxide (Y2O3) constituent (AlN 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; 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 ceramic composite includes more of the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent than the yttrium oxide (Y2O3) constituent.
Ootsuka teaches wherein the ceramic composite includes more of the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent than the yttrium oxide (Y2O3) constituent (the aluminum nitride content is 50 wt % or greater, while the yttrium oxide content may be less than 50 wt %) [Fig. 1, 2 & 0062-0063, 0070].
It would be obvious to modify the content of the AlN and yttrium oxide of the protective layer of Modified Thakur to be 65% and 35% (thereby having more AlN than yttrium oxide), respectively, as in Ootsuka, since in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Thakur teaches wherein the ceramic composite consists essentially of the aluminum nitride (AlN) constituent and the yttrium oxide (Y2O3) constituent (AlN 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; 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].
Modified Thakur does not specifically disclose wherein the ceramic composite includes between about 35% and about 65% the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent.
Ootsuka teaches wherein the ceramic composite includes between about 35% and about 65% the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent (the aluminum nitride content is 50 wt. % or greater, while the yttrium oxide content may be less than 50 wt. %) [Fig. 1, 2 & 0062-0063, 0070].
It would be obvious to modify the content of the AlN and yttrium oxide of the protective layer of Modified Thakur to be 65% and 35% (thereby having more AlN than yttrium oxide), respectively, as in Ootsuka, since in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 6-7 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), with Morita et al. (US 20020012791), Nakahara et al. (US 6383964), Kobayashi et al. (US 20050013761, Nakahara et al. (US 20080283499), and Nishida et al. (US 5296421) as evidentiary references, as applied to claim 1-2, 5, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, and 27-29 above, and further in view of Teratani et al. (US 20060217259).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, and 27-29 have 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.
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Thakur does not specifically disclose 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.
Although Teratani does not specifically disclose "wherein the ceramic composite includes between about 25% and about 40% of the aluminum nitride (AIN) constituent, and between about 30% and about 55% of the yttrium oxide (Y2O3) 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) 9-10 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), with Morita et al. (US 20020012791), Nakahara et al. (US 6383964), Kobayashi et al. (US 20050013761, Nakahara et al. (US 20080283499), and Nishida et al. (US 5296421) as evidentiary references, as applied to claim 1-2, 5, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, and 27-29 above, and further in view of Bewlay et al. (US 20090050286).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, and 27-29 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].
Regarding Claim 10:
Modified Thakur does not specifically disclose 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.
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) 12-13, 15-16, and 18-19 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), with Morita et al. (US 20020012791), Nakahara et al. (US 6383964), Kobayashi et al. (US 20050013761, Nakahara et al. (US 20080283499), and Nishida et al. (US 5296421) as evidentiary references, as applied to claim 1-2, 5, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, and 27-29 above, and further in view of Komatsu et al. (US 20070161495), with Bewlay et al. (US 20090050286) and Teratani et al. (US 20060217259) as further evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, and 27-29 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. 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]. Bewlay et al. (US 20090050286) also discloses 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].
Regarding Claim 13:
Modified Thakur does not specifically disclose 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.
Although Komatsu does not specifically disclose "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," 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. 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]. Bewlay et al. (US 20090050286) also discloses 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].
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. 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]. Bewlay et al. (US 20090050286) also discloses 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].
Regarding Claim 16:
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 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.
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. 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]. Bewlay et al. (US 20090050286) also discloses 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].
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. 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]. Bewlay et al. (US 20090050286) also discloses 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]. 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].
Regarding Claim 19:
Lubomirsky does not specifically disclose 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.
Although Komatsu does not specifically disclose "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," 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. 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]. Bewlay et al. (US 20090050286) also discloses 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]. 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), with Morita et al. (US 20020012791), Nakahara et al. (US 6383964), Kobayashi et al. (US 20050013761, Nakahara et al. (US 20080283499), and Nishida et al. (US 5296421) as evidentiary references, as applied to claim 1-2, 5, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, and 27-29 above, and further in view of Fukuyama et al. (US 20030176001).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, and 27-29 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), with Morita et al. (US 20020012791), Nakahara et al. (US 6383964), Kobayashi et al. (US 20050013761, Nakahara et al. (US 20080283499), and Nishida et al. (US 5296421) as evidentiary references, as applied to claim 1-2, 5, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, and 27-29 above, and further in view of Cozzan et al. (US 20190264100).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5, 8, 11, 17, 21-22, and 27-29 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].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-22 and 27-29 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “an outer surface: a substrate support structure body formed from a ceramic composite, the body having: an upper surface defining a first portion of the outer surface of the substrate support structure; a lower surface 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 composite extends contiguously between the upper surface, the lower surface and the periphery of the substrate support structure body.” This argument has been fully considered but is moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Thakur et al. (US 20030172872) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “wherein the ceramic composite is formed from sintered powder at a sintering temperature between about 1500 degrees C and about 1750 degrees C, 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 ceramic composite was formed with a sintering temperature greater than 1550 °C.”
In response, the examiner to note that these limitations are product by process claims, and in product by process claims, 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) (See MPEP 2113 I). The product, as currently claimed, is merely a ceramic composite comprising at least two of the listed materials; the examiner has shown that the product as claimed has been disclosed by the prior art (see the rejection of claim 1). As such, the combination of references would read upon the limitations of the product by process claims.
Morita et al. (US 20020012791), Nakahara et al. (US 6383964), and Kobayashi et al. (US 20050013761) also disclose that sintering powders to form ceramic composites at temperatures between 1500 degrees Celsius and 1750 degrees Celsius is a well-known technique in the art [Morita - 0042-0044; Nakahara - Col. 9 lines 52-62, Col. 12 lines 7-35; Kobayashi - 0058]. Morita et al. (US 20020012791), Nakahara et al. (US 20080283499) and Nishida et al. (US 5296421) also disclose powders with particle sizes of less than about 2 micrometers [Morita - 0035; Nakahara - 0046; Nishida - Col. 3 lines 53-61].
Conclusion
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
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights