RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Request for 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/01/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 9-13 are pending in the application. Amendments to the claims filed on 12/01/2025 have been entered in the above-identified application.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of the claims made of record in the office action mailed on 08/25/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 12/01/2025.
REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ibe et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,196,729).
Regarding claim 1, Ibe et al. discloses a slurry for thermal spraying which includes spray particles in a dispersion medium (i.e. a solvent). (Abstract). Ibe et al. discloses that the content of particles in the slurry is 85% mass or less. (col. 13, lines 29-37). Ibe et al. discloses that the slurry may include yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF) (col. 8, lines21-34) which can be blended with yttrium fluoride in an amount of 20% mass or less. (col. 3, lines 24-30 and col. 9, line 55 – col. 10, line 19). Ibe et al. discloses specific examples of compositions including 10% or more YF3 powder, 90% or less YOF powder in a water or ethanol dispersion in an amount of 30-50% relative to the solvent. (Table 1, col. 23-24). The ratio of YF3 to YOF is 1:9 or less which lies with the present claimed range and the content of spray powder to solvent is likewise within the present claim range. Since Ibe et al. discloses the ranges in specific examples, the ranges are disclosed with sufficient specificity as to anticipate the claimed ranges. (see MPEP 2131.03 I).
Regarding claim 3, Ibe et al. discloses particle sizes in the range of 1.2 to 4.4 micrometers. (Table 1).
Regarding claim 4, Ibe et al. discloses water and ethanol as solvents. (Table 1).
Regarding claim 9, Ibe et al. discloses forming a coating composition by plasma spraying the slurry. (col. 4, lines 1-10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibe et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,196,729) in view of Zhao (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2015/0126036).
Ibe et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above
Ibe et al. does not disclose the contents of yttrium, oxygen and fluorine by weight with respect to a total weight of all elements constituting the film.
Zhao teaches a plasma processing system for forming of a YxOyFz layer comprising Y in the range of 20-40%, O in the range of less than 50% and F in the range of less than 75% which includes spraying particles of YF3 and Y2O3. (par. [00038]-[0039]). Zhao teaches that the ratios of the O, F and Y are important for adjusting the etch rate drift rate and particle generation which are problems known during plasma processing (par. [0005]-[0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a coating composition having the relative amounts of Y, O and F in Ibe et al. as disclosed in Zhao.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to formulate a layer having amounts of Y, O and F as disclosed in Zhao since the reference explicitly teaches that the relative amounts are result effective for obtaining improved properties with respect to etch rate drift and particle generation which would be relevant to the plasma process disclosed in Ibe et al.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibe et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,196,729) in view of Takai et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2017/0029628).
Ibe et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above
Ibe et al. does not disclose the thickness of the coating composition formed using the yttrium-based powders.
Takai et al. teaches an yttrium-base sprayed coating composition including yttrium oxide, fluoride and oxyfluoride which has a thickness of 10 to 500 micrometers (Abstract), overlapping with the presently claimed range. Takai et al. teaches that the coating thickness in this range allowed for adjusting the corrosion resistance to be ideal, wherein less than 10 micrometers might be insufficient or cause exposing the substrate during a cleaning step and more than 500 micrometers only serves to add to the cost of the material without any real benefit to corrosion resistance. (par. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the coating thickness of the composition in Ibe et al. in the range of 10 to 500 micrometers as taught by Takai et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for the coating thickness to lie within the range disclosed in Takai et al. in order to provide sufficient protection from corrosion to a substrate material without making the coating excessively thick which would only increase the cost of production.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibe et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,196,729) in view of ‘795 (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2016/0362795)
Ibe et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above
Ibe et al. does not disclose the porosity of the coating film formed using the yttrium-based powders.
‘795 teaches a method of forming a ceramic coating composition having improved plasma resistance using yttrium-based powder material. (Abstract and par. [0039]). ‘795 teaches that the porosity of the coating composition should be in the range of 0.01 to 1.0%. (par. [0010]) which allows for preventing surface micro cracks and increased plasma resistance. (par. [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a coating composition having a porosity in the range of 0.01 to 1.0 in Ibe et al. based on the teachings of ‘795.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for the coating to have a porosity in the range disclosed in ‘795 for the purpose of improving the plasma resistance and preventing the presence of micro cracks on the surface of the coating, which might impair the structural integrity thereof.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibe et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,196,729) as evidenced by Seto et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2018/0230022).
Ibe et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above
Ibe et al. does not specifically disclose the crystal phases of the coating composition formed by the plasma spraying of particle material. However, the reference discloses that the coating composition includes YOF. (par. [0011]-[0014] and [0066]-[0069]). As evidenced in Seto et al., YOF has a rhombohedral crystal structure (par. [0004]). The coating composition of Ibe et al. would therefore include a rhombohedral crystal structure due to the presence of YOF.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 12/01/2025 regarding the prior art rejections of record have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 12/13/2025