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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 11/24/2025.
4. Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 16-23 are currently pending.
5. Claims 9-12 and 16-18 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 2016/0362795).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 6-7:
Lee teaches a component (110/120) for use in a plasma processing chamber [fig 4 & 0068], comprising: a component body (110) with a plasma facing surface [fig 4 & 0068]; and a coating (120) over the plasma facing surface [fig 4 & 0068].
The claim limitations “wherein the coating is formed by a method comprising aerosol deposition spraying a surface of the component body with a spray formed from atomic layer deposition (ALD) coated particles to form the coating” are merely product-by process limitations. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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)
Furthermore, the limitations of claims 2-4 and 6-7 are directed to a structure defined by the process. The ALD coated particles are not a structural aspect of the component.
Regarding claim 8:
Lee teaches a component (110/120) for use in a plasma processing chamber [fig 4 & 0068], comprising: a component body (110) with a plasma facing surface [fig 4 & 0068]; and a coating (120) on the plasma facing surface [fig 4 & 0068], wherein the coating (120) comprises at least one of a metal oxide, a metal fluoride, and metal oxyfluoride (see materials of 0087), and wherein the coating comprises a matrix of a first material (121) of a metal oxide or silicon oxide (see materials of 0087) with particles of a second material (122) of a metal oxide or silicon oxide, wherein either the first material is different than the second material or a phase of the first material is different than a phase of the second material (see materials of 0087) [fig 4 & 0068, 0087].
Regarding claim 19:
Lee teaches the coating (120) is formed by solid unmelted material with nanograins [fig 4-5 & 0059, 0068].
Regarding claims 20-21:
Lee teaches the coating (120) is formed by a skeleton (121) surrounding particle cores (122) [fig 4 & 0068]; and wherein the skeleton (121) comprises alumina (see materials of 0087) [fig 4 & 0068, 0087].
Regarding claim 22:
Lee teaches the matrix (121) comprises at least one of a metal oxide, a metal fluoride, and metal oxyfluoride (see materials of 0087) [fig 4 & 0068, 0087].
Regarding claim 23:
Lee teaches the matrix (121) comprises at least one of silicon and aluminum (see materials of 0087) [fig 4 & 0068, 0087].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2016/0362795) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 19-23 above, and further in view of Ameen et al (US 2014/0099491).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 19-23 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 7:
Lee teaches the first ceramic particles 121 and the second ceramic particles 122 may include one element [fig 4 & 0087].
It is the examiner’s position that the component coating is NOT necessarily limited to a component coating with different phases by using the claimed ALD coated particles of claim 7. The structure of the component coating is NOT claimed.
Nevertheless, Ameen teaches a component coating with different phases [fig 1 & 0019].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coating of Lee to comprise different phase structures, as in Ameen, to improve resistance to degradation upon exposure to plasma [Ameen – 0019].
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/24/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 19-23 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claim(s) 7 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the product of Lee is different from the product recited in claim 1 is different from the product disclosed in Lee because it is formed by a different process.
In response, it is noted that this is a process claim and must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 292-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The claim recites an ALD method with a high degree of generality and applicant fails to establish that such a generic method necessarily results in a structural difference in the product. 0049-0050 of Lee are comparative examples. Applicant makes an unsubstantiated statement that process of Lee is not able to provide a uniform coating with a set mixture ratio and low porosity. In fact, the product of Lee is identical to the claimed product [see fig 4 of Lee vs fig 5 of the instant application and has an extremely low porosity [Lee – 0008]. Applicant has failed to present any evidence sufficient to establish a difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
If applicant believes the product to be structurally different, examiner suggests claiming the structural differences. However, if applicant wishes to claim a method of production, applicant ought to pursue claims directed to a method.
Regarding claim 7, it is noted that the structure of a raw material to be used to form the product in no way structurally limits the product itself. Additionally, the process does NOT structurally define the product.
Regarding claim 8, it is noted that figure 4 clearly depicts a matrix/skeleton. The fact that the written specification fails to use the same terms, does not change the fact that it is disclosed.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kear et al (US 6,723,387) teaches a coating comprised of different phases [fig 3]. Yasuda et al (US 6,194,083), Seok et al (US 2016/0351376), and Zhan et al (US 2019/0127280) teach a coating comprising a matrix of a first material with particles of a second material [fig 3, 4, and 2, respectively].
12. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896