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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 and 7-12 are amended in view of applicant’s response filed 10/27/2025. Claims 2-3 are canceled. Therefore, claims 1 and 4-18 are currently under examination.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 10/27/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 11,898,254 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Status of Previous Rejections
The rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments in the response filed 10/27/2025.
The rejection of claims 1-12 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,898,254 has been withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer filed 10/27/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is amended to recite “wherein a content of a fluorine (F) component in yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF) forming a surface layer of a fluoride coating layer is 1 to 10 at.%”. However, the instant specification does not provide any disclosure with respect to the fluorine content in the fluoride coating layer being 1 to 10 at.%. Therefore, the amended limitation constitutes new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is amended to recite “wherein a content of a fluorine (F) component in yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF) forming a surface layer of a fluoride coating layer is 1 to 10 at.%”. However, the claimed fluorine (F) component seems to include a component or compound comprising fluorine as part of its content, which appears to be inconsistent with the instant specification, in which only fluorine content in the yttrium oxyfluoride coating layer is disclosed. Therefore, the instant claim 1 is vague and indefinite.
Claims 2-18 are also rejected since they depend on vague and indefinite claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over KR10-2161704(KR704).
KR704 teaches a process for fluorinating a surface of a target component, comprising:
Placing a target component in a processing chamber (Fig. 1 #600) having a plasma reaction space( area between Fig. 1 #100 and #10);
Introducing a mixed gas(Fig. 1. #300) into the processing chamber, wherein the mixed gas comprising a discharge gas such as He, Ne, Ar, Kr and Xe, a non-fluorine reactive gas such as O2, N2 and air, and a fluorine containing reactive gas such as CF4, C2F6 and C4F8[0013];
Supplying the mixed gas into the plasma reaction space via the processing chamber (Fig.1);
Applying a high-frequency power to the processing chamber and fluorinating the surface of the target component, wherein the plasma fluorination step is taking place at an atmospheric pressure[0026](Fig. 1 #100).
Regarding amended claim 1, Examples 5-6 of KR704 further teach that the target component is yttria(i.e. yttrium oxide) coated aluminum plate[0105, 0111], wherein the surface of the yttria coating is fluorinated to form a layer of yttrium oxyfluoride[0108, 0113]. Example 6 of KR704 teaches Ar flow rate of 30 lpm, O2 flow rate of 0.1 lpm and CF4 flow rate of 0.3 lpm[0112], producing a Ar:O2:CF4 flow rate ratio of 30:0.1:0.3, which reads on the claimed Ar:O2:CF4 flow rate ratio. Example 6 of KR704 further teaches that the high-frequency power is supplied at 300 W and at frequency of 13.56 MHz [0112], which reads on the claimed high frequency power.
Although KR704 does not explicitly teach the claimed fluorine content in the yttrium oxyfluoride surface layer, KR704’s fluorination process has the same steps as claimed fluorination process using the same amount of mixing gas with the same composition at the same fluorination temperature and under the same plasma power and frequency as claimed. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the formed yttrium oxyfluoride coating layer to have the same amount of fluorine content as claimed.
Alternatively, KR704 further teaches a fluorination process that is the same as claimed fluorination process as discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the fluorinated coating layer produced by the process of KR704 to have a fluorine content that is at least significantly similar or overlaps the claimed fluorine content. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed fluorine content in the fluorinated coating layer from the fluorine content in the coating layer of KR704 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since KR704 teach the same utility in its disclosed fluorine content.
Regarding claim 4, Example 5 of KR704 further teaches that the fluorination is performed without heating (i.e. at room temperature). Example 6 of KR704 further shows a fluorination temperature of 350°C[0112].
Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art o have repeated the plasma fluorination process of KR704 in order to achieve a thicker fluorine coating layer.
Regarding claim 6, Examples 4 and 6-7 further teaches a distance between the target component and the plasma is 3.5mm[0101, 0112, 0118].
Regarding claims 7-12, Example 5 of KR704 shows fluorine penetration after the fluorination step can reach 120nm from the surface(i.e. 0.12µm)(Fig. 7a, [0108]), implying a coating thickness of 0.12 µm, which reads on the claimed fluoride coating thickness. Example 6 of KR704 shows fluorine penetration after the fluorination step can reach 200nm from the surface(i.e. 0.2µm)(Fig. 8a, [0113]), implying a coating thickness of 0.2 µm, which also reads on the claimed fluoride coating thickness.
Regarding claims 13-18, the fluorinated component produced by the process of KR704 reads on the claimed fluorinated component.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of amended features in claims 1 and 7-12 in section 11 above.
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 LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733