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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-9, 13-14, and 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/15/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A1/B1/C1, drawn to claims 1-4, 10-12, and 15-19, in the reply filed on 05/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no serious burden exists because a search for any of the species would yield references applicable to any other species. This is not found persuasive because the species are mutually exclusive structural embodiments. As such, a search of the different species would require different search terms and/or syntaxes.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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(s) 1 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Donnell et al (US 2005/0150866).
Regarding claim 1:
O’Donnell teaches a substrate processing chamber component (component that is coated) [fig 5 & 0026, 0062] comprising: a metal body (70 may be a metallic component) [fig 5 & 0060, 0062]; a metallic bond layer (80 may be made of a metallic material) deposited on a surface of the metal body (70) [fig 5 & 0062, 0065]; a thermal barrier layer (90) deposited on the bond layer (80) [fig 5 & 0062]; and a substantially non-porous ceramic sealing layer (100 most preferably has a porosity less than 1% by volume) deposited on the thermal barrier layer (90) [fig 5 & 0029, 0062].
Regarding claim 10:
O’Donnell teaches the thermal barrier layer (90) comprises at least one of a metal oxide, a metal nitride, a metal oxynitride, or a metal oxycarbide (preferred ceramics include, but are not limited to, Al2O3 and AlN) [fig 5 & 0062, 0065].
Regarding claims 11-12:
O’Donnell teaches the ceramic sealing layer (100) comprises at least one of a metal oxide, a metal fluoride, or a metal oxyfluoride (yttria-containing coating) [fig 5 & 0062]; and wherein the ceramic sealing layer (100) comprises at least one of silica, hafnia, zirconia, yttria, magnesium fluoride, yttrium fluoride, lanthanum fluoride, or yttrium oxyfluoride (yttria-containing coating) [fig 5 & 0062].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell et al (US 2005/0150866) as applied to claims 1 and 10-12 above, and further in view of Ahn (KR 20210050045A).
The limitations of claims 1 and 10-12 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 2-3:
O’Donnell does not specifically disclose the bond layer comprises at least one of pure nickel, pure titanium, a cobalt-based alloy, an iron-based alloy, a nickel-based alloy, a titanium-based alloy, or a composite of ceramic particulates distributed in a metal matrix; and wherein the bond layer has a coefficient of thermal expansion less than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the metal body, and greater than or equal to a coefficient of thermal expansion of the thermal barrier layer.
Ahn teaches a bond layer (20) comprises at least one of pure nickel, pure titanium, a cobalt-based alloy, an iron-based alloy, a nickel-based alloy, a titanium-based alloy, or a composite of ceramic particulates distributed in a metal matrix (Ni) [fig 1 & 0046].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the bond layer of O’Donnell to comprise the material of Ahn because such is a known metallic material suitable for use in semiconductor plasma processing chambers [Ahn – 0046 and O’Donnell – 0065]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
It is noted that the materials of the modified structure are identical to that which is disclosed. Therefore, the limitations “wherein the bond layer has a coefficient of thermal expansion less than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the metal body, and greater than or equal to a coefficient of thermal expansion of the thermal barrier layer” are met. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2112.01].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell et al (US 2005/0150866) as applied to claims 1 and 10-12 above, and further in view of Sun et al (US 2010/0119843).
The limitations of claims 1 and 10-12 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 4:
O’Donnell does not specifically disclose the thermal barrier layer comprises a single phase ceramic structure including a primary ceramic doped with a secondary ceramic; a proportion of the secondary ceramic varies from a first magnitude at a first location to a second magnitude at a second location; the second proportion is lower than the first proportion; and the first and second locations differ in proximity to the surface of the metal body.
Sun teaches a thermal barrier layer (412) comprises a single phase ceramic structure including a primary ceramic doped with a secondary ceramic (primary ceramic and lesser amounts of other ceramics in a matrix or a superlattice) [fig 4A & 0034, 0036, 0040-0041]; a proportion of the secondary ceramic varies from a first magnitude at a first location to a second magnitude at a second location (in a matrix or a superlattice) [fig 4A & 0034, 0040-0041]; the second proportion is lower than the first proportion; and the first and second locations differ in proximity to the surface of the metal body (in a matrix or a superlattice) [fig 4A & 0034, 0040-0041].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the thermal barrier layer of O’Donnell to include a primary ceramic doped with a secondary ceramic, as in Sun, because such is a suitable plasma resistant material [Sun – 0034, 0041]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell et al (US 2005/0150866) in view of Ahn (KR 20210050045A).
Regarding claim 15:
O’Donnell teaches a substrate processing chamber component (component that is coated) [fig 5 & 0026, 0062] comprising: body (70) comprising a stainless steel (may be a stainless steel) [fig 5 & 0060, 0062]; a metallic bond layer (80 may be made of a metallic material) of a first thickness (0.15 inch) deposited on a surface of the body (70) [fig 5 & 0062, 0065]; a thermal barrier layer (90) of a second thickness (0.25 inch) deposited on the bond layer (80), the second thickness (0.25 inch) greater than the first thickness (0.15 inch) [fig 5 & 0062, 0064-0065]; and a substantially non-porous ceramic sealing layer (100 most preferably has a porosity less than 1% by volume) of a third thickness (0.001 inch) deposited on the thermal barrier layer (90), the third thickness (0.001 inch) less than the first thickness (0.15 inch) [fig 5 & 0062, 0065, 0068].
O’Donnell does not specifically teach the bond layer having a corrosion resistance to halogen-containing chemicals greater than a corrosion resistance of the body to halogen-containing chemicals.
Ahn teaches a bond layer (20) having a corrosion resistance to halogen-containing chemicals greater than a corrosion resistance of the body to halogen-containing chemicals (may be made of Ni) [fig 1 & 0046]. It is noted that the materials of the bond layer are identical to that which is disclosed. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2112.01].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the bond layer of O’Donnell to comprise the material of Ahn because such is a known metallic material suitable for use in semiconductor plasma processing chambers [Ahn – 0046 and O’Donnell – 0065]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Regarding claim 16:
It is noted that the materials of the thermal barrier layer are identical to that which is disclosed [O’Donnell - fig 5 & 0062, 0065]. Therefore, the limitations “wherein the thermal barrier layer has an overall thermal conductivity of less than or equal to 20 W/m.K” are met. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2112.01].
Regarding claim 17:
O’Donnell does not specifically disclose the third thickness is from 0.05 microns to 10 microns.
Ahn teaches the third thickness is from 0.05 microns to 10 microns (3µm) [fig 1 & 0049-0050].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the third thickness of O’Donnel to be within the range disclosed by Ahn because such is a suitable thickness for a sealing layer having corrosion resistance characteristics [Ahn – 0049-0050, 0120].
Regarding claim 17:
It is noted that the materials of the ceramic sealing layer are identical to that which is disclosed [O’Donnell - fig 5 & 0062]. Therefore, the limitations “wherein the ceramic sealing layer resists corrosion by halogen-containing chemicals” are met. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2112.01].
Regarding claim 19:
Although taught by the cited prior art [Ahn – 0012], the limitations “wherein the ceramic sealing layer is conformally deposited on the thermal barrier layer by one of atomic layer deposition or ion beam sputtering” do not impart any additional structure. "[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)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bang et al (US 6,235,120) and Waldfried (US 2021/0175325) teach a thermal barrier layer [fig 1A and 3A, respectively].
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
Prosecution Insights