DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7 is indefinite because it recites a “yttrium to oxide (Y:O) ratio” without stating if the ratio is in terms of weight, a molar ratio (or atom percent ratio), or some other measure. The absence of a unit or measure specifying to what the ratio in a composition refers is not merely broad because it is not possible for someone making the composition to determine if a material meets the claim requirement. As such, the claim is indefinite because the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. See MPEP 2173.02. For the sake of compact prosecution, a material that includes yttrium and oxygen in any type of ratio that falls within or otherwise renders obvious the claimed range is considered herein to meet the claim requirement. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, and 13-15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 7.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 fails to incorporate all of the limitations of claim 7, from which it depends, because claim 7 requires “a material having a yttrium to oxygen (Y:O) within a range of 1:1 to 2:1” and claim 9 recites “wherein the yttrium containing material is yttrium oxide”. As yttrium oxide, or yttria, has a molecular formula of Y2O3, the Y:O atomic ratio of the material is 2:3. As evidenced by EnvironmentalChemistry.com, which teaches that yttrium has an atomic mass of 88.91 amu and an atomic volume of 19.8 cm3/mol and that oxygen has an atomic mass of 16 amu and an atomic volume of 14 cm3/mol (Evironmentalchemistry.com “Periodic Table of Elements” entries for yttrium and oxygen), yttrium oxide has a Y:O mass ratio of about 3.66 and a Y:O volume ratio of about 0.94. As such, yttrium oxide does not appear to meet the claim requirement that the Y:O ratio is in the range of 1:1 to 2:1. If there is some other measure with which yttrium oxide meets the required Y:O ratio, Applicant is requested to provide it.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed February 25, 2026.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, as evidenced by Yamaguchi (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0055950), and further in view of Jang and, optionally, Wang (US PG Pub. No. 2009/0025751). Claims 3, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, as evidenced by Yamaguchi, in view of Jang and Wang.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, 7-11, and 15, Park teaches a chamber component comprising a structure and an outer surface facing away from the rest of the structure that is coated with a 0.5 to 20 µm thick YOF (i.e. a “yttrium containing material”) coating, which has a porosity in the range of 0.01 to about 1% (par. 16, 22). Park also exemplifies a structure with a YOF coating having a composition ratio of 5:4:7, a porosity of 0.01%, and a density (i.e. “film density”) of 99.9%, and a structure with a YOF coating having a composition ratio of 1:1:1, a porosity of 0.5%, and a density (i.e. “film density”) of 99.5% (par. 93, 94). As evidenced by Yamaguchi, who teaches that the theoretical density of the chemical compound YOF is 5.23 g/cm3 (par. 35), the density of Park’s films with a porosity 0.01 % and a porosity of 0.5 % are respectively about 5.23 g/cm3 and about 5.2 g/cm3, which satisfy or render obvious the claimed density ranges. See MPEP 2144.05.
Although Park does not explicitly discuss a “pore density”, which might be considered a difference from the current invention, Park does disclose that his product should have a porosity in the range of 0.01 to 0.1 % (par. 95) and, as noted above, exemplifies films with densities of 99.9 and 99.5 %. Coatings with a porosity of less than 1 % are also expected to have a pore density of less than 2 %. Park also teaches that his product has no or extremely small pores (par. 7), which he presents as an advantage, discloses that the coating has high hardness, which contribute to its protective nature, and teaches that a reduction in density results in a reduction in coating hardness (par. 7, 107). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Park’s coating to have no or as few small pores as possible and to be as dense as possible, thereby making the pore density as small as possible, because Park teaches that the coating can have as few as no pores, which would necessarily achieve a pore density of less than 2 %, because Park makes clear that it is advantageous to reduce porosity (and, therefore, density) as much as possible, and in order to make the coating as hard, and, correspondingly, as protective as possible.
The teachings of Park might be considered to differ from the current invention in that he does not explicitly teach including his coating on a gas distribution plate comprising a plurality of apertures formed in its outer surface. However, Park does teach that his coating material has high etching resistance against corrosive gases and high-speed colliding ion particles and may be used to protect various types of chamber components, such as a shower head, which is a plate-shaped component that has an outer surface into which a plurality of apertures open in an etching process (par. 21, 27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the coating discussed above to the outer surface of a shower head, including the surface having and facing away from apertures, because Park teaches doing so to be appropriate. As the shower head Park teaches may be used to distribute gas, it meets the claimed requirement of being a gas distribution plate, which is a statement of intended use.
Jang further teaches to coat a baffle, which is a gas distribution plate, that is used in a chamber where plasma processing is performed to improve corrosion and plasma resistance (p. 5, right col.; p. 13, par. 3). As shown in Jang’s Figure 1 and 2, the baffle (10, 110) is plate-shaped and includes apertures (12, 120) in its outer surface (Figs. 1, 2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Park’s coating to the outer surface of a baffle (i.e. a “gas distribution plate”), including providing the coating on the outer surface facing away from the apertures of the baffle, because Jang teaches that baffles should be protected with protective coatings and Park discloses that his coating provides high etching resistance against corrosive gases and high-speed colliding ion particles and is effective at protecting chamber components in an etching process.
The teachings of Park further differ from the current invention in that the roughness of his coating is not disclosed. However, as noted above, Jang teaches providing chamber components with protective, yttrium-containing coatings and discloses that such coatings should have a surface roughness, Ra, in the range of 3 to 7 µm in order to achieve both a good ability to adhere (and capture) contaminants while also providing good corrosion resistance (p. 18, par. 3-p. 19, par. 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Jang’s YOF coating to have a roughness, Ra, in the range of 3 to 7 µm in order to provide the surface with a good ability to capture contaminants while also allowing it to provide good corrosion resistance. The instantly claimed roughness range is overlapped and rendered obvious by Jang. See MPEP 2144.05.
The teachings of Park might also be considered to differ from the current invention in that his coating is not taught to be laser-treated. However, the claim requirement that the coating is “laser treated” is a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the recited processing steps, but rather by the structure implied by the recited procedure. See MPEP 2113. Given that no parameters (e.g. laser wavelength, intensity, treatment time, etc.) are recited, the requirement that the layer is “laser treated” conveys very little about final structure of the recited coating. The prior art yttrium-containing coating, which includes a surface with the recited roughness and porosity commensurate with the claims, meets the claim requirement because it has the limited structure that is implied.
Wang further teaches using a laser to drill holes through a protective coating in a chamber component in order to create attachment openings through the coating and underlying substrate (par. 27). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a laser to drill holes through Park and Jang’s coating, thereby treating at least part of the coating with the laser, to provide it with attachment openings so that attachments can be made. Therefore, the product of Park, Jang, and Wang includes a “laser-treated” coating layer.
Regarding claims 3, 13, and 14, the teachings of Park and Jang differ from the current invention in that neither explicitly teaches a component with apertures, as discussed above, wherein the component/structure/gas distribution plate comprises aluminum or alumina. However, Wang teaches that process chamber components are frequently constructed from aluminum alloys and that Series 2000, 5000, and 7000 alloys are very desirable as substrates for chamber components due to their availability, cost, and performance properties (par. 6, 15). Jang further teaches forming an anodic layer on chamber components, such as a baffle, which are intended to be further coated in a protective yttrium-containing material in order to further enhance ethe abrasion and plasma resistance of the plate (p. 8, par. 4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an anodized aluminum alloy (i.e. the part comprises an anodic alumina layer), such as a Series 2000, 5000, and 7000 alloy, as the substrate of the component/structure/gas distribution plate in the prior art product because aluminum alloys are a common material for such components, because the Series 2000, 5000, and 7000 aluminum alloys are very desirable as substrates for chamber components due to their availability, cost, and performance properties, and because including an anodic layer (i.e. an alumina between the aluminum alloy body and the applied yttrium-containing coating) on such parts further enhances corrosion and abrasion resistance. Therefore, the structure of Park, Jang, and Wang comprises an aluminum containing material including alumina (i.e. Al2O3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or are moot in view of the current rejections.
Applicant has argued that the recitation of a Y:O ratio range, as amended into claim 7, should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because it is broad, covering any type of ratio, instead of indefinite. This argument is not persuasive because unlike reciting a broad class of material, e.g. “metal” or “glass”, the limitation is directed to a composition. The absence of a unit or measure specifying to what the compositional ratio refers is not merely broad because it is not possible for someone making the composition to determine if a material meets the claim requirement. Put differently, it is not possible for someone to know if they are or are not infringing on the claim if they cannot understand what composition is being claimed. As such, the claim is indefinite because the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. See MPEP 2173.02.
Applicant has further argued that the claimed roughness range is not obvious in view of Jang because Jang teaches that a roughness of 7 µm achieves improved contaminate adhesion but may negatively alter the other properties of a coating, which Applicant equates to Jang expressly teaching away from the claimed range. However, Jang explicitly teaches that it is possible to achieve the required corrosion resistance, chemical resistance, and plasma resistance for a baffle plate while adhering and removing contaminants and preventing secondary contamination, thereby improving overall contamination resistance, when the roughness is in the range of 3 to 7 µm (paragraph traversing p. 18-19). Therefore, Jang clearly motivates making a coating with a roughness in the range of 3 to 7 µm, which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range. Jang’s explicit teaching of a roughness in the range of 3 to 7 µm cannot be concluded to be a teaching away from a roughness of 5-7 µm, which is in the claimed range, because it does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage roughnesses in this range.
Applicant has further argued that Jang does not teach melting, as would be present after laser treating. However, no “melting” or a “melted” structure is claimed. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., a melted structure) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As discussed further below, although the claims recite a “laser treated coating layer”, they recite no limitations about the laser treatment. In particular, the claims recite no limitations (e.g. laser wavelength, laser fluence, intensity, treatment time, etc.) that would convey that any melting has occurred in a “laser treated” coating. Furthermore, Jang was not cited for a melted structure or laser treatment, but rather for his teachings of roughness. In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant has further argued that the prior art does not teach a film density of greater than 4 g/cm3 and that Yamaguchi, who was cited in the discussion of film densities, is not applicable as prior art because his disclosure does not antedate the effective filing date of the current application. However, as discussed above, Park teaches a coating composition and a porosity, which can be used to calculate density. Yamaguchi has only been cited as an evidentiary reference. References that are cited as evidence of a fact, rather than as prior art, need not antedate the filing date of an application under examination. See MPEP 2124.
Applicant has further argued that it cannot be presumed that any density of Yamaguchi would be present after treating a YOF layer with a laser because materials’ densities change when they are treated in different manners. However, a material’s theoretical density is an intrinsic property based on the material’s chemical makeup and remains the same unless the chemical makeup of the material is changed. Therefore, the theoretical density of YOF is the same regardless of if it is in the form of a powder or laser-treated film. As is demonstrated above and discussed in the previous Office Action (see, for example, the first paragraph on p. 14 in the “Response to Arguments” section of the previous Office Action), the density of a YOF coating can be calculated if its porosity is known.
Applicant has further argued that Park teaches away from laser treating by teaching that YOF powder melting after pretreatment increases porosity. However, as discussed above, no limitations about melting are recited in the instant claims. Additionally, Park cannot be construed as teaching away from any laser treatment because, as Applicant has pointed out, Park does not mention laser treatments. Therefore, Park do not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage performing a laser treatment.
Applicant has argued that the rejections discussing the fact that a recitation of a layer being “laser treated” is a product-by-process limitation are invalid because it cannot be assumed that properties, such as roughness and density, from the cited prior art references would be present if the teachings of the cited references were combined in the manners discussed in the rejections. However, this argument ignores the fact that the cited references either directly teach or provide motivation for and render obvious configuring coatings to have the claimed composition and properties. The argument also ignores the point that product-by-process limitations only limit products to the structure that is implied by the recited process(es). See MPEP 2113. If a product-by-process limitation does not imply a particular structure, the claimed product is not required to have that structure. As the product-by-process limitations in the instant claims provide no description of the laser treatment, such as the laser wavelength, intensity, treatment time, laser fluence, etc., they imply very little about any structure that is achieved. For example, a laser treatment that is only intense enough to remove grease from a ceramic surface would not affect the structure the prior art ceramic surfaces. Conversely, Wang demonstrates that a laser can be used to drill completely through a coating material. As such, operating parameters are necessary to convey what, specifically, is achieved with any “laser treatment”.
Applicant has further argued that Wang’s teaching of drilling holes through a coating with a laser does not involve a “laser treatment” of the coating, and Applicant has pointed to paragraph 48 of the instant disclosure as an example of a treatment that does qualify as a “laser treatment”. However, this argument is unpersuasive because Wang explicitly teaches irradiating a coating with a laser (par. 75). Additionally, paragraph 48 of the instant disclosure discusses a “high temperature treatment process” instead of a laser treatment. The claims recite no limitations about a “high temperature treatment process”. Notably, paragraphs 50-54 discuss a laser treatment and operating parameters that are likely important in determining the effects of a “laser treatment”.
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 JULIA L RUMMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -5:00 pm PT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/JULIA L. RUMMEL/
Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights