DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 9/29/2025.
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-27 are pending.
Claims 1-11 and 20-27 are withdrawn.
Claim 12 is currently amended.
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.
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.
Claims 12-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US Pub. 2003/0129772) in view of Sun (US Pub. 2015/0079370) and Wu (US Pub. 2019/0382888).
Regarding claim 12, Choi teaches a component for use in a semiconductor processing chamber ([0023]: base material/ceramic component; Abstract), comprising: a sintered component body ([0005]: base material comprises sintered alumina) of a dielectric material ([0023]: ceramic, plastic, “any other material”; Choi is replete with possible dielectric materials, including alumina), wherein the component body has a semiconductor processing facing surface (any surface of the component can be considered a “processing facing surface” since the claim is drawn to the component, not positively recited as a member of the processing chamber); and a coating of a dielectric material on at least the sintered semiconductor processing facing surface ([0011]), wherein the dielectric material of the component body has a same stoichiometry as the dielectric material of the coating ([0022]: coating comprises alumina; [0005]: base material comprises sintered alumina), wherein the coating has less contaminants than the sintered component body ([0013]).
Choi does not explicitly teach wherein the surface is a machined surface (although Choi teaches in [0020] that the surface is “activated” before coating, but is silent as to the actual mechanism).
However, Sun teaches wherein articles are typically machined prior to coating (Sun – [0053]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the component of Choi utilizing a machining process in order to shape, clean, and create a desired surface roughness of the article (Sun – [0053]).
Modified Choi does not explicitly teach wherein the coating has fewer pores than the sintered component body (although Choi teaches in [0013] that the disclosed coatings can be controlled to a desired porosity).
However, Wu teaches wherein ALD/CVD coating techniques advantageously produce coatings that are substantially porosity-free (Wu – [0052], [0061]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the plasma spray coating process of modified Choi to be an ALD/CVD coating process since Wu teaches the resulting coatings do not result in cracking (Wu – [0052]).
Regarding claim 13, Choi teaches wherein the component body has a different density than the coating ([0023]: density and porosity of coating layer can be changed via plasma spray process).
Regarding claim 14, Choi teaches wherein the component body and the coating are made of alumina ([0005], [0022]).
Regarding claim 18, Choi teaches wherein the component body dielectric material is a sintered ceramic dielectric material ([0005]: sintered alumina) and the coating dielectric material is a non-sintered ceramic dielectric material ([0022]-[0023]: plasma sprayed alumina).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US Pub. 2003/0129772), Sun (US Pub. 2015/0079370), and Wu (US Pub. 2019/0382888), as applied to claims 12-14 and 18 above, further in view of Laporte (US Patent 4,491,496).
The limitations of claims 12-14 and 18 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 15, Choi does not explicitly teach wherein the coating has a thickness in a range between 30 nm and 600 microns.
However, Laporte teaches a coating of thickness of approximately 300 microns (Laporte – C3, L34).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the coating of modified Choi to the claimed range since the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, prima facie obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US Pub. 2003/0129772), Sun (US Pub. 2015/0079370), and Wu (US Pub. 2019/0382888), as applied to claims 12-14 and 18 above, further in view of Chang (US Patent 7,220,497).
The limitations of claims 12-14 and 18 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 16, Choi teaches wherein the component body has a different density than the coating ([0023]: density and porosity of coating layer can be changed via plasma spray process).
Modified Choi does not explicitly teach wherein the component body has at least one borehole passing through the component body.
However, Chang teaches wherein the component body has at least one borehole passing through the component body (Chang – C2,L61 - C3,L3: focus rings, etc.).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize a focus ring for the coating process of modified Choi as a matter of applying a known technique (process of Choi) to a known device (components detailed in Chang) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (Chang – Abstract: components with coatings to resist plasma/chemical attack during processing). See MPEP 2143(I).
Regarding claim 17, modified Choi does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Chang teaches wherein the component is at least one of an edge ring and a power window (Chang – C2,L61 - C3,L3: focus rings, etc.).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize a focus ring for the coating process of modified Choi as a matter of applying a known technique (process of Choi) to a known device (components detailed in Chang) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (Chang – Abstract: components with coatings to resist plasma/chemical attack during processing). See MPEP 2143(I).
Regarding claim 19, modified Choi does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Chang teaches wherein the component body forms at least one of a showerhead, gas injector, chamber wall, edge ring, and power window (Chang – C2,L61 - C3,L3: focus rings, etc.).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize a focus ring for the coating process of modified Choi as a matter of applying a known technique (process of Choi) to a known device (components detailed in Chang) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (Chang – Abstract: components with coatings to resist plasma/chemical attack during processing). See MPEP 2143(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning claim 12 have been carefully considered, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented herein. The Examiner respectfully submits that Sun and Wu remedy any alleged deficiencies of the Choi reference.
Applicant’s arguments concerning claim 15 have been carefully considered, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented herein. The Examiner respectfully submits that Laporte remedies any alleged deficiencies of other prior art of record.
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718