CTFR 18/034,635 CTFR 97724 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-25 are pending Claims 21-25 have been added Claims 1-8 have been withdrawn Claims 16-20 have been cancelled Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C.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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 9 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Dhindsa et al. (US 20090111276) . Regarding Claim 9: Dhindsa teaches a component for use in a plasma processing chamber, comprising a spark plasma sintered ceramic component body (substrate support 430, which includes the temperature control module 100. The temperature control module 100 can comprise a sintered AlN) with a plasma facing surface (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the support 430 has a plasma facing surface); and at least one hollow structure (tubes 310) embedded in the ceramic component body [Fig. 2A, 4 & 0016, 0026, 0039]. Furthermore, although disclosed by the prior art, the limitations “a plasma facing surface,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that claim 9 is directed to “a component,” and as such, structures outside the component are not considered structural. Furthermore, “a component” can be placed anywhere, and as such, any of the surfaces of a component can be “a plasma facing surface.” Regarding Claim 21: The limitations of claim 21 are product by process limitations and product by process limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[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) [See MPEP 2113 I]. In summary, since all the structural limitations (the product) of the claim are met by the prior art, how the structure is made (i.e., the process) is not given patentable weight." The burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that their specific method of making results in a materially different structure than those claimed and shown in the prior art. As previously mentioned, claim 9 currently is very broad and reads upon innumerable references. It merely requires, structurally, a component for use in a plasma processing chamber, comprising a ceramic component body with a surface; and at least one hollow structure embedded in the ceramic component body. Dhindsa explicitly teaches a component for use in a plasma processing chamber, comprising a ceramic component body (substrate support 430, which includes the temperature control module 100. The temperature control module 100 can comprise a sintered AlN) with a surface (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the support 430 has a plasma facing surface); and at least one hollow structure (tubes 310) embedded in the ceramic component body [Fig. 2A, 4 & 0016, 0026, 0039]. As such, claims 9 and 21-25 are currently anticipated by Dhindsa. Regarding Claim 22: The limitations of claim 22 are product by process limitations and product by process limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[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) [See MPEP 2113 I]. In summary, since all the structural limitations (the product) of the claim are met by the prior art, how the structure is made (i.e., the process) is not given patentable weight." The burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that their specific method of making results in a materially different structure than those claimed and shown in the prior art. As previously mentioned, claim 9 currently is very broad and reads upon innumerable references. It merely requires, structurally, a component for use in a plasma processing chamber, comprising a ceramic component body with a surface; and at least one hollow structure embedded in the ceramic component body. Dhindsa explicitly teaches a component for use in a plasma processing chamber, comprising a ceramic component body (substrate support 430, which includes the temperature control module 100. The temperature control module 100 can comprise a sintered AlN) with a surface (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the support 430 has a plasma facing surface); and at least one hollow structure (tubes 310) embedded in the ceramic component body [Fig. 2A, 4 & 0016, 0026, 0039]. As such, claims 9 and 21-25 are currently anticipated by Dhindsa. Regarding Claim 23: The limitations of claim 23 are product by process limitations and product by process limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[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) [See MPEP 2113 I]. In summary, since all the structural limitations (the product) of the claim are met by the prior art, how the structure is made (i.e., the process) is not given patentable weight." The burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that their specific method of making results in a materially different structure than those claimed and shown in the prior art. As previously mentioned, claim 9 currently is very broad and reads upon innumerable references. It merely requires, structurally, a component for use in a plasma processing chamber, comprising a ceramic component body with a surface; and at least one hollow structure embedded in the ceramic component body. Dhindsa explicitly teaches a component for use in a plasma processing chamber, comprising a ceramic component body (substrate support 430, which includes the temperature control module 100. The temperature control module 100 can comprise a sintered AlN) with a surface (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the support 430 has a plasma facing surface); and at least one hollow structure (tubes 310) embedded in the ceramic component body [Fig. 2A, 4 & 0016, 0026, 0039]. As such, claims 9 and 21-25 are currently anticipated by Dhindsa. Regarding Claim 24: The limitations of claim 24 are product by process limitations and product by process limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[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) [See MPEP 2113 I]. In summary, since all the structural limitations (the product) of the claim are met by the prior art, how the structure is made (i.e., the process) is not given patentable weight." The burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that their specific method of making results in a materially different structure than those claimed and shown in the prior art. As previously mentioned, claim 9 currently is very broad and reads upon innumerable references. It merely requires, structurally, a component for use in a plasma processing chamber, comprising a ceramic component body with a surface; and at least one hollow structure embedded in the ceramic component body. Dhindsa explicitly teaches a component for use in a plasma processing chamber, comprising a ceramic component body (substrate support 430, which includes the temperature control module 100. The temperature control module 100 can comprise a sintered AlN) with a surface (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the support 430 has a plasma facing surface); and at least one hollow structure (tubes 310) embedded in the ceramic component body [Fig. 2A, 4 & 0016, 0026, 0039]. As such, claims 9 and 21-25 are currently anticipated by Dhindsa. Regarding Claim 25: The limitations of claim 25 are product by process limitations and product by process limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[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) [See MPEP 2113 I]. In summary, since all the structural limitations (the product) of the claim are met by the prior art, how the structure is made (i.e., the process) is not given patentable weight." The burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that their specific method of making results in a materially different structure than those claimed and shown in the prior art. As previously mentioned, claim 9 currently is very broad and reads upon innumerable references. It merely requires, structurally, a component for use in a plasma processing chamber, comprising a ceramic component body with a surface; and at least one hollow structure embedded in the ceramic component body. Dhindsa explicitly teaches a component for use in a plasma processing chamber, comprising a ceramic component body (substrate support 430, which includes the temperature control module 100. The temperature control module 100 can comprise a sintered AlN) with a surface (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the support 430 has a plasma facing surface); and at least one hollow structure (tubes 310) embedded in the ceramic component body [Fig. 2A, 4 & 0016, 0026, 0039]. As such, claims 9 and 21-25 are currently anticipated by Dhindsa . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9-10, 12-14, and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 20150329430) in view of Lee et al. (US 20060137820), with Dhindsa et al. (US 20090111276) as an evidentiary reference . Regarding Claim 9: Sun teaches a component for use in a plasma processing chamber, comprising a spark plasma sintered ceramic component body (the component of Fig. 4B, which may be formed using spark plasma sintering) with a plasma facing surface (the component of 4B may be a showerhead or a support, and could therefore have a plasma facing surface) [Fig. 4B & 0017, 0044-0045]; at least one hollow structure (refrigerant channel 152) embedded in the component body (the channel 152 is embedded within showerhead 12) [Fig. 2, 3 & 0029]. Sun does not specifically disclose at least one hollow structure embedded in the ceramic component body. Lee teaches at least one hollow structure (refrigerant channel 152) embedded in the component body (the channel 152 is embedded within showerhead 12) [Fig. 2, 3 & 0029]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ceramic component of Sun to have a hollow body embedded therein, as in Lee, to easily control showerhead temperature, thereby improving process reproducibility [Lee - 0012]. Furthermore, although the showerhead of Lee does not disclose a specific material, it is noted that Sun discloses ceramics such as aluminum oxide as suitable materials for a showerhead. [Sun - 0018, 0021, 0044-0046, 0059]. Sun further discloses that its ceramic component may be utilized as a showerhead [Sun - 0017]. As such, it would not be unreasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to embed the hollow body of Lee in the ceramic component of Sun. Dhindsa et al. (US 20090111276) also discloses cooling channels in a ceramic body [Dhindsa - 0016, 0026, 0039]. Furthermore, although disclosed by the prior art, the limitations “a plasma facing surface,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that claim 9 is directed to “a component,” and as such, structures outside the component are not considered structural. Furthermore, “a component” can be placed anywhere, and as such, any of the surfaces of a component can be “a plasma facing surface.” Regarding Claim 10: Sun does not specifically disclose wherein the hollow structure comprises a serpentine thermal channel extending through the component body. Lee teaches wherein the hollow structure comprises a serpentine thermal channel extending through the component body (as evidenced by Fig. 3, the refrigerant channel has a serpentine shape) [Fig. 2, 3 & 0029, 0036]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ceramic component of Sun to have a hollow body embedded therein, as in Lee, to easily control showerhead temperature, thereby improving process reproducibility [Lee - 0012]. Furthermore, although the showerhead of Lee does not disclose a specific material, it is noted that Sun discloses ceramics such as aluminum oxide as suitable materials for a showerhead. [Sun - 0021]. Sun further discloses that its ceramic component may be utilized as a showerhead [Sun - 0017]. As such, it would not be unreasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to embed the hollow body of Lee in the ceramic component of Sun. Dhindsa et al. (US 20090111276) also discloses cooling channels in a ceramic body [Dhindsa - 0016, 0026, 0039]. Regarding Claim 12: Sun does not specifically disclose wherein walls of the at least one hollow structure is formed by the spark plasma sintered ceramic component body. Lee teaches wherein walls of the at least one hollow structure is formed by the component body (as evidenced by Figs. 2-3, the refrigerant channel 102 is integral to the showerhead 112) [Fig. 2, 3 & 0029, 0036]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ceramic component of Sun to have a hollow body embedded therein, as in Lee, to easily control showerhead temperature, thereby improving process reproducibility [Lee - 0012]. Furthermore, although the showerhead of Lee does not disclose a specific material, it is noted that Sun discloses ceramics such as aluminum oxide as suitable materials for a showerhead. [Sun - 0018, 0021, 0044-0046, 0059]. Sun further discloses that its ceramic component may be utilized as a showerhead [Sun - 0017]. As such, it would not be unreasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to embed the hollow body of Lee in the ceramic component of Sun. Dhindsa et al. (US 20090111276) also discloses cooling channels in a ceramic body [Dhindsa - 0016, 0026, 0039]. Regarding Claim 13: Sun teaches wherein the ceramic component body forms at least one of a power window, liner, showerhead, and edge ring (the ceramic component may be utilized as a showerhead) [Fig. 4B & 0017]. Regarding Claim 14: Sun teaches wherein the ceramic component body comprises: a base zone (substrate 412), wherein the base zone comprises a first dielectric material (any of the substrates can be a pre-sintered ceramic body using standard sintering technology) [Fig. 4B & 0021, 0042, 0059]; a protective zone (the second ceramic green body 416) on a first side of the base zone, wherein the protective zone comprises a second dielectric material of at least one of a mixed metal oxide and a mixed metal oxyfluoride and a metal fluoride (the second ceramic green body 416 may be composed of ceramics including one or more of YAG, aluminum oxide, or yttrium oxide, among other ceramics), wherein the first dielectric material is different than the second dielectric material (the ceramic green body 416 may be YAG, while the flat substrate 402 may be aluminum oxide) [Fig. 4B & 0016, 0045]; and a transition zone (first ceramic green body 414) between the protective zone and the base zone, wherein the transition zone has a thickness of between about 1μm and 40 μm (each ceramic green body may have thicknesses that range from 1 μm to 100 μm) and wherein the transition zone comprises the first dielectric material and the second dielectric material (each ceramic green body may comprise of one or more of YAG, aluminum oxide, or yttrium oxide, among other ceramics. As such, any of the ceramic green layers may comprise a combination of both aluminum oxide and yttrium oxide. It is further noted that the ceramic green bodies may be composed of the same materials, or different materials, and there may be any number of ceramic green bodies) [Fig. 4B & 0042, 0045]. Regarding Claim 21: The limitations of claim 21 are product by process limitations and product by process limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[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) [See MPEP 2113 I]. In summary, since all the structural limitations (the product) of the claim are met by the prior art, how the structure is made (i.e., the process) is not given patentable weight." The burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that their specific method of making results in a materially different structure than those claimed and shown in the prior art. As previously mentioned, claim 9 currently is very broad and reads upon innumerable references. It merely requires, structurally, a component for use in a plasma processing chamber, comprising a ceramic component body with a surface; and at least one hollow structure embedded in the ceramic component body. As evidenced above, the combination of references discloses all the structural elements of claim 9. Regarding Claim 22: The limitations of claim 22 are product by process limitations and product by process limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[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) [See MPEP 2113 I]. In summary, since all the structural limitations (the product) of the claim are met by the prior art, how the structure is made (i.e., the process) is not given patentable weight." The burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that their specific method of making results in a materially different structure than those claimed and shown in the prior art. As previously mentioned, claim 9 currently is very broad and reads upon innumerable references. It merely requires, structurally, a component for use in a plasma processing chamber, comprising a ceramic component body with a surface; and at least one hollow structure embedded in the ceramic component body. As evidenced above, the combination of references discloses all the structural elements of claim 9. Regarding Claim 23: The limitations of claim 23 are product by process limitations and product by process limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[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) [See MPEP 2113 I]. In summary, since all the structural limitations (the product) of the claim are met by the prior art, how the structure is made (i.e., the process) is not given patentable weight." The burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that their specific method of making results in a materially different structure than those claimed and shown in the prior art. As previously mentioned, claim 9 currently is very broad and reads upon innumerable references. It merely requires, structurally, a component for use in a plasma processing chamber, comprising a ceramic component body with a surface; and at least one hollow structure embedded in the ceramic component body. As evidenced above, the combination of references discloses all the structural elements of claim 9. Regarding Claim 24: The limitations of claim 24 are product by process limitations and product by process limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[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) [See MPEP 2113 I]. In summary, since all the structural limitations (the product) of the claim are met by the prior art, how the structure is made (i.e., the process) is not given patentable weight." The burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that their specific method of making results in a materially different structure than those claimed and shown in the prior art. As previously mentioned, claim 9 currently is very broad and reads upon innumerable references. It merely requires, structurally, a component for use in a plasma processing chamber, comprising a ceramic component body with a surface; and at least one hollow structure embedded in the ceramic component body. As evidenced above, the combination of references discloses all the structural elements of claim 9. Regarding Claim 25: The limitations of claim 25 are product by process limitations and product by process limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[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) [See MPEP 2113 I]. In summary, since all the structural limitations (the product) of the claim are met by the prior art, how the structure is made (i.e., the process) is not given patentable weight." The burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that their specific method of making results in a materially different structure than those claimed and shown in the prior art. As previously mentioned, claim 9 currently is very broad and reads upon innumerable references. It merely requires, structurally, a component for use in a plasma processing chamber, comprising a ceramic component body with a surface; and at least one hollow structure embedded in the ceramic component body. As evidenced above, the combination of references discloses all the structural elements of claim 9 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 20150329430) in view of Lee et al. (US 20060137820), with Dhindsa et al. (US 20090111276) as an evidentiary reference , as applied to claim s 9-10, 12-14, and 21-25 above, and further in view of Gold (US 20160013021), Kishimoto et al. (US 20100282168), and Grondahl et al. (US 3844679), with Sanders et al. (US 20170329092) as an evidentiary reference . The limitations of claims 9-10, 12-14, and 21-25 have been set forth above. Regarding Claim 11: Modified Sun does not specifically disclose wherein walls between the serpentine thermal channel has a thickness of greater 6 mm. However, Gold discloses that cooling channel diameter is a result effective variable. Specifically, the diameter of a cooling channel can be adjusted to increase fluid flow rate and cooling capacity [Gold - 0027]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum diameter for a cooling channel to obtain a desired cooling capacity. Additionally, Kishimoto discloses that cooling pipe number density is a result effective variable. Specifically, the density of cooling pipes in a given area can be changed to change amount of cooling [Kishimoto - 0084-0086]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum density for a cooling channel to obtain a desired cooling profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It is noted that adjusting the diameters of cooling channels and the number of cooling channels in an area would also change the distance/spacing between the channels . Sanders et al. (US 20170329092) also discloses that cooling channel pitch is a result effective variable [Sanders - 0040]. Additionally/alternatively, Grondahl discloses wherein walls between the serpentine thermal channel has a thickness of greater 6 mm (a pitch between cooling pipes can be 0.6 inches, or about 15.24 mm) [Fig. 1 & Col. 4 lines 8-50]. As such, it would be obvious to modify walls between the serpentine thermal channel of Modified Sun to be greater than 6 mm because such are suitable dimensions for a serpentine cooling channel. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Response to Arguments Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 9 and 21-25 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Dhindsa et al. (US 20090111276) “ a component for use in a plasma processing chamber, comprising a spark plasma sintered ceramic component body with a plasma facing surface; and at least one hollow structure embedded in the ceramic component body.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the examiner would like to iterate that the scope of claim 9 currently is very broad and reads upon innumerable references. Specifically, sintered ceramic components with hollow structures are a very well-known structure in the art (as this describes many substrate supports and showerheads in plasma chamber). It's further noted that the limitation "spark sintered" and the limitations of claim 21-25 are product by process limitations and product by process limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[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) [See MPEP 2113 I]. In summary, since all the structural limitations (the product) of the claim are met by the prior art, how the structure is made (i.e., the process) is not given patentable weight." The burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that their specific method of making results in a materially different structure than those claimed and shown in the prior art. As previously mentioned, claim 9 currently is very broad and reads upon innumerable references. It merely requires, structurally, a component for use in a plasma processing chamber, comprising a ceramic component body with a surface; and at least one hollow structure embedded in the ceramic component body. Dhindsa explicitly teaches a component for use in a plasma processing chamber, comprising a ceramic component body (substrate support 430, which includes the temperature control module 100. The temperature control module 100 can comprise a sintered AlN) with a surface (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the support 430 has a plasma facing surface); and at least one hollow structure (tubes 310) embedded in the ceramic component body [Fig. 2A, 4 & 0016, 0026, 0039]. As such, claims 9 and 21-25 are currently anticipated by Dhindsa. Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 9-14 and 21-25 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “at least one hollow structure embedded in the ceramic component body,” and the limitations of claims 21-25 because Sun et al. (US 20150329430) at best discloses an aluminum or stainless steel component body. The examiner respectfully disagrees, as Sun explicitly discloses that the coated article 410 of Sun comprises multiple ceramic layers and may all comprise the same ceramic material [Sun – Fig. 4B & 0044-0045]. Furthermore, the coated article 410 ( of which a substrate 412 can be a sintered ceramic body ) of Sun can be used as a showerhead for a plasma chamber, and the showerhead may include a gas distribution plate 133 that comprises a ceramic [Sun – 0017-0018, 0021, 0044-0046, 0059]. As such, it is unclear how Sun would not disclose a sintered ceramic body. The examiner would also like to note that the applicant seems to cite paragraph [0018] of Sun to assert their claim that the component of Sun is stainless steel or aluminum, but it unclear how Sun discloses this. Paragraph [0018] of Sun states “In one embodiment, the processing chamber 100 includes a chamber body 102 and a showerhead 130 that enclose an interior volume 106. Alternatively, the showerhead 130 may be replaced by a lid and a nozzle in some embodiments. The chamber body 102 may be fabricated from aluminum, stainless steel or other suitable material. The chamber body 102 generally includes sidewalls 108 and a bottom 110. One or more of the showerhead 130 (or lid and/or nozzle), sidewalls 108 and/or bottom 110 may include a ceramic layer.” Nowhere is it stated that the showerhead is stainless steel or aluminum, only that the chamber body may be stainless steel or aluminum. In fact, as previously mentioned, Sun explicitly discloses that the coated article 410 of Sun comprises multiple ceramic layers and may all comprise the same ceramic material [Sun – Fig. 4B & 0044-0045]. Furthermore, the coated article 410 ( of which a substrate 412 can be a pre-sintered ceramic body using standard sintering technology ) of Sun can be used as a showerhead for a plasma chamber, and the showerhead may include a gas distribution plate 133 that comprises a ceramic [Sun – 0017-0018, 0021, 0044-0046, 0059]. It is noted spark sintering for ceramics is a very well-known technique in the art . Xu et al. (US 20170018408) and Medvedovski et al. (US 9885109) disclose ceramics made by spark sintering, and as such, can spark sintering can be considered standard sintering technology [Xu – 0019; Medvedovski – Col. 6 lines 48-59]. Applicant further argues that Lee et al. (US 20060137820) cannot be used to modify Sun to include serpentine channels because one of ordinary skill in the art would not have known how to make it. The examiner respectfully disagrees, as utilizing serpentine channels in showerheads and other chamber components is a very well-known technique in the art . Hayashi et al. (US 20050000442), Mahadeswaraswamy et al. (US 20120273162), and Cheng et al. (US 20130269612) disclose channels within a component [Hayashi – 0028; Mahadeswaraswamy -0025; Cheng - 0023]. Furthermore, the examiner considers one of ordinary skill in the art as a person of very high skill. As such, in combination with the evidentiary references provided, the examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would be more than capable of arriving at the claimed invention using only the references provided . In summary, the existence of serpentine channels within components in a plurality of prior art disproves the assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to make these channels because these channels are very well-known in the art and have existed in prior art. It's further noted that the limitation "spark sintered" and the limitations of claim 21-25 are product by process limitations and product by process limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[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) [See MPEP 2113 I]. In summary, since all the structural limitations (the product) of the claim are met by the prior art, how the structure is made (i.e., the process) is not given patentable weight." Applicant further argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “a base zone, wherein the base zone comprises a first dielectric material; a protective zone on a first side of the base zone, a protective zone on a first side of the base zone, wherein the protective zone comprises a second dielectric material of at least one of a mixed metal oxide and a mixed metal oxyfluoride and a metal fluoride, wherein the first dielectric material is different than the second dielectric material; and a transition zone between the protective zone and the base zone, wherein the transition zone has a thickness of between about 1 μm and 40 μm and wherein the transition zone comprises the first dielectric material and the second dielectric material,” because Sun does not specifically disclose that the substrate is a dielectric. The examiner respectfully disagrees, as Sun explicitly discloses that the substrates may be a pre-sintered ceramic substrate, wherein the substrate can be a showerhead [Sun - 0059]. Sun also discloses that its showerhead may include a gas distribution plate comprising a ceramic [Sun - 0021]. As such, Sun discloses a base zone (the substrate 412) being a dielectric. The examiner would also like to reiterate that the current invention is directed to an apparatus not a method , and as such, what is given substantial patentable weight is the physical and present structure of the claimed apparatus. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM. 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. /J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 2 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 3 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 4 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 5 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 6 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 7 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 8 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 9 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 10 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 11 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 12 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 13 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 14 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 15 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 16 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 17 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 18 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 19 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 20 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 21 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 22 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 23 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/034,635 Page 24 Art Unit: 1718
Prosecution Insights