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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 18 November 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-10, and 15-24 are currently pending in the application. Claims 7-10 are withdrawn. The rejections of record from the office action dated 18 July 2025 not repeated herein have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 15-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi et al. (US 2011/0083806 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-6, and 15-20, Noguchi discloses a processing apparatus for producing semi-conductors, wherein the apparatus may have a protective layer comprising fluorine containing elastomer on the whole of surfaces exposed to plasma (i.e. a chamber component for a semiconductor processing chamber comprising a body and a corrosion-resistant coating deposited on a surface of the body; a processing chamber, comprising a chamber component and a corrosion-resistant coating deposited on a surface of the chamber component)(abstract, [0003], [0011], Fig. 1), wherein the fluorine containing elastomer may be perfluoroelastomer and may be crosslinked (i.e. an organic corrosion-resistant perfluoroelastomer material; an FFKM material)([0014], [0078]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any material disclosed as the fluorine containing elastomer, including perfluoroelastomer and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Noguchi discloses that the coating may be on the whole of surfaces of the apparatus, which is a chamber (Fig. 1), including sidewalls, O-rings, chucks, exhaust pipes and coils (i.e. sidewall, substrate support) ([0026]). It is clear from Fig. 1 that the chamber has an exhaust pipe separated by an O-ring (wherein an portion of the surface of the body on which the corrosion-resistant coating is deposited extends from a portion of the semiconductor processing chamber configured to generate a controlled environment to a region outside the controlled environment, and is in contact with a sealing component to form a seal; configured to be in contact with a sealing component to form a seal)(Fig. 1, [0031], [0036]). It is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to cover the surfaces of these portions since the coating is taught as useful for all surfaces of the apparatus and in order to prevent corrosion on and between these parts.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Noguchi discloses that 20 to 40 parts per 100 parts mass of the fluorine containing elastomer may be filler, such as metallic oxides (i.e. impregnated with powdered ceramic material; overlapping 5% to 25% by volume) ([0103], [0123]). It is well known that these are added to resins in the form of powder. It is further noted that it would have been obvious to adjust the amount of filler in order to balance cost vs performance of the coating.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, the coating may be on the whole of surfaces of the apparatus, which is a chamber (Fig. 1), including sidewalls, O-rings, chucks, exhaust pipes and coils (i.e. sidewall, substrate support) ([0026]).
Regarding claims 6, 19 and 20, given that the coating may be perfluoroelastomer and may be crosslinked, which is identical to the material used in the instant invention (instant specification [0018]), it is the examiner’s position that the coating will intrinsically maintain corrosion resistant properties at a temperature of at least 300°C and from 15°C to 300°C and will be sufficiently compliant to resist damage due to thermal expansion mismatch between the coating and the chamber component.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, while there is no specific disclosure of the coating thickness, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness to the claimed range in order to balance cost vs. protection of the underlying layer and would thereby have arrived at the claimed coating thickness.
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi et al. (US 2011/0083806 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, in view of Helmig (US 4178850 A).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Noguchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Noguchi does not specifically disclose the thickness of the coating is 1 µm to 200 µm.
Helmig discloses a fluoroelastomer layer for corrosion resistance at 0.005 inches thick (127 µm)(C4/L20-40).
Noguchi and Helmig are analogous art because they both teach fluoroelastomer layers for corrosion resistance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the coating 127 µm as taught by Helmig because doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known material in a known thickness to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi et al. (US 2011/0083806 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Nakano et al. (US 2003/0141821 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Noguchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Noguchi does not specifically disclose that the chamber comprises aluminum, molybdenum or steel.
Nakano discloses a plasma processing apparatus and that the chamber walls are generally aluminum or stainless steel (abstract, [0074]).
Noguchi and Nakano are analogous art because they both teach about a plasma processing apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the chamber of Noguchi of aluminum or stainless steel as taught by Nakano because it is well known in the art to do so and doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known material in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi et al. (US 2011/0083806 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Amouroux (US 2003/0087100 A1).
Regarding claim 21, modified Noguchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Noguchi does not disclose a primer disposed on the surface of the body between the body and the organic perfluoroelastomer material.
Amouroux discloses a metal article coated with a fluoroelastomer comprising a primer layer between the fluoroelastomer and the metal article (abstract, claims 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a primer layer as taught by Amouroux because it is well-known in the art to do so to increase adhesion and because doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known material in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi et al. (US 2011/0083806 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Chen et al. (US 2011/0297319 A1).
Regarding claim 22, modified Noguchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Noguchi does not disclose that the body consists essentially of yttrium oxide.
Chen discloses that semiconductor process chambers have walls that are typically composed of materials such as yttrium oxide ([0001], [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the body of Noguchi out of yttrium oxide as taught by Chen because it is well-known in the art to do so and because doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known material in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi et al. (US 2011/0083806 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Shen et al. (US 20190345319 A1).
Regarding claim 23, modified Noguchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Noguchi does not disclose that the corrosion resistant coating further comprises a fist additive comprising a UV-absorbing material.
Shen discloses that it is well-known to add UV absorbing additives to a fluoroelastomer composition (abstract, [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add UV-absorbing material to the fluoroelastomer of Noguchi as taught by Shen because it is well-known in the art to do so to protect the composition from UV and because doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known material in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi et al. (US 2011/0083806 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sun et al. (US 2010/0140222 A1).
Regarding claim 24, modified Noguchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Noguchi does not disclose that the corrosion-resistant coating is impregnated with a powdered yttrium oxide material, the powdered yttrium oxide material being present in the coating in an amount of 5% to 25% by volume.
Sun discloses that it is well-known to add approximately 15% by volume of yttrium oxide particle filler to a fluoroelastomer composition to reduce erosion (i.e. overlapping 5% to 25%)([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add approximately 15% yttrium oxide particle filler to the fluoroelastomer of Noguchi as taught by Sun because it is well-known in the art to do so to protect the composition from erosion and because doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known material in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Noguchi does not disclose that a portion of the surface of the body on which the corrosion resistant coating is deposited extends from a portion of the semiconductor processing chamber configured to generate a controlled environment to a region outside the controlled environment, and is in contact with a sealing component to form a seal.
As set forth above, it is clear from Fig. 1 that the chamber has an exhaust pipe separated by an O-ring (wherein an portion of the surface of the body on which the corrosion-resistant coating is deposited extends from a portion of the semiconductor processing chamber configured to generate a controlled environment to a region outside the controlled environment, and is in contact with a sealing component to form a seal)(Fig. 1, [0031], [0036]). It is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to cover the surfaces of these portions since the coating is taught as useful for all surfaces of the apparatus and in order to prevent corrosion on and between these parts.
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 JAMES C YAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3880. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6 EST M-F.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/JAMES C YAGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782