DETAILED ACTION
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 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 Applicant’s amendment filed on March 24, 2026 was received. Claim 19 was amended.
The text of those sections of Title pre-AIA 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action issued on November 22, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by AmRhein et al. (US 2003/0215963 A1) on claims 8, 10, 13-16, and 18 are maintain.
Regarding claim 8, AmRhein teaches a method for coating a component such as a susceptor of a semiconductor processing chamber (Abstract, [0001]), the method comprising: positioning a component (such as a wafer holder as a susceptor) having an exposed surface within a chamber as shown in Fig. 1 ([0008], Fig. 1); depositing a conformal layer (206) on the exposed surface of the component such as a susceptor (20) comprises a graphite core (202) and a sealing coating (204), wherein the conformal layer (206) is characterized by an exposed surface opposite a surface in contact with the component ([0008], [0052], Fig. 4); preparing the exposed surface of the conformal layer (206), wherein preparing the exposed surface of the conformal layer (206) comprises: flowing an gas comprising argon into a processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber ([0043]), forming a plasma from gas comprising argon to produce plasma effluents, and contacting the surface of the conformal layer (206) with the plasma effluents, such as SiN for example is coated using a remote plasma generator in a plasma assisted CVD process (Fig. 1, [0052], [0045]); and depositing a non-metal oxide layer (208) over the surface of the argon plasma exposed conformal layer, wherein the source gases applied to the reactor walls and other internal components such as the wafer holder ([0008], [0045]), wherein the non-metal oxide layer (208) such as silicon oxynitride (silicon nitride) coating characterized by an amorphous microstructure for example ([0046], [0061], [0062]), (reads on amorphous microstructure) (Abstract, [0001], [0008], [0043], [0046], [0045], [0048], [0054], [0061], [0062], [0064], Figs. 1-4). In addition, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
PNG
media_image1.png
493
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Component: (20) comprising a graphite core (202) with a sealing coating (204);
Conformal layer: (206);
Non-metal oxide layer: (208).
Regarding claim 10, AmRhein teaches wherein the non-metal oxide layer comprises silicon carbide for example ([0061], [0064]).
Regarding claim 13, AmRhein teaches wherein preparing the exposed surface of the conformal layer comprises surface texturing the exposed surface of the conformal layer by plasm for example ([0049], [0058]).
Regarding claim 14, AmRhein teaches texturing the exposed surface of the component to a depth of at least about 1 µm before depositing the conformal layer ([0058]).
Regarding claim 15, AmRhein teaches wherein the component comprises a chamber wall or an edge ring for example ([0034], [0045], [0054], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, AmRhein teaches a method for coating a component such as a susceptor of a semiconductor processing chamber ( Abstract, [0001]), the method comprising: positioning a component such as a wafer holder a susception having an exposed surface within a chamber ([0008], Fig. 1); depositing a conformal layer (206) on the exposed surface of the component (20) comprising graphite core (202) and a sealing coating (204), wherein the conformal layer is characterized by an exposed surface opposite a surface in contact with the component ([0008], [0061]), Fig. 1); subsequent to depositing the conformal layer (206), flowing a gas comprising an argon into a processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber ([0043]), forming a plasma from gas comprising the argon to produce plasma effluents, and contacting the surface of the conformal layer (206) with the plasma effluents such as SiN for example is coated using a remote plasma generator in a plasma assisted CVD process (Fig. 1, [0052], [0045]); and depositing a non-metal oxide layer (top layer) (208) such as silicon oxynitride (silicon nitride) coating characterized by an amorphous microstructure for example ([0046], [0061], [0062], Fig. 4), (reads on amorphous microstructure) over the surface of the conformal layer (206), wherein the source gases applied to the reactor walls and other internal components such as the wafer holder ([0008], [0045], Fig. 4) (Abstract, [0001], [0008], [0043], [0045], [0046], [0048], [0052], [0054], [0061], [0062], Figs. 1-4). In addition, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
PNG
media_image1.png
493
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Component: (20) comprising a graphite core (202) with a sealing coating (204);
Conformal layer: (206);
Non-metal oxide layer: (208).
Regarding claim 18, AmRhein teaches wherein the top layer comprises silicon carbide (SiC) for example ([0061], [0062]). As admitted by Applicant silicon carbide may have a hardness value of from about 1,000 HV to about 3,000 HV (Current Specification [0057]). Therefore silicon carbide (SiC) reads on the top layer is characterized by a hardness of from about 300 HV to about 10,000 HV.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AmRhein et al. (US 2003/0215963 A1) as applied to claims 8, 10, 13-16, and 18, further in view of Sun et al (US 2003/0047464 A1) on claim 9 is maintained.
Regarding claim 9, AmRhein teaches a method for coating a component of a semiconductor processing chamber as disclosed above. AmRhein does not explicitly teaches wherein the exposed surface of the component comprises an aluminum alloy including nickel. However, an analogous art, Sun discloses a semiconductor processing chamber component comprising aluminum alloy including nickel for example ([0015], [0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply aluminum alloy to the method of coating in AmRhein, because Sun disclosed the aluminum alloy is commonly used ([0015]).
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AmRhein et al. (US 2003/0215963 A1) as applied to claims 8, 10, 13-16, and 18, further in view of Firouzdor et al (US 2015/0307982) on Claim 11 is maintained.
Regarding claim 11, AmRhein teaches a method for coating a component of a semiconductor processing chamber such as susceptor as disclosed above. AmRhein does not explicitly teaches wherein the component comprises one or more apertures and wherein the conformal layer extends conformally through each of the one or more apertures. However, an analogous art, Firouzdor disclose that a susceptor can be coated or protected by a first protective layer and a second protective layer over a surface of the body (abstract), wherein the protective layer is conforming the susceptor [0017]; wherein first protective layer 135 on at least one surface and a second protective layer 136 over the first protective layer 135, the susceptor 134 has multiple depressions (reads on the apertures) ([0017], [0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply coating the multiple depressions to the method of coating in AmRhein, because Firouzdor disclosed the susceptor 134 has multiple depressions (reads on the apertures), which was coated to protecting chamber components ([0002], [0017], [0028]).
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AmRhein et al. (US 2003/0215963 A1) as applied to claims 8, 10, 13-16, and 18, further in view of Shirasaki (US 2016/0081216) on claims 12 and 20 are maintained.
Regarding claim 12, AmRhein teaches a method for coating a component of a semiconductor processing chamber such as susceptor as disclosed above. AmRhein does not explicitly teaches wherein the conformal layer comprises electroless plated nickel, Newton's metal, or barium titanate. However, an analogous art, Shirasaki discloses that in order to prevent oxidation corrosion, a plated layer of nickel, gold, or the like is formed on a surface of the pedestal member 34 using the electroplating method or the electroless plating method [0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Shirasaki’s teaching of protecting or plating the surface of a component with electroless plated nickel into modified AmRhein’s teaching for efficiently preventing oxidation corrosion as taught by Shirasaki [0051].
Regarding claim 20, AmRhein teaches a method for coating a component of a semiconductor processing chamber such as susceptor as disclosed above. AmRhein does not explicitly teaches wherein the conformal layer comprises electroless plated nickel, Newton's metal, or barium titanate. However, an analogous art, Shirasaki discloses that in order to prevent oxidation corrosion, a plated layer of nickel, gold, or the like is formed on a surface of the pedestal member 34 using the electroplating method or the electroless plating method [0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Shirasaki’s teaching of protecting or plating the surface of a component with electroless plated nickel into modified AmRhein’s teaching for efficiently preventing oxidation corrosion as taught by Shirasaki [0051].
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AmRhein et al. (US 2003/0215963 A1) as applied to claims 8, 10, 13-16, and 18, on claims 17 and 19 are maintained.
Regarding claim 17, AmRhein teaches a method as disclosed above and comprising etch by plasma the conformal layer in the process ([0045]). AmRhein does not explicitly teach the surface roughness level. However, AmRhein recognizes the etch or surface roughness is adjusted by changing the etching condition and parameters ([0045], [0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the surface roughness to yield a desired coating Application (([0045], [0060]). Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in know process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 19, AmRhein teaches a method as disclosed above and comprising phosphine which is hydrogen and phosphorous in the process ([0045]). AmRhein does not explicitly teach the content of hydrogen and phosphorous. However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are
AmRhein doesn’t teach the claimed limitations in claims 8 and 16.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees. AmRhein teaches the limitations in claims 8 and 16 as disclosed above. AmRhein teaches a method for coating a component such as a susceptor of a semiconductor processing chamber (Abstract, [0001]), the method comprising: positioning a component (such as a wafer holder as a susceptor) having an exposed surface within a chamber as shown in Fig. 1 ([0008], Fig. 1); depositing a conformal layer (206) on the exposed surface of the component such as a susceptor (20) comprises a graphite core (202) and a sealing coating (204), wherein the conformal layer (206) is characterized by an exposed surface opposite a surface in contact with the component ([0008], [0052], Fig. 1); preparing the exposed surface of the conformal layer (206), wherein preparing the exposed surface of the conformal layer (206) comprises: flowing an gas comprising argon into a processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber ([0043]), forming a plasma from gas comprising argon to produce plasma effluents, and contacting the surface of the conformal layer (206) with the plasma effluents, such as SiN for example is coated using a remote plasma generator in a plasma assisted CVD process (Fig. 1, [0052], [0045]); and depositing a non-metal oxide layer (208) over the surface of the argon plasma exposed conformal layer, wherein the source gases applied to the reactor walls and other internal components such as the wafer holder ([0008], [0045]), wherein the non-metal oxide layer (208) such as silicon oxynitride (silicon nitride) coating characterized by an amorphous microstructure for example ([0046], [0061], [0062]), (reads on amorphous microstructure) (Abstract, [0001], [0008], [0043], [0046], [0045], [0048], [0054], [0061], [0062], [0064], Figs. 1-4). In addition, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
AmRhein teaches a method for coating a component such as a susceptor of a semiconductor processing chamber ( Abstract, [0001]), the method comprising: positioning a component such as a wafer holder a susception having an exposed surface within a chamber ([0008], Fig. 1); depositing a conformal layer (206) on the exposed surface of the component (20) comprising graphite core (202) and a sealing coating (204), wherein the conformal layer is characterized by an exposed surface opposite a surface in contact with the component ([0008], [0061]), Fig. 1); subsequent to depositing the conformal layer (206), flowing a gas comprising an argon into a processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber ([0043]), forming a plasma from gas comprising the argon to produce plasma effluents, and contacting the surface of the conformal layer (206) with the plasma effluents such as SiN for example is coated using a remote plasma generator in a plasma assisted CVD process (Fig. 1, [0052], [0045]); and depositing a non-metal oxide layer (top layer) (208) such as silicon oxynitride (silicon nitride) coating characterized by an amorphous microstructure for example ([0046], [0061], [0062], Fig. 4), (reads on amorphous microstructure) over the surface of the conformal layer (206), wherein the source gases applied to the reactor walls and other internal components such as the wafer holder ([0008], [0045], Fig. 4) (Abstract, [0001], [0008], [0043], [0045], [0046], [0048], [0052], [0054], [0061], [0062], Figs. 1-4). In addition, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
PNG
media_image1.png
493
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Component: (20) comprising a graphite core (202) with a sealing coating (204);
Conformal layer: (206);
Non-metal oxide layer: (208).
Conclusion
Accordingly, 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 extension fee 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 HAI YAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7181. The examiner can normally be reached on MTTHF.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAH-WEI YUAN can be reached on 571-272-1295. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAI Y ZHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights