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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 8/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Zhan, Stowell and Lin cannot be used to teach annealing with a fluorine containing environment because Lin only teaches annealing yttrium oxides with fluorine. However, Lin teaches annealing any oxide able to be fluorinated to be annealed, including those claimed in paras 0045-0047. It is noted that the claims do not exclude yttrium oxide as the claim language indicates that the material ‘comprises’ the claimed oxides. 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).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore, this rejection is maintained. Any new grounds of rejection are due to amendments.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan et al. (US 2019/0127280 A1) in view of Stowell et al. (US 2020/0028155 A1) and Lin et al. (US 2016/0273095 A1)
As to Claim 1, Zhan et al. teaches a semiconductor processing method (para 0003) comprising: providing a powder to a processing region of a processing chamber (305, Fig. 3A) that is ceramic containing (para 0019-0020); providing one or more deposition precursors to the processing region (310, Fig. 3A) ;generating plasma effluents of the one or more deposition precursors (spray, 325, Fig 3B); and depositing a layer of material on the powder in the processing region (article, 325, Fig 3B), wherein the layer of material comprises a corrosion-resistant material (protective coating in para 0003-0004). Both the ceramic powder and layer of material are as claimed in Zhan et al. paras 0019-0020, 0034, for example.
Zhan et al. does not teach an annealing step after deposition, though it does teach a sintering step. Stowell et al. teaches a similar method of coating particles where an annealing step is used, alternately with a sintering step in series, in order to modify the morphology and/or the surfaces of the coated particles (para 0062). Stowell further uses dopants, or an active gas environment as broadly claimed, during annealing in para 0062. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Zhan et al. to include an annealing step as taught by Stowell in order to modify the morphology and/or the surfaces of the coated particles.
Stowell does not use a fluorine containing environment for its annealing. Lin et al. teaches oxides deposited similar to that of Zhan that are annealed in a fluorine environment in order to have the finished particles have an etch resistance, crack resistance and integrity in para 0033-0034. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Zhan et al. and Stowell to include an annealing step in fluorine as taught by Lin et al. environment in order to have the finished particles have an etch resistance, crack resistance and integrity.
As to claim 3, both the powder and layer of material are as claimed in Zhan et al. paras 0019-0020, 0034, for example. Lin et al. further teaches yttrium or aluminum oxides that are optimized by fluorine annealing para 0032-0036.
As to claims 9-11, the material is annealed or sintered in step 335 of Zhan et al. Fig 3B in a pressure-controlled environment as in para 0045 to make a component in para 0047-0051. Stowell et al. teaches a similar method of coating particles where an annealing step is used, alternately with a sintering step in series, in order to modify the morphology and/or the surfaces of the coated particles (para 0062). Stowell uses an inert environment, or ‘a pressure is controlled’ as broadly claimed, in para 0128. In the Stowell Examples, the particles are further welded or sintered together after annealing, such as in para 0145, for example.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan et al. (US 2019/0127280 A1), Stowell et al. (US 2020/0028155 A1) and Lin et al. (US 2016/0273095 A1) in view of Xu et al. (US 2016/0379806 A1)
Zhan et al. does not teach the nitrides as claimed as a particle coating for anti-corrosive purposes. Xu et al. teaches similar coatings as Zhan et al. in para 0018-0019 where nitrides are included as ALD coatings and used for the same purposes and ‘combinations therof’ of oxides and nitrides are listed as well. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include nitrides along with the oxides mentioned in Zhan et al. as taught by Xu et al. as Xu et al. teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
Claim(s 12-15, 17 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan et al. (US 2019/0127280 A1), Stowell et al. (US 2020/0028155 A1) and Dadheech et al. (US 2017/0327948 A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 2016/0273095 A1).
As to claim 12, Zhan et al. is discussed above and includes the limitations of claim 12, including depositing two separate layers of material onto a powder via an ALD process, but does not teach that the ALD process uses plasma effluents for its reactant gases. Dadheech et al. teaches using plasma as its reactants for ALD processes on particles in paras 0034-0039 to reduce the amount of thermal energy needed for the coating. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Zhan et al. to include plasma in its ALD process as taught by Dadheech et al. in order to reduce the amount of thermal energy needed for the coating. Dadheech teaches the claimed pressure in para 0034. Further, as Zhan et al. teaches the final coating is 1 nm, every cycle in Dadheech would be less to meet the claim as well.
Stowell does not use a fluorine containing environment for its annealing. Lin et al. teaches oxides deposited similar to that of Zhan that are annealed in a fluorine environment in order to have the finished particles have an etch resistance, crack resistance and integrity in para 0033-0034. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Zhan et al. and Stowell to include an annealing step in fluorine as taught by Lin et al. environment in order to have the finished particles have an etch resistance, crack resistance and integrity.
As to claims 13-14, these limitations are taught by Zhan et al. as discussed above.
As to claim 15, Zhan et al. teaches fluorine precursors in paras 0019-0020, 0034, for example.
As to claim 17, Zhan et al. teaches that the temperature is as claimed as discussed above. Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 21, the material is annealed or sintered in step 335 of Zhan et al. Fig 3B in a pressure-controlled environment as in para 0045 to make a component in para 0047-0051. Stowell et al. teaches a similar method of coating particles where an annealing step is used, alternately with a sintering step in series, in order to modify the morphology and/or the surfaces of the coated particles (para 0062). Stowell uses an inert environment in para 0128. In the Stowell Examples, the particles are further welded or sintered together after annealing, such as in para 0145, for example.
As to claim 22, Lin teaches the claimed gas in para 0057.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan et al. (US 2019/0127280 A1) and Stowell et al. (US 2020/0028155 A1) in view of Dadheech et al. (US 2017/0327948 A1) in further view of Xu et al. (US 2016/0379806 A1)
Zhan et al. does not teach the nitrides as claimed as a particle coating for anti corrosive purposes. Xu et al. teaches similar coatings as Zhan et al. in para 0018-0019 where oxynitrides (combinations thereof) are included as ALD coatings and used for the same purposes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include oxynitrides along with the oxides mentioned in Zhan et al. as taught by Xu et al. as Xu et al. teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
Claim(s) 6-7, 12-17 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan et al. (US 2019/0127280 A1), Stowell et al. (US 2020/0028155 A1) and Shull et al. (US 2022/0267899 A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 2016/0273095 A1).
As to claims 6-7 and 16, Zhan et al. does not teach the nitrides as claimed as a particle coating for anti corrosive purposes. Shull et al. teaches similar coatings as Zhan et al. in paras 0005-0009, 0030, 0035, for example where nitrides are included as ALD coatings and used for the same purposes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include oxynitrides along with the oxides mentioned in Zhan et al. as taught by Shull et al. as Shull et al. teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such. Oxynitrides are taught as well in this section of Shull et al.
Zhan et is discussed above and includes the limitations of claim 12, including depositing two separate layers of material onto a powder via an ALD process and the thickness of the coating in para 0017 (about 1 nm includes under 1 nm), but does not teach that the ALD process uses plasma effluents for its reactant gases. Shull et al. teaches using plasma as its reactants for ALD processes on particles in paras 0004-0005 to reduce tailor the particle properties in para 0010. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Zhan et al. to include plasma in its ALD process as taught by Shull et al. in order to tailor the particle properties. Shull teaches the claimed pressure in para 0034.
Stowell does not use a fluorine containing environment for its annealing. Lin et al. teaches oxides deposited similar to that of Zhan that are annealed in a fluorine environment in order to have the finished particles have an etch resistance, crack resistance and integrity in para 0033-0034. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Zhan et al. and Stowell to include an annealing step in fluorine as taught by Lin et al. environment in order to have the finished particles have an etch resistance, crack resistance and integrity.
As to claims 13-15 and 17, Zhan et al. teaches these limitations as discussed above.
As to claim 21, the material is annealed or sintered in step 335 of Zhan et al. Fig 3B in a pressure-controlled environment as in para 0045 to make a component in para 0047-0051. Stowell et al. teaches a similar method of coating particles where an annealing step is used, alternately with a sintering step in series, in order to modify the morphology and/or the surfaces of the coated particles (para 0062). Stowell uses an inert environment in para 0128. In the Stowell Examples, the particles are further welded or sintered together after annealing, such as in para 0145, for example.
As to claim 22, Lin teaches the claimed gas in para 0057.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights