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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 16, 19 amended
Claims 6, 11 cancelled
Claims 19-20 withdrawn
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-18 pending
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/09/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10, 12-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (PG Pub 2023/0417954 A1), in view of Deepak (PG Pub 2020/0283897 A1).
Consider Claim 1, Allen teaches the process of forming optics/components for semiconductor [0073], where the optical component (100) is coated with protective coating (120) (figure 2, [0064]), teaches deposition of metal fluoride protective coating formed using metal precursor with fluorine source (claim 11, page 21). Allen teaches the fluorine source include ammonium fluoride (NH4F) within processing region of an assisted plasma ALD [0125].
Allen does not teach the ALD plasma is plasma effluent.
However, Deepak teaches the forming of semiconductor components such as OLED [0003], and forming fluorinated layer on the component/object (claim 1). Deepak teaches the process of forming the layer include placing the component/object in the processing region of an ALD/chamber (claim 1). Deepak teaches for the forming of the metal fluorine layer the use of fluorine precursor (FP) (Claim 1), and metal containing precursor (Claim 2). Deepak teaches the purging in the processing region [0025]. Deepak teaches the use of remote plasma/plasma effluents (claim 5). Deepak teaches the processing environment is under temperature from 150-400℃ [0025]. 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). (MPEP 2144.05).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Allen with Deepak for using remote plasma/plasma effluent to provides the oxygen radicals to the processing region forming film, with a predetermined layer thickness [0022].
Consider Claims 2-3, the combined Allen (with Deepak) teaches the protective coating (120) is coated on reflective layer (110) is Al2O3 [0075].
Consider Claims 4 and 8-9, the combined Allen (with Deepak) teaches the precursor include hexafluoro-acetylacetonate (comprise oxygen) (Deepak, [0022]), thus forming a film containing metal-fluorine-oxygen, which is exposed to plasma process.
Consider Claim 5, the combined Allen (with Deepak) teaches the metal in the metal precursor include Al (claim 13).
Consider Claim 7, the combined Allen (with Deepak teaches the metal fluoride protective coating include CaF2 (Claim 11).
Consider Claim 10, the combined Allen (with Deepak) teaches the use of NF3 (Deepak, [0022]), thus forming nitrogen containing film.
Consider Claims 12-13, the combined Allen (with Deepak) teaches repeating of the deposition process (Deepak, figure 2), where the process include heating the deposited film. Thus, annealing the first layer to a high temperature.
Consider Claim 14, the combined Allen (with Deepak) teaches the protective coating is deposited at temperature of 150℃ [0081], under 2000℃. 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). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 15, the combined Allen (with Deepak) teaches the deposited object is chamber component (Deepak, [0019]).
Claims 16-18 (s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 112908822 A), in view of Deepak (PG Pub 2020/0283897 A1).
Consider Claim 16, Chen teaches the process of coating on a component for a semiconductor [n0001], where the process is within a reaction chamber [n0033]. The coating process include the use of precursor sources such as yttrium(III) hexafluoroacetylacetonate (metal containing precursor), and yttrium(III) trifluoromethanesulfonate [n0007] (fluorine containing precursor). Chen teaches the coating layer is yttrium oxyfluorine material [n0006]. Chen teaches the exposed to plasma environment for fluorine precursor [n0063]. Chen teaches the processing temperature from 100-500℃ [n0046]. 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). (MPEP 2144.05). Chen teaches the semiconductor components such as gas nozzle, gas distributing plate, cover ring/lid and more [n0034].
Chen does not teach the use of remote plasma as plasma effluent, with purging step.
However, Deepak teaches the forming of semiconductor components such as OLED [0003], and forming fluorinated layer on the component/object (claim 1). Deepak teaches the process of forming the layer include placing the component/object in the processing region of an ALD/chamber (claim 1). Deepak teaches for the forming of the metal fluorine layer the use of fluorine precursor (FP) (Claim 1), and metal containing precursor (Claim 2). Deepak teaches the purging in the processing region [0025]. Deepak teaches the use of remote plasma/plasma effluents (claim 5). Deepak teaches the processing environment is under temperature from 150-400℃ [0025]. 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). (MPEP 2144.05).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Chen with Deepak for using remote plasma/plasma effluent to provides the oxygen radicals to the processing region forming Y2O3 with a predetermined layer thickness [0022].
Consider Claim 17, the combined Chen (with Deepak) teaches component/object comprises Al2O3, as upper layer, where the metal-fluorine layer is deposited on top (Deepak, [0021]).
Consider Claim 18, Deepak teaches the forming of metal-fluorine oxygen containing layer (Deepak, abstract, [0024]), with 2% oxygen or less (Deepak, [0024]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/25/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5, 7-10, 12-18 under 103a have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Allen with Deepak, and Chen with Deepak.
The previously applied double patent claims rejection, in light of the amended claim are now withdrawn.
All other applicant arguments not specifically addressed above are deemed unpersuasive as either not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims or are unsupported by factual evidence and are deemed mere attorney speculation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM EST.
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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
