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Claims 19-20 withdrawn
Claim 6 canceled
Claims 1, 8, 11, 16 amended
Claims 1-18 pending
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allen (PG Pub 2023/0417954 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 ALD [0125].
Consider Claims 2-3, Allen teaches the protective coating (120) is coated on reflective layer (110) is Al2O3 [0075].
Consider Claim 5, Allen teaches the metal in the metal precursor include Al (claim 13).
Consider Claim 7, Allen teaches the metal fluoride protective coating include CaF2 (Claim 11).
Consider Claim 14, Allen teaches the protective coating is deposited at temperature of 150℃ [0081], under 2000℃.
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) 1-3, 5, 7 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (PG Pub 2023/0417954 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 ALD [0125].
Consider Claims 2-3, Allen teaches the protective coating (120) is coated on reflective layer (110) is Al2O3 [0075].
Consider Claim 5, Allen teaches the metal in the metal precursor include Al (claim 13).
Consider Claim 7, Allen teaches the metal fluoride protective coating include CaF2 (Claim 11).
Consider Claim 14, Allen 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).
Claims 16 (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 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]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 7-18 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/343,351 (PG Pub 2025/0003061 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because;
Claim 1 state “A processing method comprising:
providing a component for semiconductor processing to a processing region of a processing chamber;
providing deposition precursors to the processing region, wherein the deposition precursors comprise a metal-containing precursor and a fluorine-containing precursor, precursor, wherein the fluorine-containing precursor comprises ammonium fluoride (NH4F) or ammonium bifluoride (NH4F.HF); and
depositing a layer of material on the component for semiconductor processing in the processing region, wherein the layer of material comprises a metal-and-fluorine-containing material”.
This is disclosed in claim 1 and claims 6-7 of ‘351.
Claim 16 state “A processing method comprising:
providing a component for semiconductor processing to a processing region of a processing chamber;
depositing a layer of material on the component for semiconductor processing in the processing region, wherein the layer of material comprises a metal-and-fluorine-containing material, and wherein depositing the layer of material comprises:
exposing the component for semiconductor processing to plasma effluents of a first precursor;
purging the processing region; and
exposing the component for semiconductor processing to plasma effluents of a second precursor, wherein the layer of material comprises reaction products of the plasma effluents of the first precursor and the plasma effluents of the second precursor, and wherein a temperature within the processing chamber is maintained at greater than or about 450° C”
This is disclosed in claim 15 and claim 18 of ‘351.
Claims 2-5, 7-15 and 17-18 are disclosed in claims 2-14 and 16-18 of ‘351.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8-13, 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5, 7-18 under 102/130a 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, and Chen with Deepak.
The previously applied 112 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights