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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/8/25 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph 0036 of the specification “braising” should be –brazing--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
For the purposes of this examination, the limitation “a first surface of a first metal body comprising a second chemical composition… the second chemical composition is a pure metal of at least 99.99% purity… a second metal body having the second chemical composition” will be interpreted as – a first surface of a first metal body, wherein the first metal body consists of a pure metal of at least 99.99% purity… a second metal body consists of the second chemical composition--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “a first surface of a first metal body comprising a second chemical composition”. It is unclear as to what comprises the second chemical composition, the surface or the body. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as noted above.
Claim 1 recites “a first surface of a first metal body comprising a second chemical composition… the second chemical composition is a pure metal of at least 99.99% purity… a second metal body having the second chemical composition”. Whether it is the surface or the body it is unclear if and/or how they may comprise/have another composition, when the second composition is/consists of a pure metal of at least 99.99% purity. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as noted above.
Claim 2 recites “the purity of the first metal body and a purity of the second metal body are 99.99%”. It is unclear if there is antecedent basis for “the purity of the first metal body” due to the indefiniteness of claim 1; i.e. what limitation comprises the second chemical composition.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 recites “at least the first surface of the first metal body and the second surface of the second metal body are composed of nickel”. This broadens claim 1 because in claim 1 the surfaces and bodies appear to consist of pure metal which does not allow additional elements, while “composed of” allows additional elements. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (JP 2008-31558) in view of Schwartz “Metals Joining Manual” and Herber et al. (US 2009/0202858 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murakami teaches:
A method [method of making a gas shower head; 0001, 0010, 0022], comprising:
a first surface of a first metal body [one of step portions (3a-c); figures 2 and 3] comprising a second chemical composition [Ni; 0010], wherein the second chemical composition is resistant to a target plasma environment [since Ni is claimed as the pure metal this limitation is met], and wherein the second chemical composition comprises a pure metal [Ni; 0010];
disposing a second metal body [one of step portions (3a-c); figures 2 and 3] having the second chemical composition [0010] against the first metal body, wherein the first metal body and the second metal body are resistant to diffusion bonding [since Ni is claimed as the pure metal this limitation is met];
heating the first metal body and the second metal body to a temperature [0022];
applying pressure to press the second metal body against the first metal body [pressure is provided by bolt (3b)]; and forming a showerhead for a substrate processing chamber configured to provide the target plasma environment for plasma processing by generating a diffusion bond between the second metal body and the first metal body responsive to the heating and the applying of pressure for a duration [0022].
Murakami does not teach:
applying a bond layer comprising a first chemical composition to a first surface,
wherein the second chemical composition is different from the first chemical composition,
the pure metal is of at least 99.99% purity, and
the first chemical composition comprises an alloy of the pure metal;
disposing the bond layer between the first surface of the first metal body and a second surface of the second metal body,
wherein the bond layer facilitates diffusion bonding of the second metal body to the first metal body; and
the heating is to a temperature that is between 50% and 90% of an absolute melting temperature of the first chemical composition (i.e. diffusion welding).
Concerning the purity level:
One reading Murakami 0026 would understand that Murakami is open to any level of purity for the step portions since Murakami recites they may be Ni or Ni alloy; 0010. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use any level of nickel purity, including at least 99.99%, minus any unexpected results. Additionally, one would have been motivated to use 99.99% because impurities at that level do not react with the processing gas enough to be detrimental, or due to cost, availability, and/or familiarity.
Concerning the use of a bond layer:
Schwartz teaches diffusion welding (DFW) in depth including the different types of diffusion mechanisms that occur, surface preparation is done to the maximum attainable cleanliness, the welding temperature is 60% to 80% of the melting point of the materials involved, and the use of an intermediate material/interlayer (bond layer) to accelerate diffusion, is different in composition than that of the workpieces, may be electroplated, evaporated, or sputtered, should not exceed 250 µm in thickness, and may be a standard brazing filler metal; 10-1 to 10-11.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Schwartz bond layer concept into Murakami in order to accelerate diffusion. Note that in doing so, the bond layer would intrinsically be placed between the step portions in order to accelerate the bonding between them. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the bond layer to a surface of each step portion since such bond layers are electroplated, evaporated, or sputtered. Note that Herber also teaches plating the bond layer; 0087-089.
Concerning the material of the bond layer/first chemical composition:
Since Schwartz is silent as to what the bond layer may be when diffusion welding pure nickel one would look to Herber.
Herber teaches using plated NiP as a brazing layer for pure Ni; 0088, 0108-0115.
Since Scwartz teaches brazing material can be used as a bond layer when diffusion welding, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Herber NiP material concept into Murakami since it is a known material for joining pure Ni, minus any unexpected results.
Concerning the degree of the heating:
Lastly, while Murakami teaches heating to 500°C or more and that higher temperatures increase bond strength; 0034 and figure 5, Murakami fails to explicitly teach a heating temperature in the claimed range.
However as noted above, Schwartz teaches a heating range that falls within that claimed.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to heat from 60-80% of the melting point of the lowest melting material involved, which in this case is the bond layer, in order to speed up the process and/or achieve a desired strength or since this is a known process variable.
Regarding claims 2, 5, and 6, these claims are addressed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Murakami does not teach:
wherein the bond layer has a thickness of 5 µm/100 nm or less.
Herber teaches the bond layer is 4.8 µm; 0109.
Schwartz also teaches the bond layer should not exceed 250 µm.
Herber/Schwartz and the claims differ in that Herber/Schwartz does not teach the exact same ranges as recited in the instant claims.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time/before the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Herber/Schwartz overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003); In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974), and MPEP 2144.05. This reasoning applies to any claim and limitation in this action where a range is being claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Murakami teaches:
further comprising preparing the first surface of the first metal body prior to application of the bond layer, wherein preparing the first surface includes one or more of: removing organic surface contaminants; removing inorganic surface contaminants; polishing the first surface [0017]; or removing a layer of metal oxide from the first surface.
Regarding claim 8, Murakami does not teach:
further comprising masking areas of the first metal body prior to applying the bond layer.
Herber teaches applying a resist layer prior to applying the brazing material in order to protect specific areas from receiving the brazing material; 0064, 0074.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the areas to be masked are dependent upon the objects being bonded and thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to mask any area, including those not adjacent to the bonding areas, in order to save material, protect certain areas, and/or prevent unwanted coatings.
Regarding claim 10, Murakami teaches:
further comprising shaping the first metal body prior to applying the bond layer [step portions (3a-c) are shaped as step portions; see figure 3].
Claim 4 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (JP 2008-31558) in view of Schwartz “Metals Joining Manual” and Herber et al. (US 2009/0202858 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wimplinger et al. (US 2015/0224755 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Murakami does not teach:
wherein the bond layer has a thickness of 100 nm or less.
Wimplinger teaches a diffusion bond layer can range from 0.1-2500 nm; 0048.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a bond layer with the claimed thickness as taught by Wimplinger in order to perform diffusion bonding. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the thickness of the bond layer is dependent upon the size, flatness, and roughness of the components and thus adjust the thickness of the bond layer accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS J GAMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5826. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 5712723458. 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.
/CARLOS J GAMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights