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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 22, 2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
MAITRE ET AL. AS THE PRIMARY REFERENCE:
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maitre et al.
"Role of Boron on the spark plasma sintering of an a-SiC powder", 28 (9), 1881-1890, 2008 in
view of Wicker et al. (U.S. 6,464,843).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Maitre et al. teach a method for making a component comprising
placing a non-oxide silicon containing powder composition in a mold (i.e. die), wherein the non-oxide silicon containing powder composition consists essentially of a non-oxide silicon
containing powder and at least one of a B or B4C dopant; subjecting the non -oxide silicon
containing powder composition to spark plasma sintering to form a spark plasma sintered
component. (See Experimental procedure)
Regarding claim 1, Maitre et al. teach wherein an atomic fraction of boron to silicon in
the non-oxide silicon containing powder composition is greater than 10%. (See Experimental
Procedure - Starting powders - 3.1 wt% B or B4C and 0.86 wt% C and balance SiC (96.04 wt%):
Atomic weights B= 10.81 g/mol, Si= 28.09 g/mol, C = 12.01 g/mol,
Moles of B = 3.1 g/10.81 g/mol = 0.2868 mol B
Molecular weight of SiC is 40.10 g/mol
Moles of Si is 96.04/40.10 = 2.395 mol
Atomic fraction of B relative to Si= 0.2868/2.395 = 11.97% which is about 12%
PNG
media_image1.png
174
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The difference between Maitre et al. and claim 1 is that machining the spark plasma
sintering component into a plasma processing chamber component is not discussed (Claim 1)
and using the component in a plasma processing chamber is not discussed (Claim 1 ).
Regarding machining the spark plasma sintering component into a plasma processing
chamber component (Claim 1 ), Wicker et al. teach a component formed of SiC and including B
where "for example, the SiC member may include up to about 0.5% B to aid sintering of the
SiC powder." The component can be formed by any means including sintering. (Abstract;
Fig. 1; Column 6 lines 24-63) Wicker et al. suggest that sintered components can be machined
into component for a plasma processing chamber. (Column 7 lines 3-6)
Regarding using the component in a plasma processing chamber (Claim 1), Wicker et al.
teach using the component in a processing chamber. (Abstract; Fig. 1; Column 6 lines 24-63)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is that an atomic fraction of boron to silicon in the non-oxide silicon containing powder composition is in a range of 0.10% to 20%.
Regarding an atomic fraction of boron to silicon in the non-oxide silicon containing
powder composition is in a range of 10% to 20% (Claim 2), Maitre et al. teach an atomic fraction
of boron to silicon in the non-oxide silicon containing powder composition is 12% (See calculation above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the plasma processing chamber component is
at least one of a gas distribution plate, edge ring or liner of the plasma processing chamber.
Regarding claim 3, Wicker et al. teach wherein the plasma processing chamber
component is at least one of a gas distribution plate, edge ring or liner of the plasma processing
chamber. (Abstract; Fig. 1; Column 6 lines 24-63)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the non-oxide silicon containing powder
consists essentially of silicon carbide powder and at least one of B or B4C dopant.
Regarding claim 4, Maitre et al. teach wherein the non-oxide silicon containing powder
consists essentially of silicon carbide powder and at least one of B or B4C dopant. (See
Experimental procedure)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is where the dopant is B4C dopant.
Regarding claim 5, Maitre et al. teach utilizing a B4C dopant to produce less dense
components. (See Experimental procedure and Conclusion)
Wicker et al. teach less dense components with porosity and filling pores with silicon.
(Column 3 lines 53-55)
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize boron carbide as the dopant as
taught Maitre et al. to produce porous components that are less dense because Wicker et al.
desires filling pores with free silicon.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is the component made by the method.
Regarding claim 7, Maitre et al. in combination with Wicker et al. teach the component
as discussed above.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Wicker et al. is that it allows for minimizing
contamination. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Maitre et al. by utilizing the features of Wicker et al.
because it allows for minimizing contamination.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maitre et al. in
view of Wicker et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 7 above, and further in view of Koishiishi et al.
(U.S. PGPUB. 2007/0215580 Al).
The difference not yet discussed is utilizing silicon instead of silicon carbide.
Regarding claim 6, Koishiishi et al. teach utilizing silicon in a chamber component as an
alternative to using silicon carbide in a chamber component. (Paragraph 0122)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Koishiishi et al. is that it allows for having
uniform plasma. (Paragraph 0008)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to replace the SiC of Wicker et al. with the Si of
Koishiishi et al because Koishiishi recognize them as equivalents.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maitre et al. in
view of Wicker et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 7 above, and further in view of Chu et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2017/0369381 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 23:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein spark plasma sintering simultaneously provides a voltage of at least 5 volts and a pressure of at least 10 MPa by a mono-axial force in a vacuum while providing a heating rate of at least 100°C/min to provide a temperature of at least 1000°C.
Regarding claim 23, Chu et al. teach providing a voltage of at least 5 volts (Paragraph 045 – between about 0 V and 10 V) and a pressure of at least 10 MPa (Paragraph 0041 – between about 20 MPa and 60 MPa) by a mono-axial force (Paragraph 0041 – Mpa force; Paragraph 030, 0058 – utilizing pressure via punches in the Y direction in Fig. 3) in a vacuum (Paragraph 0036 – Vacuum chamber) while providing a heating rate of at least 100°C/min (Paragraph 0006 – between about 50°C/min to 200°C/min) to provide a temperature of at least 1000°C (Paragraph 0007 – a temperature of at least about 1950°C).
The motivation for utilizing the features of Chu et al. is that it allows for producing highly dense SiC components. (Paragraph 0002)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Chu et al. because it allows for producing highly dense SiC components.
WICKER ET AL. AS THE PRIMARY REFERENCE:
Claim(s) 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Wicker et al. (U.S. 6,464,843) in view of Maitre et al. "Role of Boron on the
spark plasma sintering of an a-SiC powder”, 28 (9), 1881-1890, 2008 and Prochazka (U.S. Pat.
3,993,602).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
Wicker et al. teach a component formed of SiC and including B where "for example, the
SiC member may include up to about 0.5% B to aid sintering of the SiC powder." The
component can be formed by any means including sintering. (Abstract; Fig. 1; Column 6 lines
24-63) Wicker et al. suggest that sintered components can be machined into component for a
plasma processing chamber. (Column 7 lines 3-6)
The difference between Wicker et al. and the present claims is spark plasma sintering and
wherein at atomic fraction of boron to silicon in the non-oxide silicon containing powder
composition is greater than 10% is not discussed.
Regarding spark plasma sintering:
Wicker et al. as discussed above indicates any method can be used to produce
components including sintering. (See Wicker et al. discussed above)
Maitre et al. teach utilizing spark plasma sintering to produce components of SiC with B.
(See Maitre et al. discussed above)
Therefore, it would be obvious to utilize the sintering method of Maitre et al. as the
sintering method of Wicker et al. because it allows for producing dense components.
Regarding wherein at atomic fraction of boron to silicon in the non-oxide silicon
containing powder composition is greater than 10%:
Wicker et al. teach a component formed of SiC and including B where "for example, the
SiC member may include up to about 0.5% B to aid sintering of the SiC powder."
Prochazka teaches that the atomic fraction of boron to silicon in a non-oxide silicon
containing powder composition is greater than 10%. (Column 2 lines 3 6-62 - 0.3. to 3 wt% B
which is 11.5 % B to Si ratio at 3 wt% B)
Therefore it would have been obvious to modify the amount of B in the SiC component
of Wicker et al. by utilizing the features of Prochazka because using more B (i.e. 3 wt%) allows
for producing very fine grains of boron carbide in the sintered product.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
Regarding claim 8, Wicker et al. teach an apparatus for processing a wafer comprising a
plasma processing chamber; a wafer support for supporting a wafer within the plasma processing
chamber; a component comprising a sintered body comprising a non-oxide material containing
silicon consisting essentially of a non-oxide silicon containing material and at least one of a B or
B4C dopant. (Abstract; Fig. l; Column 6 lines 24-26; Column 6 lines 47-63 - The liner, focus
ring, baffle plate and/or gas distribution plate can be made of various blends of silicon carbide
based powder material having a predominant amount of silicon carbide. For instance, the total
amount of silicon and carbon is typically at least 90 wt%, preferably .gtoreq.95 wt%, and more
preferably .gtoreq.99wt%. For example, the SiC member may include up to about 0.5 % B to
aid sintering of the SiC powder. The SiC member may include an excess of Si such as up to
about35 wt% free Si and/or Si.sub.3 N.sub.4. The silicon carbide material can be made by any
suitable process such as hot pressing, sintering, reaction bonding (e.g., wherein SiC is infiltrated
with molten Si), etc. For uses such as the liner, focus ring and/or baffle, the silicon carbide
preferably has a low resistivity such as below 200.OMEGA..multidot.cm. The resistivity is much higher, however, when the SiC member is used for a window and/or gas distribution plate used
in conjunction with an RF antenna.)
The difference between Wicker et al. and the present claims is spark plasma sintering and
wherein at atomic fraction of boron to silicon in the non-oxide material is greater than 10% is not discussed.
Regarding spark plasma sintering:
In Wicker the term any suitable process such as sintering covers spark plasma sintering as
the genus ( of sintering) anticipates the species ( of plasma spark sintering) within the genus.
The process limitation of "spark plasma sintered" is given no weight since it process
limitation and the body is not distinguishable from any other body made by a sintering process.
In other words the product is the same from a product of the prior art even though it was made by
a different process. See MPEP 2113 - "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe. 777 F.2d 695,698,227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. ·1985)
"[T]he lack of physical description in a product--by--process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentabili1y of the product cl aimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established."
Furthermore, Wicker et al. as discussed above indicates any method can be used to
produce components including sintering. (See Wicker et al. discussed above)
Maitre et al. teach utilizing spark plasma sintering to produce components of SiC with B.
(See Maitre et al. discussed above)
Therefore, it would be obvious to utilize the sintering method of Maitre et al. as the
sintering method of Wicker et al. because it allows for producing dense components.
Regarding wherein at atomic fraction of boron to silicon in the non-oxide material is greater than 10%:
Wicker et al. teach a component formed of SiC and including B where "for example, the
SiC member may include up to about 0.5% B to aid sintering of the SiC powder."
Prochazka teaches that the atomic fraction of boron to silicon in a non-oxide silicon
containing powder composition is greater than 10%. (Column 2 lines 3 6-62 - 0.3. to 3 wt% B
which is 11.5 % B to Si ratio at 3 wt% B)
Prochazka teaches that the atomic fraction of boron to silicon in the non-oxide material being greater than 10%. (Column 5 lines 22-47 – for example
3.0 wt % B
0.1 wt % Be2C
96.9 wt% SiC
Atomic weight B = 10.81 g/mol
3.0/10.81 = 0.2775 mol
Molar Mass of SiC = 28.085 + 12.01 = 40.095 g/mol
One Si per SiC
96.9/40.095 = 2.4168 mol
Atomic Ratio of B:Si
0.2775/2.4168 = 0.115
Atomic Fraction of Boron to Silicon is 0.115 * 100 = 11.5%
Therefore it would have been obvious to modify the amount of B in the SiC component
of Wicker et al. by utilizing the features of Prochazka because using more B (i.e. 3 wt%) allows
for producing very fine grains of boron carbide in the sintered product.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein an atomic fraction of boron to silicon in the
component is in a range of 10 to 20%.
Wicker et al. teach a component formed of SiC and including B where "for example, the
SiC member may include up to about 0.5% B to aid sintering of the SiC powder."
Prochazka teaches that the atomic fraction of boron to silicon in the component is in a
range of 10% to 20%. (Column 5 lines 22-47 - 0.3. to 3 wt% B which is 11.5 % B to Si ratio at
3 wt% B)
Therefore it would have been obvious to modify the amount of B in the SiC component
of Wicker et al. by utilizing the features of Prochazka because using more B (i.e. 3 wt%) allows
for producing very fine grains of boron carbide in the sintered product.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
Regarding claim 10, Wicker et al. teach wherein the component is at least one of a gas
distribution plate, edge ring, or liner of the plasma processing chamber. (Column 6 lines 4 7 - 63)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
Regarding claim 11, Wicker et al. teach wherein the non-oxide silicon containing
material consists essentially of silicon carbide. (Abstract; Fig. 1; Column 6 lines 24-26; Column
6 lines 47-63)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
Regarding claim 14, Wicker et al. teach an edge ring (i.e. focus ring) for use in a plasma
processing chamber, comprising a ring shaped body with a plasma facing surface, the ring
shaped body, comprising a spark plasma sintered body comprising a non -oxide material
containing silicon consisting essentially of a non-oxide silicon containing material and at least
one of a B or B, C dopant. (Abstract; Fig. 1; Column 6 lines 24-63 - The liner, focus ring, baffle
plate and/or gas distribution plate can be made of various blends of silicon carbide based powder
material having a predominant amount of silicon carbide. For instance, the total amount of
silicon and carbon is typically at least 90 wt%, preferably .gtoreq. 95 wt%, and more preferably
.gtoreq.99 wt%. For example, the SiC member may include up to about 0.5% B to aid sintering
of the SiC powder. The SiC member may include an excess of Si such as up to about 3 5 wt %
free Si and/or Si.sub.3 N.sub.4. The silicon carbide material can be made by any suitable process
such as hot pressing, sintering, reaction bonding (e.g., wherein SiC is infiltrated with molten Si),
etc. For uses such as the liner, focus ring and/or baffle, the silicon carbide preferably has a low
resistivity such as below 200.OMEGA..multidot.cm. The resistivity is much higher, however, when the SiC member is used for a window and/or gas distribution plate used in conjunction
with an RF antenna.)
The difference between Wicker et al. and the present claims is spark plasma sintering and
wherein at atomic fraction of boron to silicon in the non-oxide silicon containing material is greater than 10% is not discussed.
Regarding spark plasma sintering:
In Wicker the term any suitable process such as sintering covers spark plasma sintering as
the genus ( of sintering) anticipates the species ( of plasma spark sintering) within the genus.
The process limitation of "spark plasma sintered" is given no weight since it process
limitation and the body is not distinguishable from any other body made by a sintering process.
In other words the product is the same from a product of the prior art even though it was made by
a different process. See MPEP 2113 - "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe. 777 F.2d 695,698,227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
"[T]he lack of physical description in a product--by--process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentabili1y of the product cl aimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established."
Furthermore, Wicker et al. as discussed above indicates any method can be used to
produce components including sintering. (See Wicker et al. discussed above)
Maitre et al. teach utilizing spark plasma sintering to produce components of SiC with B.
(See Maitre et al. discussed above)
Therefore, it would be obvious to utilize the sintering method of Maitre et al. as the
sintering method of Wicker et al. because it allows for producing dense components.
Regarding wherein at atomic fraction of boron to silicon in the non-oxide material
composition is greater than 10%:
Wicker et al. teach a component formed of SiC and including B where "for example, the
SiC member may include up to about 0.5% B to aid sintering of the SiC powder."
Prochazka teaches that the atomic fraction of boron to silicon in a non-oxide silicon
containing powder composition is greater than 10%. (Column 2 lines 3 6-62 - 0.3. to 3 wt% B
which is 11.5 % B to Si ratio at 3 wt% B)
Prochazka teaches that the atomic fraction of boron to silicon in the non-oxide material being greater than 10%. (Column 5 lines 22-47 – for example
3.0 wt % B
0.1 wt % Be2C
96.9 wt% SiC
Atomic weight B = 10.81 g/mol
3.0/10.81 = 0.2775 mol
Molar Mass of SiC = 28.085 + 12.01 = 40.095 g/mol
One Si per SiC
96.9/40.095 = 2.4168 mol
Atomic Ratio of B:Si
0.2775/2.4168 = 0.115
Atomic Fraction of Boron to Silicon is 0.115 * 100 = 11.5%
Therefore it would have been obvious to modify the amount of B in the SiC component
of Wicker et al. by utilizing the features of Prochazka because using more B (i.e. 3 wt%) allows
for producing very fine grains of boron carbide in the sintered product.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
Regarding claim 15, Wicker et al. teach wherein the non-oxide silicon containing
material consists essentially of silicon carbide. (Abstract; Fig. 1; Column 6 lines 24-63)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
Regarding claim 18, Wicker et al. teach a showerhead (i.e. gas distribution plate) for use
in a plasma processing chamber, comprising: a disk shaped component body with a plasma
facing surf ace, wherein the disk shaped component body comprises a spark plasm a sintered body comprising a non-oxide material containing silicon consisting essentially of a non-oxide silicon containing material and at least one of a B or B4C dopant; and a plurality of inlet holes machined into the plasma facing surface of the disk shaped component body. (Abstract; Fig. 1; Column 6 lines 24-63 - In making a gas distribution plate, suitable gas passages and outlet holes can be provided in a green ceramic material which is later sintered to form a unitary plate. In order to prevent plasma from striking in the passages and/or holes, the dimensions of the passages and holes are preferably small enough to avoid conditions under which plasma would form during flow of process gas and powering of the antenna.
The liner, focus ring, baffle plate and/or gas distribution plate can be made of various
blends of silicon carbide based powder material having a predominant amount of silicon carbide.
For instance, the total amount of silicon and carbon is typically at least 90 wt%, preferably
.gtoreq.95 wt%, and more preferably .gtoreq.99 wt%. For example, the SiC member may
include up to about 0.5%B to aid sintering of the SiC powder. The SiC member may include an
excess of Si such as up to about 35 wt% free Si and/or Si.sub.3 N.sub.4. The silicon carbide
material can be made by any suitable process such as hot pressing, sintering, reaction bonding
(e.g., wherein SiC is infiltrated with molten Si), etc. For uses such as the liner, focus ring and/or
baffle, the silicon carbide preferably has a low resistivity such as below
200.OMEGA..multidot.cm. The resistivity is much higher, however, when the SiC member is
used for a window and/or gas distribution plate used in conjunction with an RF antenna.)
The difference between Wicker et al. and the present claims is spark plasma sintering and
wherein at atomic fraction of boron to silicon in the non-oxide silicon containing powder
composition is greater than 10% is not discussed.
Regarding spark plasma sintering:
In Wicker the term any suitable process such as sintering covers spark plasma sintering as
the genus ( of sintering) anticipates the species ( of plasma spark sintering) within the genus.
The process limitation of "spark plasma sintered" is given no weight since it process
limitation and the body is not distinguishable from any other body made by a sintering process. In other words the product is the same from a product of the prior art even though it was made by
a different process. See MPEP 2113 - "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe. 777 F.2d 695,698,227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
"[T]he lack of physical description in a product--by--process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established."
Furthermore, Wicker et al. as discussed above indicates any method can be used to
produce components including sintering. (See Wicker et al. discussed above)
Maitre et al. teach utilizing spark plasma sintering to produce components of SiC with B.
(See Maitre et al. discussed above)
Therefore, it would be obvious to utilize the sintering method of Maitre et al. as the
sintering method of Wicker et al. because it allows for producing dense components.
Regarding wherein at atomic fraction of boron to silicon in the non-oxide material composition is greater than 10%:
Wicker et al. teach a component formed of SiC and including B where "for example, the
SiC member may include up to about 0.5% B to aid sintering of the SiC powder."
Prochazka teaches that the atomic fraction of boron to silicon in a non-oxide silicon
containing powder composition is greater than 10%. (Column 2 lines 3 6-62 - 0.3. to 3 wt% B
which is 11.5 % B to Si ratio at 3 wt% B)
Prochazka teaches that the atomic fraction of boron to silicon in the non-oxide material being greater than 10%. (Column 5 lines 22-47 – for example
3.0 wt % B
0.1 wt % Be2C
96.9 wt% SiC
Atomic weight B = 10.81 g/mol
3.0/10.81 = 0.2775 mol
Molar Mass of SiC = 28.085 + 12.01 = 40.095 g/mol
One Si per SiC
96.9/40.095 = 2.4168 mol
Atomic Ratio of B:Si
0.2775/2.4168 = 0.115
Atomic Fraction of Boron to Silicon is 0.115 * 100 = 11.5%
Therefore it would have been obvious to modify the amount of B in the SiC component
of Wicker et al. by utilizing the features of Prochazka because using more B (i.e. 3 wt%) allows
for producing very fine grains of boron carbide in the sintered product.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
Regarding claim 19, Wicker et al. teach wherein the non-oxide silicon containing
material consists essentially of silicon carbide. (Abstract; Fig. 1; Column 6 lines 24 -63)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 22:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the showerhead component has a
densification of 99. 5% to 100% is not discussed.
Regarding wherein the showerhead component has a densification of 99.5% to 100%,
Prochazka teaches wherein the density can be 85% to 100%. (Column 5 line 23)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Maitre et al. is that it allows for producing
higher density components. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Prochazka is that it allows for producing very
fine grains of boron carbide in the sintered product. (Column 2 lines 36-62)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have utilized the features of Maitre et al. and Prochazka because it allows
for producing higher density components and for producing very fine grains of boron carbide in
the sintered product.
Claim(s) 12, 16, 20 are rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wicker
et al. in view of Maitre et al. and Prochazka as applied to claims 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22
above, and further in view of Shamouilian et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,478,924).
The difference not yet discussed is where the dopant is B4C dopant.
Regarding claims 12, 16, 20, Maitre et al. teach utilizing a B4C dopant to produce less
dense components. (See Experimental procedure and Conclusion) Wicker et al. teach less dense
components with porosity and filling pores with silicon. (Column 3 lines 53-55)
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize boron carbide as the dopant as
taught Maitre et al. to produce porous components that are less dense because Wicker et al.
desires filling pores with free silicon.
OR
Regarding claim 12, 16, 20, Shamouilian et al. teach using boron carbide and silicon
carbide in a chamber component as a mixture. (Column 5 lines 37-52)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Shamouilian et al. is that it allows for
producing a high thermal conductive material. (Column 5 lines 3 7 -52)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized
the features of Shamouilian et al. because it allows for producing high thermal conductive
material.
Claim(s) 13, 17, 21 are rejected under 3 5 U.S.C. I 03 as being unpatentable over Wicker
et al. in view of Maitre et al. and Prochazka as applied to claims 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19
above, and further in view of Koishiishi et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2007/0215580 Al).
The difference not yet discussed is utilizing silicon instead of silicon carbide.
Regarding claims 13, 17, 21, Koishiishi et al. teach utilizing silicon in a chamber component as an alternative to using silicon carbide in a chamber component. (Paragraph 0122)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Koishiishi et al. is that it allows for having
uniform plasma. (Paragraph 0008)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to replace the SiC of Wicker et al. with the Si of
Koishiishi et al because Koishiishi recognize them as equivalents.
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 14, 17, 18, 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/020,213.
Claims 1-5 teach a chamber component made of Si and doped with Boron.
The difference between claims 1-5 and the claims is that the component being spark
plasma sintered is not discussed.
The process limitation of "spark plasma sintered" is given no weight since it process
limitation and the body is not distinguishable from any other body made by a sintering process.
In other words the product is the same from a product of the prior art even though it was made by
a different process. See MPEP 2113 - "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product--by--process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
"[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product cl aimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established."
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably
indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
THE 35 U.S.C. 112 REJECTIONS:
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections set forth in the office action of November 10, 2025 have been overcome by Applicant’s amendment and are withdrawn.
THE 35 U.S.C. 102 REJECTIONS BASED ON SINGH ET AL.:
The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection set forth in the office action of November 10, 2025 has been overcome by the Declaration filed January 22, 2026 and is withdrawn.
RESPONSE TO THE 35 U.S.C. 103 ARGUMENTS BASED ON MAITRE ET AL. IN VIEW OF WICKER:
In response to the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Maitre et al. with Wicker because the two references have different purposes (i.e. Maitre provides a thermal barrier, Wicker provides a coating that provides less contaminants during plasma processing), it is argued that Maitre et al. teaches SiC for a wide range of industrial applications including but not limited to nuclear fuel coatings and aeronautical thermal barriers. Wicker teaches the use of SiC for protective components in a CVD apparatus. Both references address the common technical problem of providing durable, high-temperature, chemically resistant protecting in harsh environments. Differences in specific end use do not render the references non-analogous. A person of ordinary skill would have reasonably applied the known protective properties of SiC taught by Maitre et al. to the CVD environment of Wicker to achieve the predictable result of protection. Furthermore Maitre et al. is not limited to nuclear fuel coatings and aeronautical thermal barriers and is open to other industrial applications. CVD falls within the “other industrial applications” scope. Therefore a person of ordinary skill would have reasonably applied the known protective properties of SiC taught by Maitre et al. to the CVD environment of Wicker to achieve the predictable result of protection.
In response to the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not utilize the higher concentration of boron suggested by Maitre et al. in Wicker, it is argued that since Wicker et al. teach that the SiC member should be highly dense (Column 7 lines 6-7) it would be obvious to increase the B because Maitre et al. recognize that this increases density (See Maitre et al. Table 2 example of SiC and SiC with B).
In response to the argument that Maitre teach away from using B4C in the sintered body as is required by claim 5, it is argued that Maitre et al. teach using B4C in the sintered body for controlling the density of the sintered body.
RESPONSE TO THE 35 U.S.C. 103 ARGUMENTS BASED ON WICKER IN VIEW OF MAITRE AND PROCHAZKA:
In response to the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Maitre et al. with Wicker because these two references have different purposes (i.e. Maitre provides a thermal barrier, Wicker provides a coating that provides less contaminants during plasma processing), In response to the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Maitre et al. with Wicker because the two references have different purposes (i.e. Maitre provides a thermal barrier, Wicker provides a coating that provides less contaminants during plasma processing), it is argued that Maitre et al. teaches SiC for a wide range of industrial applications including but not limited to nuclear fuel coatings and aeronautical thermal barriers. Wicker teaches the use of SiC for protective components in a CVD apparatus. Both references address the common technical problem of providing durable, high-temperature, chemically resistant protecting in harsh environments. Differences in specific end use do not render the references non-analogous. A person of ordinary skill would have reasonably applied the known protective properties of SiC taught by Maitre et al. to the CVD environment of Wicker to achieve the predictable result of protection. Furthermore Maitre et al. is not limited to nuclear fuel coatings and aeronautical thermal barriers and is open to other industrial applications. CVD falls within the “other industrial applications” scope. Therefore a person of ordinary skill would have reasonably applied the known protective properties of SiC taught by Maitre et al. to the CVD environment of Wicker to achieve the predictable result of protection.
In response to the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not utilize the higher concentration of boron suggested by Maitre et al. in Wicker, it is argued that since Wicker et al. teach that the SiC member should be highly dense (Column 7 lines 6-7) it would be obvious to increase the B because Maitre et al. recognize that this increases density (See Maitre et al. Table 2 example of SiC and SiC with B).
In response to the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Prochazka with Wicker because these two references have different purposes (i.e. Prochazka increases electrical conductivity of the SiC body, Wicker provides a coating that provides less contaminants during plasma processing), it is argued that Wicker desire to lower the resistivity in the SiC body. This lowering of resistivity increase electrical conductivity. Increasing electrical conductivity is what Prochazka looks to accomplish. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Prochazka to modify Wicker because Wicker desire an increased electrical conductivity with lower resistivity. (See Wicker Column 6 line 60)
In response to the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Prochazka with Maitre and Wicker because Prochazka adds beryllium carbide to the sintered body, it is argued that the claims require “a non-oxide material containing silicon consisting essentially of a non-oxide silicon containing material and at least one of a B or B4C dopant” and that “consisting essentially of” is open to allowing beryllium carbide in the body. Specifically "By using the term ‘consisting essentially of,’ the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. A ‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format." PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355.
In response to the argument that the prior art does not teach the densification of the component body to be between 99.5 to 100% as required by claim 22, it is argued that Prochazka teaches wherein the density can be 85% to 100%. (Column 5 line 23)
RESPONSE TO THE 35 U.S.C. 103 ARGUMENTS BASED ON SINGH IN VIEW OF WICKER:
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based on Singh in view of Wicker set forth in the office action of November 10, 2025 has been overcome by the Declaration filed January 22, 2026 and is withdrawn.
RESPONSE TO THE 35 U.S.C. 103 ARGUMENTS BASED ON MAITRE ET AL. IN VIEW OF WICKER AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF KOISHIISHI:
In response to the argument that Koishiishi fails to provide any motivation for utilizing silicon powder and a part made of silicon with a B4C dopant with regard to claim 6, it is argued that the motivation for utilizing the features of Koishiishi et al. is that it allows for having
uniform plasma on use of the body (Paragraph 0008) and that it would be obvious to replace the SiC of Wicker et al. with the Si of Koishiishi et al because Koishiishi recognize them as equivalents. Maitre et al. recognize utilizing B4C as the dopant.
RESPONSE TO THE 35 U.S.C. 103 ARGUMENTS BASED ON WICKER IN VIEW OF MAITRE AND PROCHAZKA AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF KOISHIISHI:
In response to the argument that Koishiishi fails to provide any motivation for utilizing silicon powder and a part made of silicon with a B4C dopant with regard to claim 17, it is argued that the motivation for utilizing the features of Koishiishi et al. is that it allows for having
uniform plasma on use of the body (Paragraph 0008) and that it would be obvious to replace the SiC of Wicker et al. with the Si of Koishiishi et al because Koishiishi recognize them as equivalents. Maitre et al. recognize utilizing B4C as the dopant.
NEW CLAIM 23:
In response to the argument that the prior art does not teach these claim limitations, it is argued that newly cited reference to Chu et al. (U.S. PGUB. 2017/0369381A1) teach these limitations.
DOUBLE PATENTING:
The obviousness type double patenting rejection will be maintained until addressed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
January 29, 2026