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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of the International Application PCT/KR2021/013593. A Notice of Acceptance of Application under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495 was mailed 13 September 2023.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an applications filed in Korea on 8 October 2020 and 31 May 2021.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 24 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 24 June 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 7 April 2023, 26 June 2023, and 20 May 2024have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The original drawings received on 7 April 2023 are accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Comment
Claim 5 recites “the method of claim 1, wherein the obtained plasma-resistant glass is a glass used in a mixed plasma environment of fluorine and argon (Ar), and the obtained plasma-resistant glass has plasma resistance properties with an etching rate of 15 nm/min or lower for a mixed plasma of fluorine and argon.” This is read as a intended use claim and does not require the glass be in a mixed plasma environment, only capable of being in the environment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or second paragraph
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 1-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the molten product" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the slowly cooled product" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the obtained plasma-resistant glass" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the slow cooling" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “slowly cooling” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slowly cooling” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The instant claim and specification does not provide any insight into what is considered slowly cooling. Is a decrease in temperature at a rate of 1°C/min, 10°C/min. or 100°C/min considered slowly cooling?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., Korean Patent Publication KR 2012-0057272 A in view of Hatsuta, Japanese Patent Publication JP S56-041852 A
A machine-generated translation of KR 2012-0057272 A and JP S56-041852 A accompany this action. In reciting this rejection, the examiner will cite this translation. A machine-translation of JP S56-041852 A
Kim et al. teach a method of making a plasma-resistant glass. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraph [0001]. Kim et al. teach that the amorphous plasma-resistant glass is made by weighing and mixing the glass composition and placing the mixture into a platinum crucible, and then melting it at 1650 °C for 3 hours. See paragraph [0031]. Kim et al. teach the molten glass is then annealed at a temperature of 800-900 °C. See paragraph [0031]. Kim et al. teach that the plasma-resistant glass in terms of mol% comprises: 10-80% of SiO2, 15-40% of Al2O3, 0-30% of rare earth metal oxide or alkaline earth metal oxides. See paragraphs [0017]-[0019].
Kim et al. fail to teach any examples or compositional ranges that are sufficiently specific to anticipate the compositional and property limitations of claims 1-6. Kim et al. fail to specifically teach the molten glass is slowly cooled to above the glass transformation temperature.
Hatsuta teaches a glass composition in terms of weight percent which comprises 35-55% of SiO2, 15-35% of Al2O3, 7-25% of MgO, 0.5-10.5% of B2O3, 2-12% of TiO2, 0-20% of CaO, 0-6% of ZrO2+La2O3+Y2O3+Ta2O5+Nb2O5+WO3, and 0.2-5% F as MgF2. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0001] and [0002] and claim 2. Hatsuta teach that the glass is made by combining the raw materials and using conventional melting apparatus to melt the raw materials at temperatures from 1400°C to 1500°C. See paragraph [0002]. Hatsuta teach Examples 1-4, 6, 10, and 11, which when converted from wt% to mol% meet the compositional limitations as recited in claim 1. See Table 1 of Hatsuta and below table.
Mol%
Ex. 1
Ex. 2
Ex. 3
Ex. 4
Ex. 6
Ex. 10
Ex. 11
SiO2
52.13
41.66
44.05
49.5
43.51
47.49
42.73
Al2O3
12.26
12.30
13.01
8.73
12.82
12.71
16.57
MgO
18.58
32.67
11.19
29.02
14.52
25.34
21.62
CaO
7.84
0
11.77
5.29
20.99
0
5.98
B2O3
2.67
4.46
5.16
2.30
0.47
1.83
1.93
TiO2
1.55
3.89
9.57
3.72
4.07
2.64
4.19
MgF2
4.97
3.29
5.24
0.48
1.67
6.87
3.55
ZrO2
0
1.26
0
0.96
1.58
1.04
2.18
La2O3
0
0.48
0
0
0
0
0
Ta2O5
0
0
0
0
0.37
0
0
BaO
2.08
PbO
1.26
MgO:MgF2
3.74
9.93
2.13
60.9
8.70
3.69
6.09
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a method of making a plasma-resistant glass using the melting and cooling method of Kim et al. as suggested by Hatsuta because the resultant method would have the melting properties of Kim et al. while having the glass properties of the glasses of Hatsuta. The examples of Hatsuta fall within the compositional ranges of Kim et al. as well as instant claim 1.
As to claim 1, Kim et al. in view of Hatsuta teach a method of making a plasma-resistant glass, where the glass raw materials amorphous plasma-resistant glass is made by weighing and mixing the glass composition and placing the mixture into a platinum crucible, and then melting it at 1650 °C for 3 hours. See paragraph [0031] of Kim et al. Kim et al. in view of Hatsuta teach the molten glass is then annealed at a temperature of 800-900 °C. See paragraph [0031] of Kim et al. Kim et al. in view of Hatsatu teach Examples 1-4, 6, 10, and 11. See Table 1 of Hatsuta. The method of making a plasma-resistant glass of Kim et al. in view of Hatsuta, reads on a method for manufacturing a plasma-resistant glass, the method comprising: mixing SiO2 powder, Al2O3 powder, MgO powder, and MgF2 powder to prepare a plasma-resistant glass raw material; melting the plasma-resistant glass raw material; slowly cooling the molten product at a temperature higher than a glass transition temperature (Tg); furnace-cooling the slowly cooled product to room temperature; and obtaining a furnace-cooled plasma-resistant glass, wherein the obtained plasma-resistant glass comprises SiO2 in an amount of 40 to 75 mol%, Al2O3 in an amount of 5 to 20 mol%, MgO in an amount of 10 to 40 mol%, and MgF2 in an amount of 0.01 to 10 mol%, as recited in claim 1.
Kim et al. in view of Hatsuta fail to teach the specific cooling rate and the glass transition temperature, as recited in instant claim 1. However, since the glass of Hatsuta is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glass would have the same glass transformation temperature as recited in claim 1.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to the steps of the slowly cooling the molten glass to above the glass transformation temperature. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
As to claim 2, Kim et al. in view of Hatsuta, Examples 6 and 11 of Hatsuta, read on the method of making a plasma-resistant glass having a molar ratio of the MgO and the MgF2 is 90:10 to 80:20.
As to claim 3, since the glass of Hatsuta is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glass would have the same glass transformation temperature of 700 °C to 800 °C as recited in claim 3.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 4, since the glass of the Hatsuta is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glass would have the same softening point of from 750 °C to 850 °C, as recited in claim 4.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 5, the method of making the plasma-resistant glass of Kim et al. in view of Hatsuta have a glass composition, which reads on the glass of claim 1, it follows that the glass would be capable of being used in a mixed plasma environment of fluorine and argon and have the plasma resistance properties with an etching rate of 15 nm/min or lower for a mixed plasma of fluorine and argon, as recited in claim 5.
As to claim 6, Kim et al. in view of Hatsuta teach that the glass can be melted at temperatures of from 1400°C to 1500°C as taught by Hatsuta, see paragraph [0002], which reads on a method of melting a glass at a temperature of 1300 °C to 1650 °C, as recited in instant claim 6.
As to claim 7, since the method of making the glass of Kim et al. in view of Hatsuta is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glass would have the same glass transformation temperature which would utilize the slow cooling being performed at a temperature of 700 °C to 900 °C, as recited in claim 7. As to the steps of the slowly cooling the molten glass to above the glass transformation temperature. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
Conclusion
The additional references cited on the 892 have been cited as art of interest since they are considered to be cumulative to or less than the art relied upon in the rejections above. Specifically, Tsujimura et al., US 2014/0170505 A1, teach a method of making a glass utilizing slow cooling, and Scholze, Glass Nature, Structure, and Properties teaches the importance of slow cooling and how it alters the glass transformation temperature of the glass, and Pan et al., CN 109111120 A teaches a aluminosilicate comprising MgO and MgF2, which teaches a method of making the glass that is melted, cooled, transferred to be annealed in the furnace and then cooled to room temperature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A. Bolden whose telephone number is (571)272-1363. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 6:30 pm M-F.
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, Amber R. Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/Elizabeth A. Bolden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
EAB
19 Monday 2026
Prosecution Insights