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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 13 June 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5, 10-12, 17-18 and 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 3, “pm” should be -- µm --;
In claim 1, line 9, “10’ 6/°C” should be -- 10-6/°C --;
In claim 2, line 2, “10-6/°C” should be -- 10-6/°C --;
In claim 5, line 2, “pm” should be -- µm --;
In claim 5, line 3, “pm” should be -- µm --;
In claim 10, line 4, “Y M” should be -- YAM --;
In claim 11, line 3, “pm” should be -- µm --;
In claim 12, line 3, “pm 2 /mm2” should be -- µm2/mm2 --;
In claim 17, line 2, each occurrence of “10’ 6/°C” should be -- 10-6/°C --;
In claim 18, line 2, “10"” should be -- 10-4 --;
In claim 20, line 4, “85%of” should be -- 85% of --;
In claim 21, line 19, each occurrence of “ppm” should be --µm--;
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites the phrase “less than 5 to 50 ppm” as it relates to the impurity level of the first layer. The range could mean an impurity level of less than 5 ppm, less than 50 ppm or 5 to 50 ppm, and the claim is unclear as to the actual meaning encompassed by the phrase.
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, 2, 7, 8 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 61-80 of copending Application No. 18/257,203 (‘203 application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 is completely encompassed by claims 61-80 of the ‘203 application. The table below shows where each limitation of instant claim 1 is found in the claims of the ‘203 application.
Limitations of claim 1 of the instant application
Limitations in the ‘203 application and location
A multilayer sintered ceramic body comprising:
the showerhead assembly comprising: (claim 67)
at least one first layer comprising poly crystalline YAG,
at least one first layer comprising… polycrystalline yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) (claim 67)
wherein the at least one first layer comprising poly crystalline YAG comprises pores wherein the pores have a maximum size of from 0.1 to 5 µm,
wherein the polycrystalline yttrium aluminum garnet comprises pores having a pore size not exceeding 1.75 µm for at least 97% or more of all pores. (claim 62)
at least one second layer comprising alumina and zirconia wherein the zirconia comprises at least one of stabilized and partially stabilized zirconia,
at least one second layer comprising alumina and zirconia wherein the zirconia comprises at least one of stabilized and partially stabilized zirconia (claim 67)
and at least one third layer comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of YAG, alumina, and zirconia,
optionally, at least one third layer comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of YAG, alumina, and zirconia (claim 67)
wherein the at least one second layer is disposed between the at least one first layer and the at least one third layer,
wherein the at least one second layer is disposed between the at least one first layer and the at least one third layer, (claim 67)
wherein an absolute value of the difference in coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) between any of the at least one first, second and third layers is from 0 to 0.75 x 10' 6/°C as measured in accordance with ASTM E228-17,
an absolute value of the difference in coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) between the at least one first, second and third layers is from 0 to 0.75 x 10-6/C as measured in accordance with ASTM E228-17 (claim 67)
and wherein the at least one first, second and third layers form a unitary sintered ceramic body.
wherein the at least one first, second and third layers form a unitary sintered ceramic body, (claim 67)
The limitations of instant claim 2 can be found in claim 61 of the ‘203 application.
The limitations of instant claim 7 can be found in claim 67 of the ‘203 application.
As to claim 8, the claims of the ‘203 application does not disclose the size of the ceramic articles. However, it has been held to have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the size of a prior art product. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.A.
The limitations of instant claim 11 can be found in claim 76 of the ‘203 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The instant application appears to have the same patent term filing date as the ‘203 application. Therefore, even if the provisional nonstatutory rejection is the only rejection in the case, “the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection made in each application should be maintained until it is overcome.” See MPEP 1490VI.D.2(b)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-34 would be allowable if claim 21 was amended to overcome the objection above.
Claims 3-6, 9-10 13, 15, 16 and 19 would be allowable if the relevant claims were amended to overcome the objections recited above.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest a unitary ceramic or method of making a multilayer sintered ceramic body comprising: a first layer comprising polycrystalline YAG, a second layer comprising alumina and partially or fully stabilized zirconia, and a third layer comprising at least one of YAG, alumina and zirconia in this layer order.
JP-2016208034A teaches a coated article comprising layers aluminum oxide/stabilized zirconia/YAG. The reference does not disclose alumina in the middle layer or a “unitary ceramic.”
Shih et al. (US 2008/0169588 A1) discloses a plasma chamber component having three layers: yttria outer layer / an intermediate layer of YAG / alumina.
Yamada et al. (US 2004/0138047 A1) teaches a sintered body having a layer of alumina and zirconia, and a layer of YAG. Yamada et al. does not disclose a third layer or the claimed order of layers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784