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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 20, 2025 has been entered.
The amendment of filed with the RCE submission of November 20, 2025 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 2 and 5 are canceled and claims 1, 3-4 and 6-9 are pending for examination.
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, 3-4 and 6-9 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, in part (b) and Claim 7, part (b) now has “projecting blasting particles from at least a position above the second surface in the direction vertical from the first surface toward the first surface . . .” which is confusing and indefinite as worded as to what is meant by “in the direction vertical from the first surface towards the first surface”. Is it meant (1) that the position (from where blasting occurs) is above the second surface as measured in a direction vertical from the first surface, and the blasting direction is toward the first surface “with an inclined predetermined angle with respect to the first surface”? Is it meant that there is (2) blasting in a direction vertical from the first surface? For the position of examination, it is understood that option (1) is intended, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1, in part (b) and claim 7, in part (b) now has “with an inclined predetermined angle with respect to the first surface which is matched with a direction from an end position . . .”, which is confusing and indefinite as worded as to what is mean by “matched”. “Matched” could mean (1) that the two are exactly the same (so the inclined angle and “direction from an end position” are the same, such that the “direction from an end position” also has an angle, for example), or (2) that the two have something like one another in one or more specified qualities, (3) resemble one another, (4) harmonize with each other, etc. Here the wording describes “a predetermined angle” with a “direction from an end position”, which direction is not necessarily an angle. For the purpose of examination, any of options (1)-(4) is understood to meet the claim requirements, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1, in part (b) and claim 7, in part (b), has “from an end position of the first surface that is connected to the second surface” as a location. However, this is confusing and indefinite as worded as to what is claimed. Is it meant (1) that the end position is where the first surface connects to the second surface, meaning the corner point where the first and second surfaced contact each other? Is it meant (2) any position on the first side surface that is selected to be considered “the end point”, and the claim is just noting that the first side surface and the second surface are connected? Figure 5D of the specification shows angle θ2 measured from a point on the first side surface that is not the corner point. For the purpose of examination, any of options (1)-(2) is understood to meet the claim requirements, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1, in part (b) and claim 7, in part (b) has “toward the end edge of the first sprayed film that is exposed and disposed on the first surface” as a location. However, this is confusing and indefinite as worded as to what is claimed. As shown in figure 5C and 5D of the specification, the end edge of the film disposed on the first surface could be (1) the corner point where the bottom of spayed film 42b contacts the anodized film, or (2) a point somewhere along the flat surface at the bottom of the sprayed film 42b extending outwards from the corner point where the bottom of the sprayed film 42b contacts the anodized film, or (3) the turning point along the flat surface at the bottom of the sprayed film 42b at which the film turns and begins to extend upwards. For the purpose of examination, any of options (1)-(3) is understood to meet the claim requirements, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 3, line 3, “the third surface” lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, a third surface as in claim 7 is understood to meet the claim requirements, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
The dependent claims do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend, and are therefore also rejected.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 2 is withdrawn due to the cancelation of claim 2 in the amendment of November 20, 2025.
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.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih et al (US 6120640) in view of Blankenship et al (US 2009/0286056), England et al (US 5466530), Cantwell (US 5786028) and Bhatnagar et al (US 2009/0088049).
Claim 1: Shih teaches a method for treating/coating an inner wall member (as discussed below) provided on an inner wall of a processing chamber of a plasma processing apparatus, where the processing chamber is a processing chamber in which plasma processing (note plasma etching) is performed (note figures 1, 5, column 1, lines 5-25, column 5, lines 15-30, where the inner wall can be considered that facing the chamber where processing occurs). The inner wall member can comprise a base material having a first surface, a second surface located above the first surface in a direction vertical therefrom, and a first side surface connecting the first surface to the second surface. Note in figure 1 of Shih below parts of 14 alone or part of 14 and 20 connected to 14 can give these surfaces, with different possibilities, as noted below, for example, and these surfaces would be provided on an inner wall of the processing chamber of base material. As well part 14 is generally described as a complexly shaped part (column 3, line 65 through column 4, line 5), allowing for other possible shapes depending on the chamber used. Note how provided on an inner wall can be considered to be provided by (1) forming a part of the inner wall and so considered being provided on the overall inner wall structure, or alternatively, (2) or as well, a certain depth of the inner surface of the parts can be considered as the inner wall member and the rest of the depth as the inner wall, and so the inner wall member provided on an inner wall of the processing chamber.
An option (A), for example in figure 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
297
405
media_image1.png
Greyscale
OR another option (B) in figure 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
297
405
media_image2.png
Greyscale
OR another option (C) in figure 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
297
405
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Shih teaches that it is conventional for wall members of the processing chamber to be made from aluminum and to anodize such wall members to provide an etch resistant coating of alumina (note column 1, line 50 to column 2, line 40), however, when plasma etching with BCl3, this does not provide sufficient etching protection as the BCl3 etches the alumina of the anodized aluminum (note column 2, lines 30-40). It is discussed that only portions of the upper housing 14 are subject to extensive such erosion, specifically an annular band on the inner cylindrical surface above the turbo port, such that housing 14 can be provided with a combined inner coating of anodized aluminum and boron carbide, where specifically parts of the housing 14 where extra protection not required given an anodizing treatment and an area subject to significant erosion is provided with a thermal sprayed boron carbide coating on non-anodized aluminum (since the boron carbide coating adheres better to non-anodized aluminum) (note column 7, line 55 through column 8, line 30, figure 5), where there can be an overlap at the edge of the boron carbide coating over the anodized aluminum on another part of the housing 14 (note figure 5, column 8, lines 45-60). Therefore, a desired anodized film will be provided on parts of the wall member/housing (which would include part 14 and optionally parts of housing 20, which is also understood to be predictably and acceptably aluminum that is anodized, given the teaching of using anodized aluminum for wall members) that are not exposed to significant erosion and a sprayed protective film (boron carbide) will then be provided on the parts of the wall member/housing subjected to significant erosion. As to initially providing an anodized film on the first surface and first side surface, with an end located on the first side surface (so on part of the first surface), and a first sprayed film (the boron carbide) formed on part of the first surface, on the first side surface and on the second surface so as to the cover the first end and have a second end located on the anodized film formed on the first surface (that is, providing the specific placement of the initial films as claimed, and providing that an end edge of the first sprayed film is disposed on the first surface), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the placement of anodized and sprayed films to provide the best protection for the specific shape and placement used of the wall/housing 20, 14 members and port for gas entry, noting the testing done to determine the areas where extra erosion/more protection need in Shih (note column 5, lines 25-35, column 7, lines 55-65, which would be based on the specific chamber used and the shapes used), and such testing would provide the initial film placement claimed.
Further as to restoring the inner wall member (such as after use) by (a) covering a region the anodized film exposed from the first sprayed film with a first mask material such that an end edge of the first mask material coincides with the end edge of the first sprayed film, then (b) performing blasting on the first sprayed film to remove the first sprayed film on the second surface while leaving the first sprayed film on the first surface and the first side surface, then (c) removing the first mask material, then (d) covering the anodized film located at a position away from the remaining first sprayed film by a second mask material, the (e) forming a second sprayed film including the same material as the first sprayed film on the second surface, on the first side surface, and on part of the first surface so as to cover the remaining first sprayed film, and then (f) removing the second mask material, Shih notes that there can be masking and grit blasting to prepare a surface for the thermal spray coating (note column 8, lines 15-20). Further, Shih notes that while boron carbide has lower erosion rates in use (note column 10, lines 15-50), there would still be erosion over time, indicating that the coating would wear out at some point.
Blankenship describes how thermal spray coating can be applied to complex parts, with masking to provide the coating in the desired area (note figures 2, 3, 0015-0021, where HVOF would be a thermal spraying method), and where such coatings can be restored by blasting and partially removing the initial coating and the reapplying additional coating while masked (note 0021), where since the coating is to be restored and the coating is to achieve similar results (note 0021), it would at least have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same coating material as originally applied so that the coating will be “restored” to the same condition and give the same results as the previous coating. It is described that the masking for the thermal spraying can be provided after the grit blasting occurs (note 0021), and that the mask is removed after the thermal spraying (note claim 1).
England describes how when applying a thermal spray coating after grit blasting a substrate, it is well known to provide the substrate, mask the substrate with a first mask material (note the initial polyvinyl chloride tape) that covers the area not to be blasted (exposed area exposed to the blasting particles) and then grit blasting the exposed surface, followed by removing the first mask material (note column 14, lines 5-20). Thereafter, a second mask material (note the heat tape) is applied where coating not desired, and then a coating film is formed by plasma spraying (a thermal spraying process) (note column 14, lines 40-65).
Cantwell describes masking tape used in spray coating (note column 1, lines 1-10), where the tape can be used in plasma or flame spraying (thermal spraying) (note column 5, lines 30-68). Cantwell notes that it is desirable to not have coating directly sprayed over the edge of the place where coating desired onto a masking tape placed on the demarcation line (line between one coating and not coated/or another coating), as portions of the coating/paint can lift off with the masking tape leaving a ragged edge (note column 1, lines 25-40). Cantwell describes providing a tape with a top layer that angles over the edge of the tape that contacts the surface such that the demarcation line is not where the tape contacted by rather an angle is formed with the top layer and the spraying angle such that the coating forms a demarcation line a distance from the edge of the tape contacting the surface, such that the lateral edge of the coating does not contact the tape (note figures 2-5, column 2, lines 35-65) and after spraying is complete the tape can be removed without lifting parts of the paint/coating (note column 4, lines 1-10). It is indicated that the spray angle and tape angle can vary to form the desired line (note figure 2, column 3, lines 50-60).
Bhatnagar describes blasting to remove films a substrate for reuse of the substrates, where the films can be of various material including metals and ceramics, where it is described to blast with media (note 0002, 0014, 0021, 0022), where it is indicated to control the blasting conditions, including media blasting angles, material, pressure, time, etc., to provide desired removal of material and thickness, where the media is sprayed through a nozzle onto the surface of the substrate to remove the material (note 0034, 0031, figure 1C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shih to provide restoring the inner wall member (such as after use) (a) covering a region the anodized film exposed from the first sprayed film with a first mask material such that an end edge of the first mask material coincides with the end edge of the first sprayed film, then (b) performing blasting on the first sprayed film to remove the first sprayed film on the second surface while leaving the first sprayed film on the first surface and the first side surface, then (c) removing the first mask material, then (d) covering the anodized film located at a position away from the remaining first sprayed film by a second mask material, then (e) forming a second sprayed film including the same material as the first sprayed film on the second surface, on the first side surface, and on part of the first surface so as to cover the remaining first sprayed film, and then (f) removing the second mask material as suggested by Blankenship, England, Cantwell and Bhatnagar in order to provide for desirable reuse of the system, since Shih provides a protective coating system on the inner wall member, but indicates that there is still wear on the thermal sprayed (boron carbide) coating, and Shih allows for pretreatment blasting before coating, and notes that it is the boron carbide adheres better to non-anodized aluminum than anodized aluminum, where Blankenship indicates how it is conventional to restore thermal spray coatings on articles for reuse by removing partially or fully worn coatings by blasting, and then applying a mask material, and then replacing the thermal spray coatings, which would teach or suggest reapplying the same thermal spray material such as boron carbide, and where Shih indicates masking can be provided before blasting and Blankenship indicate that masking can be provided after the grit blasting and before coating, and where England describes how when grit blasting a surface of a substrate to prepare for thermal spraying, it is known to apply a first mask material to the areas where grit blasting not desired, and then grit blast the exposed surface, and then remove the first mask material, followed by applying a second mask material and then thermal spraying coating, and Cantwell describes how when applying a mask material that can be used for thermal spraying, it would be desired to have the mask contact the surface at a distance from the line of demarcation (line between area coated or not coated) so that the lateral edge of the mask material (tape) does not contact the coating for better mask removal, and then removing the mask material after coating, and Bhatnagar provides how blasting to remove material can be provided using a spray blast of media from a nozzle, where the angle of blasting is a parameter to be optimized as part of providing desired amounts of material removal, such that as a part of restoring the boron carbide coating after use of the system described in Shih, it would be suggested to (a) cover the exposed anodized film with a first mask material, so the boron carbide film exposed for removal (noting teaching of Blankenship and England) where a region would be covered such that an end edge of the first mask material coincides with the end edge of the first sprayed film (in order to expose the area desired to be removed, and protect the area not to be removed), then (b) blasting the first sprayed film to remove desired amounts of the first sprayed film for repair, noting how Blankenship would allow for partial or fully removed film, and by removing fully film in the area where the boron carbide directly contacts the non-anodized aluminum (on the second surface), that surface is exposed for recoating, and by removing the film partially over the area where the film overlaps with the anodized aluminum (on the first surface and first side surface), so leaving the film partially over the area where the film overlaps with the anodized aluminum on the first side surface and part of the first side so that the anodized film remains covered with the first film material, the spray film is replaced onto earlier sprayed film, rather than the difficult to coat anodized aluminum, but still replacing the film so as to have the overlap area, and further angle of spray/spray blasting conditions on the areas would be controlled to do this, given how Bhatnagar indicates conditions can be controlled, including blasting angle, to provide desired material removal when blasting, and then after the blasting step the replacement film, (c) the first mask material would be removed, noting the teaching of England, and also the desire for different placement of the second mask material as discussed below from Cantwell, (d) then applying a second mask material before thermal spraying as suggested by England, and so that as suggested by Cantwell, there can be a distance between the position of the remaining first sprayed film, since for restoration the new thermal spray coating would be desired to be sprayed over the same area (so a demarcation line at the end of the first sprayed film) and the mask would be desired to contact the substrate surface at a distance form this demarcation line so that the mask material does not contact the demarcation line of the newly sprayed film as suggested by Cantwell, and (e) then forming the second sprayed film of the same material as the first sprayed film on the second surface, first side surface and on the part of the first surface previously coated so as to cover the remaining first sprayed film as suggested by Blankenship and Bhatnagar as discussed above to restore the coating, and (f) the removing the second mask material, noting Bhatnagar and Cantwell, and further as shown in Shih, figure 5, for use both the boron carbide film and anodized film would be exposed.
Additionally, as indicated as discussed for Bhatnagar above, blasting would be performed by projecting/spraying blast particles/media from a direction towards the surface to be treated/have coating removed (note figure 1C), with Shih also noting particles (grit) for removal of material (column 8, lines 15-20), as does Blankenship (0021), and England (note column 14, lines 5-20). As to the direction of the blast particles/angle of spraying from a position above the second surface in the direction vertical from the first surface toward the first surface and with an inclined predetermined angle with respect to the first surface which is matched with a direction from an end portion of the first side surface that is connected to the second surface towards the end edge of the first sprayed film that is exposed and disposed on the first surface, as claimed, as discussed above, from Bhatnagar, it would be suggested to optimize the angle of blast particle spraying, which optimization would give the direction/angle and positioning claimed, with an position needing to be provided to expose the sprayed film to be removed, with a desire to remove that film rather than other surface, and as discussed for the 35 USC 112 rejection above, due to the possible different placement of the angle of spray (noting the confusion as to “matching” and the possible different positions of the end positions) a variety of angles could be chosen from.
Claims 3-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih in view of Blankenship, England, Cantwell, Bhatnagar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tseng et al (US 2017/0053783) and as evidenced by Coker et al (US 2004/0121194).
As to the base further having a third surface located in a position below than the first surface in a vertical direction therefrom, and below the second surface, and a second side surface contacting the first surface and third surface, where the anodized film is also formed on the third surface and the second side surface, and in step (d) the anodized film on the third surface is covered by the second mask material (note as in claim 7 and also for claim 2 (as to the third surface, note the 35 USC 112 rejection above), Shih as discussed for claim 1 above, can have various shapes on the inner wall member that can correspond to the first and second surfaces, and first side surface claimed.
Tseng further describes a semiconductor apparatus with a process chamber (note figure 1, abstract), where the processing chamber can be for a plasma processing apparatus and have inner wall members (note 0011-0012, 0016, figure 1), where as shown, the chamber can have first, second and third surfaces and first and second side surfaces. Note:
PNG
media_image4.png
702
708
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In Tseng, the third surface is shown as lower than the second surface and first surface in the vertical direction (note figure 1 as shown above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shih in view of Blankenship, England, Cantwell and Bhatnagar to also provide an inner wall base with a shape to have first, second and third surfaces, with a first side surface connecting the first and second surfaces and a second side surface connecting the first and third surfaces, and the third surface below first surfaces and second surfaces as well as having first and second surfaces with a first side surface in the form claimed as suggested by Tseng with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Shih shows known shapes for inner wall member bases for a processing chamber of a plasma processing apparatus, and Tseng shows another such conventional shape for inner wall member bases for a processing chamber of a plasma processing apparatus can include a shape to have first, second and third surfaces, with a first side surface connecting the first and second surfaces and a second side surface connecting the first and third surfaces, with the third surface below the first and second surfaces is the vertical direction, and based on the specific wall structure used, a surfaces of a shape meeting the claimed requirements would be provided. As to providing the anodized film on the third surface and the second side surface and covering the anodized film on the third surface by the second mask material, as discussed for Shih for claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the placement of anodized and sprayed films to provide the best protection for the specific shape and placement used of the wall/housing 20, 14 members and port for gas entry, noting the testing done to determine the areas where extra erosion/more protection need in Shih (note column 5, lines 25-35, column 7, lines 55-65, which would be based on the specific chamber used and the shapes used), and such testing would provide the initial film placement claimed, and this would apply when using a surface structure with the third surface and second side surface as well, and thus it would have been obvious that the sprayed film would not be applied to the third surface and second side surface and only anodized film applied there, and as a result, the anodized film on the third surface would also be covered by the (d) second mask material, since thermal spraying would not be desired to be applied to that surface.
Claim 3: as to the second sprayed film in step (e) formed by projecting particles including the same material as the first sprayed material from a direction from the third surface towards the first surface and inclined at a predetermined angle with respect to the first surface, Shih, Blankenship, England and Cantwell all indicate providing thermal spraying, where Cantwell notes that when spraying with the masking, there can be a controlled spraying angle (note figure 2, and column 3, lines 50-60), and Blankenship suggests using the same material as the first sprayed material as discussed for claim 1 above.
Coker evidences how thermal spray deposition techniques are known to be provided by projecting particles of the sprayed material in a direction towards the surface to be coated (note 0011 and figure 2), where as shown in figure 2 there would be an angle with respect to the surface being coated.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shih in view of Blankenship, England, Cantwell, Bhatnagar and Tseng to provide that the second spray film is formed by projecting particles including the same material as the first sprayed material from a direction from the third surface towards the first surface and inclined at a predetermined angle with respect to the first surface as suggested by Blankenshp, Cantwell and as evidenced by Coker in order to provide a desirable coating, where Blankenship would suggest using the same material as the first sprayed material, and Coker would evidence that thermal spraying as suggested by Shih, Blankenship, England, and Cantwell is conventionally performed by projected particles of the coating material from a direction towards the surface to be coated, and where there would be an angle with respect to the surface to be coated, and Cantwell would indicate to control the angle (giving a predetermined angle) by indicating control of the angle of the spray with respect to the surface being coated and such control/optimization would lead to spraying from a direction from the third surface at a predetermined angle with respect to the first surface.
Claim 4: as to projection of the particles stopped before the second sprayed film comes in contact with the second mask material, this would be suggested by Cantwell, where, for example, the mask material can be considered layer 18 (with an additional separate layer 30) which is not contacted by the spray material (note figure 2, 4). As well, the particles can be considered to be stopped in figure 2 of Cantweel before the second film itself comes in contact with the mask material, because as shown in figures 2, 5, the applied coating (film) does not contact the mask (note column 4, lines 5-10).
Claim 7: The process as discussed for claims 1 and 3 and the intro section abvoe provide all the features claimed.
Claim 8: The features of claim 8 are suggested as discussed for claim 4 above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih in view of Blankenship, England, Cantwell and Bhatnagar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saeki et al (US 5557215).
Claim 6: as to the base material having a cylinder shape having a predetermined thickness between inner circumference and outer circumference of the cylinder, and the first surface, the first side surface, and the second surface are all provided on an outer circumference of the base material, Shih indicates that the chamber wall can have a cylindrical shape with the wall/housing features having this shape (note the chamber having a circumferential band, column 4,lines 5-15, and the inner cylindrical surface of the housing above the turbo port, for example, column 7, lines 55-65). Shih also provides that the wafer is held by a base pedestal “wall” 16 that also has a first surface, second surface and first side surface facing the cylindrical wall 14, 18, 20 so would also be in cylindrical form (or at least be suggested to be in cylindrical form, to provide a shape to hold the wafer) to hold the wafer (note figure 1, column 3, lines 15-45). This wall 16 would therefore provide an inner wall member (as the surfaces) on an inner wall of the chamber with an outer circumference facing the processing chamber.
Note figure 1 of Shih below for an option of surfaces:
PNG
media_image5.png
297
405
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Saeki also provides a plasma processing apparatus with a chamber that can be used for etching (note column 1, lines 15-30, column 5, lines 10-50, figure 1, with walls of aluminum as a conductive material), and as well a frame 12 extending from the bottom surface of the chamber in a cylindrical form to surround the base 18 holding the wafer for treatment, where frame 12 is also made of conductive metal (note column 5, lines 25-55, figure 1). As shown in figure 1, the cylindrical frame 12 would have a certain/predetermined thickness between inner circumference and outer circumference of the cylinder of the frame, and the side exposed to the process chamber would be the outer circumference of this material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shih in view of Blankenship, England, Cantwell and Bhatnagar to also provide an inner wall with the base material in a cylindrical shape having a certain thickness between inner circumference and outer circumference of the cylinder and where the first surface, second surface and first side surface as claimed are provided on the outer circumference of the material, such that anodization and spray coating are provided on the outer circumference, as suggested by Saeki with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Shih notes housing 14 with a complex shape which would correspond to the shape of the wall 16 (note figure 1), where Saeki provides that a similar base/wall for a plasma processing chamber can be surrounded by a conductive metal frame 12 that would thus give an “inner wall” surrounding the base/wall that can have an inner circumference and outer circumference with a certain/predetermined thickness between, with the outer circumference facing the processing chamber, where it would be suggested that frame 12 is also aluminum as a known conductive material described by Saeki for use in the chambers, and this frame wall 12 would also be exposed to plasma processing gas, and the shape would be optimized to correspond to the optimized complex shape of housing 14 for the specific chamber used, giving first, second, and first side surfaces as claimed on frame wall 12 at the outer circumferential surface, and would further be suggested to also have the sprayed film and anodized film protection as discussed for claim 1 based on the optimized shape and etching gas provided, and thus would be provided with the films and restored as discussed for claim 1 above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih in view of Blankenship, England, Cantwell, Bhatnagar and Tseng, and as evidenced by Coker as applied to claims 3-4 and 7-8 above, and further in view of Saeki et al (US 5557215).
Claim 9: as to the base material having a cylinder shape having a predetermined thickness between inner circumference and outer circumference of the cylinder, and the first surface, the first side surface, the second surface, the third surface and the second side surface are all provided on an outer circumference of the base material, Shih indicates that the chamber wall can have a cylindrical shape with the wall/housing features having this shape (note the chamber having a circumferential band, column 4,lines 5-15, and the inner cylindrical surface of the housing above the turbo port, for example, column 7, lines 55-65). Shih also provides that the wafer is held by a base pedestal “wall” 16 that also has a first surface, second surface and first side surface facing the cylindrical wall 14, 18, 20 so would also be in cylindrical form (or at least be suggested to be in cylindrical form, to provide a shape to hold the wafer) to hold the wafer (note figure 1, column 3, lines 15-45). This wall 16 would therefore provide an inner wall member (as the surfaces) on an inner wall of the chamber with an outer circumference facing the processing chamber.
Note figure 1 of Shih below for an option of surfaces:
PNG
media_image5.png
297
405
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, as discussed for claim 2, it would be suggested to also have the wall have first, second, third surfaces and first and second side surfaces as claimed, noting Tseng.
Saeki also provides a plasma processing apparatus with a chamber that can be used for etching (note column 1, lines 15-30, column 5, lines 10-50, figure 1, with walls of aluminum as a conductive material), and as well a frame 12 extending from the bottom surface of the chamber in a cylindrical form to surround the base 18 holding the wafer for treatment, where frame 12 is also made of conductive metal (note column 5, lines 25-55, figure 1). As shown in figure 1, the cylindrical frame 12 would have a certain/predetermined thickness between inner circumference and outer circumference of the cylinder of the frame, and the side exposed to the process chamber would be the outer circumference of this material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shih in view of Blankenship, England, Cantwell, Bhatnagar and Tseng and as evidenced by Coker to also provide an inner wall with the base material in a cylindrical shape having a certain thickness between inner circumference and outer circumference of the cylinder and where the first surface, second surface, third surface, first side surface and second side surface are provided as claimed on the outer circumference of the material, such that anodization and spray coating are provided on the outer circumference, as suggested by Saeki with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Shih notes housing 14 with a complex shape which would correspond to the shape of the wall 16 (note figure 1), where Tseng indicates how similar such housing can also have first, second, third surfaces and first and second side surfaces, and where Saeki provides that a similar base/wall for a plasma processing chamber can be surrounded by a conductive metal frame 12 that would thus give an “inner wall” surrounding the base/wall that can have an inner circumference and outer circumference with a certain pretermined thickness between, with the outer circumference facing the processing chamber, where it would be suggested that frame 12 is also aluminum as a known conductive material described by Saeki for use in the chambers, and this frame wall 12 would also be exposed to plasma processing gas, and the shape would be optimized to correspond to the optimized complex shape of housing 14 for the specific chamber used, giving first, second, third and first and side surfaces as claimed on frame wall 12 at the outer circumferential surface, and would further be suggested to also have the sprayed film and anodized film protection as discussed for claim 1 based on the optimized shape and etching gas provided, and thus would be provided with the films and restored as discussed for claim 1 above.
Ueda et al (US 2019/0326101) notes plasma processing apparatus equipment, including a ground electrode 40 of aluminum alloy with passivation, etc. (note 0045-50).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Note as well, the new 35 USC 112 rejections provided due to the amendments to the claims.
As to the 35 USC 103 rejections, it is argued that the blasting angle features now claimed (note claims 1 and 7, part (b)) provide the sprayed film above the first surface is removed, and a sprayed film in the lower region remains, and a surface of the first sprayed film not yet contaminated can be exposed and connected to a second sprayed film, which prevents problems. It is argued that the cited art does not provide this. It is argued that Shih is directed to a different method using a roughened band for BC, but does not teach all the features claimed, including as cited through step (b) of claims 1 and 7. It is argued that Blankenship merely teaches that the sprayed coating is formed over complex parts and can be restored with the same coating material originally provided, and England merely teaches that the sprayed coating can be provided using the mask covering the exposed surface, and the mask is removed after coating, using tape, and where Cantwell provides a particular masking tape that provides a sharp demarcation line, with a demarcation line spaced from the edge of the tape and preventing the lateral edge of the coating from contacting the tape, and where Bhatnagar merely has blasting to remove films for reusing the substrate and controlling the blasting conditions including blasting angles in order to provide desired removal and thickness of the film coating. It is argued that the combination of references does not provide what is claimed, including that Shih does not provide the claimed plasma processing chamber with an inner wall. It is argued that the teachings of the secondary references are so different from applicant’s method that one of ordinary skill in the plasma processing art would have no reason to consult, and there is no teaching in the cited art to provide the claimed method without impermissible hindsight or reasonable expectation of success. It is argued that the cited references would indicate that the spray coating/blasting can be performed from one of any of arbitrary positions in vertical from above the surfaces and in any direction, which is not the case, and the references are not directed to applicant’s particular problem, and thus would not provide the features claimed.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, the rejections above are maintained. Firstly as to benefits from the blasting position, etc., any removal benefits shown in figure 5D and 5E, would only apply to the structures as shown there, and as discussed above with regard to Shih along with option (B) with an overhang formed as noted, options (A) and (C) can also be considered as present in Shih and as meeting the claim language requirements of first, second and side surfaces (and as well, other possible shapes based on the specific wall shape desired can be used) and the blasting may have a different effect in those options, which is not discussed. It is claimed for the blast spray to provide a predetermined angle to be “matched” with a direction from an end position of the first side surface portion toward the end edge of the first sprayed film, however, as noted in the 35 USC 112 rejection above “matched” is confusing and could allow for many options. For example in option (C) a line drawn from the top corner of the top of surface 18 connecting with the marked second surface (note figure marked as option (C) above, to a surface on the marked first surface could have the same angle (due to further depth of first surface, where the line would be drawn through the “side surface”) of direction as the direction of the grit blasting if projection point placed above the second surface and directed to the second surface). This can give different results than that indicated for figures 5D, 5E of applicant. As well, the “matched” direction could have lines drawn from different points or not give the same results as the predetermined angle. What about the possibility of even “matched” in the form of having a complementary or opposite angle? Additionally, as discussed in the rejection above, Bhatnagar would already suggest to optimize the angle of blast particle spraying, and resulting position for blasting. The desire from the references is to prepare the surface for further spraying with the grit blasting.
As to Shih providing the roughening before anodization, the Examiner notes that it is not prevented in the present invention that roughening of the substrate occurs before anodization. The combination of references is provided as to regenerating treatment provided after initial anodization and thermal spraying. Shih can be considered as having a plasma processing chamber with an inner wall to the extent claimed as discussed in detail in the rejection above.
As to use of the additional references, the Examiner notes that these references are used in combination. Shih is not cited as teaching of suggesting all features alone. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Along with the use of a mask can be used for thermal spraying, Blankenship also describes coating methods and how a coating can be restored by blasting and partially removing the initial coating and reapplying additional coating while masked. As to England, it describes how blasting and thermal spraying can be provided, with a first masking system for blasting and a second masking system for the thermal spraying. As to Cantwell, it shows a masking system, that can also be used for thermal spraying (note column 5, lines 30-68). Bhatnagar describes how blasting can be provided. Note the detailing of features of the references as discussed in the rejections above. It is argued that Shih does not teach various claimed features, and the secondary references would not be used, because one skilled in the plasma processing at would have no reason to consult. The Examiner disagrees. It is her position that the references are analogous art, being at least reasonably pertinent to the problem of the inventor. Blankenship, for example, describes features to provide when regenerating/restoring a thermal spray coating, which is pertinent and relevant to the problem of the inventor as they are also concerned with restoring a coating using thermal spraying. England also describes features to provide with grit blasting a surface and thereafter thermal spraying, which is pertinent and relevant to the problem of the inventor as they are also concerned with grit blasting a surface and then coating using thermal spraying (which as indicated by Blakenship is relevant to restoring a coating using thermal spraying). Cantwell is also is pertinent and relevant to the problem of the inventor as they are also concerned with coating using thermal spraying (which as indicated by Blakenship is relevant to restoring a coating using thermal spraying). Bhatnagar is also is pertinent and relevant to the problem of the inventor as they are also concerned with blasting to remove coating (which as indicated by Blakenship is relevant to restoring a coating using thermal spraying).
It is also generally argued that there is no teaching/suggestion from the applied references that would teach or suggested to make the claimed invention, with reasonable expectation of success or without hindsight. The Examiner is of the position that the rejection above details why the references would suggest the claimed features in combination with a reasonable expectation of success, and without impermissible hindsight. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
As to the arbitrary positions of spraying and blasting, step (e) of claim 1 merely has spraying to cover the desired area, which is suggested to provide the desired restoration of coating. As to claim 3 and claim 7, step (e), direction of coating, this would be suggested as discussed for claims 3 and 7 above, with the evidence by Coker. As to the angle for the blasting, as discussed above, it would be suggested to optimize blasting, where criticality as not been shown for the blasting angle and the angle position using the “matched” direction. As to applicant’s problem, it can also be considered as a desire to restore coating due to wear with features of blasting and thermal spraying, which would be suggested from the combination of art. Thus, the rejections above are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718