DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-10 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2023, and 07/16/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 4 are not written as one sentence. Claims 1, 4, and 7 should be written such that the additional capitalization within the parenthetical clause is removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwasawa et al (US 2019/0276368 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Iwasawa et al teaches a composite structure comprising a base material, and a structure that has a surface and is provided on the base material, wherein said structure comprises a polycrystalline ceramic. Iwasawa et al teaches that the polycrystalline ceramic can be Y4Al2O9, and teaches that said Y4Al2O9 is used in an environment where the structure is exposed to a corrosive plasma atmosphere. Iwasawa et al does not specify a, b, and c lattice constants or d lattice spacing. However, the Iwasawa et al polycrystalline ceramic is formed by aerosol deposition. This is the same method that applicant discloses in the instant Specification as leading to Y4Al2O9 that has a, b, and c lattice constants that have values greater than the minimum values recited therein. It can therefore not be said that there is any difference between the Iwasawa et al Y4Al2O9 formed by aerosol deposition, and the Y4Al2O9 that forms the main component of the structure of the instant claims, which is also formed by aerosol deposition. The a, b, and c lattice constants of the Iwasawa et al Y4Al2O9 are therefore inherently considered to be greater than 7.382, 10.592, and 11.160, respectively.
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).
Each limitation of claim 1 is therefore met by the Y4Al2O9 embodiment of the Iwasawa et al document, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, Iwasawa et al teaches a structure of a substrate, said structure comprising Y4Al2O9 formed by the equivalent aerosol deposition method disclosed in the instant Specification as leading to a structure with the claimed lattice constants. The Iwasawa et al Y4Al2O9 would thus inherently have a, b, and c values greater than 7.393, 10.608, and 11.179, respectively.
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, Iwasawa et al teaches a structure of a substrate, said structure comprising Y4Al2O9 formed by the equivalent aerosol deposition method disclosed in the instant Specification as leading to a structure with the claimed lattice constants. The Iwasawa et al Y4Al2O9 would thus inherently have a, b, and c values greater than 7.404, 10.627, and 11. 192, respectively.
Regarding claim 4, Iwasawa et al teaches a composite structure comprising a base material, and a structure that has a surface and is provided on the base material, wherein said structure comprises a polycrystalline ceramic. Iwasawa et al teaches that the polycrystalline ceramic can be Y4Al2O9, and teaches that said Y4Al2O9 is used in an environment where the structure is exposed to a corrosive plasma atmosphere. Iwasawa et al does not specify a peak intensity ratio expressed by β/α with β and α intensities being measured at 30.6° and 29.6°. However, the Iwasawa et al polycrystalline ceramic is formed by aerosol deposition. This is the same method that applicant discloses in the instant Specification as leading to the claimed Y4Al2O9 with the desired γ ratio. It can therefore not be said that there is any difference between the Iwasawa et al Y4Al2O9 formed by aerosol deposition, and the Y4Al2O9 that forms the main component of the structure of the instant claims, which is also formed by aerosol deposition. The γ intensity ratio of the Iwasawa et al polycrystalline ceramic is therefore inherently 1.15-2.0.
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).
Each limitation of claim 4 is therefore met by the Y4Al2O9 embodiment of the Iwasawa et al document, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above, Iwasawa et al teaches a structure of a substrate, said structure comprising Y4Al2O9 formed by the equivalent aerosol deposition method disclosed in the instant Specification as leading to a structure with the claimed crystal structure features. The Iwasawa et al Y4Al2O9 would thus inherently have peak intensity ratio of 1.20-2.0.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, Iwasawa et al teaches a structure of a substrate, said structure comprising Y4Al2O9 formed by the equivalent aerosol deposition method disclosed in the instant Specification as leading to a structure with the claimed crystal structure features. The Iwasawa et al Y4Al2O9 would thus inherently have peak intensity ratio of 1.24-2.0.
Regarding claim 7, Iwasawa et al teaches a composite structure comprising a base material, and a structure that has a surface and is provided on the base material, wherein said structure comprises a polycrystalline ceramic. Iwasawa et al teaches that the polycrystalline ceramic can be Y4Al2O9, and teaches that said Y4Al2O9 is used in an environment where the structure is exposed to a corrosive plasma atmosphere. Iwasawa et al does not specify a, b, and c lattice constants or d lattice spacing. Iwasawa et al also does not specify a peak intensity ratio expressed by β/α with β and α intensities being measured at 30.6° and 29.6°. However, the Iwasawa et al polycrystalline ceramic is formed by aerosol deposition. This is the same method that applicant discloses in the instant Specification as leading to Y4Al2O9 that has a, b, and c lattice constants that have values greater than the minimum values recited therein, and having a peak intensity ratio in the range 1.15-2.0. It can therefore not be said that there is any difference between the Iwasawa et al Y4Al2O9 formed by aerosol deposition, and the Y4Al2O9 that forms the main component of the structure of the instant claims, which is also formed by aerosol deposition. The a, b, and c lattice constants of the Iwasawa et al Y4Al2O9 are therefore inherently considered to be greater than 7.382, 10.592, and 11.160, respectively, and the γ intensity ratio is inherently 1.15-2.0.
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).
Each limitation of claim 7 is therefore met by the Y4Al2O9 embodiment of the Iwasawa et al document, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 8-10, the Iwasawa et al composite structure is a member for a semiconductor manufacturing device that is configured to be used in an environment wherein low particle generation is required.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al (US 9583369 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Sun et al teaches a composite structure comprising a base material, and a structure that has a surface and is provided on the base material, wherein said structure comprises a polycrystalline ceramic (see Figs. 4 and 5a). Sun et al teaches that the polycrystalline ceramic can be Y4Al2O9 (see claim 3), and teaches that said Y4Al2O9 is used in an environment where the structure is exposed to a corrosive plasma atmosphere. Sun et al does not specify a, b, and c lattice constants or d lattice spacing. However, the Sun et al polycrystalline ceramic is formed by ion-assisted deposition (IAD). This is the same method that applicant discloses in the instant Specification as leading to Y4Al2O9 that has a, b, and c lattice constants that have values greater than the minimum values recited therein (per paragraph 0039 of Specification). It can therefore not be said that there is any difference between the Sun et al Y4Al2O9 formed by IAD, and the Y4Al2O9 that forms the main component of the structure of the instant claims, which can also be formed by IAD. The a, b, and c lattice constants of the Sun et al Y4Al2O9 are therefore inherently considered to be greater than 7.382, 10.592, and 11.160, respectively.
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).
Each limitation of claim 1 is therefore met by the Y4Al2O9 embodiment of the Sun et al document, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, Sun et al teaches a structure of a substrate, said structure comprising Y4Al2O9 formed by the equivalent IAD method disclosed in the instant Specification as leading to a structure with the claimed lattice constants. The Sun et al Y4Al2O9 would thus inherently have a, b, and c values greater than 7.393, 10.608, and 11.179, respectively.
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, Sun et al teaches a structure of a substrate, said structure comprising Y4Al2O9 formed by the equivalent IAD method disclosed in the instant Specification as leading to a structure with the claimed lattice constants. The Sun et al Y4Al2O9 would thus inherently have a, b, and c values greater than 7.404, 10.627, and 11.192, respectively.
Regarding claim 4, Sun et al teaches a composite structure comprising a base material, and a structure that has a surface and is provided on the base material, wherein said structure comprises a polycrystalline ceramic (see Figs. 4 and 5a). Sun et al teaches that the polycrystalline ceramic can be Y4Al2O9 (see claim 3), and teaches that said Y4Al2O9 is used in an environment where the structure is exposed to a corrosive plasma atmosphere. Sun et al does not specify a peak intensity ratio expressed by β/α with β and α intensities being measured at 30.6° and 29.6°. However, the Sun et al polycrystalline ceramic is formed by ion-assisted deposition (IAD). This is the same method that applicant discloses in the instant Specification as leading to the claimed Y4Al2O9 with the desired γ ratio (per paragraph 0039 of Specification). It can therefore not be said that there is any difference between the Sun et al Y4Al2O9 formed by IAD, and the Y4Al2O9 that forms the main component of the structure of the instant claims, which can also be formed by aerosol deposition. The γ intensity ratio of the Sun et al polycrystalline ceramic is therefore inherently 1.15-2.0.
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).
Each limitation of claim 4 is therefore met by the Y4Al2O9 embodiment of the Sun et al document, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above, Sun et al teaches a structure of a substrate, said structure comprising Y4Al2O9 formed by the equivalent IAD method disclosed in the instant Specification as leading to a structure with the claimed crystal structure features. The Sun et al Y4Al2O9 would thus inherently have peak intensity ratio of 1.20-2.0.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, Sun et al teaches a structure of a substrate, said structure comprising Y4Al2O9 formed by the equivalent IAD method disclosed in the instant Specification as leading to a structure with the claimed crystal structure features. The Sun et al Y4Al2O9 would thus inherently have peak intensity ratio of 1.24-2.0.
Regarding claim 7, Sun et al teaches a composite structure comprising a base material, and a structure that has a surface and is provided on the base material, wherein said structure comprises a polycrystalline ceramic (see Figs. 4 and 5a). Sun et al teaches that the polycrystalline ceramic can be Y4Al2O9 (see claim 3), and teaches that said Y4Al2O9 is used in an environment where the structure is exposed to a corrosive plasma atmosphere. Sun et al does not specify a, b, and c lattice constants or d lattice spacing. Sun et al also does not specify a peak intensity ratio expressed by β/α with β and α intensities being measured at 30.6° and 29.6°. However, the Sun et al polycrystalline ceramic is formed by ion-assisted deposition (IAD). This is the same method that applicant discloses in the instant Specification as leading to Y4Al2O9 that has a, b, and c lattice constants that have values greater than the minimum values recited therein, and having a peak intensity ratio in the range 1.15-2.0 (per paragraph 0039 of the Specification). It can therefore not be said that there is any difference between the Sun et al Y4Al2O9 formed by IAD, and the Y4Al2O9 that forms the main component of the structure of the instant claims, which can also be formed by IAD. The a, b, and c lattice constants of the Sun et al Y4Al2O9 are therefore inherently considered to be greater than 7.382, 10.592, and 11.160, respectively, and the γ intensity ratio is inherently 1.15-2.0.
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).
Each limitation of claim 7 is therefore met by the Y4Al2O9 embodiment of the Sun et al document, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 8-10, the Sun et al composite structure is a member such as a nozzle for a semiconductor manufacturing device, used in a plasma environment. This is the same environment in which the composite of the instant claims is used, and is thus considered to be an environment where low particle generation is required.
Conclusion
9. No claim is allowed.
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW3 February 2026