DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Acknowledgement is made of amendments filed 05/08/2026. Upon entering the amendments, claims 11-15 are added and claims 1, 4, and 7 are amended. The claims 1-15 are pending and presented for the examination.
Objections Withdrawn
Claims 1, 4, and 7 have been amended to overcome the objections set forth in the previous office action. Therefore, these objections are withdrawn.
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 1-15 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.
Regarding the limitation that the structure is configured so that a fluorine atom concentration at 10 nm from the surface of the structure is less than 3.0% after the surface is exposed to a plasma environment using an inductively coupled reactive ion etching (ICP-RIE) apparatus under the condition that process gas of SF6100 sccm, coil output of 1500 W for ICP as the source output, and off bias output (0 W) are used and the chamber pressure of the ICP-RIE apparatus is 0.5 Pa and the plasma exposure time of 1 hour, this limitation pertains to a property of the claimed material. As shown above, the composite taught by Iwasawa et al is equivalent to that of the instant claims in terms of composition and structure, and as such the Iwasawa et al composite would also have an equivalent fluorine atom concentration at 10 nm depth after exposure according to the claim limitations.
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).
Further, the Iwasawa et al composite is produced by aerosol deposition, and as such the resultant composite would have all structural features imparted by this product-by-process limitation. 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.
Regarding the limitation that the structure is configured so that a fluorine atom concentration at 10 nm from the surface of the structure is less than 3.0% after the surface is exposed to a plasma environment using an inductively coupled reactive ion etching (ICP-RIE) apparatus under the condition that process gas of SF6100 sccm, coil output of 1500 W for ICP as the source output, and off bias output (0 W) are used and the chamber pressure of the ICP-RIE apparatus is 0.5 Pa and the plasma exposure time of 1 hour, this limitation pertains to a property of the claimed material. As shown above, the composite taught by Iwasawa et al is equivalent to that of the instant claims in terms of composition and structure, and as such the Iwasawa et al composite would also have an equivalent fluorine atom concentration at 10 nm depth after exposure according to the claim limitations.
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).
Further, the Iwasawa et al composite is produced by aerosol deposition, and as such the resultant composite would have all structural features imparted by this product-by-process limitation. 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.
Regarding the limitation that the structure is configured so that a fluorine atom concentration at 10 nm from the surface of the structure is less than 3.0% after the surface is exposed to a plasma environment using an inductively coupled reactive ion etching (ICP-RIE) apparatus under the condition that process gas of SF6100 sccm, coil output of 1500 W for ICP as the source output, and off bias output (0 W) are used and the chamber pressure of the ICP-RIE apparatus is 0.5 Pa and the plasma exposure time of 1 hour, this limitation pertains to a property of the claimed material. As shown above, the composite taught by Iwasawa et al is equivalent to that of the instant claims in terms of composition and structure, and as such the Iwasawa et al composite would also have an equivalent fluorine atom concentration at 10 nm depth after exposure according to the claim limitations.
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).
Further, the Iwasawa et al composite is produced by aerosol deposition, and as such the resultant composite would have all structural features imparted by this product-by-process limitation. 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.
Regarding claim 11, 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, and 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 Y4Al2O9 with the claimed 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 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 of the Iwasawa et al polycrystalline ceramic is therefore inherently 1.15-2.0.
Regarding the limitation that the structure is configured so that a fluorine atom concentration at 10 nm from the surface of the structure is less than 3.0% after the surface is exposed to a plasma environment using an inductively coupled reactive ion etching (ICP-RIE) apparatus under the condition that process gas of SF6100 sccm, coil output of 1500 W for ICP as the source output, and off bias output (0 W) are used and the chamber pressure of the ICP-RIE apparatus is 0.5 Pa and the plasma exposure time of 1 hour, this limitation pertains to a property of the claimed material. As shown above, the composite taught by Iwasawa et al is equivalent to that of the instant claims in terms of composition and structure, and as such the Iwasawa et al composite would also have an equivalent fluorine atom concentration at 10 nm depth after exposure according to the claim limitations.
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).
Further, the Iwasawa et al composite is produced by aerosol deposition, and as such the resultant composite would have all structural features imparted by this product-by-process limitation.
Iwasawa et al teaches that the inventive composite is used as a member for a semiconductor manufacturing device that is configured to be used in an environment wherein low particle generation is required, and as such teaches a method wherein a composite that meets each limitation of instant claim 11 is provided and thus imparts particle generating prevention characteristic to such a device.
Each limitation of claim 11 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 12, 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 13, 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 14, 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 15, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments regarding the previously applied prior art to Sun et al are persuasive in view of the amendments to each independent claim specifying that the claimed composite structure is made by aerosol deposition. The remarks show that the claimed structural features are necessarily produced by this method, and thus the differing method used by Sun et al would not result in a composite structure meeting the instant claim limitations.
Applicant’s arguments are not, however, persuasive regarding the previously issued grounds of rejection over Iwasawa et al.
Applicant argues that the composite structures taught by Iwasawa et al would not inherently have the lattice parameter features of the instant claims, contending that the instant Specification provides a showing that the aerosol deposition process used to produce the composite can lead to composites whose lattice parameters are changeable based on process parameters. Applicant argues that this shows that aerosol deposition does not necessarily lead to materials according to the instant claims, and that only certain embodiments in the instant Specification, characterized by parameters such as flow rate, are resultant in the claimed lattice parameters. These arguments are not found to be persuasive. According to the cited Tables in the Specification, lattice parameters can be lower than the claimed values if flow rate is sufficiently low. However, this is not a persuasive showing that the Iwasawa et al process would not lead to said claimed parameters, because the flow rate used in the Iwasawa et al method is the same or at higher than those embodiments instantly disclosed that do lead to the claimed a, b, and c parameters (see Table 1). Thus, there is no indication why these flow rates used by Iwasawa et al would not also lead to the claimed parameters when used in the aerosol deposition process, and applicant’s arguments in this regard are not persuasive.
The embodiments cited by applicant from the Specification do not show any reason why an aerosol deposited layer as taught by Iwasawa et al would not have the lattice parameters of the instant claims. Said embodiments and arguments pertaining thereto are not commensurate in scope with what is being claimed such that they can function as an evidentiary showing supporting applicant’s assertions. To show evidence of non-inherency, there must be a comparison between a prior art composite structure and those instantly disclosed. This is not the case here; applicant only points to variability of certain lattice parameters. Further, it is not clear what changes lead to increases in a, b, c, or “ratio parameter”, because increasing flow rates are not shown in these Specification embodiments to always lead to increasing lattice parameters. Additionally, for at least i.e. claim 1, all embodiments meet the lattice parameter limitations. If anything is shown by the cited portions of the Specification, this would be the Iwasawa et al aerosol-deposited composite structure would have the claimed structure properties.
The information relied upon to show a difference between the instantly claimed composite structure and that of Iwasawa et al is insufficient specific to be able to function as evidence; there is no actual comparison made between any embodiment that would be uniquely that of Iwasawa et al, and an embodiment that differs therefrom and that has the claimed properties (with the prior art embodiment not having said properties.) Absent any such showing, applicant’s arguments against the previously applied inherency findings are not persuasive.
Regarding the newly added limitations to fluorine penetration at 10 nm depth, applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that this variable could be controlled, and seemingly contends that this shows that the composite structure as instantly claimed provides advantageous lower particle generation. However, similarly to the above discussion, the information in the instant Specification does not definitively show how the claimed lattice variables can reliably changed/optimized, because there are not any direct correlations demonstrated between process variables such as gas flow rate. Because of this, a skilled artisan would not have recognized any connection between how a composite structure could be produced and a resultant desirable plasma resistance, and thus there is no reason shown for any difference between the instantly claimed composites and those taught by Iwasawa et al.
Applicant argues that while Iwasawa et al teaches that YAM can be the material produced, the manufactured components were made from other inventive materials. However, said YAM is a specifically taught compound in the Iwasawa et al teachings, and as such its disclosure must be considered. One of ordinary skill would have been able to produce a material according to the Iwasawa et al teachings having the YAM composition, and thus this material as produced therein is a part of the prior art. The object of Iwasawa et al is for particle generation reduction, and thus, contrary to applicant’s assertion, one of ordinary skill would have found this compound taught by Iwasawa et al suitable for the purpose to which the Iwasawa teachings drawn.
Thus, the grounds of rejection previously issued are maintained for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
NSW20 July 2026
Prosecution Insights