DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
In addressing the rejection ground, each claim may not have been separately discussed to the extent the claimed features are the same as or similar to the previously-discussed features; the previous discussion is construed to apply for the other claims in the same or similar way.
In the office action, “/” should be read as and/or as generally understood. For example, “A/B” means A and B, or A or B.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-10 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/11/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 11, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Jang et al. (KR 10-2020-0051087, see IDS) in view of Chrerepy et al. (US 2016/0071718)
Regarding claim 11, Jang discloses a substrate processing apparatus [see at least claims 1-12], comprising: a base material [e.g. 10 figs 1-3] installed in a processing space where substrates are processed; and a coating film [e.g. 100] formed on the base material, wherein the coating film comprises: a first coating layer [e.g. 110] coated on the base material, having a fluorescence property [The first coating layer 110 has a fluorescent characteristic, and when light of a first wavelength is incident, light of a second wavelength may be emitted], and emitting light of a second wavelength [The first coating layer 110 has a fluorescent characteristic, and when light of a first wavelength is incident, light of a second wavelength may be emitted ] when light of a first wavelength is incident thereon; and a second coating layer [e.g. 120] coated on the first coating layer and transmitting light emitted from the first coating layer, wherein the first coating layer is a phosphor including a matrix, and wherein the matrix includes one or more materials selected from yttrium oxide (Y2O3), gadolinium oxide (Gd2O3), yttrium borate (YBO3), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), zinc oxide (ZnO), cerium oxide (CeO2), and lanthanum oxide (La2O3) [see at least claims 1-12, para. 0031]. Jang does not disclose doped with carbon. However, Chrerepy discloses phosphor can be doped with carbon [see at least para. 0047], for example, to induce an absorption at 254 nm and emission in at least a portion of the spectral region visible to the human eye. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Jang in accordance with the teaching of Chrerepy regarding phosphor in order to control the luminescence [abstract, para. 0047].
Regarding claim 13, the combination discussed above discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 11, except wherein a carbon content of the first coating layer falls within the range of 0.01 to 10% by weight based on 100% by weight of the matrix. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first refraction section having a carbon content of the first coating layer falls within the range of 0.01 to 10% by weight based on 100% by weight of the matrix, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum of working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, the combination discussed above discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 13, further comprising: an inspection unit configured to evaluate quality of the coating film, wherein the inspection unit comprises: a light irradiation part [e.g. 210, Jang] that irradiates the coating film with the light of the first wavelength; a vision part [e.g. 220] that acquires an image of light emitted from the coating film by the light of the first wavelength; and a determination part [e.g. 230] that determines a state of the coating film on the basis of the image acquired by the vision part.
Regarding claim 15, the combination discussed above discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 14, wherein when the light irradiation part irradiates the coating film with the light of the first wavelength, the light of the second wavelength emitted from the first coating layer passes through the second coating layer and is observed on the top of the coating film, and when a portion of the second coating layer is damaged, a difference occurs in an intensity of light observed on the top of an area where the second coating layer is damaged and an intensity of light observed on the top of an area where the second coating layer is not damaged [see at least figs. 2-5 and the description. Jang].
Regarding claim 16, the combination discussed above discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 15, wherein when the portion of the second coating layer is damaged, the image acquired by the vision part includes a damaged shape of the second coating layer [see at least figs. 2-5 and the description. Jang].
Regarding claim 17, the combination discussed above discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 13, wherein a thickness of the first coating layer falls within the range of 0.1 to 50% of a total coating film thickness [see at least claims 1-12 Jang].
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
‘First, Cherepy is not relevant prior art. Jang is directed to coating films used on components inside a plasma processing apparatus, where material selection is driven by plasma resistance, chemical stability, and avoidance of contamination and by-products. By contrast, Cherepy relates to phosphors for fluorescent lamps, where the focus is on light output, color quality, and long-term brightness. These are fundamentally different technologies solving different problems. A person of ordinary skill in the art working on plasma-exposed coatings would have no reason to look to lamp phosphor compositions for guidance’
However, Jang discloses the invention is related to light-emitting [technical field]. Both are related to materials related to phosphor and lighting emitting, e.g. fluorescent characteristic/ fluorescent lamp. In addition, Cherepy discloses to utilize carbon doping to induce an absorption at 254 nm and emission in at least a portion of the spectral region visible to the human eye [para. 0047]. Accordingly, Chrerepy discloses phosphor can be doped with carbon [see at least para. 0047]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Jang in accordance with the teaching of Chrerepy regarding phosphor in order to control the luminescence [abstract, para. 0047].
Applicant argues:
Second, even if Cherepy were considered analogous, 1) Cherepy's teachings are specific to a nitride matrix and provide no guidance for oxide-based coating films, and 2) its materials are not suitable for Jang's application. Jang relies on oxide-based phosphors (such as Y203), which are known for their robustness and stability in plasma environments. Cherepy, on the other hand, is centered on nitride-based phosphors (such as AlN), which have different chemical behavior, require different processing conditions, and can be sensitive to environmental factors such as oxidation. Cherepy provides no teaching that such nitride materials would function properly in a plasma environment, or that they would meet Jang's strict requirements for durability and process compatibility.
However, Cherepy discloses phosphor can be doped with carbon and/or oxygen [para. 0047, claim 6]. Cherepy also discloses the phosphor is doped by using a starting material selected from a manganese oxide. In addition, Applicant does not provide the evidence that Cherepy’s materials are not suitable for Jang's application, and the evidence phosphor doped with carbon would not function properly in a plasma environment, or phosphor doped with carbon would not meet Jang's strict requirements for durability and process compatibility. In addition, Applicant does not disclose what Jang's strict requirements for durability and process compatibility are. In addition, Applicant does not provide the evidence why Applicant suggests that Cherepy has loose requirement for durability. In addition, the rejection does not indicate to move whole nitride materials from Cherepy to Jang. In addition, there is no requirement that one must do "'drop-in' replacement" (nitride-based phosphors) when combining the second reference. One having ordinary skills would know how to proceed. Please see also see the discussion for the number 4 arguments. In addition, Jang teach to use both rare-earth elements and also non-rare-earth elements. The rejection discloses to have phosphor doped with carbon, which is not limited to just nitride-based phosphors. Applicant does not provide evidence that phosphor doped with carbon would not have meet Jang's strict requirements for durability and process compatibility. Further, Cherepy discloses to utilize carbon doping to induce an absorption at 254 nm and emission in at least a portion of the spectral region visible to the human eye [para. 0047]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Jang in accordance with the teaching of Chrerepy regarding phosphor in order to control the luminescence [abstract, para. 0047].
Applicant argues:
Third, the Examiner's stated reason for combining the references-"to control luminescence"-is overly general and unsupported. Jang already achieves controlled luminescence using well-established dopants. Cherepy's mention of carbon doping is merely optional and is not directed to improving coating performance, inspection capability, or plasma compatibility. There is no clear or reasoned basis for why a skilled artisan would modify Jang's system in view of Cherepy, especially given the differences in purpose and operating conditions.’
However, Cherepy discloses to utilize carbon doping to induce an absorption at 254 nm and emission in at least a portion of the spectral region visible to the human eye [para. 0047]. Accordingly, Chrerepy discloses phosphor can be doped with carbon [see at least para. 0047]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Jang in accordance with the teaching of Chrerepy regarding phosphor in order to control the luminescence [abstract, para. 0047]. Also, see the discussion in the above arguments.
Applicant argues:
‘Fourth, the technical philosophies underlying Jang and Cherepy are fundamentally at odds with one another, further confirming that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine these references in the manner proposed by the Examiner. Jang's preferred embodiments rely upon rare-earth dopants -most notably europium-doped yttrium oxide (Y203:Eu) - to provide the fluorescence required for coating inspection. Jang expressly identifies "Y203:Eu" as an exemplary composition of the first coating layer, in which europium serves as the luminescence-generating dopant within a yttrium-oxide host (see Jang at paragraph [0031]).
In sharp contrast, Cherepy is expressly motivated by the avoidance of rare- earth elements. Cherepy's abstract states that the disclosed phosphor "does not utilize 'critical rare earths,' minimizing sensitivity to fluctuating market prices for the rare earth elements." Cherepy reiterates this objective throughout the specification, stating that the inventor's phosphor was developed "without use of any rare-earth elements" (Cherepy [0043]; see also Cherepy [0016], [0032]). Most strikingly, Cherepy proposes its AlN:Mn phosphor as a "'drop-in' replacement" specifically for Y2O3:Eu -the very phosphor system that Jang exemplifies (Cherepy [0017] ("AlN:Mn can function as a 'drop-in' replacement for YEO [Y203:Eu]")).’
However, Jang discloses matrix may utilize other materials beside Y2O3:Eu, for example, gadolinium oxide (Gd .sub.2 O .sub.3 ), yttrium borate (YBO .sub.3 ), aluminum oxide (Al .sub.2 O .sub.3 ), zinc oxide (ZnO), cerium oxide (CeO) .sub.2 ), lanthanum oxide (La .sub.2 O .sub.3 ) [see para. 0031]. In addition, there is no requirement that one must do "'drop-in' replacement" when combining the second reference. One having ordinary skills would know how to proceed. In addition, Jang teach to use both rare-earth elements and non-rare-earth elements. To avoid using rare-earth elements is irrelevant to Jang’s teaching. In addition, Cherepy does not disclose phosphor doped with carbon can’t combine with rare-earth elements. In addition, materials suggested by Cherepy also include rare-earth elements. For example, yttrium, lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, and/or ytterbium are used, see abstract and para. 0047. Further, Applicant argues that inventions of Jang and Cherepy are in fundamentally different technologies, but Applicant still argues that rare-earth concept should not be applied to Jang, which Applicant considered as a different technology. This argument is in contradiction to at least argument 1. Also, please see the discussion for the reason to combine.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PATRICK C CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7207. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Flexible 8:00-16:00.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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.
/PATRICK C CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights