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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0039 of the specification and in the abstract, the phrase “room mean square” should be amended to read “root mean square” to correct spelling.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 15, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the limitation “room mean square” should be amended to read “root mean square” to correct spelling.
In claims 5, 15, and 20, the limitation “a uniform thickness” should be amended to read “a thickness uniformity” to correct grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahmoudi (US 20240124978 A1) in view of Morey (US 20170356085 A1). Engineering Toolbox (NPL – "Coefficients of Linear Thermal Expansion") is used as evidence of inherency.
Regarding claim 1, Mahmoudi (US 20240124978 A1) teaches a gas diffuser plate (body) having a surface (upper body surface) comprising a plurality of holes (underlay texture features disposed therein) and having a (first) RMS roughness of 150 micrometers of 1500 micrometers where an emissivity controlling layer or anti-contamination layer that is conformal (conformal layer) is disposed over the surface of the gas diffuser plate where the roughness of the gas diffuser plate is increased by less than 5% (second RMS roughness greater than or equal to about 90% of the first RMS surface roughness) (para 0043-0044, 0078-0079, 0083).
Mahmoudi teaches the gas diffuser plate is used in a cyclic deposition chamber for an ALD process (Abstract, para 0039, 0075) but fails to explicitly teach it is a plasma processing chamber component. However, Morey (US 20170356085 A1), in the analogous art of substrate processing chambers, teaches that a gas diffuser assembly may be used as a component in chambers used for plasma processing in addition to ALD (para 0028). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cyclic deposition chamber of Mahmoudi with a plasma processing chamber, as described by Morey, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Mahmoudi and Morey teaches the conformal emissivity controlling layer may comprise titanium oxide (Mahmoudi para 0004, 0072, 0078). Alternatively, Mahmoudi teaches the anti-contamination conformal layer may comprise aluminum oxide (para 0081, 0083).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Mahmoudi and Morey teaches the first and second RMS surface roughness may be approximately equal and within a range including 200 micrometers to 1000 micrometers (Mahmoudi para 0079).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Mahmoudi and Morey fails to explicitly teach a linear temperature expansion coefficient of the conformal layer is about 45% to 110% of a linear temperature expansion coefficient of the body. However, Mahmoudi teaches that the conformal layer may be aluminum oxide (para 0081, 0083) and Morey teaches the diffuser plate (body) may be nickel (para 0034). Additionally, aluminum oxide has a linear temperature expansion coefficient of about 8.1x10-6 m/(m °C) while nickel has a linear temperature expansion coefficient of about 13x10-6 m/(m °C) (Engineering Toolbox), which results in a conformal (aluminum oxide) layer having a linear temperature coefficient that is about 62% of the linear temperature expansion coefficient of the body (nickel).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Mahmoudi and Morey teaches the conformal layer may be an anti-contamination coating consisting of aluminum oxide (Mahmoudi para 0006, 0081, 0083).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahmoudi (US 20240124978 A1) in view of Morey (US 20170356085 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wagner (US 20170240462 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Mahmoudi and Morey teaches the conformal layer may be an emissivity controlling layer containing titanium oxide where the ratio of titanium oxide to titanium nitride may influence the emissivity of the surface (Mahmoudi para 0004, 0070, 0072, 0078) but fails to teach the layer consists essentially of titanium oxide. However, Wagner (US 20170240462 A1), in the analogous art of coating, teaches an emissivity controlling coating may include phase adjustment layers of oxides, nitrides or oxynitrides of titanium (para 0053, 0172). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the titanium oxide nitride layer of Mahmoudi with a titanium oxide layer because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of controlling emissivity. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahmoudi (US 20240124978 A1) in view of Morey (US 20170356085 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chow (US 20070221611 A1) and Chen (US 20170092589 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Mahmoudi and Morey teaches the conformal layer may be an anti-contamination coating of aluminum oxide (para 0006, 0081, 0083) but fails to explicitly teach a first layer of aluminum between the upper body surface and the aluminum oxide layer. However, Chow (US 20070221611 A1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches an aluminum oxide layer may be grown by electrochemical deposition on an aluminum seed layer (para 0054). Additionally, Chen (US 20170092589 A1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches that conformal layers may be deposited by electrochemical plating as an alternative to ALD (para 0027). Mahmoudi teaches the conformal aluminum oxide layer may be deposited by ALD (para 0081-0083). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the ALD deposition of Mahmoudi with an electrochemical deposition of aluminum oxide grown on an aluminum seed layer, as described by Chow, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahmoudi (US 20240124978 A1) in view of Morey (US 20170356085 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hanawa (US 20120052216 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Mahmoudi and Morey fails to explicitly teach the conformal layer has a porosity of less than or equal to about 5%. However, Hanawa (US 20120052216 A1), in the analogous art of coating, teaches that an aluminum oxide layer may be deposited on a gas distribution showerhead, where the layer may have a porosity of 0.5% to 10%, where the porosity may reduce stress in the coatings and prevent cracking (Abstract, para 0011, 0035). Mahmoudi teaches an aluminum oxide layer deposited on the gas diffuser (para 0080-0083). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the aluminum oxide coating of Mahmoudi with an aluminum oxide coating with a porosity of 0.5% to 10%, as described by Hanawa, in order to reduce stress and prevent cracking in the coating because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Though the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach a porosity of less than or equal to about 5%, one would have expected the use of any value within the Hanawa range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 0.5% to 10%, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahmoudi (US 20240124978 A1) in view of Morey (US 20170356085 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lubomirsky (US 20200185203 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Mahmoudi and Morey teaches that the conformal layers may be deposited by ALD, PECVD, or magnetron sputtering while also describing spray deposition as an alternate method of forming thin films (Mahmoudi para 0003, 0004, claim 12-13) but fails to teach the conformal layers may be deposited by plasma spray. However, Lubomirsky (US 20200185203 A1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches that a conformal layer may be deposited by plasma spray as an alternative to ALD, sputtering, or PECVD (para 0083). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the deposition methods of Mahmoudi with a plasma spray deposition because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahmoudi (US 20240124978 A1) in view of Morey (US 20170356085 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sundararajan (US 20140360886 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Mahmoudi and Morey fails to explicitly teach the plurality of underlay texture features are disposed into the body using an electron beam. However, Sundararajan (US 20140360886 A1), in the analogous art of surface treatment, teaches that stainless steel plate substrates may have holes formed in their surface by electron beam drilling (para 0042). Morey teaches the gas diffuser plate may be made of stainless steel (para 0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the method of forming the holes in the gas diffuser plate of Mahmoudi and Morey with an electron beam drilling method because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahmoudi (US 20240124978 A1) in view of Morey (US 20170356085 A1) and Hanawa (US 20120052216 A1). Engineering Toolbox (NPL – "Coefficients of Linear Thermal Expansion") is used as evidence of inherency.
Regarding claim 13, Mahmoudi (US 20240124978 A1) teaches a gas diffuser plate (body) having a surface (upper body surface) comprising a plurality of holes (underlay texture features disposed therein) and having a (first) RMS roughness of 150 micrometers of 1500 micrometers where an emissivity controlling layer or anti-contamination layer that is conformal (conformal layer) and may comprise titanium oxide or aluminum oxide is disposed over the surface of the gas diffuser plate where the roughness of the gas diffuser plate is increased by less than 5% (second RMS roughness greater than or equal to about 90% of the first RMS surface roughness) (para 0043-0044, 0072, 0078-0079, 0081, 0083).
Mahmoudi teaches the gas diffuser plate is used (disposed) in a cyclic deposition chamber (chamber enclosure) for an ALD process (Abstract, para 0039, 0075) but fails to explicitly teach it is a plasma processing chamber component. However, Morey (US 20170356085 A1), in the analogous art of substrate processing chambers, teaches that a gas diffuser assembly may be used as a component in chambers used for plasma processing in addition to ALD (para 0028). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cyclic deposition chamber of Mahmoudi with a plasma processing chamber, as described by Morey, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The combination of Mahmoudi and Morey fails to explicitly teach the conformal layer has a porosity of less than or equal to 5%. However, Hanawa (US 20120052216 A1), in the analogous art of coating, teaches that an aluminum oxide layer may be deposited on a gas distribution showerhead, where the layer may have a porosity of 0.5% to 10%, where the porosity may reduce stress in the coatings and prevent cracking (Abstract, para 0011, 0035). Mahmoudi teaches an aluminum oxide layer deposited on the gas diffuser (para 0080-0083). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the aluminum oxide coating of Mahmoudi with an aluminum oxide coating with a porosity of 0.5% to 10%, as described by Hanawa, in order to reduce stress and prevent cracking in the coating because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Though the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach a porosity of less than or equal to about 5%, one would have expected the use of any value within the Hanawa range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 0.5% to 10%, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Mahmoudi, Morey, and Hanawa fails to explicitly teach a linear temperature expansion coefficient of the conformal layer is about 45% to 110% of a linear temperature expansion coefficient of the body. However, Mahmoudi teaches that the conformal layer may be aluminum oxide (para 0081, 0083) and Morey teaches the diffuser plate (body) may be nickel (para 0034). Additionally, aluminum oxide has a linear temperature expansion coefficient of about 8.1x10-6 m/(m °C) while nickel has a linear temperature expansion coefficient of about 13x10-6 m/(m °C) (Engineering Toolbox), which results in a conformal (aluminum oxide) layer having a linear temperature coefficient that is about 62% of the linear temperature expansion coefficient of the body (nickel).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Mahmoudi, Morey, and Hanawa teaches the conformal layer may be an anti-contamination coating consisting of aluminum oxide (Mahmoudi para 0006, 0081, 0083).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Mahmoudi, Morey, and Hanawa teaches the porosity may be 0.5% to 10% (Hanawa para 0035) but fails to explicitly teach the conformal layer has a porosity of less than or equal to about 2%
Though the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach a porosity of less than or equal to about 2%, one would have expected the use of any value within the Hanawa range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 0.5% to 10%, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 14-15, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the previous combination of Mahmoudi and Morey teaches the underlay features include a plurality holes (peaks separated by valleys) but fails to explicitly teach the combination of valleys having an average depth of about 150 micrometers to 1500 micrometers and an average peak-to-peak separation distance of about 100 micrometers to 500 micrometers. Additionally, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the aforementioned references to meet the claimed limitations. Therefore, claim 4 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Mahmoudi and Morey teaches the emissivity controlling conformal layer has an approximately uniform thickness but fails to teach the average thickness is about 40 micrometers to 500 micrometers. Hanawa (US 20120052216 A1) teaches a thickness within the claimed range can be deposited on a showerhead but the modification of Mahmoudi’s thickness would likely result in the layer not being conformal and having a much lower RMS roughness than claimed in claim 1. Therefore, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the aforementioned references to meet the claimed limitations. Therefore, claim 5 contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 14 contains the limitations that would make claim 4 allowable and thus would be allowable for the same reasons.
Claim 15 contains the limitations that would make claim 5 allowable and thus would be allowable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Mahmoudi, Morey, and Hanawa fails to teach the plasma processing chamber component is a shield, a clamp, or a substrate support. Additionally, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the aforementioned references to meet the claimed limitations.
Claim 20 contains the limitations that made claims 4-5 and 14-15 allowable and thus is allowed for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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 S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights