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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on June 1, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be serious burden to examine both inventions. This is not found persuasive because there would be
serious search and/or examination burden because one or more of reasons apply.
Separate classification thereof.
A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together.
(C) A different field of search.
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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(s) 1, 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunagi (WO 2020/003668 A1 (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0358724 A1 for translation)) in view of Xu et al. (WO 2020/072305 A1) and Kimball et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2022/0254612 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Tsunagi teach a component for a semiconductor production
apparatus, the component comprising: a part of polycrystalline silicon carbide (SiC) produced through chemical vapor deposition (CVD), the part being of the component,
The difference between Tsunagi and claim 1 is that the part of the polycrystalline SiC includes a first dopant with which the part of the polycrystalline SiC is doped with in a range of from 10 atomic concentration in ppm through 10 atomic concentration in % with respect to an entirety of the part OR in a range of more than 10 atomic concentration in % and 30 atomic concentration in % or less with respect to the entirety of the part, and the first dopant includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of aluminum (Al), yttrium (Y), magnesium (Mg), tin (Sn), calcium (Ca), zinc (Zn), cobalt (Co), iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), silver (Ag), and
chromium (Cr) is not discussed.
Regarding the part of the polycrystalline SiC includes a first dopant with which the part of the polycrystalline SiC is doped with in a range of from 10 atomic concentration in ppm through 10 atomic concentration in % with respect to an entirety of the part OR in a range of more than 10 atomic concentration in % and 30 atomic concentration in % or less with respect to the entirety of the part, and the first dopant includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of aluminum (Al), yttrium (Y), magnesium (Mg), tin (Sn), calcium (Ca), zinc (Zn), cobalt (Co), iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), silver (Ag), chromium (Cr) (Claim 1):
Xu et al. teach doping a SiC film formed by CVD on a substrate with boron at 0.01-10 wt% (i.e. 0.0185-17.1 atomic %) for forming a component of a plasma chamber. (Paragraphs 0016-0020)
Kimball et al. teach that aluminum as a dopant can be used instead of boron to alter the conductivity of silicon carbide in an edge ring. In other words boron and aluminum are recognized as equivalence that can be substituted for one another to change conductivity. Furthermore aluminum and boron are known p type dopants. (Paragraph 0187 - For example, the edge ring 840 may be made of silicon carbide that is doped with boron, aluminum or nitrogen to make selected portions thereof more conductive than undoped areas. In FIG. 13B, the conductive portions of the edge ring 840 provide uniform coupling to adjacent surfaces as the middle edge ring is raised due to wear of the top edge ring 810.
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Tsunagi by doping the polycrystalline SiC film of Tsunagi with the boron dopant of Xu et al. at the disclosed dopant levels and to have replaced the boron dopant with the equivalent dopant of aluminum as taught by Kimball et al. because it allows for improving etch resistance and for controlling the conductivity of the edge ring to improve etching.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first dopant is Al.
Regarding claim 4, Kimball et al. suggest utilizing Al as a dopant. (Paragraph 0187)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising: a substrate, wherein the part is a film on the substrate.
Regarding claim 5, Tsunagi teaches a substrate wherein the part is a film on the substrate. (See Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0050-0060)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the component consists of the part.
Regarding claim 6, Tsunagi teaches wherein the component consists of the part. (See Fig. 2)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the component is an edge ring, an electrostatic chuck, or a shower plate that are for a plasma etching apparatus, or is a protective cover of a sensor in a chamber of the plasma etching apparatus.
Regarding claim 7, Tsunagi teaches wherein the component is an edge ring. (See Fig. 2)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Xu et al. is that it allows producing edge rings with improved etch resistance. (Paragraphs 0016-0020)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Kimball et al. is that it allows for controlling the resistivity to improve etching. (Paragraph 0187)
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Tsunagi by doping the polycrystalline SiC film of Tsunagi with the boron dopant of Xu et al. at the disclosed dopant levels and to have replaced the boron dopant with the equivalent dopant of aluminum as taught by Kimball et al. because it allows for improving etch resistance and for controlling the conductivity of the edge ring to improve etching.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunagi in view of Xu e al. and Kimball et al. as applied to claims 1, 4-7 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2019/0304755 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the part further includes a second dopant with which SiC is doped, and the second dopant includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of boron (B) and nitrogen (N).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki et al. teach that a SiC ring can include both boron and aluminum. (Paragraphs 0010-0028)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Suzuki et al. is that it allows for producing a plasma resistant edge ring. (Paragraph 0023)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Suzuki et al. because it allows for producing plasma resistant edge rings.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunagi in view of Xu et al. and Kimball et al. and further in view of Suzuki et al. as applied to claim 1, 2, 4-7 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (JP 2015-000836 A).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the second dopant is N.
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura et al. teach adding nitrogen to SiC to control the electrical resistivity of the SiC. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Suzuki et al. is that it allows for controlling the electrical resistivity of the SiC. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Nakamura et la. because it allows for controlling the electrical resistivity of the SiC.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights