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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/5/25 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 4-6, 8, 10-14, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0091497 to Xing in view of US 2014/0023794 to Mahajani in view of US 2021/0198788 to Waldfried in view of US 2021/0317551 to Murase.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 19:
Xing teaches a method for surface treatment of a PECVD apparatus component [0002]. The component is a MgAl alloy with a Mg content of 0.2-2 wt% [0044] wherein the surface treatment forms a MgF2 protective film on the component [0048]. The process includes step 1 annealing the component to migrate Mg to the surface of component [0041-0043]. The annealing step is a temperature from 500-700°C for 30 mins to 2 hours (Id.). Thereafter, step 2 introducing a fluorine plasma to form the MgF2 protective film [0046-0049].
Xing does not teach generating a remote plasma, 2-5.5 wt% magnesium, or a thickness of the MgF2 layer between 240-330 nm.
However, Mahajani teaches, in the context of vapor deposition, there are advantages to both direct and remote plasma and either or both can be used [0050].
Additionally, Waldfried teaches forming a MgF2 protective film on a metal body (abstract) wherein the MgF2 can be formed to any useful or desired thickness such as 1-200 nm [0045]. Waldfried teaches the temperature during layer formation is ~400°C [0041].
Additionally, Murase teaches a method for forming a fluoride film on an aluminum alloy (abstract) wherein the aluminum alloy is 0.5-5 mass% magnesium [0015] and the resulting MgF2 layer is 0.1-10 µm [0035].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Xing and have substituted direct plasma for remote plasma and formed the MgF2 to a thickness of 0.1-10 µm on an aluminum alloy having a magnesium content of 0.5-5 mass%. Mahajani establishes the known relationship between direct and remote plasma generation, Murase establishes an appropriate magnesium content that balances film formation and alloy properties [0046] and Waldfried/Murase establishes a useful or desired thickness for a MgF2 protective film that balances protection and productivity [0035].
Claim 11:
Xing teaches the fluorine source gas is NF3 or SF6 [0049].
Claims 9, 13, 18, 20:
Xing teaches the MgF2 protective film is MgF2 entirely, has a denser structure, and no pore structure [0047-0048]. Although no porosity value is given, because Xing desires a dense structure, the value of 0.1-1% would have been obvious as the mere quantification of the results of a known process.
Claims 12, 16:
Xing teaches the ex situ version of the process, but Waldfried explicitly teaches both versions of the process where the component is a vapor deposition apparatus part that is treated while installed and in use (in situ; claim 16) compared to not operatively installed (ex situ; claim 12).
Claim 14:
Mahajani teaches the remote plasma source is connected to a power source capable of activated the intended compounds [0068]. In this respect, the power used to accomplish this task would have been obvious through routine optimization of this result effective variable.
Claim 17:
Waldfried teaches the MgF2 protective film can be deposited on any of the conventional parts of a vapor disposition apparatus [0065].
Claim(s) 3, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0091497 to Xing in view of US 2014/0023794 to Mahajani in view of US 2021/0198788 to Waldfried in view of US 2021/0317551 to Murase in view of US 5811195 to Bercaw.
Previously cited prior art is discussed above but does not specifically state the pressure in the chamber during annealing and fluoride treatment. However, Bercaw teaches a method for forming a MgF2 protective layer (abstract) where it is desirable to keep the chamber at a pressure below 1 Torr to avoid impurities in the resulting layer which can occur at elevated temperature (8:6-14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform annealing and fluoride treatment at a pressure below 1 Torr to avoid the formation of impurities at the elevated temperatures required by this process.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0091497 to Xing in view of US 2014/0023794 to Mahajani in view of US 2021/0198788 to Waldfried in view of US 2021/0317551 to Murase in view of US 5558717 to Zhao.
Previously cited prior art is discussed above but does not teach a heated support. However, Zhao teaches a PECVD apparatus wherein the substrate support pedestal/susceptor is heated (1:50-54). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a heated substrate support because Zhao establishes such a component is conventional in a PECVD apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 20 are merely objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but otherwise represent allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant has persuasively pointed to evidence of criticality (Table 1) with respect to the layer thickness, composition, and temperature. Additionally, claims 9 and 20 are commensurate in scope with the evidence provided. The cited prior art is considered the closest prior art and does not teach at least the critical thickness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/5/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the claims not addressed in the Allowable Subject Matter section above.
Criticality is inextricably tied to unexpected results. “In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” MPEP 2144.05 III A. Applicant has provided sufficient evidence in the specification (Table 1) to establish criticality/unexpected results, the only outstanding issue is the requirement that the claims be commensurate in scope with the evidence. Specifically, the results of Table 1 require a component that contains both magnesium and aluminum and also the resulting protective layer does not contain aluminum fluoride. This is currently lacking from the independent claims where claims 1 and 16 are open to a component having any composition and claims 1, 16, and 19 allow for a protective layer that contains aluminum fluoride. Claims 9 (along with intervening claim 8) and 20 are indicated as allowable subject matter because they correct this issue.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759