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 .
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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicants' amendment of the claims, filed on 02/18/2026, in response to the rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 7-10, 12, 17, 29 from the non-final office action, mailed on 12/02/2025, by amending claims 1, 8-9, 29, is acknowledged and will be addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-6, 13-16, and 18-28 remain withdrawn from consideration as pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
(1) In regards to the “the sacrificial layer configured to be removed during an etch cleaning process associated with the reaction chamber component such that the protective layer remains at least partially on top of the liner of the first material” of Claim 1,
First, it is well-known in the art that processing chamber is periodically cleaned, specifically, cleaning of the deposition processing chamber is obtained by etching effect of the residual deposit on the chamber component through wet-etching or dry etching process.
Second, the “the sacrificial layer configured to be removed during an etch cleaning process” is an intrinsic functional result of the sacrificial layer.
When an outer layer is exposed to a reaction of the main processing or cleaning processing, the outer layer is intrinsically consumed (sacrificed), depending on the usage time, as a result, an underlay below the outer layer is intrinsically exposed when all the sacrificial layer is consumed.
Further, the “based on the first etch rate being higher than the second etch rate” of Claim 29 is also intrinsic functional result of the sacrificial layer, because the etch rate is a property of the material, thus the removing (etching) speed is determined by the etch rate.
Emphasized again, the mere functional limitation does not add a patentable weight to the apparatus claim, see the MPEP citations below.
Consequently, when an apparatus of a prior art teaches an outer layer (sacrificial layer), it will be considered meeting the limitation.
(2) The “depositing… tantalum carbide” in “A deposition apparatus for depositing a layer of a first material being tantalum carbide” of Claim 17 is an intended use of the apparatus.
The applicants claim an apparatus. In the apparatus claim, depositing either tantalum carbide OR non-tantalum carbide merely defines different use of the apparatus, thus different use does not add a patentable weight to the apparatus claim, see the MPEP citations below.
Consequently, when an apparatus of a prior art teaches a deposition apparatus for depositing a layer on a substrate, it will be considered meeting the limitation.
(3) In regards to the “wherein a first etch rate of the sacrificial layer is higher than a second etch rate of the protective layer” of Claim 29,
The “etch rate” defines a material property used in the recited apparatus.
According to the applicants’ disclosure, “the reaction chamber component 50 may at least partially be provided with an optional sacrificial layer 67 on top of (e.g. overlaying) the protective layer 65. The sacrificial layer 67 may have a relatively high etch rate compared to the etch rate of the protective layer 65. The sacrificial layer 67 may comprise a metal oxide. The metal oxide may comprise aluminum oxide (Al2O3)” ([0057]), and “The protective layer 65 may comprise metal oxide and may comprise hafnium oxide (HfO2) or aluminum oxide (Al2O3). The protective layer 65 may comprise metal nitride. The metal nitride may comprise aluminum nitride (AlN)” ([0053]).
Consequently, when a prior teaches the disclosed materials above, it will be considered meeting the limitation, see the MPEP citations below.
MPEP citations:
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (See MPEP 2106; Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409). When apparatus is capable of performing such functions, it is considered to meet the claim limitations. Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (See MPEP 2111.02, 2115; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (See MPEP 2112.01; In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433 (CCPA 1977). It has further been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). While features of an apparatus may be described either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus MUST be distinguished from prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP §2114).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 10, 12 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harashima (US 20170321346, hereafter ‘346) in view of Wu et al. (US 20190078199, hereafter ‘199) and Melnik et al. (US 20190284686, hereafter ‘686).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘346 teaches:
In the film-forming apparatus 10, when epitaxially growing SiC on each of the wafers W, the rotary stage 30 holding the wafers W is rotated ([0051], the claimed “A reaction chamber component for a reaction chamber for a deposition apparatus for depositing a layer of a first material on a substrate”);
The rotary stage 30 may be, for example, a graphite-made member coated with SiC ([0036], the claimed “the component comprising a base material being at least partially coated with a liner of the first material” and “wherein the base material comprises graphite”).
‘346 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 1: wherein the component is at least partially provided with a protective layer of a metal oxide different than the first material on top of the liner of the first material, wherein the base material comprises graphite, and wherein the component is at least partially provided with a sacrificial layer on top of the protective layer, the sacrificial layer configured to be removed during an etch cleaning process associated with the reaction chamber component such that the protective layer remains at least partially on top of the liner of the first material.
‘199 is analogous art in the field of process chamber ([0005]). ‘199 teaches Body 210 of chamber components 200 and/or 250 may comprise a metal body (e.g., aluminum or an aluminum alloy such as Al 6061) or a ceramic body (e.g., Al2O3, AlN, SiC, etc.). Buffer layer 220 may comprise Al2O3 or another suitable material ([0047]) and the metal oxide coating may be Al2O3, HfO2 ([0156], note ‘199 clearly teaches the metal oxide layer (Al2O3) is disposed on the silicon carbide surface. Further, the HfO2 will be applied as the “another suitable material for the buffer layer”. Lastly, when a layer covers another layer, the layer intrinsically protects a material below the layer).
‘686 is analogous art in the field of protective coating on a component (abstract, similar to the protective coating of ‘199). ‘686 teaches the protective coating 200 includes the nanolaminate film stack 230 having the first deposited layer 210 containing aluminum oxide (or other base material) and the second deposited layer 220 containing hafnium oxide (or other doping material), or having the first deposited layer 210 containing hafnium oxide (or other doping material) and the second deposited layer 220 containing aluminum oxide (or other base material) (Fig. 2A, [0061]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added a metal oxide, such as protective coating having stack of Al2O3 and HfO2 layers, on the SiC surface of ‘346, for the purpose of providing increased protection resistance on the chamber component exposed to extreme conditions that are present during various manufacturing processes, such as high temperatures, a mixture of corrosive gases, high stress, and combinations thereof. Consequently, the lower layer of the stack would be a protective layer and the upper layer would be a sacrificial layer on the protective layer.
Further, when the outer layer is exposed to the reaction, the outer layer would have been removed depending on the time, thus, when all the outer layer is consumed, the lower layer would be exposed, see also the claim interpretation above.
Regarding to Claims 3 and 4,
‘199 teaches Buffer layer 220 may comprise Al2O3 or another suitable material ([0047]) and the metal oxide coating may be Al2O3, HfO2 ([0156], the claimed “wherein the metal oxide comprises hafnium oxide (HfO2)” of Claim 3 and “wherein the metal oxide comprises aluminum oxide (Al2O3)” of Claim 4).
Regarding to Claim 7,
As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, a stack of aluminum oxide and hafnium oxide layers are applied as the protective and sacrificial layers, therefore, when the hafnium oxide is used as the protective layer, the aluminum oxide layer is used as the sacrificial layer (the claimed “wherein the sacrificial layer is separate from the protective layer”).
Regarding to Claims 10 and 12,
‘346 teaches the rotary stage 30 may be, for example, a graphite-made member coated with SiC ([0036], the claimed “wherein the first material of the liner comprises a carbide selected from the group comprising silicon carbide (SiC) and tantalum carbide (TaC)” of Claim 10, and “wherein the component is a substrate support assembly for holding the substrate in the reaction chamber, a reaction chamber wall for forming the reaction chamber, a divider assembly for dividing the reaction chamber, an injector assembly for providing gasses in the reaction chamber, or an exhaust assembly for removing gas from the reaction chamber” of Claim 12).
Regarding to Claim 29,
As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, the imported protective multilayer coating has HfO2 and Al2O3 layers, therefore, the etch rates of the HfO2 and Al2O3 layers would be different. Further, as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, when the outer layer is exposed to the reaction including a main processing or a cleaning by known etching process, the outer layer is intrinsically consumed depending on the time, the removal rate is intrinsically determined by the etch rate, see the claim interpretation above.
Further, even if the prior art does not explicitly teach the feature as recited, Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have set forth different etch rate for each layer, as claimed, for the purpose of increasing protection durability for the directly attached layer on the chamber component, thus preventing exposure of the chamber component to the extreme conditions that are present during various manufacturing processes
The teaching reads into the claimed “wherein a first etch rate of the sacrificial layer is higher than a second etch rate of the protective layer, wherein the sacrificial layer being configured to be removed during an etch cleaning process associated with the reaction chamber component is based on the first etch rate being higher than the second etch rate”.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘346 in view of ‘199 and Tamura et al. (US 20110244693, hereafter ‘693).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘346 teaches:
In the film-forming apparatus 10, when epitaxially growing SiC on each of the wafers W, the rotary stage 30 holding the wafers W is rotated ([0051], the claimed “A reaction chamber component for a reaction chamber for a deposition apparatus for depositing a layer of a first material on a substrate”);
The rotary stage 30 may be, for example, a graphite-made member coated with SiC ([0036], the claimed “the component comprising a base material being at least partially coated with a liner of the first material” and “wherein the base material comprises graphite”).
‘346 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 1: wherein the component is at least partially provided with a protective layer of a metal oxide different than the first material on top of the liner of the first material, wherein the base material comprises graphite, and wherein the component is at least partially provided with a sacrificial layer on top of the protective layer, the sacrificial layer configured to be removed during an etch cleaning process associated with the reaction chamber component such that the protective layer remains at least partially on top of the liner of the first material.
‘199 is analogous art in the field of process chamber ([0005]). ‘199 teaches Body 210 of chamber components 200 and/or 250 may comprise a metal body (e.g., aluminum or an aluminum alloy such as Al 6061) or a ceramic body (e.g., Al2O3, AlN, SiC, etc.). Buffer layer 220 may comprise Al2O3 or another suitable material ([0047], note ‘199 clearly teaches the metal oxide layer (Al2O3) is disposed on the silicon carbide surface.).
‘693 is analogous art in the field of processing apparatus (abstract). ‘693 teaches A plurality of aluminum oxide layers having an atomic or molecular level thickness thus formed are laminated on the surface of the matrix 101 ([0143], note, when a layer covers another layer, the layer intrinsically protects a material below the layer).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added a protective coating having a plurality of aluminum oxide layers, on the SiC surface of ‘346, for the purpose of providing increased protection resistance on the chamber component exposed to extreme conditions that are present during various manufacturing processes, such as high temperatures, a mixture of corrosive gases, high stress, and combinations thereof. Consequently, a lower layer of the plurality of aluminum oxide layers would be a protective layer and an outer layer would be a sacrificial layer on the protective layer.
Further note, the plural layers of the same layer are obtained by multiple deposition of the same layer by repetition of deposition, thus the plural layers obtained by multiple deposition is mere duplication of parts. MPEP clearly guides mere duplication of parts is an obvious matter, see MPEP 2144.04
Regarding to Claims 7-9,
As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, the protective coating has a plurality of aluminum oxide layers, thus each layer is separate layer (the claimed “wherein the sacrificial layer is separate from the protective layer” of Claim 7, “wherein the metal oxide is a first metal oxide, and wherein the sacrificial layer comprises a second metal oxide” of Claim 8, and “wherein the second metal oxide comprises aluminum oxide (Al2O3)).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munster et al. (US 20220228260, hereafter ‘260) OR Munster et al. (WO2020242292, hereafter ‘292, which is the family of ‘260), in view of Malik et al. (US 20190368035, hereafter ‘035) and ‘686.
Regarding to Claim 17, ‘260 or ‘292 teaches:
Chemical Vapor Deposition, CVD, reaction chambers ([0010], note the CVD reaction chamber is capable of depositing tantalum carbide layer, because it is well-known in the art that the tantalum carbide layer is formed by a hot wall type CVD reaction chamber CVD, see US 20120301723, see also the claim interpretation above, the claimed “A deposition apparatus for depositing a layer of a first material being tantalum carbide on a substrate”);
These metal carbide articles, like the carriers are itself typically made from graphite which is coated with SiC as well. They may however also be formed from solid, monolithic SiC, or Tantalum Carbide, TaC coated graphite, or metal carbides in general ([0010], the claimed “wherein the apparatus comprises the component according to claim 1”, which corresponds to the “A reaction chamber component for a reaction chamber for a deposition apparatus for depositing a layer of a first material on a substrate, the component comprising a base material being at least partially coated with a liner of the first material” and “wherein the base material comprises graphite” of Claim 1);
The inventors found out, that providing a protective layer at least on parts of the surface which are subject to parasitic deposition during said manufacturing of the semiconductor components in the chamber, wherein the protective layer comprises an oxidized surface, may provide greatly suppress the etch rate of the SiC or TaC article ([0016]), and the protective layer is comprised of a silicon dioxide surface ([0024], see also [0025-0026], the claimed “wherein the component is at least partially provided with a protective layer of a oxide different than the first material on top of the liner of the first material” of Claim 1).
‘260 or ‘292 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 17: wherein the component is at least partially provided with a protective layer of a metal oxide different than the first material on top of the liner of the first material, wherein the base material comprises graphite, and wherein the component is at least partially provided with a sacrificial layer on top of the protective layer.
‘035 is analogous art in the field of process chamber (title). ‘035 teaches the protective film can be of various compositions including amorphous Si, carbosilane, polysilicon, SiC, SiN, SiO2, Al2O3, AlON, HfO2, or Ni3Al (abstract, therefore, the metal oxide protective coating such as Al2O3 or HfO2 coating is compatible with the SiO2 protective coating).
‘686 is analogous art in the field of protective coating on a component (abstract, similar to the protective coating of ‘199). ‘686 teaches the protective coating 200 includes the nanolaminate film stack 230 having the first deposited layer 210 containing aluminum oxide (or other base material) and the second deposited layer 220 containing hafnium oxide (or other doping material), or having the first deposited layer 210 containing hafnium oxide (or other doping material) and the second deposited layer 220 containing aluminum oxide (or other base material) (Fig. 2A, [0061]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted a metal oxide protective coating having stack of Al2O3 and HfO2 layers, as the silicon dioxide protective coating of ‘260 or ‘292, for its suitability as known protection coating with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07, and/or further for the purpose of providing increased protection resistance on the chamber component exposed to extreme conditions that are present during various manufacturing processes, such as high temperatures, a mixture of corrosive gases, high stress, and combinations thereof. Consequently, the lower layer of the stack would be a protective layer and the upper layer would be a sacrificial layer on the protective layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new ground of rejection above.
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 AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718