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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicants' amendment of the claims, filed on 05/07/2026, in response to the rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 7-10, 12, 17, 29 from the final office action, mailed on 03/11/2026, by amending claim 1 and canceling claim 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Claims 5-6, 13-16, and 18-28 remain withdrawn from consideration as pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-10, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(1) The “based on the first etch rate being higher than the second etch rate” of Claim 1 is a new matter, because the feature is not supported by the applicants’ disclosure.
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 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) Continued from the 112 1st paragraph above,
The “based on the first etch rate being higher than the second etch rate” of Claim 1 is not clear, because the claim 1 also recites “a second etch rate higher than the first etch rate”, thus the metes and bounds cannot be determined.
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, 7-8, 10 and 12 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 Singhal et al. (US 20210340670, hereafter ‘670).
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, wherein the base material comprises graphite”).
‘346 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 1: (1A) a protective layer of a metal oxide different than the first material on top of the liner of the first material, wherein the protective layer is associated with a first etch rate; and
(1B) a sacrificial layer at least partially provided on top of the protective layer, wherein the sacrificial layer is associated with a second etch rate higher than the first etch rate, and wherein the sacrificial layer, based on the first etch rate being higher than the second etch rate, is configured to be removable 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.
In regards to the limitation of 1A,
‘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).
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 Al2O3 or HfO2 layer, on the SiC surface of ‘346, for the purpose of providing protection for the SiC coated chamber component as the SiC is a relatively high-cost component than a standard ceramic material, such as alumina.
Herein, when the Al2O3 or HfO2 layer is applied on the SiC surface of ‘346, the Al2O3 or HfO2 layer has an etch rate.
In regards to the limitation of 1B,
‘670 is analogous art in the field of substrate processing apparatus (abstract) and also field of protective coating of chamber component (title, similar to the protective coating of ‘199 and ‘670).
‘670 teaches At block 240 of the process 200a, a film material is optionally deposited on a wafer in the reaction chamber and on the protective coating (Figs. 3-4, [0067]), and the film material is etched at a substantially greater rate than the protective coating… The film material may be etched using a halogen-based etchant, where the halogen-based etchant includes a fluorine-based species, a chlorine-based species, a bromine-based species, an iodine-based species, or combinations thereof. The halogen-based etchant may be used as part of a cleaning process to remove the film material from the reaction chamber… The film material has an etch selectivity that is different than the underlying protective coating… That way, the protective coating may be preserved when cleaning films from the reaction chamber ([0068]).
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 an additional film layer on the first protection coating of ‘346 and ‘199, which has higher etch rate than the first protection coating and is removable during the cleaning process, for the purpose of providing increased protection resistance on the chamber component exposed to extreme conditions that are present during various manufacturing processes, as a result, the first protection coating is preserved.
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 separate additional film layer having a higher etch rate is added on the first protection coating (the claimed “wherein the sacrificial layer is separate from the protective layer”).
Regarding to Claim 8,
As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, as the first protection coating, the Al2O3 or HfO2 layer is applied on the SiC surface of ‘346 (the claimed “wherein the metal oxide is a first metal oxide, and wherein the sacrificial layer comprises a second metal oxide”);
Further as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, a separate additional film layer having a higher etch rate is added on the first protection coating.
Still furthermore, ‘670 also teaches the protective coating may include silicon oxide (SiO2), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), zirconium oxide (ZrO2), hafnium oxide (HfO2), tin oxide (SnO2), or silicon nitride (Si3N4) ([0061]), and In some implementations, the film material 442a, 442b includes a metal, metal oxide, dielectric material, or semiconducting material. The film material 442b deposited on the chamber walls 402 is disposed on the protective coating 444 ([0087], thus the additional film layer includes a second metal oxide, the claimed “and wherein the sacrificial layer comprises a second metal oxide”).
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).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘346, ‘199 and ‘670, as being applied to Claim 8 rejection above, further in view of Melnik et al. (US 20190284686, hereafter ‘686).
Regarding to Claim 9,
As discussed in the claims 1 and 7-8 rejection above, as the first protection coating, the Al2O3 or HfO2 layer is applied on the SiC surface of ‘346 and a second film material including an metal oxide is added on the first protection coating.
‘346, ‘199 and ‘670 do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 9: wherein the second metal oxide comprises aluminum oxide (Al2O3).
‘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], note ‘686 clearly teaches the aluminum oxide layer can be stacked on the hafnium oxide layer and also teaches the hafnium oxide layer can be stacked on the aluminum oxide layer).
When the hafnium oxide layer (HfO2) is the first protection coating on the SiC surface of ‘346, 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 the aluminum oxide (Al2O3) layer, as the second film material, for its suitability as known material 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.
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 ‘670.
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, 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 “a protective layer of a oxide different than the first material on top of the liner of the first material, wherein the protective layer is associated with a first etch rate” of Claim 1).
‘260 or ‘292 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 17: (17A) a protective layer of a metal oxide different than the first material on top of the liner of the first material, wherein the protective layer is associated with a first etch rate,
(17B) and a sacrificial layer at least partially provided on top of the protective layer, wherein the sacrificial layer is associated with a second etch rate higher than the first etch rate, and wherein the sacrificial layer, based on the first etch rate being higher than the second etch rate, is configured to be removable 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.
In regards to the limitation of 17A,
‘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).
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 such as Al2O3 or HfO2 layer, 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.
In regards to the limitation of 17B,
The teaching of 1B was discussed in the Claim 1 rejection above, thus the same limitation of 17B is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 1 rejection above.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 05/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new ground of rejection above. The examiner still does not agree with the applicants’ arguments against to the claim interpretation set forth in the latest OA. However, as adding the new reference ‘670, clearly reads into the applicants’ amendment, as discussed in the rejection above, the examiner does not apply the interpretation in this OA.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights