DETAILED ACTION
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, 3-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (2017/0011909) in view of Tong (2022/0375727), claims 13 and 16-19 as evidenced by Han (2003/0127049).
White teaches a gas diffuser plate comprising:
- a plate having a textured surface – see particularly wherein a plate is laser blasted to effect the roughness and therefore emissivity [0029-32] related to Fig. 2, and
- the emissivity is at least 0.5 [0024], which overlaps and therefore makes obvious claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05. The intended use (deliver gases), microstructures and roughening/textured surface are addressed as previously.
In regard to the requirement of a “laser textured surface”, this limitation is drawn to a ‘product-by-process’ step as previously noted per MPEP 2113. Therefore, in this case, the claim only requires a textured surface. In regard to “microstructures”, the term is interpreted as any structure such as or equivalent to a surface feature that would be effected by such as (but not limited to laser texturing)- the instant specification discusses roughening throughout. The surface roughening to control emissivity as taught by White meets the requirement.
Regarding the laser textured surface comprising stripes of laser scanning marks, the teachings of White include the use of a laser to form roughness on the substrate surface, but do not specifically include the claimed stripes of laser scanning marks, regions of laser overlap or the different sizes or textures in regions where the scanner laser marks do not overlap.
Tong, however, teaches a chamber component that includes various emissivity zones, such as those formed by laser etching, in order to control the emissivity properties of the different zones [0038-40]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to vary the laser texturing of White in view of the teachings of Tong that different patterns/regions of emissivity are useful in the controlling the emissivity of a surface (such as when performed by laser). While not teaching specific stripes of laser scanning, the teachings broadly suggest controlling the process to result in different regions such as claimed. Further to claim 1 and teaching claims 3 and 4, the teachings further include controlling surface roughness and different densities, size and shapes of bumps, grooves and/or ridges is useful for controlling emissivity. In general, the control of size and shape is obvious without a showing of criticality, see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. and B. In this case, there is no support for criticality of the surface texture within the scope of the claim. In further regard to applicability of Tong to White, White teaches generally controlling surface roughness and is open to a range of roughness wherein the average of surface roughness, therefore generally inclusive of the different regions as taught by Tong.
Regarding claim 5, the plate is then anodized which creates a layer, in regard to the requirement of being “corrosion resistant”, the extent of corrosion resistance is not limited and the anodization meets the requirements of such layer (see step 66).
Regarding claim 6, the teachings include the anodization, i.e. forming a corrosion resistant material (as per claim 5). In regard to the material not changing the emissivity of the gas diffuser plate – the teachings generally include roughening the surface as noted and then forming the anodized (i.e. corrosion resistant) layer. The final result has a particular emissivity, such as within the claimed range as described in [0024]. The process of roughening is known to affect emissivity, and the teachings of White are open to layers wherein the resulting anodized (and roughened) surface are within the claimed range. Therefore it would have been obvious to form the anodization layer such that the emissivity is substantially the same as that formed by the roughening process as White is in any case concerned with the emissivity of the final steps of the process and does not teach any specific requirements of the anodization.
In alternative: the process further/alternately includes forming an anti-corrosion film 62 on the anodized surface [0024] – the teachings include that the anodized surface is within 0.05 of the emissivity of the anti-corrosion film, thereby teachings that the corrosion resistant material does not substantially change the emissivity of the plate.
Regarding claim 7, the emissivity is in the claimed range as per above.
Regarding claim 8, while the limitation is intended use of the apparatus and met wherein the deposited film may be deposited to match the emissivity of the coated plate, the teachings include that the prepared surface is set to the same emissivity of the deposited film [0024] (see “deposition film emissivity”).
Regarding claims 9-12, 14 and 15, the teachings of White are silent on the exact shape of the structures, however, to claim 9 Tong teaches pillars [0038]; as applied above Tong teaches control of the texturing process,; further, as per MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. and B. the selection of size and shape is obvious without a showing of criticality. Tong shows the ability and desire to control the texturing for different sizes and shapes, such as claimed in claims 10-12. Further to claims 14 and 15, the teachings include particles on the micron or nano scale [0038]. To include any microstructure such as in the claimed shapes, sizes and dimensions would have been obvious based on the obviousness of selection of size and shape along with the teachings of Tong to vary the size and shape and the lack of any criticality of the claimed dimensions.
Regarding claim 13, the process of White includes texturing the surface and then anodization. The process of anodization is understood per the art to result in an oxide layer which is understood to result in the same structure including the bulk core formed by the texturing with an oxide layer formed by anodization. The teachings of Han are applied to support that anodization is understood to result in an oxide layer [0003]. Since the initial process is a texturing to roughen the surface, and the base is aluminum [0021], then the texturing necessarily results in a metal core integral to the bulk and the anodization adds an oxide layer.
Regarding claims 16-19, the teachings generally include anodizing aluminum [0021] (which results in an alumina layer, which Examiner considers as understood per the art but further supported as per Han) and also (alternatively) coating with alumina (see film 62) [0024], the claim limitations are met by the same material – see for example claim 19 requires aluminum oxide which is understood as per instant specification to be corrosion resistant. The other limitations related to cleaning/fluorine gases in the chamber are in any case intended use and met by the ability of the plate to be used in the same conditions. As above “resistant” is not limited any material would have some level of resistance, but, further, as noted, the prior art and instant claims teach the same corrosion resistant material and therefore the results when exposed to such gases would be understood the same in the prior art as in the instant application.
Regarding claim 21, as per claim 5 above there is a corrosion resistant layer, the limitation related to the “ALD” is again a product by process limitation. By teaching a layer (such as alumina) the limitation is met. Further, the teachings include a coating layer 62 [0024] (formed by any deposition method) and meets the limitation.
Regarding claim 22, the claim limitation is intended use, but it is held that by controlling the emissivity as taught in the prior art, the same effect of reducing the amount of radiation from the substrate being reflected as claimed would occur in the prior art based on the same application of a textured surface to control emissivity.
Regarding claim 23 and 24, as applied above, Tong teaches controlling the emissivity of different regions, to control the regions to be different by at least 10% would have been further obvious wherein Tong teaches varying the emissivity, White is concerned with the average roughness and emissivity and the metes of the instant claim do not support any criticality. To further include concentric would have been further obvious in view of the combination of Tong and White wherein White teaches a circular object, the diffuser plate.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White and Tong in view of Kato (2021/0395880).
The teachings of White are described above, teaching various layers on a diffuser plate as noted, but the teachings do not include a transparent layer. Kato, however, teaches that a transparent layer is useful on a showerhead as a portion of a heater used to heat the showerhead (diffuser plate) [0065-68]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the heater plate of Kato, including the transparent layer, as a further coating on the diffuser plate of White as White teaches the noted coating on the plate and Kato further teaches that a transparent film with an embedded heater is useful for heating a showerhead (i.e. diffuser plate).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, the Office notes that the 112(b) rejections as well as the 102 rejections have been overcome by amendment.
Applicants argue that Tong does not teach the stripes of laser markings on a gas diffuser plate. The prior art rejection is a combination of references. White teaches the desire to texture the surface of the specific part, the shower plate. White also teaches that lasers are operably used to roughen the surface. Tong is further applied to support the argument of the application of the laser (laser etching) to specifically control the emissivity in different areas or zones. Tong is not applied to teach the gas plate. The teachings of using the laser etching are combinable with White in that one of ordinary skill wishes to control the emissivity of a chamber part differently in different regions.
Applicants further argue that the shape of the specific laser marks of Tong are not the same as claimed. The Office agrees, but, again, the peripheral ring of Tong is not the chamber element being modified, but rather the gas plate of White and the specific pattern of Tong is not relevant. Further noted are the arguments concerning the selection of shape that support making such emissivity marks of any shape.
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 JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application 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/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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights