DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 16-21 recite the limitation "the corrosion-resistant material" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims will be interpreted broadly in reference to the material that is present in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwata (2011/0283942).
Iwata teaches a gas diffuser plate comprising:
- a gas diffuser plate having a surface configured to face a substrate – see Fig. 2 and [0048-49] wherein the plate includes a roughened anodized film 14 with an emissivity of 0.6 or above, which teaches the claimed range with sufficient specificity to anticipate the range, see MPEP 2113. In regard to the range, MPEP 2113 refers to ClearValue Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012) wherein a claimed process involving an alkalinity below 50 ppm is considered anticipated with process using an alkalinity of 150 ppm or less, in part because there was no evidence that the range was critical or worked differently. In the instant case, the application teaches a range of 0.2 to 0.9, the entire emissivity range is >0 to <1 (the endpoints are non-achievable ideals) and the claim requires 0.4 – 0.9 and there is no suggestion that the additional portion of the range behaves differently, i.e. critically. Further, the specification suggests criticality of the range of 0.4-0.65 (claimed in claim 7) as a target range. Therefore the prior art range is held to anticipate the claimed range as it teaches the range with sufficient specificity and the claimed range is non critical.
In regard to the plate being configured to deliver gases into a deposition chamber, that is intended use of the apparatus. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). In this case, the teachings are drawn to a showerhead plate for the same purpose, but the requirement of a certain alignment or a particular use of the system (cyclic deposition) are not particularly limiting wherein the structure is otherwise the same.
In regard to the requirement of a “laser textured surface”, this limitation is drawn to a ‘product-by-process’ step. As per MPEP 2113, products are not limited (patentable) by the method in which they are formed but only by the structure – “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. 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 Iwata meets the requirement.
Regarding clam 2, the teachings include forming a film on the surface of the plate – see [0057] wherein the process gases form a film on the showerhead plate. Wherein corrosion resistant is not limited, the film meets the claim requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 13, 16-10, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (2017/0011909), 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, microstructures and roughening/textured surface are addressed as above and not repeated and therefore the textured plate of White with an emissivity of at least 0.5 makes obvious the claimed gas diffuser plate.
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.
It is further noted that the (laser) textured surface as claimed is inclusive of either the anodized surface (which is understood per the art to effect some level of roughening, i.e. texturing) or the combined roughened plus anodized surface.
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 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.
Claims 2-4, 9-12, 14, 15, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Tong (2022/0375727).
Regarding claims 2-4, 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 as required by claims 2 and 3, the teachings broadly suggest controlling the process to result in different regions such as claimed.
Further to claim 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 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 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 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax 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).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712