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 .
Status of the Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 23 Oct 2025.
Claims 1-11, 15-23 are pending. Claims 1, 7, 15, 18 are amended. Claims 12-14 are canceled. Claims 8-11 are withdrawn. Claims 21-23 are new.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 (and depending claims 2-7) is/are rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, discussed in the non-final rejection of 30 July 2025 is withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims filed 23 Oct 2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 15-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi et al. (US 2004/0216667 A1 hereinafter “Mitsuhashi”) in view of Sun et al. (US 2010/0140222 A1 hereinafter “Sun”) and Sarker et al. (US 2006/0147699 A1 hereinafter "Sarkar").
Regarding independent claim 1 and 15, Mitsuhashi teaches a component (comprising internal member, Fig. 2, 4A-4C, para. [0067]) comprising:
a body (comprising base material 71, Fig. 2, 4A-4C, para. [0076]); and
a coating (comprising 72, Fig. 2; comprising 76, Fig. 4A-4C) deposited on a surface of the body (comprising 71, Fig. 2, 4A-4C), the coating comprising:
a porous ceramic (comprising barrier coat layer 74, Fig. 2, para. [0077]-[0078]; comprising a portion of 76, Fig. 4A-4C), a polymer sealant (comprising 74, Fig. 2 including resin including PTFE, polyimide, polyamideimide, polyetherimided, polybenzimidazole, and perfluoroalkoxyalkane, para. [0078]-[0082]; comprising sealing-treated portion 76a, Fig. 4A-4C, para. [0094]-[0096]);
wherein at least a portion of the polymer sealant is disposed within one or more voids (i.e. pores) of the porous ceramic (para. [0078]).
Further regarding claim 15, Mitsuhashi teaches a substrate processing chamber (comprising plasma etching apparatus including processing vessel 2, Fig. 1, para. [0060]) comprising the component (comprising internal member, para. [0067]); the body is metal (para. [0076]).
Regarding claim 1 and 15, Mitsuhashi as applied above does not clearly and explicitly teach a plurality of particles disposed within the polymer sealant; wherein at least a portion of the plurality of particles are disposed within one or more voids of the porous ceramic.
Examiner notes that the component is used in a substrate processing chamber and is exposed to plasma wherein the coating layer of Mitsuhashi has the purpose of providing protection against plasma (para. [0067], [0069]-[0073]).
Additionally, Sun teaches a component for a substrate processing chamber (title, abstract) including a polymer composition including a plurality of particles (i.e. yttria {Y2O3} particle filler) disposed within the polymer, wherein the plurality of particles improved plasma resistance which results in improved lifetime of the component, reduces contamination and particle generation (para. [0030],[0031]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of particles disposed within the polymer sealant because Sun teaches providing a plurality of particles in the polymer improves plasma resistance and reduces contamination (Sun: para. [0006],[0030], [0031]).
Mitsuhashi in view of Sun as applied above does not clearly and explicitly teach wherein at least a portion of the plurality of particles are disposed within one or more voids of the porous ceramic.
However, Sarkar teaches/suggests providing a sealant comprising a combination of inorganic (i.e. ceramic) and organic material (abstract, claim 42) wherein the sealant penetrates at least the surface layer of the ceramic coating through the open pores (claim 7, para. [0019],[0060]-[0062]). Sarkar teaches that such a sealant seals the pores of the ceramic coating and may have additional protective properties than ceramic-only coating and positively further strengthen the sealant-coating interface (para. [0060]-[0061]).
Examiner notes that Mitsuhashi already teaches a polymer sealant disposed in the one or more voids of the porous ceramic and Sun further teaches providing a plurality of particles in the polymer as discussed above.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide at least a portion of the plurality of particles and the polymer sealant to be disposed within the one or more voids of the porous ceramic because Mitsuhashi teaches providing the polymer sealant in the voids and because Sun teaches providing the particles in the polymer and because Sarkar teaches/suggest providing a sealant comprising inorganic/ceramic and organic/polymer into the voids/pores of a ceramic coating to provide additional protective properties (Sarkar: para. [0019],[0060]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 2, Mitsuhashi in view of Sun and Sarkar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as applied above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of particles comprise metal oxide nanoparticles.
However, Sun further teaches the plurality of particles (i.e. filler particles) can comprise rare earth metal oxides (para. [0006], [0016]) that are nanoparticles (para. [0015], [0024], [0027]), wherein such materials improve plasma resistance (para. [0030]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the plurality of particles to comprise metal oxide nanoparticles because Sun teaches that such a configuration would improve plasma resistance (Sun: para. [0030]).
Regarding claim 3 and 16, Mitsuhashi in view of Sun and Sarkar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and 15 respectively and Mitsuhashi: further teaches wherein the porous ceramic (comprising 76, Fig. 4A-4C) comprises aluminum oxide (Al2O3), yttrium oxide (Y2O3), zirconium oxide (ZrO2) magnesium oxide (MgO), silicon carbide (SiC) (para. [0095], claim 10).
Regarding claim 4 and 17, Mitsuhashi in view of Sun and Sarkar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and 15 respectively.
Mitsuhashi in view of Sun and Sarkar as applied above does not explicitly teach that the plurality of particles comprise one or more of: yttrium oxyfluoride; yttrium fluoride; aluminum oxide; magnesium oxide or yttrium oxide.
However, Sun further teaches that the plurality of particles (i.e. filler particles) include yttrium fluoride (YF3) or yttrium oxide (Y2O3) (para. [0006], [0016]), wherein Sun teaches such fillers are suitable for improving the service life of the component in a plasma chamber by improving plasma resistance (para. [0006], [0030]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a particle material such as yttrium fluoride (YF3) or yttrium oxide (Y2O3) because Sun teaches such materials are known to improve the service life of a component used in a substrate processing chamber by improving the plasma resistance (para. [0006],[0030]). Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 5 and 19, Mitsuhashi in view of Sun and Sarkar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and 15 respectively and Mitsuhashi further teaches wherein the component comprises a process chamber liner (comprising inner wall member of vacuum chamber 2) or a shower head (comprising shower head 3, Fig. 1) (para. [0067], [0072]).
Regarding claim 6, Mitsuhashi in view of Sun and Sarkar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and 15 respectively and Mitsuhashi further teaches wherein the polymer sealant impregnates a surface of the porous ceramic to a depth of between 10 µm and 500 µm (para. [0096] discloses sealing-treated portion 76a (see Fig. 4B) is 50 to 100 µm thick. Thus, Mitsuhashi teaches a range that lies within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 20, Mitsuhashi in view of Sun and Sarkar as applied above teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of particles have diameters between 10 and 500 nm.
However, Sun further teaches the plurality of particles (i.e. particle filler) have diameters between 10 nm and 10 µm (para. [0015], [0024]) with an explicit embodiment of particles with 380 nm diameter (para. [0027]). Sun teaches that the diameter of the plurality of particles is a result-effective variable which affects dispersal of the particles in the polymer and potential of the particles being a contaminant, (para. [0024]). Sun teaches that such a diameter of the particles improves plasma resistance enabling improving the service life of the component and reduces particle generation/contamination(para. [0006],[0030],[0031]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a size/diameter of the plurality of particles to be 380 nm, or alternatively to optimize the diameter of the plurality of particles because Sun teaches 380 nm is a suitable diameter/size of the particles for improving plasma resistance and improving the service life of the component (Sun: para. [0006], [0030]) or alternatively because Sun teaches the size/diameter of the particles is a result-effective variable which affects dispersal of particles in the polymer and potential of particles being a contaminant, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the size/diameter of the particles to optimize dispersal of particles in the polymer and optimize (i.e. reduce) potential of particles being a contaminant for optimized plasma resistance and reduced contamination/particle generation (Sun: para. [0031]).
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi et al. (US 2004/0216667 A1 hereinafter “Mitsuhashi”) in view of Sun et al. (US 2010/0140222 A1 hereinafter “Sun”) and Sarker et al. (US 2006/0147699 A1 hereinafter "Sarkar") as applied above in claims 1-7, 15-17, 19-20 and further in view of Parkhe (US 2023/0197417 A1).
Applicant has provided evidence in this file showing that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as “Applied Materials, Inc.” not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement in effect not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, although reference Parkhe (US 2023/0197417 A1) has been excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is still applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Regarding claim 7 and 18, Mitsuhashi in view of Sun and Sarkar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and 15, respectively, as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the polymer sealant comprises a first layer and a second layer, wherein the first layer is disposed deeper into the one or more voids of the porous ceramic than the second layer, and wherein a concentration of particles disposed within the polymer sealant is greater than in the second layer of the polymer sealant than the first layer of the polymer sealant.
However, Parkhe teaches a polymer sealant (comprising coating 204 including ceramic material particles, Fig. 2) comprising a first layer and a second layer (i.e. several layers forming a thin film stack), wherein a concentration of particles disposed within the polymer sealant is greater in the second layer (i.e. layer further away from the body) of the polymer sealant than the first layer (i.e. layer closer to the body) of the polymer sealant (i.e. layers deposited further from the component may contain more additives/fillers)(para. [0029]-[0031]). Parkhe teaches that such a configuration enables providing corrosion-resistance and plasma resistances (Parkhe: para. [0018]).
Additionally, Sun teaches varying the vol% of the particle filler in the polymer to obtain required materials properties (para. [0025]). In other words, the concentration of particles is a result-effective variable which affects the material property of the polymer material.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the polymer sealant to comprise a first layer and a second layer (i.e. a first layer applied closer to the body, a second layer applied on top of the first layer in other words a thin film stack), wherein a concentration of particles disposed within the polymer sealant is greater in the second layer of the polymer sealant than the first layer of the polymer sealant additionally, or alternatively, to optimize the concentration of the particles in the polymer because Parkhe teaches that such a configuration is a known suitable configuration of a coating to provide corrosion-resistance and plasma resistance (Parkhe: para. [0018]), additionally or alternatively because Sun teaches the concentration of the particles in the polymer can be optimized to obtain the desired/required material properties (Sun: para. [0025]).
Regarding limitation "wherein the first layer is disposed deeper into the one or more voids of the porous ceramic than the second layer," one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a first layer (for example a layer disposed directly on the porous ceramic) to penetrate deeper into the voids of the porous ceramic of due to the proximity of the first layer to the porous ceramic wherein a second layer on top of a first layer would obviously be prevented from penetrating deeper into the porous ceramic due to the presence of the first layer. Thus, the combination would obviously meet claim 7 and 18 limitations.
Claim(s) 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi et al. (US 2004/0216667 A1 hereinafter “Mitsuhashi”) in view of Sun et al. (US 2010/0140222 A1 hereinafter “Sun”) and Sarker et al. (US 2006/0147699 A1 hereinafter "Sarkar") as applied above in claims 1-7, 15-17, 19-20 and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2018/0327898 A1 hereinafter “Wu”).
Regarding claim 21, Mitsuhashi in view of Sun and Sarkar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of particles are composed of a material that expands upon exposure to a fluorine-containing process gas.
However, Sun teaches the particles can comprise a rare earth oxide such as yttrium oxide(Y2O3) or yttrium fluoride (YF3) (para.[0006], [0016]).
Additionally, Wu teaches that yttrium oxyfluoride has better performance in a plasma chamber exposed to fluorine containing gas/plasma than compared to YF3 or Y2O3 (para. [0003], [0005],[0040], [0126],[0140]).
Examiner notes that instant application para. [0054] teaches that Yttrium oxyfluoride is a suitable particle material.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a material such as yttrium oxyfluoride as a material of the particle filler because Sun teaches yttrium oxide or rare earth oxide or rare earth element-based fillers and because Wu teaches that yttrium oxyfluoride has better performance in a plasma chamber exposed to fluorine containing gas/plasma than yttrium fluoride. Additionally, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Furthermore, since the combination of Mitsuhashi, Sun, Sarkar and Wu teaches yttrium oxyfluoride and the instant application teaches that yttrium oxyfluoride is a suitable particle material, limitation "wherein the plurality of particles are composed of a material that expands upon exposure to a fluorine-containing process gas" would obviously be met.
Regarding claim 22, Mitsuhashi in view of Sun, Sarkar and Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 21. Furthermore, since Wu teaches yttrium oxifluoride as applied in claim 21 rejection, the combination would obviously meet "wherein the plurality of particles are composed essentially of a yttrium oxyfluoride of composition YOzFy."
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi et al. (US 2004/0216667 A1 hereinafter “Mitsuhashi”) in view of Sun et al. (US 2010/0140222 A1 hereinafter “Sun”) and Sarker et al. (US 2006/0147699 A1 hereinafter "Sarkar") as applied above in claims 1-7, 15-17, 19-20 and further in view of Williams et al. (US 2012/0255854 A1 hereinafter “Williams”).
Regarding claim 23, Mitsuhashi in view of Sun and Sarkar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of particles comprise between 3 and 40 weight percent of a sealant layer comprising the plurality of particles and the polymer sealant.
However, Sun teaches the volume ratio of the plurality of particles disposed in the polymer can be varied to obtain the required material properties (para. [0025], claim 4). In other words, the concentration or amount of particles in the polymer is a result-effective variable which affects the material property of the polymer material.
Further, Williams teaches a filler/particles disposed in a polymer having a 5 to 40 weight percent (para. [0021]) wherein the concentration of the particles/filler lower the ability of the plasma to further erode the polymer between the particles (para. [0026]). In other words, the weight % or concentration is a result-effective variable which affects plasma erosion of the polymer. Note: Taught range of Williams overlaps with claimed range of 3-40 weight percent.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the weight percent (i.e. concentration) of the plurality of particles in the polymer sealant because both Sun and Williams teaches the concentration of the filler in the polymer is a result-effective variable wherein Sun teaches the concentration of the filler/particles affects the material properties of the polymer and Williams teaches that filler/particles affects the plasma erosion of the polymer wherein Williams teaches an example suitable weight percent. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to optimize the weight percent of the particles to enable optimizing the polymer properties and/or plasma erosion properties of the polymer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 Oct 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendments as further discussed below.
Applicant argues (remarks page 9) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1 and 15, the combination of Mitsuhashi and Sun do not teach amended claim limitation "the plurality of particles are disposed within one or more voids of the porous ceramic."
Examiner responds claim 1 and 15 rejections have been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Currently claim 1 and 15 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi in view of Sun and Sarkar wherein Sarkar teaches/suggests providing a plurality of particles disposed within one or more voids of the porous ceramic as explained in detail in claims rejections above.
In light of the above, independent claims 1 and 15 are rejected.
Further, in view of Examiner’s remarks regarding independent claims 1 and 15, the dependent claims 2-7 and 16-23 are also rejected, as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gill (US 2007/0098975 A1) teaches an inorganic sealant comprising ceramic which infiltrates the pores of an article (abstract, para. [0010], [0048]-[0049])
Heine et al. (US 2022/0246404 A1) teaches a sealant coating that is a polymer/organic and infiltrates and seals the pores of a ceramic coating (abstract, para. [0016]-[0025]).
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 LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716