DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 7/16/26 has been entered. Claims 15-18, 20, 35-48 remain pending in the application. Claim(s) 1-14 and 19 have been canceled. New claim(s) 49 has been added. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(a)&(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 4/16/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 35-41 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, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “single compound” in claim 35 is used by the claim to mean “a composite matrix with areas of differing composition,” while the accepted meaning is “a consistent chemical structure throughout the sample.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. See, for example claim 40 which states that MgO is present within the spinel-based composite material. MgO is a compound. See also FIG. 4D, example image 426. In the image 426, the spinel-based composite material 116 may include a single compound (e.g., the single spinel compound described in connection with the region 222 of Fig. 2B). See paragraph [0062]. The instant specification states that “as shown in the image 426, the spinel-based composite material 116 may include one or more crystalline structures 428 that are rich in aluminum oxide microcrystals”. The image 426 is not homogenous. Aluminum oxide is a compound. Claims 36-41 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 35.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 40 depends from claim 35. Claim 35 recites “the spinel-based composite material comprising a single-compound composition including the spinel compound and no additional compounds”. Claim 40 recites “wherein a weight percentage of magnesium oxide within the spinel-based composite material is in a range of approximately 27.0% to approximately 28.3%”. MgO is a compound. Accordingly, claim 40 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 35-40 and 42-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (US 20220041508 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claims 35-37, in light of the 112(b) rejection above, in order to apply prior art, either a single compound or a matrix will read on the claim, Duan teaches “ceramic materials having high thermal shock resistance and high erosion resistance, components formed from the same, and methods for producing the same” (which reads upon “a method”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0009]). Duan teaches that “the component is selected from a group consisting of: a heater, an electrostatic chuck, a nozzle, a gas distribution plate, a showerhead, an electrostatic chuck component, a chamber wall, a liner, a liner kit, a gas line, a lid, a chamber lid, a nozzle, a single ring, a processing kit ring, a base, a shield, a plasma screen, a flow equalizer, a cooling base, a chamber viewport, a bellow, a faceplate, and a selectivity modulating device” (which reads upon “of forming a nozzle component for an etch tool, comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0008]). Duan teaches that “the ceramic material comprises at least one phase comprising one or more of a sapphirine phase, a cordierite phase, a spinel phase, or an enstatite phase” (which reads upon “providing a spinel-based powder”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0004]). Duan teaches “forming a ceramic material from a powder” (which reads upon “powder the spinel-based powder comprising particulates of a spinel compound”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0010]). Duan teaches that “the sintering is performed using pressless sintering, hot press sintering, hot isostatic press (HIP) sintering, spark plasma sintering (SPS), or any other suitable sintering technique” (which reads upon “into a mold cavity of a mold tool, the mold cavity corresponding to a shape of the nozzle component; and sintering the spinel-based powder in the mold tool to form the nozzle component comprising a spinel-based composite material”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads on claims 36-37; paragraph [0053]; one of ordinary skill in the art understands that SPS for example uses a mold of the desired shape). A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01. Duan teaches “a semiconductor processing chamber 100 having one or more chamber components that are formed from and/or coated with the ceramic material with high thermal shock resistance and high erosion resistance described herein” (which reads upon “the nozzle component configured to inject a gas into a chamber of the etch tool as part of a plasma-based etching operation”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0028]). Duan teaches that “the processing chamber 100 may be a chamber for a plasma etcher or plasma etch reactor, a plasma cleaner, plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (CVD) or ALD reactors and so forth” (which reads upon “the gas being used to form a plasma for the plasma-based etching operation”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0028]). Duan teaches that “the ceramic material comprises at least one phase comprising one or more of a sapphirine phase, a cordierite phase, a spinel phase, or an enstatite phase” (which reads upon “the spinel-based composite material comprising a single- compound composition including the spinel compound”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0004]; one phase reads on single compound as best understood). Duan teaches that “the ceramic material is substantially free of impurities” (which reads upon “no additional compounds”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0056]). Duan teaches that “the ceramic materials described herein successfully overcome this drawback of current ceramics by simultaneously exhibiting high thermal shock resistance and high erosion resistance (e.g., to plasmas)” (which reads upon “the spinel-based composite material inhibiting particles from being etched from the nozzle component during the plasma-based etching operation”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 38, Duan teaches the method of claim 35 as stated above. Duan teaches that the relative density is ≥ 99% (Table 2).
Regarding claim 39, Duan teaches the method of claim 35 as stated above. Duan teaches that “the resulting ceramic material may comprise at least one phase, such as a sapphirine phase, a cordierite phase, a spinel phase, or an enstatite phase” (paragraph [0054]; spinel phase reads on a crystalline spinel structure).
Regarding claim 40, Duan teaches the method of claim 35 as stated above. Duan teaches that “the resulting ceramic material may comprise at least one phase, such as a sapphirine phase, a cordierite phase, a spinel phase, or an enstatite phase” (paragraph [0054]). Duan teaches that “the composition comprises about 60 wt % to 70 wt % of Al2O3, about 25 wt % to 30 wt % MgO, and about 5 wt % to 10 wt % SiO2” (paragraph [0049]). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Here, the claimed range of approximately 27% to approximately 28.3% lies inside the range disclosed by the prior art of about 25 wt % to 30 wt %. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 42, Duan teaches “ceramic materials having high thermal shock resistance and high erosion resistance, components formed from the same, and methods for producing the same” (which reads upon “a method”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0009]). Duan teaches that “the component is selected from a group consisting of: a heater, an electrostatic chuck, a nozzle, a gas distribution plate, a showerhead, an electrostatic chuck component, a chamber wall, a liner, a liner kit, a gas line, a lid, a chamber lid, a nozzle, a single ring, a processing kit ring, a base, a shield, a plasma screen, a flow equalizer, a cooling base, a chamber viewport, a bellow, a faceplate, and a selectivity modulating device” (which reads upon “of forming a nozzle component for an etch tool, comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0008]). Duan teaches that “the ceramic material comprises at least one phase comprising one or more of a sapphirine phase, a cordierite phase, a spinel phase, or an enstatite phase” (which reads upon “providing a spinel-based powder”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0004]). Duan teaches “forming a ceramic material from a powder” (which reads upon “powder, the spinel-based powder comprising particulates of a spinel compound”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0010]). Duan teaches that “the sintering is performed using pressless sintering, hot press sintering, hot isostatic press (HIP) sintering, spark plasma sintering (SPS), or any other suitable sintering technique” (which reads upon “into a mold cavity of a mold tool, the mold cavity corresponding to a shape of the nozzle component; and sintering the spinel-based powder in the mold tool to form the nozzle component comprising a spinel-based composite material”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads on claims 36-37; paragraph [0053]; one of ordinary skill in the art understands that SPS for example uses a mold of the desired shape). A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01. Duan teaches “a semiconductor processing chamber 100 having one or more chamber components that are formed from and/or coated with the ceramic material with high thermal shock resistance and high erosion resistance described herein” (which reads upon “the nozzle component configured to inject a gas into a chamber of the etch tool as part of a plasma-based etching operation”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0028]). Duan teaches that “the processing chamber 100 may be a chamber for a plasma etcher or plasma etch reactor, a plasma cleaner, plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (CVD) or ALD reactors and so forth” (which reads upon “the gas being used to form a plasma for the plasma-based etching operation”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0028]). Duan teaches that “the ceramic materials described herein successfully overcome this drawback of current ceramics by simultaneously exhibiting high thermal shock resistance and high erosion resistance (e.g., to plasmas)” (which reads upon “inhibiting particles from being etched from the nozzle component during the plasma-based etching operation”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0025]).
Duan is silent regarding the spinel-based composite material including the spinel compound in a solid solution phase. Duan teaches that “the solid ceramic material is formed by sintering the composition at a temperature of about 1000° C. to about 1600° C. (e.g., about 1400° C.) for a duration of about 2 minutes to about 10 hours (e.g., 4 hours)” (paragraph [0053]). The instant specification teaches “sintering the nozzle component includes sintering the nozzle component at a temperature that is greater than approximately 1400 degrees Celsius” (paragraph [0095]). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01 I. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01 II. Therefore, it is expected that the nozzle of the prior art possesses the solid solution phase as claimed in the instant claims since a) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in composition, b) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure (spinel), and c) the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (see sintering temperature analysis above). Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference nozzle, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference nozzle does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 43, Duan teaches the method of claim 42 as stated above. Duan teaches that the relative density is ≥ 99% (Table 2).
Regarding claims 44-47, modified Duan teaches the method of claim 42 as stated above. Duan teaches that the main phase of the spinel is MgAl2O4 (Table 1). MgAl2O4 is a region of a magnesium-aluminum-oxygen phase diagram.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-18, 20, and 49 are allowed.
Claims 41 and 48 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Duan teaches that the grain size has an average of 5.0 µm with a max/min of ( 5.4 / 0.4 µm ). Table 2. Duan is silent regarding particulate sizes over a range of approximately 0.2 microns to approximately 0.5 microns.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that DUAN does not teach or suggest at least "a single-compound composition including the spinel compound and no additional compounds," as recited in claim 35, as amended (remarks, page 10). Applicant argues that Paragraphs [0054] and [0072] of DUAN teach that the resulting ceramic may include multiple phases, including "a spinel main phase and an enstatite sub-phase" or "a sapphirine main phase and a cordierite sub-phase" (remarks, page 10). Applicant further argues that DUAN teaches SiO2-containing, multi-phase ceramic materials, not "a single-compound composition including the spinel compound and no additional compounds," as recited in claim 35, as amended (remarks, page 10). This is not found convincing for two reasons. Firstly, Applicant’s disclosure does not teach a single-compound composition including the spinel compound and no additional compounds, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the phrase. This is discussed in the 112(b) rejection, above. The photo of the single-compound composition including the spinel compound and no additional compounds provided by Applicant is FIG. 4D, which shows regions of concentrations of compounds. Secondly, Duan teaches that “the ceramic material comprises at least one phase comprising one or more of a sapphirine phase, a cordierite phase, a spinel phase, or an enstatite phase” (paragraph [0004]). One phase reads on the claim. The fact that some examples in Duan have more than one phase does not negate the broader teaching which includes a single spinel phase. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments (In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)).
Applicant argues that DUAN does not teach or suggest at least "the spinel-based composite material including the spinel compound in a solid solution phase," as recited in claim 42, as amended (remarks, page 11). This is not found convincing because the art teaches the same processing steps, which would lead to the same solid solution phase.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q1: 1/4-1/8/27.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. 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.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights