DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 14-33, in the reply filed on January 23, 2026 is acknowledged.
In light of the amendments to independent claims 21 and 28, the previous restriction requirement mailed on November 24, 2025 has been reconsidered and is hereby withdrawn. All currently pending claims are rejoined and will be examined herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the mailing date of this office action, there has been no information disclosure statement entered into the file. The Applicant is reminded of their duty to disclose. See MPEP 2001.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
With respect to the limitation in claim 19 reciting “a surface roughness of the stack of layers is less than about 1 µm”, although this limitation was present in the originally-filed claim set, it is noted that the specification does not specifically disclose the stack of layers having a surface roughness less than about 1 µm. Rather, the closest disclosure in the instant specification is in paragraph [0040], in which the anti-plasma layer (320) is said to have a surface roughness between about 0.5 µm and about 1 µm.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 20, and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 16 and 31, in the limitations reciting “wherein a concentration of carbon and a concentration of hydrogen in the stack of layers are less than about 5 %” (claim 16) and “wherein a concentration of carbon of the second layer and a concentration of hydrogen of the second layer are less than about 5 %” (claim 31), it is suggested to amend these limitations to recite --are each less than about 5%-- in order to clarify that the range of less than about 5% applies to the concentration of each of carbon and hydrogen, independently, rather than to the total concentration of carbon and hydrogen in the layer(s).
Regarding claim 20, in the limitation reciting “the first material structure is crystalline and resistant to ion bombardment; and the second material structure is amorphous and resistant to radical erosion”, it is suggested to amend this limitation to swap the terms “first material structure” and “second material structure” in order to align the terminology of the claims with the specification. In particular, paragraph [0038] of the specification discloses that the first sublayer (320a) can have an amorphous structure and can provide a resistance to erosion due to radicals, while the second sublayer (320b) can have a crystalline structure and can provide a strong resistance to ion bombardment. It is therefore suggested to maintain consistent use of “first” and “second” to refer to the amorphous and crystalline (sub)layers, respectively, within the stack of layers.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 22-24 and 27-33 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.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation reciting “wherein the first insulating material comprises yttrium aluminum oxide” is considered new matter that is not supported by the instant specification.
In looking to paragraph [0037], the anti-plasma layer (320) is said to include anti-plasma materials, such as YOx, SiOx, AlOx, yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG), magnesium oxide (MgOx), gadolinium oxide (GdOx), and/or a combination thereof. Paragraph [0038] further discloses an embodiment in which the first sublayer (320a) is amorphous and includes YAG, while the second sublayer (320b) is crystalline and include YOx. Although the instant specification provides support for an embodiment in which the first insulating material comprises yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG), the specification does not adequately disclose the broader recitation of the first insulating material comprising yttrium aluminum oxide. Yttrium aluminum garnet (Y3Al5O12) is a single species within the broader genus of yttrium aluminum oxides, and the instant specification does not describe a representative number of species within the claimed genus in order to provide support therefor. See MPEP 2163.05(I)(B).
Regarding claim 23, the limitation reciting “wherein the plasma-resistive layer further comprises an oxide of silicon, magnesium, gadolinium, aluminum, yttrium, or a combination thereof” is considered new matter that is not supported by the instant specification.
In looking to paragraph [0037], the anti-plasma layer (320) is said to include anti-plasma materials, such as YOx, SiOx, AlOx, yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG), magnesium oxide (MgOx), gadolinium oxide (GdOx), and/or a combination thereof. Paragraph [0038] further discloses that the first sublayer (320a) in the anti-plasma layer (320) can have an amorphous structure, while the second sublayer (320b) can have a crystalline structure.
Given that claim 21 sets forth that the plasma-resistive layer comprises an amorphous layer (i.e., first sublayer) which comprises a first insulating material, and a crystalline layer (i.e., second sublayer) which comprises a second insulating material, the limitation in claim 23 reciting that the plasma-resistive layer further comprises an oxide of one of the claimed materials does not align with the specification. Rather, based on the specification, claim 23 appears to intend to require that the plasma-resistive layer comprises an oxide of one of the claimed materials, where the oxide may be one of the first or second insulating materials and is not required to be present in addition thereto. Absent further clarification from the Applicant, the claim will be interpreted as such for the purpose of applying prior art.
Regarding claim 24, the limitation reciting “wherein a thickness of the plasma-resistive layer is between about 500 nm and about 5 µm” is considered new matter that is not supported by the instant specification.
In looking to paragraph [0039] of the specification, a thickness (T2) of anti-plasma layer (320) is said to be between about 500 nm and about 2 µm. Although the lower endpoint of the claimed range is adequately supported by the specification, there upper endpoint of 5 µm does not appear anywhere in the specification. The specification does not provide support for the plasma-resistive layer (i.e., anti-plasma layer) having a thickness outside of the range of about 500 nm to about 2 µm.
Regarding claim 27, the limitation reciting “wherein the insulating layer comprises an oxide of…carbon” is considered new matter that is not supported by the instant specification.
In looking to paragraph [0036] of the specification, the insulating layer (310) is said to include silicon oxide (SiOx), hafnium oxide (HfOx), titanium oxide (TiOx), zirconium oxide (ZrOx), aluminum oxide (AlOx), yttrium oxide (YOx), silicon carbon oxide (SiOCx), silicon nitride (SiNx), and/or a combination thereof. Although the instant specification provides support for the insulating layer comprising an oxide of silicon, silicon and carbon, aluminum, yttrium, etc., there is no disclosure of the insulating layer comprising an oxide of carbon (i.e., COx).
Regarding claim 28, the limitation reciting “wherein the second layer is plasma resistant and insulating” is considered new matter that is not supported by the instant specification.
In the embodiment of claim 28, the claimed “first layer” on the metallic substrate which comprises an insulating first amorphous material is considered to correspond to the insulating layer (310) disclosed in the instant specification. The claimed “second layer” on the first layer which is plasma resistant and insulating is considered to correspond to the anti-plasma layer (320) disclosed in the instant specification. However, the instant specification does not disclose that the anti-plasma layer is “insulating”, as recited in claim 28.
Regarding claim 32, the limitation reciting “the crystalline material comprises yttrium aluminum garnet; and the second amorphous material comprises yttrium oxide” is considered new matter that is not supported by the instant specification.
In looking to paragraph [0038], an embodiment of the anti-plasma layer (320) is said to include a first sublayer (320a) having an amorphous structure and comprising YAG, and a second sublayer (320b) having a crystalline structure and comprising YOx. Paragraph [0041], in reference to Fig. 4, further describes an embodiment in which the stack of anti-plasma layers (420) can include a stack of alternating amorphous sublayers (421a…42na) and crystalline sublayers (421b…42nb), such that a sublayer comprising an amorphous material is formed on a sublayer comprising a crystalline material.
Although the instant specification discloses an embodiment in which the sublayer having an amorphous structure comprises YAG, and the sublayer having a crystalline structure comprises YOx, there is no disclosure of an embodiment in which the sublayer having a crystalline structure comprises YAG, and the sublayer having an amorphous structure comprises YOx. Absent further clarification from the Applicant, for the purpose of applying prior art, the limitations of claim 32 will be interpreted in light of the instant specification to mean that the second amorphous material comprises yttrium aluminum garnet; and the crystalline material comprises yttrium oxide.
Regarding claims 29-31 and 33, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 28.
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.
Claims 14-20 and 31 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation reciting “a surface comprising a metallic substrate” is indefinite because it is not clear what structure is being defined by this limitation. In particular, it is not clear how a “surface” can comprise a substrate.
In looking to the instant specification at paragraph [0035], in reference to Fig. 3, an anti-plasma coating (300) is said to be formed on a component, wherein a substrate (302), which can include a metallic material, is coated with the anti-plasma coating. The anti-plasma coating comprises an insulating layer (310) on the substrate, and an anti-plasma layer (320) on the insulating layer [0035].
In light of the above disclosure and the layer arrangement shown in Fig. 3, the aforementioned limitation of claim 14 is interpreted to mean that the component comprises --a metallic substrate comprising a surface--. It is noted, however, that the claims do not further define any limitations with respect to the surface of the metallic substrate, and that all substrates inherently comprise a surface. The limitation reciting that the metallic substrate “comprises a surface” therefore does not appear to impart any additional structural limitations to the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 16 and 31, the limitations reciting “wherein a concentration of carbon and a concentration of hydrogen in the stack of layers are less than about 5 %” (claim 16) and “wherein a concentration of carbon of the second layer and a concentration of hydrogen of the second layer are less than about 5 %” (claim 31) are indefinite because the scope of the claimed “concentration” is unclear.
Specifically, it is noted that the claims do not set forth whether the concentration of carbon and the concentration of hydrogen refer to a weight percentage, a molar (atomic) percentage, or a volume percentage. In looking to the instant specification at paragraph [0040], the anti-plasma layer (320) is said to have a concentration of carbon less than about 5% and a concentration of hydrogen less than about 5%, however, the specification does not disclose whether these concentrations are determined by weight, number of atoms, or volume. Absent further clarification from the Applicant, for the purpose of examination, any of the above definitions of “concentration” will be interpreted as satisfying the limitations of claims 16 and 31.
Regarding claims 15 and 17-20, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-18, 20-23, 26-29, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sun ‘044 (US 2015/0311044).
Regarding claim 14, Sun ‘044 teaches an article (440; component) comprising a thick protective layer (450) and a thin film protective layer stack (470) deposited over the thick protective layer, wherein the thick protective layer is disposed on a body (445), and the thin film protective layer stack comprises a first layer (455), a second layer (460), and a third layer (465) ([0080], [0083], see Fig. 4C reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
279
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The article may be a chamber component for an etch reactor, wherein the body (metallic substrate) of the article may be a metal ([0014], [0063]). The thin film protective layer may be formed on the body using ion assisted deposition (IAD) and is a plasma protective layer, wherein the IAD coatings can be amorphous or crystalline depending on the materials used to create the coating, wherein amorphous coatings serve to reduce lattice mismatched induced epitaxial cracks whereas crystalline coatings are more erosion resistant ([0016], [0050]).
For example, the thick protective layer (450) may be alumina, the first layer (455) may be Er3Al5O12 (EAG), the second layer (460) may be Y3Al5O12 (YAG), and the third layer (465) may be a ceramic compound comprising Y4Al2O9 and a solid solution of Y2O3-ZrO2 ([0016], [0083]). Given that alumina is an electrically insulating material, the thick protective layer can be taken to correspond to the claimed insulating layer, while any two of the first, second, and third layers in the thin film protective layer stack can be taken to correspond to the claimed first and second layers having first and second different material structures, as they are all composed of different materials.
Sun ‘044 further teaches that EAG, YAG, and the ceramic compound each have a high hardness that resists wear during plasma processing ([0061]), such that each layer within the thin film protective layer stack is plasma resistant.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Sun ‘044 teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 above. It is noted that Sun ‘044 teaches both the thick protective layer and the thin film protective layer stack being formed from plasma resistant ceramic materials ([0075], [0083]), and does not teach either of these layers including any carbon or hydrogen. The thick protective layer (insulating layer) and the thin film protective layer stack (stack of layers) therefore have concentrations of carbon and hydrogen which fall within the claimed ranges of less than about 5%.
Regarding claim 17, Sun ‘044 teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 above and further teaches that a 5 µm thick coating of IAD deposited YAG has a breakdown voltage of 1223 V; a 5 µm thick coating of IAD deposited EAG has a breakdown voltage of 900 V; and a 5 µm thick coating of IAD deposited ceramic compound has a breakdown voltage of 427 V ([0056], Table 1). Sun ‘044 further teaches that each of the thin film protective layers may have a thickness of less than approximately 20 microns, or less than approximately 10 microns, such as a thickness of 1 µm [0081]. The thin film protective layer stack formed of a first layer of EAG, a second layer of YAG, and a third layer of the ceramic compound therefore has a breakdown voltage of greater than 4 V.
Regarding claim 18, Sun ‘044 teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 above and further teaches that the thick film protective layer may have a thickness of up to about 200 microns or thicker, and may be ground down to a final thickness of approximately 50 microns [0076]. Given that Sun ‘044 teaches that the thick film protective layer may be any plasma resistant ceramic, wherein each of the plasma resistant ceramic materials shown in Table 1 have breakdown voltage values ranging from 363 V to 1223 V when formed at a thickness of 5 µm ([0056], [0092]), the thick film protective layer formed at a thickness of 50 µm has a breakdown voltage of greater than 900 V.
Regarding claim 20, Sun ‘044 teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 above. As noted above, Sun ‘044 teaches that the first layer may be Er3Al5O12 (EAG), the second layer may be Y3Al5O12 (YAG), and the third layer may be a ceramic compound comprising Y4Al2O9 and a solid solution of Y2O3-ZrO2 ([0016], [0083]). Sun ‘044 teaches that EAG and YAG are amorphous coatings, whereas the ceramic compound is crystalline [0050]. The third layer can therefore be taken to correspond to the claimed first layer having a first material structure which is crystalline, while either of the first or second layers can be taken to correspond to the claimed second material structure which is amorphous.
Sun ‘044 teaches that the ceramic compound, EAG, and YAG each have a high hardness that resists wear during plasma processing ([0061]), such that the first material structure is resistant to ion bombardment, and the second material structure is resistant to radical erosion.
Regarding claim 21, Sun ‘044 teaches an article (440; component) comprising a thick protective layer (450) and a thin film protective layer stack (470) deposited over the thick protective layer, wherein the thick protective layer is disposed on a body (445), and the thin film protective layer stack comprises a first layer (455), a second layer (460), and a third layer (465) ([0080], [0083], Fig. 4C). The article may be a chamber component for an etch reactor, wherein the body (metallic substrate) of the article may be a metal ([0014], [0063]).
The thin film protective layer may be formed on the body using ion assisted deposition (IAD) and is a plasma protective layer, wherein the IAD coatings can be amorphous or crystalline depending on the materials used to create the coating, wherein amorphous coatings serve to reduce lattice mismatched induced epitaxial cracks whereas crystalline coatings are more erosion resistant ([0001], [0016], [0050]).
For example, the thick protective layer (450) may be alumina, the first layer (455) may be Er3Al5O12 (EAG), the second layer (460) may be Y3Al5O12 (YAG), and the third layer (465), may be a ceramic compound comprising Y4Al2O9 and a solid solution of Y2O3-ZrO2 ([0016], [0083]). Sun ‘044 teaches that EAG and YAG are amorphous coatings, whereas the ceramic compound is crystalline [0050]. Given that alumina is an electrically insulating material, the thick protective layer can be taken to correspond to the claimed insulating layer. Either of the first and second layers can be taken to correspond to the claimed amorphous layer, where either EAG or YAG corresponds to the claimed first insulating material, while the third layer corresponds to the claimed crystalline layer, where the ceramic compound corresponds to the claimed second insulating material that is different from the first insulating material.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Sun ‘044 teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above. As noted above, Sun ‘044 teaches that the second layer (460) may be Y3Al5O12 (YAG; first insulating material), while the third layer (465) may be the ceramic compound (second insulating material) comprising Y4Al2O9 and a solid solution of Y2O3-ZrO2, wherein YAG is an amorphous coating, while the ceramic compound is crystalline and comprises yttrium oxide (Y2O3) ([0050], [0083]).
Regarding claim 26, Sun ‘044 teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above and further teaches that each of the materials of the thick protective layer and the thin film protective layer have a volume resistivity on the order of about 1014 to about 1017 , wherein the thick film protective layer has a thickness of about 50 microns, and the thin film protective layer has a thickness of below about 50 microns (Table 1, [0072], [0076]). The surface areas of the plasma sprayed thick protective layer and thin film protective layer may each be approximately 1.7 x 106 µm2. Based on these values, the total resistance of the thick protective layer (insulating layer) and the thin film protective layer (plasma-resistive layer) is greater than 109.
Regarding claim 27, Sun ‘044 teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above. As noted above, Sun ‘044 teaches that the thick protective layer (450) may be alumina [0083].
Regarding claim 28, Sun ‘044 teaches an article (440; component) comprising a thick protective layer (450) and a thin film protective layer stack (470) deposited over the thick protective layer, wherein the thick protective layer is disposed on a body (445) ([0080], Fig. 4C). The article may be a chamber component for an etch reactor, wherein the body (metallic substrate) of the article may be a metal ([0014], [0063]).
The thin film protective layer may be formed on the body using ion assisted deposition (IAD) and is a plasma protective layer, wherein the IAD coatings can be amorphous or crystalline depending on the materials used to create the coating, wherein amorphous coatings serve to reduce lattice mismatched induced epitaxial cracks whereas crystalline coatings are more erosion resistant ([0001], [0016], [0050]).
For example, the layers in the thin film protective layer stack may be alternating layers of two different ceramics, wherein the first and third layers may be YAG, and the second and fourth layers may be a ceramic compound comprising Y4Al2O9 and a solid solution of Y2O3-ZrO2 [0084]. Sun ‘044 teaches that YAG is an amorphous coating, whereas the ceramic compound is crystalline [0050]. The first layer made of YAG can be taken to correspond to the claimed first layer which comprises an insulating first amorphous material, while the second layer made of the ceramic compound corresponds to the claimed first sublayer comprising a crystalline material, and the third layer made of YAG layer corresponds to the claimed second sublayer which is formed on the first sublayer and comprises a second amorphous material.
Regarding claim 29, Sun ‘044 teaches all of the limitations of claim 28 above. With respect to the limitation reciting “wherein the component is configured to be exposed to high energy plasma in a plasma chamber”, it is noted that this limitation is considered functional language related to the intended use of the claimed component and is considered to be met by any component that is capable of performing the recited function. As noted above, Sun ‘044 teaches that the article is a chamber component for an etch reactor, wherein the protective layer provides plasma erosion resistance for protection of the article [0014]. The article taught by Sun ‘044 is therefore capable of being exposed to high energy plasma in a plasma chamber, thus satisfying the claimed functional limitation.
Regarding claim 31, Sun ‘044 teaches all of the limitations of claim 28 above. It is noted that Sun ‘044 teaches that the thin film protective layer is a plasma resistant protective layer ([0001]), and does not teach any of the layers therein including any carbon or hydrogen. The second and third layers of the thin film protective layer stack therefore have concentrations of carbon and hydrogen which fall within the claimed ranges of less than about 5%.
Regarding claim 32, Sun ‘044 teaches all of the limitations of claim 28 above. As noted above, Sun ‘044 teaches that the second layer (first sublayer) may be a ceramic compound (crystalline material) comprising Y4Al2O9 and a solid solution of Y2O3-ZrO2, while the third layer (second sublayer) may be Y3Al5O12 (YAG; second amorphous material) ([0050], [0084]), wherein the ceramic compound comprises yttrium oxide (Y2O3).
Regarding claim 33, Sun ‘044 teaches all of the limitations of claim 28 above and further teaches that the ceramic compound (crystalline material) of the second layer (first sublayer) has a hardness of 7.825 GPa, while YAG (second amorphous material) in the third layer (second sublayer) has a hardness of 8.5 GPa (Table 1). The third layer made of YAG is therefore harder than the second layer made of the ceramic compound.
Claims 14-16, 19-21, 23, 27-29, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sun ‘126 (US 2022/0037126).
Regarding claim 14, Sun ‘126 teaches a coated chamber component comprising an article (210; metallic substrate) having a protective coating deposited thereon, wherein the article may be made out of aluminum, stainless steel, nickel, nickel-chromium alloys, titanium, and the like ([0001], [0054]).
An adhesion layer (205; insulating layer) may be deposited directly onto the surface of the substrate, and a fluorine containing protective coating (stack of layers) containing a plurality of alternating layers (240A, 240B, 240C, 240D), e.g., of an amorphous layer and a crystalline layer, may be formed on the adhesion layer ([0059], [0066], see Fig. 2C reproduced below). For example, the multi-layer structure may include alternating layers of amorphous Al2O3 and crystalline MgF2 ([0036], [0069]), which correspond to the claimed first and second layers with different first and second material structures.
PNG
media_image2.png
148
481
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sun ‘126 teaches that the adhesion layer may be amorphous, such as amorphous alumina, or amorphous yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) ([0034]), which are electrically insulating materials. Sun ‘126 further teaches that the protective coating contains plasma resistant materials, as defined by the etch rate throughout the duration of the coated components’ operation and exposure to plasma [0078].
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Sun ‘126 teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 above. It is noted that Sun ‘126 does not teach either of the adhesion layer or the protective coating including any carbon or hydrogen, such that these layers have concentrations of carbon and hydrogen which fall within the claimed ranges of less than about 5%.
Regarding claim 19, Sun ‘126 teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 above and further teaches that a roughness of the top surface of the protective coating (stack of layers) ranges from about 0.1 microinches to about 200 microinches, for example, from about 5 microinches to about 20 microinches ([0035]), equivalent to about 0.1 µm to about 0.5 µm, which falls squarely within the claimed range of less than about 1 µm.
Sun ‘126 further teaches that the ALD technique used to form the protective coating produces coatings that are very dense and have a very low porosity of less than about 1%, or about 0% [0104].
Regarding claim 20, Sun ‘126 teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 above. As noted above, Sun ‘126 teaches that the protective coating may include alternating layers of crystalline MgF2 and amorphous Al2O3 ([0036], [0069]), which correspond to the claimed first and second layers with first and second material structures which are crystalline and amorphous, respectively. Crystalline MgF2 and amorphous Al2O3 are materials well-known to be suitable for use in such plasma resistant coatings, and are thus considered to be resistant to ion bombardment and to radical erosion.
Regarding claim 21, Sun ‘126 teaches a coated chamber component comprising an article (210; metallic substrate) having a protective coating deposited thereon, wherein the article may be made out of aluminum, stainless steel, nickel, nickel-chromium alloys, titanium, and the like ([0001], [0054]).
An adhesion layer (205; insulating layer) may be deposited directly onto the surface of the substrate, and a fluorine containing protective coating (plasma-resistive layer) containing a plurality of alternating layers (240A, 240B, 240C, 240D), e.g., of an amorphous layer and a crystalline layer, may be formed on the adhesion layer ([0059], [0066], Fig. 2C). For example, the multi-layer structure may include alternating layers of amorphous Al2O3 (first insulating material) and crystalline MgF2 (second insulating material) ([0036], [0069]).
Sun ‘126 teaches that the adhesion layer may be amorphous, such as amorphous alumina, or amorphous yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) ([0034]), which are electrically insulating materials. Sun ‘126 further teaches that the protective coating contains plasma resistant materials, as defined by the etch rate throughout the duration of the coated components’ operation and exposure to plasma [0078].
Regarding claim 23, Sun ‘126 teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above. As noted above, Sun ‘126 teaches that the protective coating (plasma-resistive layer) may include layers of amorphous Al2O3 [0036].
Regarding claim 27, Sun ‘126 teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above. As noted above, Sun ‘126 teaches that the adhesion layer (insulating layer) may include alumina or yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) [0034].
Regarding claim 28, Sun ‘126 teaches a coated chamber component comprising an article (210; metallic substrate) having a protective coating deposited thereon, wherein the article may be made out of aluminum, stainless steel, nickel, nickel-chromium alloys, titanium, and the like ([0001], [0054]).
An adhesion layer (205; first layer) may be deposited directly onto the surface of the substrate, and a fluorine containing protective coating (second layer) containing a plurality of alternating layers (240A, 240B, 240C, 240D), e.g., of an amorphous layer (second sublayer) and a crystalline layer (first sublayer), may be formed on the adhesion layer ([0059], [0066], Fig. 2C). For example, the multi-layer structure may include alternating layers of amorphous Al2O3 (second amorphous material) and crystalline MgF2 (crystalline material) ([0036], [0069]).
Sun ‘126 teaches that the adhesion layer may be amorphous (first amorphous material), such as amorphous alumina, or amorphous yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) ([0034]), which are electrically insulating materials. Sun ‘126 further teaches that the protective coating contains plasma resistant materials, as defined by the etch rate throughout the duration of the coated components’ operation and exposure to plasma [0078].
Regarding claim 29, Sun ‘126 teaches all of the limitations of claim 28 above. With respect to the limitation reciting “wherein the component is configured to be exposed to high energy plasma in a plasma chamber”, it is noted that this limitation is considered functional language related to the intended use of the claimed component and is considered to be met by any component that is capable of performing the recited function. Sun ‘126 teaches that the coated chamber component is used in a semiconductor processing chamber which is exposed to high energy plasma [0002]. The coated chamber component taught by Sun ‘126 is therefore capable of being exposed to high energy plasma in a plasma chamber, thus satisfying the claimed functional limitation.
Regarding claim 31, Sun ‘126 teaches all of the limitations of claim 28 above. It is noted that Sun ‘126 does not teach either the protective coating including any carbon or hydrogen, such that the second layer has concentrations of carbon and hydrogen which fall within the claimed ranges of less than about 5%.
Regarding claim 33, Sun ‘126 teaches all of the limitations of claim 28 above. As noted above, Sun ‘126 teaches that the protective coating includes alternating layers of amorphous Al2O3 (second sublayer, second amorphous material) and crystalline MgF2 (first sublayer, crystalline material) ([0036], [0069]), wherein amorphous Al2O3 is harder than crystalline MgF2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 19, 24, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun ‘044 (US 2015/0311044) as applied to claims 14, 21, and 28 above.
Regarding claim 19, Sun ‘044 teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 above and further teaches that the thin film protective IAD coating can seal pores and cracks in the plasma sprayed thick protective layer, wherein the thin film protective layer may have a porosity that is less than 1%, preferably less than about 0.1% ([0014], [0073], [0076]). Sun ‘044 further teaches that the IAD coatings can be applied with roughness from about 0.5 micro-inches to about 180 micro-inches ([0049]), equivalent to about 0.01 µm to about 4.6 µm, which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 24, Sun ‘044 teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above and further teaches that the thin film protective layer stack (plasma-resistive layer) may include a number of thin film protective layers each having a thickness of less than approximately 20 microns, such as about 1 micron [0081]. The thin film protective layer may have a thickness of between about 0.5 microns to about 7 microns ([0072]), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 30, Sun ‘044 teaches all of the limitations of claim 28 above. As noted above, first layer made of YAG corresponds to the claimed first layer, while the second and third layers made of the ceramic compound and YAG, respectively, correspond to the claimed second layer. Sun ‘044 teaches that YAG has a breakdown voltage of 1223 V when formed at a layer thickness of 5 µm, and that the ceramic compound has a breakdown voltage of 427 V at 5 µm (Table 1). Sun ‘044 further teaches that each of the thin film protective layers within the thin film protective layer stack may have a thickness of less than 20 microns, and less than approximately 10 microns [0081].
Based on the above disclosure, when the first layer made of YAG is formed at a thickness of approximately 4 microns or more, the first layer has a first breakdown voltage of greater than about 900 V. The second layer formed of a layer of ceramic compound and a layer of YAG has a second breakdown voltage of greater than 4 V.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun ‘126 (US 2022/0037126) as applied to claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 24, Sun ‘126 teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above and further teaches that the total thickness of the protective coating (plasma-resistive layer) may range from about 5 nm to about 3 µm ([0101]), which overlaps the claimed range of about 500 nm to about 5 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 25, Sun ‘126 teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above and further teaches that the thickness of the adhesion layer (insulating layer) may range from about 5 nm to about 3000 nm ([0061]), equivalent to about 5 nm to about 3 µm, which overlaps the claimed range of 1 µm to 20 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Niemela et al. (“Mechanical properties of atomic-layer-deposited Al2O3/Y2O3 nanolaminate films on aluminum toward protective coatings”, doi:10.1021/acsanm.2c003782022; Published April 25, 2022) teaches a nanolaminate (NL) protective coating formed on an Al metal substrate, the NL coating comprising a layer of amorphous Al2O3 and a layer of crystalline Y2O3 (Abstract; p. 6288).
Wu et al. (US 2019/0309413) teaches an article comprising a plasma resistant protective coating on a surface thereof, wherein the plasma resistant protective coating may comprise a stack of alternating layers of crystalline rare-earth oxide layers and crystalline or amorphous metal oxide layers (Abstract, [0004], Fig. 1C).
Sun ‘504 (US 2014/0377504) teaches an article comprising a body and at least one protective layer on a surface of the body, wherein the protective layer may be a thin film protective layer stack comprising thin film protective layers (508, 510, 515, 518), wherein the layers may be alternating layers of two different ceramics which are amorphous and crystalline (Abstract, Table 1, [0050], [0054], Fig. 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785