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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 09, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
By amendment filed February 09, 2026, claims 1, 13 and 21 have been amended and claim 31 has been cancelled. Claims 11 and 12 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1 through 8, 10 through 15, 19 through 22, 25 and 27 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 09, 2026, with respect to the 103 rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the previous cited prior art and new prior art necessitated by the amendments to the claims. As will be discussed further within this Office Action, Wu (U.S. Patent # 10,563,303) teaches that it was known in the art for metal oxy-fluoride layers to have a porosity in the range of 2-5%.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 112(a) rejection of the claims regarding the porosity limitation are not persuasive. The new limitation that the metal oxy-fluoride coating had a porosity of 2 to 5% is not fully supported by the specification as originally filed. The only section of the specification of the present application as originally filed that discusses the porosity of the metal oxy-fluoride coating is Page 17 Paragraph 0069 which makes clear that the method of forming the coating determined the porosity of the coating. Page 17 Paragraph 0069 discloses that the only coating which had a porosity of 2 to 5% were those formed by atmospheric pressure plasma spraying (APPS). Therefore, the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement because the claims do not require that the metal oxy-fluoride coating is formed by atmospheric pressure plasma spraying.
Furthermore, the amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections.
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 1-8, 10, 13-15, 19-22, 25 and 27 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. Claims 1, 13 and 21 requires that the metal oxy-fluoride coating has a porosity of 2 to 5%. This limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement because the entire scope of this limitation is not supported by the specification of the present application as originally filed. Page 17 Paragraph 069 of the specification of the present application as originally filed disclose that the metal oxy-fluoride coating had a porosity about 2-5% if APPS is used to form the coating. The claims are not limited to forming the coating by APPS and therefore fail to comply with the written description requirement.
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 13-15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenwick et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0323772) in view of Duan et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0172049) and Wu et al (U.S. Patent # 10,563,303).
In the case of claims 13 and 15, Fenwick teaches a method for forming a metal oxy-fluoride protective coating on a process chamber component wherein the metal was a combination of yttrium and zirconium (Abstract, Page 1 Paragraph 0002 and Pages 4-5 Paragraphs 0044-0045). Fenwick further teaches that the metal oxy-fluoride coating was amorphous (Page 5 Paragraph 0052) and formed by either evaporated deposition or sputtering (Page 5 Paragraph 0052).
Fenwick further teaches that when the coating comprised a metal having a value of +3, which would include yttrium, the metal was present in the amount of 27-38 at. %, oxygen was present in the amount of 10-52 at. % and fluorine was present in the amount of 10-63 at. % (Page 5 Paragraph 0048). These values overlapped with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See section 2144.05.I of the MPEP.
Though Fenwick teaches that the metal oxy-fluoride coating had a porosity of less than 1% (Page 4 Paragraph 0041), Fenwick does not teach that the coating had a porosity of 2 to 5%. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP section 2144.05.
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed a metal oxy-fluoride coating of Fenwick to have a porosity of 2 to 5% because this range was substantially close to the taught range of 1% or less.
Furthermore, Wu teaches a metal oxy-fluoride coating in the form of an yttrium oxide fluoride coating (Abstract), which included yttrium zirconium oxide fluoride coatings (Column 9 Lines 11-12). Wu teaches that the metal oxy-fluoride (M-O-F) coating was used as a protective coating in semiconductor processing chambers (Column 7 Lines 52-67) and had the porosity ranges of 2 to 5% or 1 to 3% (Column 13 Line 49 through Column 14 Line 7).
Based on the teachings of Wu, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the metal oxy-fluoride coating of Fenwick to have a porosity of 2 to 5% because this was a known porosity in the art for protective films used in semiconductor processing chambers.
Though Fenwick teaches having formed an yttrium zirconium oxy-fluoride coating by evaporated or sputtering deposition Fenwick does not teach having provide a source material comprised of YF3, ZrF4 or a combination thereof and a metal oxide consisting of yttrium oxide and zirconium oxide. Fenwick does teach that the formed protective coating was resistant to plasma (Page 4 Paragraph 0043).
Duan teaches a method for forming a plasma resistant coating in the form of an yttrium-based oxyfluoride on a processing chamber component (Abstract and Page 1 Paragraph 0002). Duan teaches that the yttrium-based oxyfluoride included yttrium zirconium fluoride oxide and was formed by first providing a metal oxide in the form of a first coating material of yttrium oxide and a second coating material in the form of zirconium oxide and providing a source material in the form of a third coating material source comprised of a fluorochemical. Duan teaches that the first, second and third coating material where independently and concurrently excited to form excited atoms which collided and reacted with each other to form the yttrium-based oxyfluoride coating on the component surface. (Pages 5-6 Paragraphs 0071-0074)
Duan further teaches that the excitation of the coating materials was conducted by either evaporation or sputtering (Page 5 Paragraphs 0072-0073 and Page 6 Paragraphs 0077-0081) and that fluorochemical compounds used to for the yttrium-based oxyfluoride coating included YF3 (Page 1 Paragraph 0008 and Page 4 Paragraph 0051).
Based on the teachings of Duan, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the metal oxy-fluoride coating of Fenwick in view of Wu by the process of Duan because Duan taught a known evaporation/sputtering process in the art for forming a plasma resistant coating comprising yttrium zirconium oxy-fluoride.
None of the references teach that the metal oxy-fluoride source material included 5 to 90 mol% YF3 and 10 to 95 mol% metal oxide. Furthermore, neither reference taught that the metal oxide source included 0.1 to 20 mol% zirconium oxide. However, section 2144.05.II.A of the MPEP states, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929).
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined optimal concentrations for the amount of source material and metal oxides provided in the deposition process of Fenwick in view of Duan and Wu because these concentrations affected the concentration of yttrium, zirconium, oxygen and fluorine in the deposited metal oxy-fluoride coating.
None of the references teach that the metal oxy-fluoride coating comprised zirconium in the amount of 0.3 to 10 at. %. However, as was discussed previously, it would have been obvious to have determined optimal values for component concentrations through routine experimentation.
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimal concentration for the zirconium in the metal oxy-fluoride coating of Fenwick in view of Duan and Wu through routine experimentation because the amount of zirconium present in the coating affected the amount of oxygen and fluoride present in the coating.
As for claim 14, through Duan teaches that the component was heated to 25 to 500 ℃ (Page 7 Paragraph 0085) neither reference teaches having heated the component to about 600 to 1400 ℃. However, Fenwick teaches that the deposition temperature affected the crystallinity of the deposited film (Page 5 Paragraph 0052).
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined optimal deposition temperatures for the component of Fenwick in view of Duan and Wu through routine experimentation because the deposition temperatures affected the crystallinity of the deposited metal oxy-fluoride coating.
As for claim 19, Duan teaches that the deposition comprised ion-assisted deposition, electron beam vapor deposition and co-evaporation vapor deposition (Pages 5-6 Paragraph 0072-0073 and 0077-0079).
As for claim 20, Fenwick teaches that the metal oxy-fluoride coating had a thickness of 1 to 30 microns (Page 4 Paragraph 0040), which was within the required range.
Claims 1-8, 10, 21, 22, 25, 27 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenwick et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0323772) in view of Duan et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0172049) and Kuramochi et al (U.S. Patent # 9,336,920) and Wu et al.
In the case of claims 1 and 21, Fenwick teaches a method for forming a metal oxy-fluoride protective coating on a process chamber component wherein the metal was a combination of yttrium and zirconium (Abstract, Page 1 Paragraph 0002 and Pages 4-5 Paragraphs 0044-0045). Fenwick further teaches that the metal oxy-fluoride coating was amorphous (Page 5 Paragraph 0052) and formed by either evaporated deposition or sputtering (Page 5 Paragraph 0052).
Fenwick further teaches that when the coating comprised a metal having a value of +3, which would include yttrium, the metal was present in the amount of 27-38 at. %, oxygen was present in the amount of 10-52 at. % and fluorine was present in the amount of 10-63 at. % (Page 5 Paragraph 0048). These values overlapped with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See section 2144.05.I of the MPEP.
Though Fenwick teaches that the metal oxy-fluoride coating had a porosity of less than 1% (Page 4 Paragraph 0041), Fenwick does not teach that the coating had a porosity of 2 to 5%. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP section 2144.05.
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed a metal oxy-fluoride coating of Fenwick to have a porosity of 2 to 5% because this range was substantially close to the taught range of 1% or less.
Furthermore, Wu teaches a metal oxy-fluoride coating in the form of an yttrium oxide fluoride coating (Abstract), which included yttrium zirconium oxide fluoride coatings (Column 9 Lines 11-12). Wu teaches that the metal oxy-fluoride (M-O-F) coating was used as a protective coating in semiconductor processing chambers (Column 7 Lines 52-67) and had the porosity ranges of 2 to 5% or 1 to 3% (Column 13 Line 49 through Column 14 Line 7).
Based on the teachings of Wu, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the metal oxy-fluoride coating of Fenwick to have a porosity of 2 to 5% because this was a known porosity in the art for protective films used in semiconductor processing chambers.
Though Fenwick teaches having formed an yttrium zirconium oxy-fluoride coating by evaporated or sputtering deposition Fenwick does not teach having provide a source material comprised of YF3, ZrF4 or a combination thereof and a metal oxide consisting of yttrium oxide and zirconium oxide. Fenwick does teach that the formed protective coating was resistant to plasma (Page 4 Paragraph 0043).
Duan teaches a method for forming a plasma resistant coating in the form of an yttrium-based oxyfluoride on a processing chamber component (Abstract and Page 1 Paragraph 0002). Duan teaches that the yttrium-based oxyfluoride included yttrium zirconium fluoride oxide and was formed by first providing a metal oxide in the form of a first coating material of yttrium oxide and a second coating material in the form of zirconium oxide and providing a source material in the form of a third coating material source comprised of a fluorochemical. Duan teaches that the first, second and third coating material where independently and concurrently excited to form excited atoms which collided and reacted with each other to form the yttrium-based oxyfluoride coating on the component surface. (Pages 5-6 Paragraphs 0071-0074)
Duan further teaches that the excitation of the coating materials was conducted by either evaporation or sputtering (Page 5 Paragraphs 0072-0073 and Page 6 Paragraphs 0077-0081) and that fluorochemical compounds used to for the yttrium-based oxyfluoride coating included YF3 (Page 1 Paragraph 0008 and Page 4 Paragraph 0051).
Furthermore, Duan teaches an embodiment wherein the coating material was within a single target (Page 3 Paragraph 0039).
Based on the teachings of Duan, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the metal oxy-fluoride coating of Fenwick in view of Wu by the process of Duan because Duan taught a known evaporation/sputtering process in the art for forming a plasma resistant coating comprising yttrium zirconium oxy-fluoride.
None of the references teach that the metal oxy-fluoride source material included 5 to 90 mol% YF3 and 10 to 95 mol% metal oxide. Furthermore, neither reference taught that the metal oxide source included 0.1 to 20 mol% zirconium oxide. However, section 2144.05.II.A of the MPEP states, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929).
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined optimal concentrations for the amount of source material and metal oxides provided in the deposition process of Fenwick in view of Duan and Wu because these concentrations affected the concentration of yttrium, zirconium, oxygen and fluorine in the deposited metal oxy-fluoride coating.
None of the references teach that the metal oxy-fluoride coating comprised zirconium in the amount of 0.3 to 10 at. %. However, as was discussed previously, it would have been obvious to have determined optimal values for component concentrations through routine experimentation.
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimal concentration for the zirconium in the metal oxy-fluoride coating of Fenwick in view of Duan through routine experimentation because the amount of zirconium present in the coating affected the amount of oxygen and fluoride present in the coating.
Though Fenwick in view of Duan teach having provide a metal oxy-fluoride source material for evaporation/sputtering deposition neither reference teaches that the source material was prepared by physically mixing or fusing together powder or pellets of the metal oxides and metal fluorides.
Kuramochi teaches a method for forming a composite oxide body comprising zirconium (Abstract) which was used as a target source for sputtering (Column 3 Lines 15-16) and was formed by physically mixing powders of the components for the composite together (Column 6 Lines 5-49) followed by a thermal fusing process comprising cold isostatic pressing (Column 7 Line 59 through Column 8 Line 33).
Based on the teachings of Kuramochi, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have mixed and then fused together by cold isostatic pressing powder of the metal fluoride and metal oxide to form the source material of Fenwick in view of Duan and Wu for deposition because this was a known processing in the art for forming a target for sputter coating.
As for claims 2-8, None of the references teaches these mol percentages for the components of the source material and metal oxide. However, as was discussed previously, it would have been obvious to have determined optimal concentration for the source material and metal oxide components provided in the deposition process of Fenwick in view of Duan and Wu and Kuramochi through routine experimentation because these concentrations affected the yttrium, zirconium, oxygen and fluorine amounts in the deposited metal oxy-fluoride coating.
As for claim 10, as was discussed previously, the metal oxy-fluoride coating of Fenwick in view of Duan and Wu and Kuramochi was an yttrium zirconium oxy-fluoride coating and therefore consisted of Y-Zr-O-F.
As for claims 22, 25 and 27, they are rejected for the same reasons discussed previously in the rejection of claims 2-8 in that the concentration of the source material and metal oxide affected the amounts of yttrium, zirconium, oxygen and fluorine in the deposited metal oxy-fluoride coating.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 8, 10, 13 through 15, 19 through 22, 25 and 27 have been rejected. Claims 11 and 12 are withdrawn. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712