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
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 23, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the yttrium aluminum oxide layer being formed of a composition having a molar ratio of 1.0 - 0.9 yttrium to 1.0-1.1 aluminum over at least 90% of the yttrium aluminum oxide layer” in claim 1; “the component body comprises aluminum metal” in claim 2; “the component body comprises silicon, silicon carbide, alumina, or yttria-stabilized zirconia” in claim 3; the yttrium aluminum oxide layer comprises at least 70% by weight yttrium aluminum perovskite (YAP)” in claim 4; “the coating is formed on the surface via thermal spray coating of a powder composition comprising yttrium and aluminum” in claim 8, and “the surface comprises a semiconductor process-facing surface and is resistant to sputter and corrosion” in claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
”material or ceramic material” .
A suggested revision is as follows: ”material or a ceramic material” .
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 20120135155 A1 to Han et al (hereinafter Han) and US Pat. Pub. No. 2021040337 B2 to Beaudry et al (hereinafter Beaudry).
Regarding claim 1, Han teaches a component for use in a semiconductor processing chamber (chamber component structure), comprising: a component body comprising a metallic material or ceramic material (metal bulk ceramic materials) ; and a coating (117) disposed on a surface of the component body;
wherein the coating comprises a layer of yttrium aluminum oxide. (See Han, Abstract, paragraphs 1-4, 6-8, 14, 29, 35-37, 39, and 47.)
Han does not explicitly teach the yttrium aluminum oxide layer being formed of a composition having a molar ratio of 1.0 - 0.9 yttrium to 1.0-1.1 aluminum over at least 90% of the yttrium aluminum oxide layer .
Beaudry is directed to a plasma resistant coating.
Beaudry teaches aluminum oxide is used to provide for greater chemical stability in harsh chemical environments and yttrium oxide is used to provide physical stability in response to high energy plasma tuned to provide for necessary properties for the environment in which the component will be used. (See Beaudry, Abstract, and paragraphs 48, 61, 63, 64, 143, 145.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the yttrium aluminum oxide layer being formed of a composition having a molar ratio of 1.0 - 0.9 yttrium to 1.0-1.1 aluminum, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper material for the coating material, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal resistance properties. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Beaudry, Abstract, and paragraphs 48, 61, 143, 145.)
Han does not explicitly teach the yttrium aluminum oxide layer being formed over at least 90% of the yttrium aluminum oxide layer .
Beaudry is directed to a plasma resistant coating.
Beaudry teaches aluminum oxide is used to provide for greater chemical stability in harsh chemical environments and yttrium oxide is used to provide physical stability in response to high energy plasma tuned to provide for necessary properties for the environment in which the component will be used. (See Beaudry, Abstract, and paragraphs 48, 56, 61, 63, 64, 143, 145.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the yttrium aluminum oxide layer being formed over at least 90% of the yttrium aluminum oxide layer, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper material for the coating material, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal resistance properties. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Beaudry, Abstract, and paragraphs 48, 56, 61, 63, 64, 143, 145.)
Regarding claim 2, Han teaches the component body comprises aluminum metal. (See Han, paragraphs 2, 26, 29, and 37.)
Regarding claim 3, Han does not explicitly teach the component body comprises silicon, silicon carbide, alumina, or yttria-stabilized zirconia.
Beaudry teaches the component body comprises silicon, silicon carbide, alumina, or yttria-stabilized zirconia. (See Beaudry, Abstract, and paragraphs 68, 75.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the component body comprises silicon, silicon carbide, alumina, or yttria-stabilized zirconia, because Beaudry a component with this composition may protect the covered portion from exposure to plasma during processing. (See Beaudry, Abstract, and paragraphs 68, 75.)
Regarding claim 4, Han does not explicitly teach the yttrium aluminum oxide layer comprises at least 70% by weight yttrium aluminum perovskite (YAP) .
Beaudry teaches a protective coating includes yttrium aluminum perovskite (YAP) and the properties of the protective coating can be tuned in by changing the composition of the protective coating . (See Beaudry, Abstract, and paragraphs 48, 56, 61, 63-64, 75, 87, 143, 145.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the yttrium aluminum oxide layer comprises at least 70% by weight yttrium aluminum perovskite (YAP), through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper material for the coating material, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal resistance properties. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Beaudry, Abstract, and paragraphs 48, 61, 143, 145.)
Regarding claim 5, Han does not explicitly teach at least 5% by weight of the yttrium aluminum oxide layer comprises a non-annealed crystalline structure.
Beaudry teaches a protective coating includes yttrium aluminum perovskite (YAP) and the properties of the protective coating can be tuned in by changing the composition of the protective coating . (See Beaudry, Abstract, and paragraphs 48, 56, 61, 63-64, 75, 87, 143, 145.)
Beaudry teaches the use of the yttrium aluminum perovskite (YAP) in its crystalline form and in processes without annealing. (See Beaudry, Abstract, and paragraphs 56 and 63-64.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least 5% by weight of the yttrium aluminum oxide layer comprises a non-annealed crystalline structure through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper material for the coating material, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal resistance properties. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Beaudry, Abstract, and paragraphs 48, 61, 143, 145.)
Regarding claim 6, Han does not explicitly teach the component comprises one or more of the following semiconductor processing chamber components: a pinnacle, a liner or an electrostatic chuck (ESC).
Beaudry teaches the component comprises one or more of the following semiconductor processing chamber components: a pinnacle, a liner or an electrostatic chuck (ESC). (See Beaudry, Abstract, and paragraphs 5, 28, 68, 75-76, 100, 155.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the component comprises one or more of the following semiconductor processing chamber components: a pinnacle, a liner or an electrostatic chuck (ESC), because Beaudry a component with this composition may protect the covered portion from exposure to plasma during processing. (See Beaudry, Abstract, and paragraphs 5, 28, 68, 75-76, 100, 155.)
Regarding claim 10, Han does not explicitly teach the surface comprises a semiconductor process-facing surface and is resistant to sputter and corrosion
Beaudry teaches the component comprises one or more of the following semiconductor processing chamber components: a pinnacle, a liner or an electrostatic chuck (ESC). (See Beaudry, Abstract, and paragraphs 5, 28, 68, 75-76, 100, 155.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the surface comprises a semiconductor process-facing surface and is resistant to sputter and corrosion, because Beaudry a component with this composition may protect the covered portion from exposure to plasma during processing. (See Beaudry, Abstract, and paragraphs 5, 28, 68, 75-76, 100, 155.)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 9,012,030 B2 to Han et al (hereinafter Han) and US Pat. Pub. No. 2021040337 B2 to Beaudry et al (hereinafter Beaudry) applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080169588 A1 to Shih et al (hereinafter Shih).
Regarding claim 7, Han does not explicitly teach the component comprises a dielectric window.
Shih is directed to coatings to extend the lifetime of a plasma reactor.
Shih teaches the component comprises a dielectric window. (See Shih, Abstract, and paragraphs 5, 10-14, 20, 44-45, 47.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the surface comprises a semiconductor process-facing surface and is resistant to sputter and corrosion, because Beaudry a component with this composition may extend the lifetime of the plasma reactor. (See Shih, Abstract, and paragraphs 5, 10-14, 20, 44-45, 47.)
Claims 4-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 9,012,030 B2 to Han et al (hereinafter Han) and US Pat. Pub. No. 2021040337 B2 to Beaudry et al (hereinafter Beaudry) applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160257618 A1 to Jordan et al (hereinafter Jordan).
Regarding claim 4, Han does not explicitly teach the yttrium aluminum oxide layer comprises at least 70% by weight yttrium aluminum perovskite (YAP) .
Jordan is directed to coatings to provide a protective coating for equipment for industrial applications in harsh conditions.
Jordan teaches the coating is formed on the surface via thermal spray coating of a powder composition comprising yttrium and aluminum ( yttrium aluminum perovskite YAP ). (See Jordan, Abstract, and paragraphs 1, 4-10, 20-22, 26-74.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the yttrium aluminum oxide layer comprises at least 70% by weight yttrium aluminum perovskite (YAP), because Jordan teaches a layer of this composition is effective for coatings at high temperature and effective for blocking contaminants formed at high temperatures. (See Jordan, Abstract, and paragraphs 1, 4-10, 20-22, 25, 26-74.)
Regarding claim 5, Han does not explicitly teach at least 5% by weight of the yttrium aluminum oxide layer comprises a non-annealed crystalline structure.
Jordan teaches a protective coating includes yttrium aluminum perovskite (YAP) is provided by thermal spraying or sputtering . (See Jordan, Abstract, and paragraphs 20-22.) Examiner considering thermal spraying or sputtering to be equivalent to methods of forming non-annealed structure (i.e. non-annealing methods).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least 5% by weight of the yttrium aluminum oxide layer comprises a non-annealed crystalline structure, because Jordan teaches thermal sprayed or sputtering or conventional treatments is effective for forming a coating used in thermal barrier coating applications. (See Jordan, Abstract, and paragraphs 20-22.)
Regarding claim 8, Han does not explicitly teach the coating is formed on the surface via thermal spray coating of a powder composition comprising yttrium and aluminum.
Jordan is directed to coatings to provide a protective coating for equipment for industrial applications in harsh conditions.
Jordan teaches the coating is formed on the surface via thermal spray coating of a powder composition comprising yttrium and aluminum ( yttrium aluminum perovskite YAP ). (See Jordan, Abstract, and paragraphs 1, 4-10, 20-22, 26-74.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the coating is formed on the surface via thermal spray coating of a powder composition comprising yttrium and aluminum, because Jordan teaches this composition is useful for protecting equipment in a high temperature environment. (See Jordan, Abstract, and paragraphs 1, 4-10, 20-22, 26-74.)
Regarding claim 9, Han does not explicitly teach the powder composition comprises dispersed yttria and alumina in a molar ratio of 1.0 - 0.9 yttrium to 1.0-1.1 aluminum.
Jordan teaches composition comprising yttrium and aluminum ( yttrium aluminum perovskite YAP ) Examiner is considering this composition to be equivalent to the powder composition comprises dispersed yttria and alumina in a molar ratio of 1.0 - 0.9 yttrium to 1.0-1.1 aluminum . (See Jordan, Abstract, and paragraphs 1, 4-10, 20-22, 26-74.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the powder composition comprises dispersed yttria and alumina in a molar ratio of 1.0 - 0.9 yttrium to 1.0-1.1 aluminum, because Jordan teaches this composition is useful for protecting equipment in a high temperature enviroment. (See Jordan, Abstract, and paragraphs 1, 4-10, 20-22, 26-74.)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 25 of copending Application No. 17/792,109 to Xu (reference application) and US Pat. Pub. No. 2021040337 B2 to Beaudry et al (hereinafter Beaudry) in view of US Pat. No. 20120135155 A1 to Han et al (hereinafter Han).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because, regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a component for use in a semiconductor processing chamber (component body of a plasma processing chamber), comprising: and a coating disposed on a surface of the component body( a coating on a surface of the component body); wherein the coating comprises a layer of yttrium aluminum oxide (deposited coating formed from a powder mixture of yttrium oxide powder and an aluminum-containing powder),
Xu teaches the yttrium aluminum oxide layer being formed of a composition having a molar ratio of 1.0 - 0.9 yttrium to 1.0-1.1 aluminum (coating has an yttrium to aluminum ratio of 4:1 to 1:4 by molar number) .
Xu does not explicitly teach the yttrium aluminum oxide layer being formed over at least 90% of the yttrium aluminum oxide layer .
Beaudry teaches aluminum oxide is used to provide for greater chemical stability in harsh chemical environments and yttrium oxide is used to provide physical stability in response to high energy plasma tuned to provide for necessary properties for the environment in which the component will be used. (See Beaudry, Abstract, and paragraphs 48, 56, 61, 63, 64, 143, 145.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the yttrium aluminum oxide layer being formed over at least 90% of the yttrium aluminum oxide layer, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper material for the coating material, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal resistance properties. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Beaudry, Abstract, and paragraphs 48, 56, 61, 63, 64, 143, 145.)
Xu does not explicitly teach a component body comprising a metallic material or ceramic material.
Regarding claim 1, Xu does not explicitly teach a component comprising: a component body comprising a metallic material or ceramic material; and a coating disposed on a surface of the component body; wherein the coating comprises a layer of yttrium aluminum oxide .
Han teaches a component comprising: a component body comprising a metallic material or ceramic material (metal bulk ceramic materials) ; and a coating (117) disposed on a surface of the component body;
wherein the coating comprises a layer of yttrium aluminum oxide. (See Han, Abstract, paragraphs 1-4, 6-8, 14, 29, 35-37,39, and 47.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a component comprising: a component body comprising a metallic material or ceramic material; and a coating disposed on a surface of the component body; wherein the coating comprises a layer of yttrium aluminum oxide, because Han teaches this structure would provide resistance to corrosion (See Han, Abstract, paragraphs 1-4, 6-8, 14, 26, 29, 35-37,39, and 47.)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights