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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Election
1. Applicant’s election of claims 10-16, without traverse, in the reply filed on November 10, 2025, is acknowledged. Claims 1-9 and 17-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The references disclosed within the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 9, 2024, and December 3, 2025, have been considered and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
3. 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.
4. Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luo (CN 101255056 A).
Luo discloses ceramic parts made by spark plasma sintering (page 4 of Luo) where the instant specification discloses the ceramic components are made by spark plasma sintering (paragraph 18 of the published specification). Because Luo discloses a ceramic component with the same materials as claimed and preferentially disclosed, the article of Luo will inherently possess the pits and debris
claimed. Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. Therefore, because Luo has the same chemical structure, the properties, including pits and debris are necessarily present. MPEP 2112.01 II, as in claim 1. In claim 1, the phrase, “for use in a semiconductor processing chamber” is an intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Concerning claim 16, Luo discloses ceramic parts made by spark plasma sintering (page 4 of Luo) which renders the processed ceramic parts new.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
5. Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Duan et al. (U.S. 20150251961).
Duan discloses a UV chamber component comprising a unitary ceramic article; performing some manufacturing processes, such as exposing various chamber components to corrosive environments which may corrode processing chambers or the surfaces of the chamber components; and heating the UV chamber component to a temperature range between about 1000° C. and about 1800° C, wherein the UV chamber component is thermally treated at one or more temperatures within the temperature range for a duration of between about 0.5 hours to about 24 hours (see paragraphs [0005], [0025]-[0031]; and figure 2) where the instant specification discloses the ceramic components are made by heating the components (abstract and paragraph 5 of the published specification). Because Duan discloses a ceramic component with the same materials as claimed and preferentially disclosed, the article of Duan will inherently possess the pits and debris claimed. Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. Therefore, because Duan has the same chemical structure, the properties, including pits and debris are necessarily present. MPEP 2112.01 II, as in claim 1. In claim 1, the phrase, “for use in a semiconductor processing chamber” is an intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Concerning claim 16, Duan discloses a UV chamber component comprising a unitary ceramic article; performing some manufacturing processes, such as exposing various chamber components to corrosive environments which may corrode processing chambers or the surfaces of the chamber components; and heating the UV chamber component to a temperature range between about 1000° C. and about 1800° C, wherein the UV chamber component is thermally treated at one or more temperatures within the temperature range for a duration of between about 0.5 hours to about 24 hours (see paragraphs [0005], [0025]-[0031]; and figure 2) which renders the processed ceramic parts new.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 11-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited ceramic component further including a base zone comprising a first dielectric ceramic material; a protective zone on a first side of the base zone, wherein the protective zone comprises a second dielectric ceramic material, wherein the first dielectric ceramic material is different than the second dielectric ceramic material, and wherein the process facing surface is a surface of the protective zone; and a transition zone between the protective zone and base zone, wherein the transition zone comprises the first dielectric ceramic material and the second dielectric ceramic material.
The prior art does not teach motivation or suggestion for modification to make the invention as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 571-270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781