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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of the International Application PCT/JP2023/004708. A Notice of Acceptance of Application under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495 was mailed 21 May 2025.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application 2022-028736 filed in Japan on 26 February 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 18 July 2024 and 9 April 2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The original drawings received on 18 July 2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 10, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: minor typographical errors.
Claim 5 recites in line 2, “the structure consisting of Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO)”, the claim should read “the structure consists of Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO)”.
Claim 10 recites in lines 1-2, “the structure consisting of Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO)”, the claim should read “the structure consists of Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO)”.
Claim 11 recites in lines 1-2, “the structure consisting of Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO)”, the claim should read “the structure consists of Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or second paragraph
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 1-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “A composite structure comprising: a base material; a structure provided on the base material and has a surface, wherein the structure comprises Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO) as a main component, and a Y2O3 content of the YZrO is in the range from 20 mol% or more to 40 mol% or less.” The claim uses the term “structure” twice to refer to different parts, the overall product of the “composite structure” and a “structure “ which is part of the “composite structure” that is provided on the base material of the “composite structure”. It is not clear in claim 1 and claims that depend from claim 1, when the term “the structure” is later recited which “structure” is being referred to. This renders the claim indefinite. Additionally, in claim 1, line 2 it is not clear if the limitation “and has a surface” refers to the base material or the structure provided on the base material. The claim as a whole would be clearer if amended similar to the following: “A composite comprising: a base material; and a structure provided on the base material and having a surface, wherein the structure comprises a Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO) as a main component, and a Y2O3 content of the YZrO is in the range from 20 mol% to 40 mol%.”
Claim 3 is rejected as indefinite since it is not clear if “the structure” in line 2 refers to the “composite structure” or “a structure provided on the base material” as recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected as indefinite since it is not clear if “the structure” in line 2 refers to the “composite structure” or “a structure provided on the base material” as recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the surface roughness" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that claim 4 should depend from claim 3.
Claim 5 is rejected as indefinite since it is not clear if “the structure” in line 2 refers to the “composite structure” or “a structure provided on the base material” as recited in claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected as indefinite since it is not clear if “the structure” in line 2 refers to the “composite structure” or “a structure provided on the base material” as recited in claim 1.
Claim 7 provides for “the composite structure according to claim 1 used in an environment requiring low-particle generation”, but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what or if a method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. It is not clear how the intended use of the composite structure being used in an environment requiring low-particle generation limits the composite structure.
Claim 8 provides for “the composite structure according to claim 7 that is a member for a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus”, but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what or if a method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. It is not clear how the intended use of the composite structure being used as a member for a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus limits the composite structure.
Claim 10 is rejected as indefinite since it is not clear if “the structure” in line 1 refers to the “composite structure” or “a structure provided on the base material” as recited in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “the composite structure according to claim 2, wherein the structure consisting of Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO)” is confusing, which renders the claim indefinite. The claim would be clearer if amended to read: “The composite structure according to claim 5, wherein the Y2O3 content is in the range from 30 mol% or more to 40 mol% or less.”
Claim 11 is rejected as indefinite since it is not clear if “the structure” in line 1 refers to the “composite structure” or “a structure provided on the base material” as recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “the composite structure according to claim 3, wherein the structure consisting of Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO)” is confusing, which renders the claim indefinite. The claim would be clearer if amended to read: “The composite structure according to claim 5, wherein after Standard Plasma Test 1, a surface roughness Sa (determined according to ISO 25178) of the structure is less than 0.05 µm.”
Claim 12 provides for “the composite structure according to claim 2 used in an environment requiring low-particle generation”, but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what or if a method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. It is not clear how the intended use of the composite structure being used in an environment requiring low-particle generation limits the composite structure.
Claim 13 provides for “the composite structure according to claim 12 that is a member for a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus”, but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what or if a method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. It is not clear how the intended use of the composite structure being used as a member for a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus limits the composite structure.
Claim 14 provides for “the composite structure according to claim 3 used in an environment requiring low-particle generation”, but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what or if a method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. It is not clear how the intended use of the composite structure being used in an environment requiring low-particle generation limits the composite structure.
Claim 15 provides for “the composite structure according to claim 14 that is a member for a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus”, but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what or if a method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. It is not clear how the intended use of the composite structure being used as a member for a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus limits the composite structure.
Claims 2, 9, 16, and 17 are rejected as indefinite for depending either directly or indirectly from a claim rejected as indefinite without coring the issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-5 and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lubomirsky et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2020/0185203 A1.
Lubomirsky et al. disclose a ground shield for a processing chamber that is resistant to corrosion and/or erosion which can be caused by a plasma environment in semiconductor industry. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0001]-[0003]. Lubomirsky et al. disclose that the ground shield comprises a disc-shaped ceramic body and further comprises at least an electrically conductive layer and also at least a first protective layer. See paragraph [0004]. Lubomirsky et al. disclose that the protective layer maybe resistant to oxidation as well as erosion and/or corrosion from plasma and/or corrosive chemistry (fluorine-rich and/or chlorine-rich environment). See paragraph [0026]. Lubomirsky et al. disclose that the protective coating comprises a solid solution of Y2O3-ZrO2 and the solid solution of Y2O3-ZrO2 includes a content of Y2O3 of 10-90 mol% and a ZrO2 content of 10-90 mol%, specifically 20-30 mol% of Y2O3 and 70-80 mol% of ZrO2 or 30-40 mol% of Y2O3 and 60-70 mol% of ZrO2. See paragraphs [0045]-[0048]. Lubomirsky et al. disclose that the protective layer may be deposited by traditional atmospheric plasma spray, LPPS, VPS, screen printing, wet chemical deposition such as sol gel, PVD, CVD, aerosol deposition, evaporation, PECVD, IAD, ion plating, immersion coating, sputtering, thermal spraying, hot isostatic pressing, cold isostatic pressing, lamination, compression molding, casting, compacting, screen printing, sintering or co-sintering techniques. See paragraph [0066]. Lubomirsky et al. disclose that the first protective layer may be polished by a grinder or chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) machine to have an average roughness of less than 0.10 microns or less. See paragraph [0068].
Specifically, as to claim 1, Lubomirsky et al. disclose a ground shield for a processing chamber that is resistant to corrosion and/or erosion which can be caused by a plasma environment in semiconductor industry (see paragraphs [0001]-[0003]), Lubomirsky et al. disclose that the ground shield comprises a disc-shaped ceramic body and further comprises at least an electrically conductive layer and also at least a first protective layer (see paragraph [0004]), Lubomirsky et al. further disclose that the protective coating comprises a solid solution of Y2O3-ZrO2 and the solid solution of Y2O3-ZrO2 includes a content of Y2O3 of 10-90 mol% and a ZrO2 content of 10-90 mol%, specifically 20-30 mol% of Y2O3 and 70-80 mol% of ZrO2 or 30-40 mol% of Y2O3 and 60-70 mol% of ZrO2 (see paragraphs [0045]-[0048]), which reads on a composite structure comprising: a base material; and a structure provided on the base material and has a surface, wherein the structure comprises Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO) as a main component, and a Y2O3 content of the YZrO is in the range from 20 mol% or more to 40 mol% or less, as recited in instant claim 1.
As to claim 2, Lubomirsky et al. further disclose that the protective coating comprises a solid solution of Y2O3-ZrO2 and the solid solution of Y2O3-ZrO2 includes a content of Y2O3 of 10-90 mol% and a ZrO2 content of 10-90 mol%, specifically 20-30 mol% of Y2O3 and 70-80 mol% of ZrO2 or 30-40 mol% of Y2O3 and 60-70 mol% of ZrO2 (see paragraphs [0045]-[0048]), which reads on the Y203 content is in the range from 30 mol % or more to 40 mol % or less, as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 3, Lubomirsky et al. disclose that the first protective layer may be polished by a grinder or chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) machine to have an average roughness of less than 0.10 microns or less (see paragraph [0068]), which reads on after Standard Plasma Test 1, a surface roughness Sa (determined according to ISO 25178) of the structure is less than 0.05 µm, as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 4, Lubomirsky et al. disclose that the first protective layer may be polished by a grinder or chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) machine to have an average roughness of less than 0.10 microns or less (see paragraph [0068]), which reads on wherein after Standard Plasma Test 1, a surface roughness Sa (determined according to ISO 25178) of the structure is less than 0.03 µm, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claim 5, Lubomirsky et al. further disclose that the protective coating comprises a solid solution of Y2O3-ZrO2 and the solid solution of Y2O3-ZrO2 includes a content of Y2O3 of 10-90 mol% and a ZrO2 content of 10-90 mol%, specifically 20-30 mol% of Y2O3 and 70-80 mol% of ZrO2 or 30-40 mol% of Y2O3 and 60-70 mol% of ZrO2 (see paragraphs [0045]-[0048]), which reads on the structure consisting of Y2O3 -ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO), as recited in instant claim 5.
As to claim 7, Lubomirsky et al. disclose a ground shield for a processing chamber that is resistant to corrosion and/or erosion which can be caused by a plasma environment in semiconductor industry (see paragraphs [0001]-[0003]), Lubomirsky et al. disclose that the ground shield comprises a disc-shaped ceramic body and further comprises at least an electrically conductive layer and also at least a first protective layer (see paragraph [0004]), which reads on a composite structure used in an environment requiring low-particle generation, as recited in instant claim 7.
As to claim 8, Lubomirsky et al. disclose a ground shield for a processing chamber that is resistant to corrosion and/or erosion which can be caused by a plasma environment in semiconductor industry (see paragraphs [0001]-[0003]), Lubomirsky et al. disclose that the ground shield comprises a disc-shaped ceramic body and further comprises at least an electrically conductive layer and also at least a first protective layer (see paragraph [0004]), which reads on a member for a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, as recited in instant claim 8.
As to claim 9, Lubomirsky et al. disclose a ground shield for a processing chamber that is resistant to corrosion and/or erosion which can be caused by a plasma environment in semiconductor industry (see paragraphs [0001]-[0003]), which reads on a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprising the composite structure, as recited in instant claim 9.
As to claim 10, Lubomirsky et al. further disclose that the protective coating comprises a solid solution of Y2O3-ZrO2 and the solid solution of Y2O3-ZrO2 includes a content of Y2O3 of 10-90 mol% and a ZrO2 content of 10-90 mol%, specifically 20-30 mol% of Y2O3 and 70-80 mol% of ZrO2 or 30-40 mol% of Y2O3 and 60-70 mol% of ZrO2 (see paragraphs [0045]-[0048]), which reads on the structure consisting of Y2O3 -ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO), as recited in instant claim 10.
As to claim 11, Lubomirsky et al. further disclose that the protective coating comprises a solid solution of Y2O3-ZrO2 and the solid solution of Y2O3-ZrO2 includes a content of Y2O3 of 10-90 mol% and a ZrO2 content of 10-90 mol%, specifically 20-30 mol% of Y2O3 and 70-80 mol% of ZrO2 or 30-40 mol% of Y2O3 and 60-70 mol% of ZrO2 (see paragraphs [0045]-[0048]), which reads on the structure consisting of Y2O3 -ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO), as recited in instant claim 11.
As to claim 12, Lubomirsky et al. disclose a ground shield for a processing chamber that is resistant to corrosion and/or erosion which can be caused by a plasma environment in semiconductor industry (see paragraphs [0001]-[0003]), Lubomirsky et al. disclose that the ground shield comprises a disc-shaped ceramic body and further comprises at least an electrically conductive layer and also at least a first protective layer (see paragraph [0004]), which reads on a composite structure used in an environment requiring low-particle generation, as recited in instant claim 12.
As to claim 13, Lubomirsky et al. disclose a ground shield for a processing chamber that is resistant to corrosion and/or erosion which can be caused by a plasma environment in semiconductor industry (see paragraphs [0001]-[0003]), Lubomirsky et al. disclose that the ground shield comprises a disc-shaped ceramic body and further comprises at least an electrically conductive layer and also at least a first protective layer (see paragraph [0004]), which reads on a member for a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, as recited in instant claim 13.
As to claim 14, Lubomirsky et al. disclose a ground shield for a processing chamber that is resistant to corrosion and/or erosion which can be caused by a plasma environment in semiconductor industry (see paragraphs [0001]-[0003]), Lubomirsky et al. disclose that the ground shield comprises a disc-shaped ceramic body and further comprises at least an electrically conductive layer and also at least a first protective layer (see paragraph [0004]), which reads on a composite structure used in an environment requiring low-particle generation, as recited in instant claim 14.
As to claim 15, Lubomirsky et al. disclose a ground shield for a processing chamber that is resistant to corrosion and/or erosion which can be caused by a plasma environment in semiconductor industry (see paragraphs [0001]-[0003]), Lubomirsky et al. disclose that the ground shield comprises a disc-shaped ceramic body and further comprises at least an electrically conductive layer and also at least a first protective layer (see paragraph [0004]), which reads on a member for a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, as recited in instant claim 15.
As to claim 16, Lubomirsky et al. disclose a ground shield for a processing chamber that is resistant to corrosion and/or erosion which can be caused by a plasma environment in semiconductor industry (see paragraphs [0001]-[0003]), which reads on a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprising the composite structure, as recited in instant claim 16.
As to claim 17, Lubomirsky et al. disclose a ground shield for a processing chamber that is resistant to corrosion and/or erosion which can be caused by a plasma environment in semiconductor industry (see paragraphs [0001]-[0003]), which reads on a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprising the composite structure, as recited in instant claim 17.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2020/0185203 A1 in view of Mokrushin et al., Microstructure, phase composition, and gas-sensing properties of nanostructured ZrO2-xY2O3 thin films and powders obtained by the sol-gel method.
Lubomirsky et al. disclose a ground shield for a processing chamber that is resistant to corrosion and/or erosion which can be caused by a plasma environment in semiconductor industry. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0001]-[0003]. Lubomirsky et al. disclose that the ground shield comprises a disc-shaped ceramic body and further comprises at least an electrically conductive layer and also at least a first protective layer. See paragraph [0004]. Lubomirsky et al. disclose that the protective layer maybe resistant to oxidation as well as erosion and/or corrosion from plasma and/or corrosive chemistry (fluorine-rich and/or chlorine-rich environment). See paragraph [0026]. Lubomirsky et al. disclose that the protective coating comprises a solid solution of Y2O3-ZrO2 and the solid solution of Y2O3-ZrO2 includes a content of Y2O3 of 10-90 mol% and a ZrO2 content of 10-90 mol%, specifically 20-30 mol% of Y2O3 and 70-80 mol% of ZrO2 or 30-40 mol% of Y2O3 and 60-70 mol% of ZrO2. See paragraphs [0045]-[0048]. Lubomirsky et al. disclose that the protective layer may be deposited by traditional atmospheric plasma spray, LPPS, VPS, screen printing, wet chemical deposition such as sol gel, PVD, CVD, aerosol deposition, evaporation, PECVD, IAD, ion plating, immersion coating, sputtering, thermal spraying, hot isostatic pressing, cold isostatic pressing, lamination, compression molding, casting, compacting, screen printing, sintering or co-sintering techniques. See paragraph [0066]. Lubomirsky et al. disclose that the first protective layer may be polished by a grinder or chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) machine to have an average roughness of less than 0.10 microns or less. See paragraph [0068].
Lubomirsky et al. fail to teach that the structure has an average crystallite size of less than 50 nm as recited in claim 6.
Mokrushin et al. teach a similar ZrO2-x Y2O3 thin films and powders obtained by the sol-gel method. See Abstract and the entire article. Mokrushin et al. teach that the nanostructured ZrO2-x Y2O3 (YSZ) thin films and powders are used in solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC), as gate insulators, memristor components, and thermal barrier coating. See Introduction on page 1259. Mokrushin et al. teach that the nano-structured YSZ can be made by sol-gel synthesis with the formula ZrO2–xY2O3 where x = 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 33, 40, and 50 mol%. See the last two paragraphs on page 1260. Mokrushin et al. teach that as the Y2O3 content increases the average crystallite size decreased from 52 nm to 6 nm. See the second paragraph of column 2 of page 1262 and Table 1 and 2. Mokrushin et al. teach that when the YSZ has 5-50 mol% of Y2O3 it showed a small sensitivity to small oxygen concentration and 33-50 mol% of Y2O3 showed small sensitivity to hydrogen. See Gas-sensing properties of thin films section on page 1264.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution of Lubomirsky et al. as suggested by Mokrushin et al. because the resultant YSZ crystallites made by the sol-gel process of Mokrushin et al. would have an average crystallite size of 6-52 nm, which reads on an average crystallite size of the structure being less than 50 nm, as recited in instant claim 6.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 11, 12, 14-18, 20, and 21 of copending Application No. 18/730,081 (Notice of Allowance mailed 12 August 2026). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compositional ranges overlap. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Specifically, as to claim 1, the combination of claims 1 and 7 of 18/730,081 (1. A composite structure comprising: a base material; and a structure provided on the base material and has a surface, wherein the structure comprises Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO) as a main component, and lattice constant of the YZrO is 5.252 Å or greater, and an average crystallite size of the structure is less than 50 nm, and 7. The composite structure according to claim 1, wherein the Y2O3 content is in the range from 20 mol % or more to 40 mol % or less.), read on a composite structure comprising: a base material; and a structure provided on the base material and has a surface, wherein the structure comprises Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO) as a main component, and a Y2O3 content of the YZrO is in the range from 20 mol% or more to 40 mol% or less, as recited in instant claim 1.
As to claim 2, the combination of claims 1 and 7 of 18/730,081 (1. A composite structure comprising: a base material; and a structure provided on the base material and has a surface, wherein the structure comprises Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO) as a main component, and lattice constant of the YZrO is 5.252 Å or greater, and an average crystallite size of the structure is less than 50 nm, and 7. The composite structure according to claim 1, wherein the Y2O3 content is in the range from 20 mol % or more to 40 mol % or less.), read on the composite structure according to claim 1, wherein the Y2O3 content is in the range from 30 mol % or more to 40 mol % or less, as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 3, the combination of claims 1, 5, and 7 of 18/730,081 (1. A composite structure comprising: a base material; and a structure provided on the base material and has a surface, wherein the structure comprises Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO) as a main component, and lattice constant of the YZrO is 5.252 Å or greater, and an average crystallite size of the structure is less than 50 nm, 5. The composite structure according to claim 1, wherein after Standard Plasma Test 1, a surface roughness Sa (determined according to ISO 25178) of the structure is less than 0.05 µm, and 7. The composite structure according to claim 1, wherein the Y2O3 content is in the range from 20 mol % or more to 40 mol % or less.), read on the composite structure according to claim 1, wherein after Standard Plasma Test 1, a surface roughness Sa (determined according to ISO 25178) of the structure is less than 0.05 µm, as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 4, the combination of claims 1, 6, and 7 of 18/730,081 (1. A composite structure comprising: a base material; and a structure provided on the base material and has a surface, wherein the structure comprises Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO) as a main component, and lattice constant of the YZrO is 5.252 Å or greater, and an average crystallite size of the structure is less than 50 nm, 6. The composite structure according to claim 5, wherein after Standard Plasma Test 1, the surface roughness Sa (determined according to ISO 25178) of the structure is less than 0.03 µm, and 7. The composite structure according to claim 1, wherein the Y2O3 content is in the range from 20 mol % or more to 40 mol % or less.), read on the composite structure according to claim 1, wherein after Standard Plasma Test 1, a surface roughness Sa (determined according to ISO 25178) of the structure is less than 0.03 µm, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claims 5, 10, and 11, the combination of claims 1, 7, and 9 of 18/730,081 (1. A composite structure comprising: a base material; and a structure provided on the base material and has a surface, wherein the structure comprises Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO) as a main component, and lattice constant of the YZrO is 5.252 Å or greater, and an average crystallite size of the structure is less than 50 nm, 7. The composite structure according to claim 1, wherein the Y2O3 content is in the range from 20 mol % or more to 40 mol % or less, and 9. The composite structure according to claim 1, wherein the structure consisting of Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO)), read on the composite structure according to claim 1, wherein the structure consisting of Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO), as recited in instant claims 5, 10, and 11.
As to claim 6, the combination of claims 1 and 7 of 18/730,081 (1. A composite structure comprising: a base material; and a structure provided on the base material and has a surface, wherein the structure comprises Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO) as a main component, and lattice constant of the YZrO is 5.252 Å or greater, and an average crystallite size of the structure is less than 50 nm, and 7. The composite structure according to claim 1, wherein the Y2O3 content is in the range from 20 mol % or more to 40 mol % or less.), read on the composite structure according to claim 1, wherein an average crystallite size of the structure is less than 50 nm, as recited in instant claim 6.
As to claims 7, 12, and 14, the combination of claims 1, 7, and 11 of 18/730,081 (1. A composite structure comprising: a base material; and a structure provided on the base material and has a surface, wherein the structure comprises Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO) as a main component, and lattice constant of the YZrO is 5.252 Å or greater, and an average crystallite size of the structure is less than 50 nm, 7. The composite structure according to claim 1, wherein the Y2O3 content is in the range from 20 mol % or more to 40 mol % or less, and 11. The composite structure according to claim 1 used in an environment requiring low-particle generation), read on the composite structure according to claim 1 used in an environment requiring low-particle generation, as recited in instant claims 7, 12, and 14.
As to claims 8, 13, and 15, the combination of claims 1, 7, and 12 of 18/730,081 (1. A composite structure comprising: a base material; and a structure provided on the base material and has a surface, wherein the structure comprises Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO) as a main component, and lattice constant of the YZrO is 5.252 Å or greater, and an average crystallite size of the structure is less than 50 nm, 7. The composite structure according to claim 1, wherein the Y2O3 content is in the range from 20 mol % or more to 40 mol % or less, and 12. The composite structure according to claim 11 that is a member for a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus), read on the composite structure according to claim 7 that is a member for a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, as recited in instant claims 8, 13, and 15.
As to claims 9, 16, and 17, the combination of claims 1, 7, and 12 of 18/730,081 (1. A composite structure comprising: a base material; and a structure provided on the base material and has a surface, wherein the structure comprises Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution (YZrO) as a main component, and lattice constant of the YZrO is 5.252 Å or greater, and an average crystallite size of the structure is less than 50 nm, 7. The composite structure according to claim 1, wherein the Y2O3 content is in the range from 20 mol % or more to 40 mol % or less, and 12. The composite structure according to claim 11 that is a member for a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus), read on the composite structure according to claim 7 that is a member for a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, as recited in instant claims 8, 16, and 17.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The additional references cited on the 892 have been cited as art of interest since they are considered to be cumulative to or less than the art relied upon in the rejections above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A. Bolden whose telephone number is (571)272-1363. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 6:30 pm M-F.
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, Amber R. Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/Elizabeth A. Bolden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
EAB
22 August 2026
Prosecution Insights