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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 11-12, 14-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duan in US20220041508.
Regarding Claim 1: Duan teaches ceramic compositions formed from a sintered powder containing 40-80 wt% Al2O3, 10-50 wt% MgO, and 2-30 wt% SiO2 (See Paragraph 26), which may have a coating (See Paragraph 57). The coating of Duan may include rare earth metal containing compounds such as yttrium oxide, fluoride, oxyfluoride or complex oxides. The coating may further comprise materials such as erbium, dysprosium, or scandium compounds such as ScF3. In the composition of Duan, Al2O3 is a group 13 metal based compound (See Paragraph 26), MgO is an alkaline earth metal based compound (See Paragraph 26), any of the yttrium, erbium, dysprosium, or scandium compounds may be considered a rare earth metal based compound. Any additional components may be considered to be a ‘coefficient of thermal expansion modifying compound’ as every material intrinsically has a CTE and thus provides for the claimed modification (thus SiO2 may be considered to meet the CTE modifying compound as claimed). Duan thus teaches a ceramic composition comprising all of the same components as those claimed.
Regarding Claim 2: Duan teaches the use of Al2O3 as a Group 13 metal based compound (See Paragraph 26).
Regarding Claim 3: Duan teaches that the sintered powder may have a CTE from 4.2 to 5.1 ppm/C (See Table 2). As is discussed above, Duan teaches that rare-earth compounds may be included as a coating. Duan teaches that when the ceramic comprises a layered structure, the CTE mismatch is minimized to prevent delamination and all CTE are within 10% of one another (See Paragraph 45). Those of ordinary skill in the art would thus expect the modified CTE of the ceramic composition of Duan to be within 10% of 4.2 to 5.1 ppm, which falls squarely within the range claimed.
Regarding Claim 5-6: Duan teaches that the alkaline earth metal based compound is magnesium oxide, MgO (See Paragraph 26).
Regarding Claim 11: : Duan teaches ceramic compositions formed from a sintered powder containing 40-80 wt% Al2O3, 10-50 wt% MgO, and 2-30 wt% SiO2 (See Paragraph 26), which may have a coating (See Paragraph 57). The coating of Duan may include rare earth metal containing compounds such as yttrium oxide, fluoride, oxyfluoride or complex oxides. The coating may further comprise materials such as erbium, dysprosium, or scandium compounds such as ScF3. In the composition of Duan, Al2O3 is a group 13 metal based compound (See Paragraph 26), MgO is an alkaline earth metal based compound (See Paragraph 26), any of the yttrium, erbium, dysprosium, or scandium compounds may be considered a rare earth metal based compound. Any additional components may be considered to be a ‘coefficient of thermal expansion modifying compound’ as every material intrinsically has a CTE and thus provides for the claimed modification (thus SiO2 may be considered to meet the CTE modifying compound as claimed). Duan thus teaches a ceramic composition comprising all of the same components as those claimed. Duan teaches that the ceramic composition may be used as a plasma chamber component, such as a nozzle, lid, or shield (See Paragraph 2 and 8). The ceramic composition makes up the outer surface of the plasma chamber components, as they are provided as a protective coating thereon (See Paragraph 24).
Regarding Claim 12: Duan teaches the use of Al2O3 as a Group 13 metal based compound (See Paragraph 26).
Regarding Claim 14-15: Duan teaches that the alkaline earth metal based compound is magnesium oxide, MgO (See Paragraph 26).
Regarding Claim 20: Duan teaches that the component may be a nozzle (See Paragraph 8).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 7-10, 13, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan in US20220041508.
Duan teaches ceramic compositions formed from a sintered powder containing 40-80 wt% Al2O3, 10-50 wt% MgO, and 2-30 wt% SiO2 (See Paragraph 26), which may have a coating (See Paragraph 57). The coating of Duan may include rare earth metal containing compounds such as yttrium oxide, fluoride, oxyfluoride or complex oxides. The coating may further comprise materials such as erbium, dysprosium, or scandium compounds such as ScF3. In the composition of Duan, Al2O3 is a group 13 metal based compound (See Paragraph 26), MgO is an alkaline earth metal based compound (See Paragraph 26), any of the yttrium, erbium, dysprosium, or scandium compounds may be considered a rare earth metal based compound. Any additional components may be considered to be a ‘coefficient of thermal expansion modifying compound’ as every material intrinsically has a CTE and thus provides for the claimed modification to CTE (thus SiO2 may be considered to meet the CTE modifying compound as claimed). Alternatively, the use of one or more of the rare earth compounds as set forth in paragraph 57 would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art. For example, the use of a first rare earth compound, such as Y2O3 in combination with a second compound such as ScF3 would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Duan. In such a combination, one of the rare earth compounds may considered to be a CTE modifying component and the other a rare-earth compound. Duan thus teaches a ceramic composition comprising all of the same components as those claimed.
Regarding Claim 4, 7, 10, : Duan teaches that the ceramic may comprise from 40-80 wt% Al2O3, 10-50 wt% MgO, and 2-30 wt% SiO2. When converted to mol% the composition may contain 21.7-65.3 mol% Al2O3, 18.69-71.27 mol% MgO, and 1.90-37.3 mol% SiO2. A table showing these conversions at the endpoints to determine mol percentage ranges is set forth below:
MW
mol% Ex 1
mol% Ex 2
mol% Ex 3
mol% Ex 4
mol% Ex 5
mol% Ex 6
wt% Ex 1
wt% Ex 2
wt% Ex 3
wt% Ex 4
wt% Ex 5
wt% Ex 6
SiO2
60
1.90
2.63
30.41
37.32
13.86
9.20
2.00
2.00
30.00
30.00
10.00
10.00
Al2O3
102
26.83
61.87
23.89
43.98
65.32
21.68
48.00
80.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
40.00
MgO
40
71.27
35.50
45.70
18.69
20.82
69.12
50.00
18.00
30.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
Duan also shows the use of certain weight ratios in Table 1. Example 1 is 60 wt% Al2O3, 30 wt% MgO, and 10 wt% SiO2, which converts to 39 mol% Al2O3, 50 mol% MgO and 11 mol% SiO2. Example 2 is 65 wt% Al2O3, 20 wt% MgO, and 15 wt% SiO2, which converts to 46 mol% Al2O3, 36 mol% MgO and 18 mol% SiO2. Duan thus teaches compositions having an overlapping contents of Al2O3, MgO and SiO2 (wherein SiO2 may be the CTE modifying compound as claimed). It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to select from the overlapping range of compositions as taught by Duan and apply the coatings to said materials as is taught at paragraph 57. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 8-9: As is set forth above, Duan teaches that the ceramic may include a coating that includes one or more of yttrium , erbium, lanthanum, lutetium, scandium, gadolinium, samarium or dysprosium containing compounds. Duan teaches that these compounds may include ScF3 or YF3. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to choose a first and second rare-earth containing compound comprising either ScF3 or YF3. Such a selection would provide a first rare earth containing compound as claimed and additionally a CTE modifying compound, such as ScF3 or YF3. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine any of the rare earth components as set forth in order to make such a coating. “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose” (See MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding Claim 13, 16, and 19: Duan teaches a ceramic composition as is set forth and discussed above. This ceramic composition comprises all of the claimed elements including a group 13 metal based compound, an alkaline earth metal based compound, a rare earth based compound, and a CTE compound (See Section above in 103). Duan teaches that the ceramic composition may be used as a plasma chamber component, such as a nozzle, lid, or shield (See Paragraph 2 and 8). The ceramic composition makes up the outer surface of the plasma chamber components, as they are provided as a protective coating thereon (See Paragraph 24).
Duan teaches that the ceramic may comprise from 40-80 wt% Al2O3, 10-50 wt% MgO, and 2-30 wt% SiO2. When converted to mol% the composition may contain 21.7-65.3 mol% Al2O3, 18.69-71.27 mol% MgO, and 1.90-37.3 mol% SiO2. A table showing these conversions at the endpoints to determine mol percentage ranges is set forth below:
MW
mol% Ex 1
mol% Ex 2
mol% Ex 3
mol% Ex 4
mol% Ex 5
mol% Ex 6
wt% Ex 1
wt% Ex 2
wt% Ex 3
wt% Ex 4
wt% Ex 5
wt% Ex 6
SiO2
60
1.90
2.63
30.41
37.32
13.86
9.20
2.00
2.00
30.00
30.00
10.00
10.00
Al2O3
102
26.83
61.87
23.89
43.98
65.32
21.68
48.00
80.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
40.00
MgO
40
71.27
35.50
45.70
18.69
20.82
69.12
50.00
18.00
30.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
Duan also shows the use of certain weight ratios in Table 1. Example 1 is 60 wt% Al2O3, 30 wt% MgO, and 10 wt% SiO2, which converts to 39 mol% Al2O3, 50 mol% MgO and 11 mol% SiO2. Example 2 is 65 wt% Al2O3, 20 wt% MgO, and 15 wt% SiO2, which converts to 46 mol% Al2O3, 36 mol% MgO and 18 mol% SiO2. Duan thus teaches compositions and components having an overlapping contents of Al2O3, MgO and SiO2 (wherein SiO2 may be the CTE modifying compound as claimed). It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to select from the overlapping range of compositions as taught by Duan and apply the coatings to said materials as is taught at paragraph 57. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 17-18: Duan teaches a ceramic composition as is set forth and discussed above. This ceramic composition comprises all of the claimed elements including a group 13 metal based compound, an alkaline earth metal based compound, a rare earth based compound, and a CTE compound (See Section above in 103). Duan teaches that the ceramic composition may be used as a plasma chamber component, such as a nozzle, lid, or shield (See Paragraph 2 and 8). The ceramic composition makes up the outer surface of the plasma chamber components, as they are provided as a protective coating thereon (See Paragraph 24).
As is set forth above, Duan teaches that the ceramic may include a coating that includes one or more of yttrium , erbium, lanthanum, lutetium, scandium, gadolinium, samarium or dysprosium containing compounds. Duan teaches that these compounds may include ScF3 or YF3. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to choose a first and second rare-earth containing compound comprising either ScF3 or YF3. Such a selection would provide a first rare earth containing compound as claimed and additionally a CTE modifying compound, such as ScF3 or YF3. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine any of the rare earth components as set forth in order to make such a coating. “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose” (See MPEP 2144.06).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
