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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 18 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
In view of the specification as filed, “fluorinated yttrium oxide” is considered to require the presence of either an oxyfluoride or a fluoride of yttrium; presence of an oxide of yttrium per se (e.g. Y2O3) is not considered to be required by “fluorinated yttrium oxide”.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by U.S. 2018/0327899 A1 (“Wu”, previously cited during prosecution of 17/370,810).
Considering claims 1 and 2, Wu discloses an article comprising a body coated with a Y-O-F coating, the Y-O-F coating formed by subjecting a precursor YF3 coating to an oxidation process. (Wu abs, ¶¶ 0044 and 0164-0165; and Figs. 14 and 15). In particular, Wu discloses that an originally 5 µm thick layer of YF3 has its uppermost 500 nm converted into Y-O-F, wherein there is no distinct boundary between the predominantly YF3 lower region and predominantly Y-O-F upper region, as the transition between the regions is gradual. (Id. Fig. 15). Wu’s disclosure on the oxidation of upper section of an originally YF3 coating reads on claims 1 and 2.
Considering claims 3-6 and 11, Wu discloses that articles disclosed therein can be used as components used during semiconductor processing, in particular in plasma etching processes. Specific articles include etch chamber, chuck, plate, showerhead (which has holes), and nozzle (which has holes). (Id. ¶ 0050).
The following is an alternate rejection over Wu.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Wu.
Considering claim 1, Wu discloses an article comprising a body coated with a Y-O-F coating, the Y-O-F coating formed by subjecting a precursor metal oxide coating of Y2O3 to fluorination process to produce a surface layer of Y-O-F or YF3. (Wu ¶¶ 0046, 0092, and 0093). In particular, it is apparent from the foregoing sections of Wu that the fluorination does not have to traverse the entire thickness of a respective layer, and that the depth of conversion may be adjusted to be thin relative to the overall thickness of the original layer. As such, this would result in residual Y2O3 toward the substrate body and fluorinated portion (whether partially as Y-O-F or fully as YF3) toward the top. As shown in various material composition graphs, there is no distinct boundary between the predominantly Y2O3 lower region and the fluorinated F upper region, as the transition between the regions is gradual. (Id. Fig. 16B). Wu’s disclosure on the fluorination of upper section of an originally Y2O3 coating reads on claim 1.
Considering claims 3-6 and 11, Wu discloses that articles disclosed therein can be used as components used during semiconductor processing, in particular in plasma etching processes. Specific articles include etch chamber, chuck, plate, showerhead (which has holes), and nozzle (which has holes). (Id. ¶ 0050).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Wu, as applied in the first line of rejection of Wu.
Considering claim 10, Wu discloses that its oxidation process can convert an initially YF3 coating to one with 83.7 wt% Y-O-F and balance YF3. (Wu ¶ 0106). Furthermore, Wu discloses that the entirety of YF3 can be converted to Y-O-F. (Id. ¶ 0108). From the foregoing, entirely converted falls within the claimed range; and the range spanned by the disclosures at least overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. (See In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379; MPEP § 2144.05).
Wu anticipates or alternatively renders obvious claim 10.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Wu, as applied in the second line of rejection of Wu.
Considering claim 9, as discussed above, Wu discloses that the fluorination process can result in a YF3 layer. (Wu ¶ 0046). Furthermore, it is readily apparent that the progress fluorination decreases as a function of depth, with greatest extent of fluorination occurring near the surface. (Id. ¶ 0167). It can be readily concluded that in case of conversion to YF3 (one of only two extent of fluorination conversion), the same phenomenon of highest F concentration at the surface (outer portion of the coating) would also manifest.
This thus anticipates claim 9. Were this not deemed the case (not conceded), combination of the aforementioned sections of Wu would readily render obvious claim 9.
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 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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, as applied in the first line of rejection of Wu.
Considering claims 7 and 8, Wu discloses that its Y-O-F coating formed from oxidation of YF3 has a predominantly Y-O-F region having thickness of 10 nm to 500 nm and a predominantly YF3 region having thickness of 10 nm to 10 µm. (Wu clm. 10, 11, and 19). The sum overlaps the claimed range.
Concluding Remarks
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. 2020/0131619 A1, cited during the prosecution of 17/370,810, at least renders obvious claims 1 and 9.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zheren Jim Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-6604. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30 - 7:30 ET.
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, 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Z. Jim Yang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781