DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 12/2/2025.
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. 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12), Set A(a), and Set B(i) in the reply filed on 12/2/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant asserts claims 1-5, 7, and 10-12 read on the elected Group and Species, and the Examiner agrees.
The Applicant has withdrawn claims 6, 8-9, and 13-20 as part of the reply, thus no further action is required by the Examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 6, 8-9, and 13-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 10-12 have been examined herein on the merits (claims 1 and 10 independent).
Claim Interpretation
For clarity of the record, the Examiner notes the conformal protective layer of the examined claims is constrained to be a partially crystalline Al2O3 material deposited by a cyclical ALD process in accordance with Applicant’s election.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that the definition of “partially crystalline” is construed in light of the disclosure to mean “a mixture of crystalline regions and non-crystalline regions (e.g., amorphous regions)” – see par. [0052] of the instant PG-Pub.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5 and 7 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation: “the interior of a reaction chamber” lacks proper antecedent basis. The Examiner respectfully submits a PHOSITA would recognize that reaction chambers routinely comprise a plurality of interior spaces such that the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. In the interest of compact and expedited prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim as reading: “an interior”.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 7, the claims are rejected at least based upon their dependencies.
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 1-4, 7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hendrix (US Pub. 2018/0044800).
Regarding claim 1, Hendrix teaches a protected metallic component for use within a wetted region of the interior of a reaction chamber ([0099]-[0100]), the protected metallic component comprising: a metallic core fabricated from stainless steel ([0003] for possible materials; [0130] identifying stainless steel as a primary focus), the metallic core including a non-planar surface ([0228]: contemplates coating material with surface roughness- this would necessarily have peaks and valleys so as to be considered “non-planar”); and a conformal protective layer disposed directly on the non-planar surface ([0129]: conformal coating; [0130]: comprising alumina), the conformal protective layer having an average layer thickness between 20 nm and 300 nm ([0111]: 5 nm to 5 microns) and a step-coverage over the non-planar surface greater than 90% ([0217]: complete coverage, i.e. 100%).
Regarding claim 2, Hendrix teaches wherein the conformal protective layer comprises a material selected from a group consisting of metal oxides ([0130]: comprising alumina).
Regarding claim 3, Hendrix teaches wherein the conformal protective layer comprises a metal oxide selected from a group consisting of aluminum oxides ([0130]: comprising alumina).
Regarding claim 4, Hendrix teaches wherein the conformal protective layer has a partially crystalline structure ([0129]: are amorphous; see Claim Interpretation for the applied interpretation).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the conformal protective layer comprises a metal oxide selected from a group consisting of aluminum oxides ([0130]: comprising alumina).
Regarding claim 10, Hendrix teaches a deposition apparatus including: a reaction chamber (Fig. 1, [0095]); a protected metallic component disposed within the reaction chamber ([0099]-[0100]), the protected metallic component comprising: a metallic core fabricated from stainless steel ([0003] for possible materials; [0130] identifying stainless steel as a primary focus), the metallic core including a non-planar surface ([0228]: contemplates coating material with surface roughness- this would necessarily have peaks and valleys so as to be considered “non-planar”); and a conformal protective layer disposed directly on the non-planar surface ([0129]: conformal coating; [0130]: comprising alumina), the conformal protective layer having an average layer thickness between 20 nm and 300 nm ([0111]: 5 nm to 5 microns) and a step-coverage over the non-planar surface greater than 90% ([0217]: complete coverage, i.e. 100%).
Regarding claim 11, Hendrix teaches wherein the conformal protective layer has a partially crystalline structure ([0129]: are amorphous; see Claim Interpretation for the applied interpretation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of 35 U.S.C. 102 not included in this section can be found in the previous section.
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.
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.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hendrix (US Pub. 2018/0044800), as applied to claims 1-4, 7, and 10-11 above, with Lin (US Pub. 2019/0185997) as an evidentiary reference
or, in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hendrix (US Pub. 2018/0044800), as applied to claims 1-4, 7, and 10-11 above, in view of Lin (US Pub. 2019/0185997).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 7, and 10-11 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Hendrix teaches wherein the conformal protective layer is an aluminum oxide layer ([0130]: comprising alumina). having a density greater 3 g/cm3.
Hendrix does not explicitly disclose a specific density of the conformal protective alumina layer.
However, the density of the alumina coating of Hendrix is regarded as an inherent property of the material which would necessarily have a density in the claimed range despite not being explicitly recited. The Examiner submits Lin as an evidentiary reference that ALD-applied alumina coatings have a density range of 3-4 g/cm3 (Lin – [0026]).
Alternatively, Lin teaches wherein ALD-applied alumina coatings have a density range of 3-4 g/cm3 (Lin – [0026]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to form a conformal protective alumina layer with a density greater than 3 g/cm3 as Lin teaches a range that overlaps the claimed range (Lin – [0026]). The courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.sd 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin (US Pub. 2003/0185965) teaches coatings for chamber components with texture (Abstract). Kohara (US Pub. 2005/0276990) teaches processes for alumina coatings with different crystal structures (Abstract). Xu (US Pub. 2009/0155559) teaches nanolayered coating methods (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights