DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 6/30/2025.
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-26 are pending.
Claims 3 and 7 are cancelled.
Claims 6, 8-9, and 13-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 21-26 are new.
Claims 1, 4-5, 10, and 12 are currently amended.
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.
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.
The Examiner construes the “parasitic layer of hafnium oxide” of amended claims 1 and 10 as not structurally limiting. Par [0008] (Id.) describes where the metallic component comprises a protective metal oxide layer. The hafnium oxide layer is described as a byproduct of the component being used in an apparatus for a separate hafnium oxide deposition process. In accordance, the disclosure does not support where the hafnium oxide layer is part of the claimed component.
As such, if the prior art discloses the aluminum oxide “sacrificial layer” with the same properties as the claimed aluminum oxide layer, it is regarded as meeting the limitations of the claim even if the prior art does not disclose a hafnium oxide “parasitic layer”.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the hafnium oxide layer only constrains the claim to the extent that the prior art “component” would be capable of being used in an apparatus that could produce a hafnium oxide layer (i.e. an intended use of the claimed metallic component).
The Examiner construes the limitation: “that is selectively removable… by an alkaline solution comprising sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide” as reciting an inherent feature of the claimed aluminum oxide coating. The instant disclosure does not describe any particular requirements of the aluminum oxide layer to possess this property beyond the claimed features. In accordance with established case law, anticipation or obviousness can be established in such a situation (see MPEP 2112.01; In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As such, if the prior art discloses the aluminum oxide “sacrificial layer” with the claimed properties of the aluminum oxide layer (thickness, step-coverage, density, crystalline structure), it is regarded as capable of being etched by an alkaline sodium hydroxide/potassium hydroxide solution.
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 1-2, 4-5, 10-12, and 21-26 (all pending, non-withdrawn claims) 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 claims 1 and 10, the limitation: “relative to a parasitic layer of hafnium oxide disposed over the aluminum oxide sacrificial layer” is considered to be indefinite claim language in light of the disclosure as a whole.
Particularly, it is unclear if Applicant intends the “hafnium oxide” layer to be structurally limiting of the claimed metallic component. The disclosure appears to describe where the hafnium oxide layer is a parasitic byproduct of a separate deposition process that remains on the claimed metallic component (see at least par. [0008], Id.). Additionally, the hafnium oxide layer is not positively recited in the claim.
However, Applicant argues extensively that the prior art does not specifically disclose a hafnium oxide parasitic layer, thus is not anticipated and/or rendered obvious.
As such, the record is sufficiently muddled such that the true scope of the claim cannot be definitely determined.
As set forth in the Claim Interpretation section above, and in the interest of compact and expedited prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim such that the hafnium oxide layer is not structurally limiting, and only constrains the claim to the extent that the prior art “component” would be capable of being used in an apparatus that could produce a hafnium oxide layer.
Regarding claims 2, 4-5, 11-12, and 21-26, 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 1-2, 4, 10-11, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hendrix (US Pub. 2018/0044800) with Basceri (US Patent 7,323,064) and Fujishima (US Patent 6,309,554) as evidentiary references.
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%), wherein the conformal protective layer comprises a metal oxide selected from a group consisting of aluminum oxides ([0130]: comprising alumina).
Regarding the remainder of the claim, Basceri is provided as evidence that hafnium oxide is a known residue material of CVD apparatuses (claim 2), and Fujishima is provided as evidence that alumina can be selectively removed by sodium hydroxide (C3, L46-50).
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 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 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%), wherein the conformal protective layer comprises a metal oxide selected from a group consisting of aluminum oxides ([0130]: comprising alumina).
Regarding the remainder of the claim, Basceri is provided as evidence that hafnium oxide is a known residue material of CVD apparatuses (claim 2), and Fujishima is provided as evidence that alumina can be selectively removed by sodium hydroxide (C3, L46-50).
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).
Regarding claim 23, Hendrix teaches wherein the wherein the metallic core comprises a substrate support assembly ([0267]: can be applied to chucks of plasma chambers).
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 1-2, 4, 10-11, and 23 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, 10-11, and 23 above, further in view of Lin (US Pub. 2019/0185997).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 4, 10-11, and 23 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Hendrix teaches the aluminum oxide layer ([0130]: comprising alumina).
Hendrix does not explicitly disclose a specific density (greater 3 g/cm3) 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.
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.
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 21 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hendrix (US Pub. 2018/0044800), as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 10-11, and 23 above, further in view of Omura (US Pub. 2008/0138995).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 4, 10-11, and 23 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 21, Hendrix does not explicitly teach wherein the non-planar surface comprises high aspect ratio features.
However, Omura teaches alumina coated lift pins (Omura – [0062], Fig. 6 depicts #21 as high aspect ratio).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the metallic component of Hendrix to comprise the alumina coated lift pins of Omura in order to provide chemical/plasma resistance (Omura – [0062]) for elements lifting a target substrate off of said metallic component (Omura – [0048]).
Regarding claims 24-25, Hendrix teaches wherein the metallic core comprises a substrate support assembly ([0267]: can be applied to chucks of plasma chambers).
Hendrix does not teach wherein the non-planar surface comprises vertical pins protruding from a surface of the metallic core comprising the substrate support assembly, wherein the aluminum oxide sacrificial layer is disposed on the vertical pins.
However, Omura teaches alumina coated lift pins (Omura – [0062] and Fig. 6: pusher pins #21).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the metallic component of Hendrix to comprise the alumina coated lift pins of Omura in order to provide chemical/plasma resistance (Omura – [0062]) for elements lifting a target substrate off of said metallic component (Omura – [0048]).
Claims 22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hendrix (US Pub. 2018/0044800) and Omura (US Pub. 2008/0138995), as applied to claims 21 and 23-24 above, further in view of Aoyama (US Patent 5,324,012).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 4, 10-11, and 23 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 22 and 26, modified Hendrix does not explicitly teach wherein the high aspect ratio features have an aspect ratio greater than 5:1 (Omura Fig. 6 appears to show where pins #21 are high aspect ratio, but no measurements are disclosed).
However, Aoyama teaches wherein the high aspect ratio features have an aspect ratio greater than 5:1 (Aoyama – C6, L60-63: discloses diameter of 0.02 - 0.1 mm and height of 0.01 - 0.5 mm; equates to a maximum aspect ratio of 25:1 and minimum aspect ratio of 0.1:1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the aspect ratio of the features of modified Hendrix to the claimed range/value since 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended claim 1 to eliminate indefinite claim language, thus the previous §112(b) rejections are withdrawn. However, the most recent amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection under §112(b).
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §102(a)(1) and §103 rejections have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive.
Particularly, Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Applicant seeks a direct recitation of the “parasitic” hafnium oxide layer in the prior art where no such recitation is required.
As explained in the Claim Interpretation section, the hafnium oxide coating is the result of the claimed metallic component being used in another deposition process and has not been positively recited in the claim. As such, it does not have the patentable weight alleged by the Applicant.
The Examiner respectfully submits the added evidentiary references Basceri and Fujishima establish the capability of the Hendrix component to be used in the claimed manner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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