FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments filed on 18 June, 2026. The amendments have been entered.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 11-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOCHIDZUKI (US 2022/0145871 A1 – published 12 May, 2022), in view of SUN (US 2017/0291856 A1 – published 12 October, 2017) and PARKHE (US 2021/0343512 A1 – published 4 November, 2021).
As to claim 11, MOCHIDZUKI discloses a method comprising:
providing at least one surface of a cryogenic plate body (38, as shown in figure 1).
However, MOCHIDZUKI does not disclose including forming a protective coating on the at least one surface of the plate body, wherein the protective coating comprises at least one of a rare earth oxide of SiO₂, and forming one or more interior passages within the cryogenic plate body.
SUN, however, is reasonably pertinent to the problem to be solved by the Applicant (par. 44 of the instant application, “In some embodiments, the coefficient of thermal expansion of the protective coating 163 substantially matches the coefficient of thermal expansion of the cryogenic plate 162. This matching of coefficients of thermal expansion may be to reduce cracking in the protective coating caused by thermal expansion.”, in addition to generically providing protection of a plate, as understood by par. 26 of the instant application “The protective coating may be resistant to corrosion, such as corrosion caused by etchants used in substrate processing.”) by providing a protective coating to components of the processing chamber of a substrate that is resistive to corrosion (par. 22-23 , in view of par. 3-4 of SUN) and reduces cracking by providing matching of thermal expansion coefficients of the components the coating is applied to with the coating itself (par. 55-56 of SUN). SUN, thereby, teaches forming (par. 53 and 59) a protective coating on at least one surface of a plate body, to be cooled, (par. 23) with the protective coating comprised of at least one of a rare earth oxide or SiO₂ (par. 23 and 50-122, where both a rare earth oxide or SiO₂ are both envisioned). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07. In this case, SUN recognizes the applicability of these protective coatings, when applied to substrate processing chambers, for the suitability of these coatings to prevent corrosion and to reduce propagation of cracking due to coefficient of thermal expansion differences between components and the coating applied thereto. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify MOCHIDZUKI, in view of the teachings of SUN, to include the formation of the protective coating, as claimed, for these reasons.
PARKHE, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a method including a cryogenic plate body (105; par. 25). PARKHE teaches wherein the cryogenic plate body is formed with one or more interior passages within the cryogenic plate (115; par. 25 and 31), so as to provide cooling of the cryogenic plate and maintaining the cryogenic plate at a predetermined cryogenic temperature (par. 31) suitable for the desired processing thereon, while the remainder of the chamber for which the cryogenic plate resides can be maintained at a different temperature (par. 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify MOCHIDZUKI, in view of the teachings of PARKHE, to include forming one or more interior passages within the cryogenic plate, as claimed, for these reasons.
As to claim 12, MOCHIDZUKI, as modified by SUN and PARKHE, previously discussed the inclusion of a protective coating as set forth by claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11).
SUN, further, teaches wherein the protective coating is formed using, at least, plasma spraying (par. 53). Again, SUN recognizes the applicability of these protective coatings, when applied to substrate processing chambers, for the suitability of these coatings to prevent corrosion and to reduce propagation of cracking due to coefficient of thermal expansion differences between components and the coating applied thereto (discussed in the rejection of claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify MOCHIDZUKI, in view of the teachings of SUN, to include the formation of the protective coating, as claimed, for these reasons.
As to claim 13, MOCHIDZUKI, as modified by SUN and PARKHE, previously discussed the inclusion of a protective coating as set forth by claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11).
SUN, further, teaches wherein the protective coating comprises Y₂O₃ (par. 23). Again, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07. In this case, SUN recognizes the applicability of these protective coatings, when applied to substrate processing chambers, for the suitability of these coatings to prevent corrosion and to reduce propagation of cracking due to coefficient of thermal expansion differences between components and the coating applied thereto (discussed in the rejection of claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify MOCHIDZUKI, in view of the teachings of SUN, to include the protective coating, as claimed, for these reasons.
As to claim 14, MOCHIDZUKI, as modified by SUN and PARKHE, previously discussed the inclusion of a protective coating as set forth by claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11).
First, MOCHIDZUKI provides wherein the cryogenic plate can be cooled to an intermediate temperature (par. 42) warmer than an operating temperature for the cryogenic plate (par. 17 and 25).
SUN, further, teaches wherein the protective coating is formed on at least one surface at an intermediate temperature (par. 43 and 58), so as to promote interdiffusion of the ceramic coating to the body it is applied to (par. 58) and provide the desired thickness, density, and roughness of the ceramic coating (par. 43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify MOCHIDZUKI, in view of the teachings of SUN, to achieve these goals and obtain the desired thickness, density, and roughness of the applied ceramic coating.
As to claim 15, MOCHIDZUKI, as modified by SUN and PARKHE, previously discussed providing the protective coating at an intermediate temperature as set forth in claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14).
Furthermore, MOCHIDZUKI and SUN both teach wherein the intermediate temperature is warmer than 200 Kelvin (par. 42, in view of 17 and 25 of MOCHIDZUKI; par. 43 and 58 of SUN). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify MOCHIDZUKI, in view of the teachings of SUN, to achieve the goals provided within the rejection of claim 14 and obtain the desired thickness, density, and roughness of the applied ceramic coating.
As to claim 16, MOCHIDZUKI, as modified by SUN and PARKHE, previously discussed the inclusion of a protective coating as set forth by claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11).
SUN, further, teaches wherein the protective coating has a thickness between 50 nanometers and 1,000 nanometers (par. 52). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05 – I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify MOCHIDZUKI, in view of the teachings of SUN, to include the protective coating, as claimed, for reasons related to corrosion protection and cracking reduction due to coefficient of thermal expansion differences between components and the coating applied thereto (discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Further, it appears the Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed range of the thickness of the protective coating, in view of the discussion set forth in paragraph 46 of the originally-filed specification.
As to claim 17, MOCHIDZUKI discloses a process chamber (figure 1; par. 11), comprising:
a chamber body (16a);
a cryogenic plate (38, as shown in figure 1) disposed within the chamber body (figure 1), wherein the cryogenic plate comprises:
a plate body (body of 38, as shown in figure 1).
However, MOCHIDZUKI does not disclose wherein the plate body includes a protective coating on at least one surface thereof, wherein the protective coating comprises at least one of a rare earth oxide of SiO₂.
SUN, however, is reasonably pertinent to the problem to be solved by the Applicant (par. 44 of the instant application, “In some embodiments, the coefficient of thermal expansion of the protective coating 163 substantially matches the coefficient of thermal expansion of the cryogenic plate 162. This matching of coefficients of thermal expansion may be to reduce cracking in the protective coating caused by thermal expansion.”, in addition to generically providing protection of a plate, as understood by par. 26 of the instant application “The protective coating may be resistant to corrosion, such as corrosion caused by etchants used in substrate processing.”) by providing a protective coating to components of the processing chamber of a substrate that is resistive to corrosion (par. 22-23 , in view of par. 3-4 of SUN) and reduces cracking by providing matching of thermal expansion coefficients of the components the coating is applied to with the coating itself (par. 55-56 of SUN). SUN, thereby, teaches including a protective coating on at least one surface of a plate body, to be cooled, (par. 23) with the protective coating comprised of at least one of a rare earth oxide or SiO₂ (par. 23 and 50-122, where both a rare earth oxide or SiO₂ are both envisioned). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07. In this case, SUN recognizes the applicability of these protective coatings, when applied to substrate processing chambers, for the suitability of these coatings to prevent corrosion and to reduce propagation of cracking due to coefficient of thermal expansion differences between components and the coating applied thereto. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify MOCHIDZUKI, in view of the teachings of SUN, to include the protective coating, as claimed, for these reasons.
PARKHE, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a process chamber(100; figure 1) including a cryogenic plate body (105; par. 25). PARKHE teaches wherein the cryogenic plate body is formed with one or more interior passages within the cryogenic plate body (115; par. 25 and 31) configured to circulate a refrigerant (par. 31), so as to provide cooling of the cryogenic plate body and maintaining the cryogenic plate at a predetermined cryogenic temperature (par. 31) suitable for the desired processing thereon, while the remainder of the chamber for which the cryogenic plate body resides can be maintained at a different temperature (par. 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify MOCHIDZUKI, in view of the teachings of PARKHE, to include forming one or more interior passages within the cryogenic plate body, as claimed, for these reasons.
As to claim 18, MOCHIDZUKI, as modified by SUN and PARKHE, previously discussed the inclusion of a protective coating as set forth by claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17).
SUN, further, teaches wherein the protective coating comprises Y₂O₃ (par. 23). Again, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07. In this case, SUN recognizes the applicability of these protective coatings, when applied to substrate processing chambers, for the suitability of these coatings to prevent corrosion and to reduce propagation of cracking due to coefficient of thermal expansion differences between components and the coating applied thereto (discussed in the rejection of claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify MOCHIDZUKI, in view of the teachings of SUN, to include the protective coating, as claimed, for these reasons.
As to claim 20, MOCHIDZUKI, as modified by SUN and PARKHE, previously discussed the inclusion of a protective coating as set forth by claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17).
SUN, further, teaches wherein the protective coating has a thickness between 50 nanometers and 1,000 nanometers (par. 52). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05 – I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify MOCHIDZUKI, in view of the teachings of SUN, to include the protective coating, as claimed, for reasons related to corrosion protection and cracking reduction due to coefficient of thermal expansion differences between components and the coating applied thereto (discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Further, it appears the Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed range of the thickness of the protective coating, in view of the discussion set forth in paragraph 46 of the originally-filed specification.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOCHIDZUKI (US 2022/0145871 A1 – published 12 May, 2022), in view of SUN (US 2017/0291856 A1 – published 12 October, 2017), PARKHE (US 2021/0343512 A1 – published 4 November, 2021), and MATSUBARA (US 2009/0165469A1 – published 2 July, 2009).
As to claim 19, MOCHIDZUKI, as modified by SUN and PARKHE, does not expressly provide wherein the plate body comprises copper.
However, MATSUBARA is within the field of endeavor provided a cryogenic pump (abstract). MATSUBARA teaches including a cryogenic plate (24) which is formed of copper (par. 46). MATSUBARA teaches wherein copper is used based on desire of heat conductivity (par. 46). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07. In this case, MATSUBARA teaches wherein the cryogenic plate is provided as copper based on desire of heat conductivity (par. 46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify MOCHIDZUKI, in view of the further teachings of MATSUBARA to provide the cryogenic plate comprised of copper for these reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, when considered, as a whole, alone or in combination, fails to reasonably disclose, teach, and/or otherwise suggest, a particular “cryopump”/“cryogenic pump”, which has clear structure within the ordinary skill of the art and as understood, in light of the originally-filed specification, and includes a cryogenic plate body “wherein the plate body forms one or more interior passages, and wherein the refrigeration unit is configured to circulate a refrigerant through the one or more interior passages”, as claimed. The prior art clearly makes known the application of cryogenic pumps, such as taught by MATSUBARA, which includes a cryogenic plate body (34). However, the prior art fails to teach wherein a cryogenic plate body of a cryogenic pump includes the claimed structure. It will be further noted, the interpretation required for independent claim 1, and the dependents thereof, is different than that required by independent claims 11 and 17, as the inventions of independent claims 11 and 17, and the dependents thereof are not directed to cryogenic pumps (i.e., “A method” as recited by claim 11 and “A processing chamber” as recited by claim 17) for which the prior art reasonably teaches implementing interior passages being implemented within a generic cryogenic plate body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-4 and 6-7, filed 18 June, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of PARKHE (US 2021/0343512 A1 – published 4 November, 2021), and particularly, the teachings of providing a cryogenic plate body, applied within the relevant fields of a method and a processing chamber, to include interior channels therein to circulate a refrigerant. For these reasons, the claimed invention(s) of claims 11-20 are rejected.
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 JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, EST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 8/19/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights