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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 08/13/2024. Currently claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected, as it recites “a density of about 1 kg/cm3 to about 10 kg/cm3 ”. The same unit has also been used in the specification in (para. [0045]). The examiner presumes it to be “g/cm3 “ for the purpose of this prosecution. Appropriate correction is requested.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being obvious over claims 1-4, and 6-9 of Zhan et al. (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) (reference application), hereafter referred to as “Zhan”.
Regarding claim 1, Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 1, a method comprising:
performing atomic layer deposition to form a plurality of nanoparticles, comprising forming a thin film coating over core particles,
wherein the core particles comprise a first material selected from the group consisting of a rare earth metal-containing fluoride, a rare earth metal containing oxyfluoride and combinations thereof; and
wherein the thin film coating comprises a second material selected from a group consisting of a rare earth metal containing oxide, a rare earth metal-containing fluoride, a rare earth metal-containing oxyfluoride and combinations thereof,
wherein the portion of the plurality of nanoparticles have a donut-shape comprising a spherical form with indentations on opposite sides.
Additionally, Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 7, further comprising plasma spraying the plurality of nanoparticles onto an article.
Regarding claim 2, Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 2, a method, wherein the first material is selected from the group consisting of yttrium fluoride (YF3),
yttrium oxyfluoride (YxOyFz), erbium fluoride (ErF3), erbium oxyfluoride (ErxOyFz), dysprosium fluoride (DyF3), dysprosium oxyfluoride (DyxOyFz), gadolinium fluoride (GdF3), gadolinium oxyfluoride (GdxOyFz), scandium fluoride (ScF3), scandium oxyfluoride (ScxOyFz) and combinations thereof, and
wherein the second material is selected from the group consisting of yittria (Y2O3), yttrium fluoride (YF3), yttrium oxyfluoride (YxOyFz), erbium oxide (Er2O3), erbium fluoride (ErF3), erbium oxyfluoride (ErxOyFz), dysprosium oxide (Dy2O3), dysprosium fluoride (DyF3), dysprosium oxyfluoride (DyxOyFz), gadolinium oxide (Gd2O3), gadolinium fluoride (GdF3), gadolinium oxyfluoride (GdxOyFz), scandium oxide (Sc2O3), scandium fluoride (ScF3), scandium oxyfluoride (ScxOyFz) and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 3, Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 3, a method, wherein the plurality of nanoparticles comprises about 60 mol % to about 70 mol % of yttrium oxide and about 30 mol % to about 40 mol % of30 zirconium oxide.
Regarding claim 4, Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 4, wherein (a) the thin film coating comprises zirconium oxide or (b) the core particles further comprise zirconium oxide and the thin film coating comprises yttrium oxide.
Regarding claims 5-6, Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 8, a method comprising sintering the plurality of nanoparticles to form the nanoceramic coating on the surface of the chamber component; by teaching sintering the plurality of nanoparticles by applying at least one of a temperature of about 2730° F. to about 3275° F. or a pressure of about 25 MPa to about 1 GPa and forming a nanoceramic material.
Regarding claim 7, Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 9, wherein the nanoceramic material comprises a compound selected from the group consisting of Y3Al5O12 (YAG), Y4Al2O9 (YAM), YAlO3 (YAP), Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution, Er3Al5O12 (EAG), Er4Al2O9 (EAM) and ErAlO3 (EAP).
Claims 8-10 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being obvious over claims 1-4, and 6-9 of Zhan et al. (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) (reference application), hereafter referred to as “Zhan”, in view of Sun et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0264564 A1), hereafter referred to as “Sun ‘564”.
Regarding claim 8, Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 1 a method of forming nanoparticles. Additionally, Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 7, further comprising plasma spraying the plurality of nanoparticles onto an article. But Zhan fails to explicitly teach that the chamber component is selected from the group consisting of a shower head, a nozzle, a gas distribution plate, and a chamber lid. However, “Sun ‘564” teaches that chamber component is selected from the group consisting of a shower head, a nozzle, a gas distribution plate, and a chamber lid, by teaching to use this coating to form components used internal to a plasma processing chamber, such as a lid, lid-liner, nozzle, gas distribution plate or shower head, electrostatic chuck components, shadow frame, substrate holding frame, processing kit, and chamber liner (para. [0066]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of “Sun ‘564”, and use the ceramic coating for the chamber component, which is selected from the group consisting of a shower head, a nozzle, a gas distribution plate, and a chamber lid.
Regarding claim 9, “Sun ‘564” teaches in Table Four that flexural strength, Young’s modulus, fracture toughness, thermal conductivity, thermal expansion, dielectric constant, dielectric loss tangent, and density are properties that are evaluated for comparative physical and mechanical property at the same time to reduce the erosion rate of the ceramic material to evaluate the performance of a material in semiconductor processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the density and the flexural strength would be optimized during the manufacturing process. Therefore, maintaining the nanoceramic component density of about 1 g/cm3 to about 10 g/cm3 (as claimed in claim 9) and flexural strength of 170 MPa to about 250 MPa (as claimed in claim 9), and other properties in desired range would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 10, Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 3, a method, wherein the plurality of nanoparticles comprises about 60 mol % to about 70 mol % of yttrium oxide and about 30 mol % to about 40 mol % of30 zirconium oxide.
Claims 11-17 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being obvious over claims 1-4, and 6-9 of Zhan et al. (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) (reference application).
Regarding claim 11, Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 1, a method comprising:
performing atomic layer deposition to form a plurality of nanoparticles, comprising forming a thin film coating over core particles,
wherein the core particles comprise a first material selected from the group consisting of a rare earth metal-containing fluoride, a rare earth metal containing oxyfluoride and combinations thereof; and
wherein the thin film coating comprises a second material selected from a group consisting of a rare earth metal containing oxide, a rare earth metal-containing fluoride, a rare earth metal-containing oxyfluoride and combinations thereof,
wherein the portion of the plurality of nanoparticles have a donut-shape comprising a spherical form with indentations on opposite sides.
Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 1, that the thin film is conformal to the core particle, by using atomic layer deposition process.
Regarding claim 12, Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 2, a method, wherein the first material is selected from the group consisting of yttrium fluoride (YF3),
yttrium oxyfluoride (YxOyFz), erbium fluoride (ErF3), erbium oxyfluoride (ErxOyFz), dysprosium fluoride (DyF3), dysprosium oxyfluoride (DyxOyFz), gadolinium fluoride (GdF3), gadolinium oxyfluoride (GdxOyFz), scandium fluoride (ScF3), scandium oxyfluoride (ScxOyFz) and combinations thereof, and
wherein the second material is selected from the group consisting of yittria (Y2O3), yttrium fluoride (YF3), yttrium oxyfluoride (YxOyFz), erbium oxide (Er2O3), erbium fluoride (ErF3), erbium oxyfluoride (ErxOyFz), dysprosium oxide (Dy2O3), dysprosium fluoride (DyF3), dysprosium oxyfluoride (DyxOyFz), gadolinium oxide (Gd2O3), gadolinium fluoride (GdF3), gadolinium oxyfluoride (GdxOyFz), scandium oxide (Sc2O3), scandium fluoride (ScF3), scandium oxyfluoride (ScxOyFz) and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 13, Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 3, a method, wherein the plurality of nanoparticles comprises about 60 mol % to about 70 mol % of yttrium oxide and about 30 mol % to about 40 mol % of30 zirconium oxide.
Regarding claim 14, Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 4, wherein (a) the thin film coating comprises zirconium oxide or (b) the core particles further comprise zirconium oxide and the thin film coating comprises yttrium oxide.
Regarding claims 15-16, Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 8, a method comprising sintering the plurality of nanoparticles to form the nanoceramic coating on the surface of the chamber component; by teaching sintering the plurality of nanoparticles by applying at least one of a temperature of about 2730° F. to about 3275° F. or a pressure of about 25 MPa to about 1 GPa and forming a nanoceramic material.
Regarding claim 17, Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 9, wherein the nanoceramic material comprises a compound selected from the group consisting of Y3Al5O12 (YAG), Y4Al2O9 (YAM), YAlO3 (YAP), Y2O3-ZrO2 solid solution, Er3Al5O12 (EAG), Er4Al2O9 (EAM) and ErAlO3 (EAP).
Claims 18-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being obvious over claims 1-3, and 6-9 of Zhan et al. (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) (reference application), in view of Sun et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0264564 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 1 a method of forming nanoparticles. Additionally, Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 7, further comprising plasma spraying the plurality of nanoparticles onto an article. But Zhan fails to explicitly teach that the chamber component is selected from the group consisting of a shower head, a nozzle, a gas distribution plate, and a chamber lid. However, “Sun ‘564” teaches that chamber component is selected from the group consisting of a shower head, a nozzle, a gas distribution plate, and a chamber lid, by teaching to use this coating to form components used internal to a plasma processing chamber, such as a lid, lid-liner, nozzle, gas distribution plate or shower head, electrostatic chuck components, shadow frame, substrate holding frame, processing kit, and chamber liner (para. [0066]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of “Sun ‘564”, and use the ceramic coating for the chamber component, which is selected from the group consisting of a shower head, a nozzle, a gas distribution plate, and a chamber lid.
Regarding claim 19, Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 3, a method, wherein the plurality of nanoparticles comprises about 60 mol % to about 70 mol % of yttrium oxide and about 30 mol % to about 40 mol % of30 zirconium oxide.
Regarding claim 20, Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 1, a method comprising:
performing atomic layer deposition to form a plurality of nanoparticles, comprising forming a thin film coating over core particles,
wherein the core particles comprise a first material selected from the group consisting of a rare earth metal-containing fluoride, a rare earth metal containing oxyfluoride and combinations thereof; and
wherein the thin film coating comprises a second material selected from a group consisting of a rare earth metal containing oxide, a rare earth metal-containing fluoride, a rare earth metal-containing oxyfluoride and combinations thereof,
wherein the portion of the plurality of nanoparticles have a donut-shape comprising a spherical form with indentations on opposite sides.
Zhan (US patent No. 11,667,578 B2) teaches in claim 1, that the thin film is conformal to the core particle, by using atomic layer deposition process.
Additionally, “Sun ‘564” teaches a sprayed film having thickness of 50-300 micron covering the claimed range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 non-obviousness.
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 1-4, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over George et al. (WO 2003/008186 A1), hereafter, referred to as “George”, in view of Sun et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0264564 A1), hereafter referred to as “Sun ‘564”, in view of Sun et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0030486 A1), hereafter referred to as “Sun ‘486”.
Regarding claim 1, George teaches a method of performing deposition to form a plurality of nanoparticles, comprising forming a thin film coating over core particles by teaching a suitable and preferred method for depositing an inorganic material through controlled growth technique to form nanosized particles (page 9, lines 16-32). George teaches in claim 1 (of the reference), a material in the form of particles (equivalent to nanopowder) comprising a plurality of nanoparticles, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of nanoparticles comprises of a substrate (equivalent to core particle) comprising a first material selected from a group consisting of a metal oxide of Group III B element (page 4, lines 2-10) (rare earth metal-containing oxide), a rare earth metal-containing fluoride, a rare earth metal-containing oxyfluoride and combinations thereof. George teaches that the substrate material particles of interest include metal oxide and the preferred particle composition include among other Group III B metal oxide elements that includes Sc (Scandium) and Y (Yttrium).
George also teaches that the material in the form of particle (equivalent to nano-powder) has a thin film coating over the particle, the thin film coating comprising a second material selected from a group consisting of a metal oxides such as zirconia, yttria (rare earth metal-containing oxide) (page 6, line28 – page 7, line 8), a rare earth metal-containing fluoride, a rare earth metal-containing oxyfluoride and combinations thereof, by teaching an ultrathin, inorganic material deposited on the surface of the material.
George discloses sintering a particle material to form ceramic parts, and the use thereof could be selected as appropriate by teaching that the particles of the invention are useful in a wide variety of applications, depending mainly on the composition of the particulate material. But George fails to explicitly teach the use of plasma spraying of the nano-powders to form the nanoceramic coating on a chamber component. However, “Sun ‘564” teaches that the coating is applied to a substrate surface by thermal/flame spraying, plasma spraying, sputtering, or chemical vapor deposition (CVD) (para. [0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teaching, suggestion, or motivation of “Sun ‘564” with that of George, and to combine the use of a plasma spraying process, to produce a nano-ceramic coating on a chamber component to provide protection in a semiconductor processing apparatus (KSR Rationale A, MPEP 2143).
George and Sun ‘564 together teach of forming nano-ceramic coating by using plasma spray of nano-powder particles composed of core particle and a thin coating layer surrounding the surface, but fails to explicitly teach that the nanoparticles have a donut-shape comprising a spherical form with indentations on opposite sides. However, “Sun ‘486” teaches in Fig. 5 an optimized powder particle shape for the coating, where some of the particles have a spherical shape with deep indentions on opposite side of the sphere. “Sun ‘486” also teaches that most of the particles have a donut shape (para. [0044]). Evaluations of coatings formed from powder with particles having a donut shape showed improved morphology and porosity as compared to powder particles of other shapes. For example, coatings formed of particles having a donut shape tend to have fewer nodules and more splat due to improved melting of the powders, decreased roughness, and decreased porosity, all of which contribute to improved on-wafer particle performance (para. [0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan to incorporate the teaching of “Sun ‘486” and combine the teaching of “Sun ‘486” and use nanoparticles having a donut-shape comprising a spherical form with indentations on opposite sides, because that would have fewer nodules and more splat due to improved melting of the powders, decreased roughness, and decreased porosity, all of which would contribute to improved on-wafer particle performance (KSR Rationale A, MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, George teaches that the first material (equivalent to core particle) is selected from among others Group III B metal oxides) (page 4, lines 2-10). Group III B includes metals such as Sc (Scandium) and Y (Yttrium) resulting in claimed oxides Scandium Oxide (Sc2O3), and yttria (Y2O3). George also teaches that the second material (in the form of thin film coating over the particle is selected from a group that includes a metal oxides such as yttria (Y2O3) (page 7, line 3).
Regarding claim 3, George teaches to use yttrium oxide and zirconium oxide in the nanopowder, but fails to explicitly teach the use of nanoparticles that comprise of about 60 mol % to about 70 mol % of yttrium oxide and about 30 mol % to about 40 mol % of zirconium oxide. However, “Sun ‘564” teaches the use of ceramic material of about 69 mole% yttrium oxide and about 31 mole% zirconium oxide in a process chamber liner or an internal apparatus component within the process chamber (para. [0018]). Sun also teaches that the erosion rate of a pure solid yttrium oxide ceramic in a CF4/CHF3 plasma is about 0.3 μm/hr. The erosion rate at which a surface is removed in μm (of thickness)/hr) of a solid ceramic of about 69 mole% yttrium oxide and about 31 mole% zirconium oxide is about 0.1 μm/hr, a 3 times slower erosion rate than pure solid yttrium oxide. This unexpected decrease in erosion rate extends the lifetime of a process chamber liner or an internal apparatus component within the process chamber, so that the replacement frequency for such apparatus is reduced, reducing apparatus down time; and, the particle and metal contamination level generated during a plasma process is reduced, enabling a device fabrication with ever shrinking geometry with reduced overall cost of the processing apparatus per wafer processed, on the average (para. [0018]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sun ‘564, and use a known composition of nanopowder (claimed 60 mol % to about 70 mol % of yttrium oxide and about 30 mol % to about 40 mol % of zirconium oxide) to improve the performance of a processing apparatus by decreasing the plasma erosion rate (KSR Rationale C, MPEP 2143). Since both the references deal with yttria and zirconia as composition ingredients, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Regarding claim 4, George teaches that the first material (equivalent to core particle) is selected from among others Group III B metal oxides) (page 4, lines 2-10). Group III B includes metals such as Y (Yttrium) resulting in claimed oxides yttria (Y2O3). George also teaches that the second material (in the form of thin film coating over the particle) is selected from a group that includes a metal oxides such as Zirconia (ZrO2) (page 7, line 2).
Additionally, George teaches that the first material (equivalent to core particle) is selected from among others Group IVB metal oxides) (page 4, lines 2-10). Group IV B includes metals such as Zr (Zirconium) resulting in claimed oxides Zirconia (ZrO2). George also teaches that the second material (in the form of thin film coating over the particle) is selected from a group that includes a metal oxides such as yttria (Y2O3) (page 7, line 3).
Regarding claim 7, “Sun ‘486” teaches the use of YAM (para. [0022]) and YAG (para. [0043]) in the formation of nanoparticles.
Regarding claim 8, “Sun ‘564” teaches that chamber component is selected from the group consisting of a shower head, a nozzle, a gas distribution plate, and a chamber lid, by teaching to form components used internal to a plasma processing chamber, such as a lid, lid-liner, nozzle, gas distribution plate or shower head, electrostatic chuck components, shadow frame, substrate holding frame, processing kit, and chamber liner (para. [0066]).
Regarding claim 9, “Sun ‘564” teaches in Table Four that flexural strength, Young’s modulus, fracture toughness, thermal conductivity, thermal expansion, dielectric constant, dielectric loss tangent, and density are properties that are evaluated for comparative physical and mechanical property at the same time to reduce the erosion rate of the ceramic material to evaluate the performance of a material in semiconductor processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the density and the flexural strength would be optimized during the manufacturing process. Therefore, maintaining the nanoceramic component density of about 1 g/cm3 to about 10 g/cm3 (as claimed in claim 9) and flexural strength of 170 MPa to about 250 MPa (as claimed in claim 9), and other properties in desired range would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 10, George teaches a method of performing deposition to form a plurality of nanoparticles, comprising forming a thin film coating over core particles by teaching a suitable and preferred method for depositing an inorganic material through controlled growth technique to form nanosized particles (page 9, lines 16-32). George discloses sintering a particle material to form ceramic parts, and the use thereof could be selected as appropriate by teaching that the particles of the invention are useful in a wide variety of applications, depending mainly on the composition of the particulate material. George also teaches that sinterable particles can be formed into various shapes and sintered using well-known methods to form ceramic parts (page 15 lines· 25-28).
But George fails to explicitly teach the use of nanoparticles that comprise of about 60 mol % to about 70 mol % of yttrium oxide and about 30 mol % to about 40 mol % of zirconium oxide. However, “Sun ‘564” teaches the use of ceramic material of about 69 mole% yttrium oxide and about 31 mole% zirconium oxide in a process chamber liner or an internal apparatus component within the process chamber (para. [0018]). Sun also teaches that the erosion rate of a pure solid yttrium oxide ceramic in a CF4/CHF3 plasma is about 0.3 μm/hr. The erosion rate at which a surface is removed in μm (of thickness)/hr) of a solid ceramic of about 69 mole% yttrium oxide and about 31 mole% zirconium oxide is about 0.1 μm/hr, a 3 times slower erosion rate than pure solid yttrium oxide. This unexpected decrease in erosion rate extends the lifetime of a process chamber liner or an internal apparatus component within the process chamber, so that the replacement frequency for such apparatus is reduced, reducing apparatus down time; and, the particle and metal contamination level generated during a plasma process is reduced, enabling a device fabrication with ever shrinking geometry with reduced overall cost of the processing apparatus per wafer processed, on the average (para. [0018]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sun ‘564, and use a known composition of nanopowder (claimed 60 mol % to about 70 mol % of yttrium oxide and about 30 mol % to about 40 mol % of zirconium oxide) to improve the performance of a processing apparatus by decreasing the plasma erosion rate (KSR Rationale C, MPEP 2143). Since both the references deal with yttria and zirconia as composition ingredients, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over George et al. (WO 2003/008186 A1), in view of Sun et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0264564 A1), in view of Sun et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0030486 A1), in view of Sun et al. ((US Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0133285 A1), hereafter referred to as “Sun ‘285”.
Regarding claims 5-6, George teaches a method of performing deposition to form a plurality of nanoparticles, comprising forming a thin film coating over core particles by teaching a suitable and preferred method for depositing an inorganic material through controlled growth technique to form nanosized particles (page 9, lines 16-32). George discloses sintering a particle material to form ceramic parts, and the use thereof could be selected as appropriate by teaching that the particles of the invention are useful in a wide variety of applications, depending mainly on the composition of the particulate material. Sinterable particles can be formed into various shapes and sintered using well-known methods to form ceramic parts. Pressureless sintering processes are of particular interest (page 15 lines· 25-28). Additionally, “Sun ‘564” teaches that the coating is applied to a substrate surface by thermal/flame spraying, plasma spraying, sputtering, or chemical vapor deposition (CVD) (para. [0012]). “Sun ‘564” further teaches sintering process using a method selected from pressureless sintering, hot-press sintering (HP), or hot isostatic press sintering (HIP). These sintering techniques are well known in the art (para. [0016]). But the references fail to explicitly teach the sintering process involving applying a temperature of 2730 to 3275 °F. However, “Sun ‘285” teaches to apply to deposited ceramic coatings, such as plasma sprayed ceramic coatings and ceramic coatings applied using ion assisted techniques in the formation of ceramic chamber material article (para. [0015]). “Sun ‘285” also teaches a sintering process performed at 1500-2100 °C (equivalent to 2732-3812 °F) (para. [0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teaching, suggestion, or motivation of “Sun ‘285” with that of George, Sun ‘564, and Sun ‘486, and use a sintering process involving temperatures between 2730 to 3275 °F to produce article of interest to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over George et al. (WO 2003/008186 A1), in view of Sun et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2008/ 0264564 A1).
Regarding claim 11, George teaches a method of performing deposition to form a plurality of nanoparticles, comprising forming a thin film conformal coating over core particles by teaching a suitable and preferred method for depositing an inorganic material through atomic layer controlled growth technique to form nanosized particles (page 9, lines 16-32). George teaches in claim 1 (of the reference), a material in the form of particles (equivalent to nano-powder) comprising a plurality of nanoparticles, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of nanoparticles comprises of a substrate (equivalent to core particle) comprising a first material selected from a group consisting of a metal oxide of Group III B element (page 4, lines 2-10) (rare earth metal-containing oxide), a rare earth metal-containing fluoride, a rare earth metal-containing oxyfluoride and combinations thereof. George teaches that the substrate material particles of interest include metal oxide and the preferred particle composition include among other Group III B metal oxide elements that includes Sc (Scandium) and Y (Yttrium). The use of atomic layer deposition results in a thin film conformal coating layer.
George also teaches that the material in the form of particle (equivalent to nano-powder) has a thin film coating over the particle, the thin film coating comprising a second material selected from a group consisting of a metal oxides such as zirconia, yttria (rare earth metal-containing oxide) (page 6, line28 – page 7, line 8), a rare earth metal-containing fluoride, a rare earth metal-containing oxyfluoride and combinations thereof, by teaching an ultrathin, inorganic material deposited on the surface of the material.
George discloses sintering a particle material to form ceramic parts, and the use thereof could be selected as appropriate by teaching that the particles of the invention are useful in a wide variety of applications, depending mainly on the composition of the particulate material. But George fails to explicitly teach the use of plasma spraying of the nano-powders to form the nanoceramic coating on a chamber component. However, “Sun ‘564” teaches that the coating is applied to a substrate surface by thermal/flame spraying, plasma spraying, sputtering, or chemical vapor deposition (CVD) (para. [0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teaching, suggestion, or motivation of “Sun ‘564” with that of George, and to combine the use of a plasma spraying process, to produce a nano-ceramic coating on a chamber component to provide protection in a semiconductor processing apparatus (KSR Rationale A, MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 12, George teaches that the first material (equivalent to core particle) is selected from among others Group III B metal oxides) (page 4, lines 2-10). Group III B includes metals such as Sc (Scandium) and Y (Yttrium) resulting in claimed oxides Scandium Oxide (Sc2O3), and yttria (Y2O3). George also teaches that the second material (in the form of thin film coating over the particle is selected from a group that includes a metal oxides such as yttria (Y2O3) (page 7, line 3).
Regarding claim 13, George teaches to use yttrium oxide and zirconium oxide in the nanopowder, but fails to explicitly teach the use of nanoparticles that comprise of about 60 mol % to about 70 mol % of yttrium oxide and about 30 mol % to about 40 mol % of zirconium oxide. However, “Sun ‘564” teaches the use of ceramic material of about 69 mole% yttrium oxide and about 31 mole% zirconium oxide in a process chamber liner or an internal apparatus component within the process chamber (para. [0018]). Sun also teaches that the erosion rate of a pure solid yttrium oxide ceramic in a CF4/CHF3 plasma is about 0.3 μm/hr. The erosion rate at which a surface is removed in μm (of thickness)/hr) of a solid ceramic of about 69 mole% yttrium oxide and about 31 mole% zirconium oxide is about 0.1 μm/hr, a 3 times slower erosion rate than pure solid yttrium oxide. This unexpected decrease in erosion rate extends the lifetime of a process chamber liner or an internal apparatus component within the process chamber, so that the replacement frequency for such apparatus is reduced, reducing apparatus down time; and, the particle and metal contamination level generated during a plasma process is reduced, enabling a device fabrication with ever shrinking geometry with reduced overall cost of the processing apparatus per wafer processed, on the average (para. [0018]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sun ‘564, and use a known composition of nanopowder (claimed 60 mol % to about 70 mol % of yttrium oxide and about 30 mol % to about 40 mol % of zirconium oxide) to improve the performance of a processing apparatus by decreasing the plasma erosion rate (KSR Rationale C, MPEP 2143). Since both the references deal with yttria and zirconia as composition ingredients, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Regarding claim 14, George teaches that the first material (equivalent to core particle) is selected from among others Group III B metal oxides) (page 4, lines 2-10). Group III B includes metals such as Y (Yttrium) resulting in claimed oxides yttria (Y2O3). George also teaches that the second material (in the form of thin film coating over the particle) is selected from a group that includes a metal oxides such as Zirconia (ZrO2) (page 7, line 2).
Additionally, George teaches that the first material (equivalent to core particle) is selected from among others Group IVB metal oxides) (page 4, lines 2-10). Group IV B includes metals such as Zr (Zirconium) resulting in claimed oxides Zirconia (ZrO2). George also teaches that the second material (in the form of thin film coating over the particle) is selected from a group that includes a metal oxides such as yttria (Y2O3) (page 7, line 3).
Regarding claim 17, “Sun ‘486” teaches the use of YAM (para. [0022]) and YAG (para. [0043]) in the formation of nanoparticles.
Regarding claim 18, “Sun ‘564” teaches that chamber component is selected from the group consisting of a shower head, a nozzle, a gas distribution plate, and a chamber lid, by teaching to form components used internal to a plasma processing chamber, such as a lid, lid-liner, nozzle, gas distribution plate or shower head, electrostatic chuck components, shadow frame, substrate holding frame, processing kit, and chamber liner (para. [0066]).
Regarding claim 19, George teaches a method of performing deposition to form a plurality of nanoparticles, comprising forming a thin film coating over core particles by teaching a suitable and preferred method for depositing an inorganic material through controlled growth technique to form nanosized particles (page 9, lines 16-32). George discloses sintering a particle material to form ceramic parts, and the use thereof could be selected as appropriate by teaching that the particles of the invention are useful in a wide variety of applications, depending mainly on the composition of the particulate material. George also teaches that sinterable particles can be formed into various shapes and sintered using well-known methods to form ceramic parts (page 15 lines· 25-28).
But George fails to explicitly teach the use of nanoparticles that comprise of about 60 mol % to about 70 mol % of yttrium oxide and about 30 mol % to about 40 mol % of zirconium oxide. However, “Sun ‘564” teaches the use of ceramic material of about 69 mole% yttrium oxide and about 31 mole% zirconium oxide in a process chamber liner or an internal apparatus component within the process chamber (para. [0018]). Sun also teaches that the erosion rate of a pure solid yttrium oxide ceramic in a CF4/CHF3 plasma is about 0.3 μm/hr. The erosion rate at which a surface is removed in μm (of thickness)/hr) of a solid ceramic of about 69 mole% yttrium oxide and about 31 mole% zirconium oxide is about 0.1 μm/hr, a 3 times slower erosion rate than pure solid yttrium oxide. This unexpected decrease in erosion rate extends the lifetime of a process chamber liner or an internal apparatus component within the process chamber, so that the replacement frequency for such apparatus is reduced, reducing apparatus down time; and, the particle and metal contamination level generated during a plasma process is reduced, enabling a device fabrication with ever shrinking geometry with reduced overall cost of the processing apparatus per wafer processed, on the average (para. [0018]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sun ‘564, and use a known composition of nanopowder (claimed 60 mol % to about 70 mol % of yttrium oxide and about 30 mol % to about 40 mol % of zirconium oxide) to improve the performance of a processing apparatus by decreasing the plasma erosion rate (KSR Rationale C, MPEP 2143). Since both the references deal with yttria and zirconia as composition ingredients, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over George et al. (WO 2003/008186 A1), in view of Sun et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2008/ 0264564 A1), in view of Sun et al. ((US Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0133285 A1).
Regarding claims 15-16, George teaches a method of performing deposition to form a plurality of nanoparticles, comprising forming a thin film coating over core particles by teaching a suitable and preferred method for depositing an inorganic material through controlled growth technique to form nanosized particles (page 9, lines 16-32). George discloses sintering a particle material to form ceramic parts, and the use thereof could be selected as appropriate by teaching that the particles of the invention are useful in a wide variety of applications, depending mainly on the composition of the particulate material. Sinterable particles can be formed into various shapes and sintered using well-known methods to form ceramic parts. Pressureless sintering processes are of particular interest (page 15 lines· 25-28). Additionally, “Sun ‘564” teaches that the coating is applied to a substrate surface by thermal/flame spraying, plasma spraying, sputtering, or chemical vapor deposition (CVD) (para. [0012]). “Sun ‘564” further teaches sintering process using a method selected from pressureless sintering, hot-press sintering (HP), or hot isostatic press sintering (HIP). These sintering techniques are well known in the art (para. [0016]). But the references fail to explicitly teach the sintering process involving applying a temperature of 2730 to 3275 °F. However, “Sun ‘285” teaches to apply to deposited ceramic coatings, such as plasma sprayed ceramic coatings and ceramic coatings applied using ion assisted techniques in the formation of ceramic chamber material article (para. [0015]). “Sun ‘285” also teaches a sintering process performed at 1500-2100 °C (equivalent to 2732-3812 °F) (para. [0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teaching, suggestion, or motivation of “Sun ‘285” with that of George, Sun ‘564, and Sun ‘486, and use a sintering process involving temperatures between 2730 to 3275 °F to produce article of interest to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over George et al. (WO 2003/008186 A1), in view of Sun et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2008/ 0264564 A1).
Regarding claim 20, George teaches a method of performing deposition to form a plurality of nanoparticles, comprising forming a thin film coating over core particles by teaching a suitable and preferred method for depositing an inorganic material through atomic layer controlled growth technique to form nanosized particles (page 9, lines 16-32). George teaches in claim 1 (of the reference), a material in the form of particles (equivalent to nano-powder) comprising a plurality of nanoparticles, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of nanoparticles comprises of a substrate (equivalent to core particle) comprising a first material selected from a group consisting of a metal oxide of Group III B element (page 4, lines 2-10) (rare earth metal-containing oxide), a rare earth metal-containing fluoride, a rare earth metal-containing oxyfluoride and combinations thereof. George teaches that the substrate material particles of interest include metal oxide and the preferred particle composition include among other Group III B metal oxide elements that includes Sc (Scandium) and Y (Yttrium). George teaches that the thin film coating has a thickness of about 1 nm to about 500 nm; by teaching that the ultrathin deposits are advantageously from about 0.5 to about 500 nm (page 19, lines 3-4).
George also teaches that the material in the form of particle (equivalent to nano-powder) has a thin film coating over the particle, the thin film coating comprising a second material selected from a group consisting of a metal oxides such as zirconia, yttria (rare earth metal-containing oxide) (page 6, line28 – page 7, line 8), a rare earth metal-containing fluoride, a rare earth metal-containing oxyfluoride and combinations thereof, by teaching an ultrathin, inorganic material deposited on the surface of the material.
George discloses sintering a particle material to form ceramic parts, and the use thereof could be selected as appropriate by teaching that the particles of the invention are useful in a wide variety of applications, depending mainly on the composition of the particulate material. But George fails to explicitly teach the use of plasma spraying of the nano-powders to form the nanoceramic coating on a chamber component. However, “Sun ‘564” teaches that the coating is applied to a substrate surface by thermal/flame spraying, plasma spraying, sputtering, or chemical vapor deposition (CVD) (para. [0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teaching, suggestion, or motivation of “Sun ‘564” with that of George, and to combine the use of a plasma spraying process, to produce a nano-ceramic coating on a chamber component to provide protection in a semiconductor processing apparatus (KSR Rationale A, MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Eastern Time).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742