DETAILED 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 .
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.
Examiner’s Comment
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim has two commas over the word “substrate” in line 4. One of the commas should be removed.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group III, claims 14-20 in the reply filed on 1/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that examination of the claims as a whole would not present a serious search burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different groups/subgroups or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). Further, the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uei et al. (JP2000-302577, see machine translated version).
Regarding claim 14, Uei et al. teach a silicon carbide coated body (paragraphs [0001], [0010]) comprising a graphite substrate comprising pores (paragraph [0013]) and a silicon carbide layer on a surface of the graphite substrate (paragraph [0013]), the silicon carbide layer extending into the pores relative to the surface (paragraph [0013]).
Uei et al. do not disclose an average pore diameter of > 10 µm at a surface of the graphite substrate. However, Uei et al. do teach wherein the graphite substrate has a maximum pore size of 10 µm or more (paragraph [0012]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the average pore diameter of Uei et al. to > 10 µm in order to become more advantageous for filling with SiC particles and stronger adherence of the SiC coating (Uei et al. paragraph [0018]).
The limitation “used in a process chamber" is deemed to be a statement with regard to intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2111.02. The silicon carbide coated body of Uei et al. is capable of being used in a process chamber in that it contains the same constituents and displays the same characteristics as claimed by Applicant. Being that the silicon carbide coated body of Uei et al. and Applicant are the same structurally, they would as a result be capable of the same use.
Regarding claim 15, Uei et al. teach wherein the graphite substrate has a chlorine content, wherein said chlorine content is present in the graphite substrate > 50 µm below an outer surface thereof (paragraphs [0022]-[0024]).
Uei et al. do not disclose wherein the chlorine content is at least about 20.00 ppb by weight. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in amount involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the amount of chlorine so that the SiC particles deposited in the vapor phase can penetrate into the interior of the pores and be deposited (Uei et al., paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 16, Uei et al. teach wherein the graphite substrate has pores (paragraph [0013]).
Uei et al. do not disclose wherein the graphite substrate has modified pores and unmodified ores, the modified pores having a diameter of two to eight times a diameter of the unmodified pores. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in diameter involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the diameter of the pores of the substrate such that the graphite substrate has modified pores and unmodified pores in order to become more advantageous for filling with SiC particles and stronger adherence of the SiC coating (Uei et al. paragraph [0018]).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uei et al. (JP2000-302577, see machine translated version) in view of Fatzer et al. (US Patent No. 3,925,577).
Uei et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 17, Uei et al. fail to teach wherein the graphite substrate has a first average grain size from about 0.015 mm to about 0.04 mm. However, Fatzer et al. teach a graphite substrate (col. 2, lines 20-40) having an average grain size of less than 0.001 inch (=0.0254 mm) which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of from about 0.15 mm to about 0.04 mm (col. 2, lines 20-30).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grain size of Uei et al. to that of Fatzer et al. in order to allow applied coatings to not peel, crack or break off in use (Fatzer et al., col. 2, lines 8-17).
Regarding claim 18, Uei et al. fail to teach wherein the graphite substrate has a density of 1.50 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3. However, Fatzer et al. teach a graphite substrate (col. 2, lines 20-40), wherein the graphite substrate has a density of about 1.75 grams per cc (col. 3, lines 25-30).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the graphite substrate density of Uei et al. to that of Fatzer et al. in order to provide great strength at room temperature (Fatzer et al., col. 3, lines 38-43).
Regarding claim 19, Uei et al. fail to teach wherein the graphite substrate comprises one or more of the following elements in an amount of: calcium being less than 50.00 ppb by weight, magnesium being less than 50.00 ppb by weight, aluminum being less than 50.00 ppb by weight, titanium being less than 10.00 ppb by weight, chromium being less than 100.00 ppb by weight, manganese being less than 10.00 ppb by weight, copper being less than 50.00 ppb by weight, iron being less than 10.00 ppb by weight, cobalt being less than 10.00 ppb by weight, nickel being less than 10.00 ppb by weight, zinc being less than 50.00 ppb by weight, or molybdenum being less than 150.00 ppb by weight. However, Fatzer et al. teach a graphite substrate (col. 2, lines 20-40), wherein the graphite substrate comprises iron, aluminum, titanium, magnesium and nickel from 2 to 10 ppm (col. 4, lines 30-40).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elemental content of Uei et al. to that of Fatzer et al. in order to provide a low level of ash content (Fatzer et al., col. 4, lines 30-40).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uei et al. (JP2000-302577, see machine translated version) in view of Land et al. (US Patent Application No. 2017/0204532).
Uei et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 20, Uei et al. teach wherein the silicon carbide layer is derived from dimethyldichlorosilane (paragraph [0023]).
Uei et al. fail to teach wherein the silicon carbide layer comprises substantially tetrahedral crystalline silicon carbide tendrils having a length of at least 50 µm. However, Land et al. teach an article comprising silicon carbide (page 2, paragraph [0020]), wherein the silicon carbide comprises substantially tetrahedral crystalline silicon carbide (page 3, paragraph [0034]).
Land et al. do not disclose wherein the silicon carbide tendrils have a length of at least 50 µm. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in length involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the tendril length of Land et al. in order to provide enhanced control, greater efficiencies and high quality (Land et al., page 1, paragraph [0003]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the silicon carbide of Land et al. in the component of Uei et al. in order to provide enhanced control, greater efficiencies and high quality (Land et al., page 1, paragraph [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 2/20/2026