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 .
Introduction
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Woo et al. (US 2024/0153745 A1)(Woo) in view of in view of Ogawa et al. (US 2025/0171886 A1)(Ogawa) and as evidenced by de Naoum et al., “Everything You Need to Know About Hard Coat Anodizing,” https://www.xometry.com/resources/machining/hard-coat-anodizing/ (2023) .
Woo discloses a surface treatment for a wafer chuck (i.e., electrostatic chuck). See paragraph [0022]. The treatment includes the application of a first layer (210) on the substrate (205), and a second layer (215) on the first layer. See Figure 2, and paragraph [0023].
The second coating (215) has a higher hardness than the first coating (210). See paragraph [0012].
The second coating has a porosity of less than 1 vol%, and the second coating has a porosity less than the porosity of the first coating. See paragraph [0031]. Woo discloses the first layer has a porosity of greater than 1% and less than 10% in paragraph [0027].
Woo discloses the first coating has a thickness of greater than 50 µm (paragraph [0015]) and the second layer has a thickness of less than 10 µm. See paragraph [0015].
The ranges of thickness and porosity for the first and second layers of Woo overlap the ranges recited in claim 1. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have selected from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by the reference, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to the hardness values recited in claim 1 for the first and second layers, Woo discloses the first layer is formed of aluminum oxide made by anodizing aluminum. See paragraph [0025] and [0029]. Aluminum oxide formed by anodization inherently possesses a hardness of 400 to 600 HV. See de Naoum et al., “Everything You Need to Know About Hard Coat Anodizing,” https://www.xometry.com/resources /machining/hard-coat-anodizing/ (2023).
Woo discloses the second coating has a higher hardness than the first coating (i.e., greater than 400-600 HV)(paragraph [0012]) and further teaches the second coating may be a metal oxide such as Y2O3 (paragraph [0035])
Woo differs from claim 1 by failing to disclose the second coating has a hardness of 1000 to 1500 HV.
Ogawa et al. discloses an outer protective layer (i.e., second layer) formed of Y2O3 for use in plasma resistant environments such as those encountered in silicon processing. See the abstract and paragraphs [0003]-[0005]. The outer layer provides the component with excellent plasma resistant and appearance. See the abstract. The protective coating has a hardness of 800 to 1800 HV and a porosity of less than 0.5%. See paragraphs [0050]-[0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have substituted the second (outer) layer of Woo with the protective Y2O3 layer of Ogawa. The rationale for doing so is achieving a coating with excellent plasma resistance and appearance.
Ogawa discloses the protective layer (i.e., second layer) is formed by ion assisted vapor deposition (paragraphs [0141]).
The combination of reference fails to disclose the first layer is formed by a thermal spray process (instant claim 1). Similarly, the combination fails to disclose the first layer is formed by atmospheric plasma spraying, suspension plasma spraying or vacuum plasma spraying (instant claim 20). However, The process by which the first layer is formed is a process limitation in a product claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps do not appear to imply any structure.
As to claims 21 and 26, Ogawa discloses ion-assisted electron beam physical vapor deposition. See paragraphs [0161]-[0165].
As to claim 22, Woo discloses the substrate may be aluminum. See paragraph [0025].
As to claims 23 and 27, Ogawa discloses the protective layer is formed of Y2O3 (a metal oxide). See the abstract.
As to claim 24, Woo discloses the article is intended for use in semiconductor fabrication components such as a chuck. See paragraphs [0045]-[0046]. Chucks are designed to “directly contact a semiconductor wafer.”
As to claim 25, Woo teaches the protective layer may be yttrium fluoride in paragraph [0011].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue Woo and Ogawa do not disclose the
Applicants stress the combination of Woo and Ogawa does not teach a first layer formed by thermal sprauing and the second layer is formed by PVD. However, these limitations are product by process limitations that do not appear to imply any structure that is not present in the combination. The remaining limitations regarding thickness, and porosity each layer flow from the teachings of the applied references.
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 David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights