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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 08 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08 January 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or, in the alternative under 102(a)(2), as being anticipated by Woo et al. (US 2024/0153745 A1)(Woo) 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%. See paragraph [0031].
As to claim 2, Woo discloses the porosity of the second coating is less than the porosity of the first coating. See paragraph [0031].
As to claim 4, 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).
As to claim 5, Woo discloses the first layer has a porosity of greater than 1% and less than 10% in paragraph [0027]. This range is sufficiently specific to anticipate the range recited in claim 5. See MPEP 2131.03.
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.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (US 2024/0153745 A1)(Woo) as applied to claim 1 above.
Woo anticipates claim 1 for the reasons recited above.
As to claim 3, Woo discloses the first layer may be an oxide (paragraph [0011]) and has a thickness of greater than 50 µm (paragraph [0015]).
As to claim 6, Woo discloses the second layer may be a metal oxide, metal fluoride or metal nitride. See paragraph [0032]. The second layer has a thickness of less than 10 µm. See paragraph [0015].
Woo differs from the claims 3 and 6 by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed ranges of thicknesses.
However, the ranges of thickness for the first and second layers of Woo overlap the ranges recited in claims 3 and 6. 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (US 2024/0153745 A1)(Woo), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogawa et al. (US 2025/0171886 A1)(Ogawa).
Woo anticipates claim 1 for the reasons recited above. The article of Woo is intended to be used in semiconductor processing apparatuses such as a wafer chuck. See the abstract and [0022]. Woo suggests the second layer may be an oxide such as Y2O3 (paragraph [0035]), but does not disclose the hardness of the layer.
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. 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen et al. (US 2023/0025296 A1) teaches a void free plasma treatment component having a high hardness. Vetter (US 2012/0196137 A1) teaches a coating having a hardness of 100 to 4000 HV (claim 12). Wang et al. (US 20230021394 A1) discloses a first, lower coating having a lower hardness than a second upper coating (abstract).
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