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 3/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al. (US 2024/0392426) in view of HONDA (US 2006/0196846), WANG et al. (US 2018/0174901; hereinafter WANG II), and FUJII (US 2016/0146761).
Regarding claims 1 and 5,
WANG teaches a plasma chamber with a protective layer of magnesium fluoride (fluorinated magnesium) abstract. The remote plasma source generates fluorine plasma [0007]. The magnesium fluoride prevents fluorine radicals from penetrating into the component [0008]. The reference does not expressly teach including a radical sensor including a filter and piezoelectric material. However, HONDA teaches that when using a plasma processing apparatus measuring the concentration of F radicals is desirable to precisely control the endpoint of an etching step abstract and [0018]-[0019]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a F radical sensor to measure the plasma density in a plasma chamber.
WANG teaches a protective magnesium fluoride coating on a component but the component is a product rather than a component of the plasma system itself. However, WANG II teaches that when performing a fluorine plasma treatment, a conditioning step can be done to passivate components (protective coating) of the system itself, such as chamber walls and showerheads [0003]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to passivate the components of the chamber itself to passivate the apparatus components from deposition and/or etching of the substrate.
Modified WANG teaches a plasma chamber with a F radical sensor but does not teach a chemosorbing filter selectively reacting with radical species on a piezoelectric material. However, when detecting and measuring F radicals FUJII teaches using a quartz microbalance (QCM) [0028] with piezoelectric material [0036] and a sensitive film (selectively reactive) [0045]. The sensitive film can be tungsten oxide [0053] which is one of the filter materials used in applicant’s specification [00084]. The detection device of FUJII is advantageously small and low cost [0122]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use the detection device of FUJII because it is a low cost sensor detecting F radicals as used in WANG.
Regarding claim 2,
WANG teaches the plasma source is a remote plasma source 200 and gas supply 210 [0040]. As shown in Fig. 3 the gas source 210 is coupled to the remote plasma source 200 and chamber/housing 102. The shower head 160 can also correspond to the gas delivery lines. WANG teaches passivating with magnesium fluoride. The same protective/passivating material will perform the same function.
Regarding claim 3,
WANG teaches the shower head and chamber wall liner can be made of aluminum (metal) [0039]-[0041].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al. (US 2024/0392426) in view of HONDA (US 2006/0196846), WANG et al. (US 2018/0174901; hereinafter WANG II), and FUJII (US 2016/0146761) further in view of NGUYEN (CN 105190847; citation to machine translation).
Regarding claim 4,
Modified WANG teaches applying a protective/passivating coating to a plasma system component but does not teach the component as made of a ceramic material. However, NGUYEN teaches magnesium fluoride page 2 can be used as a protective coating for a ceramic plasma chamber component abstract. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to protect/passivate both ceramic and metallic components from plasma deposition/etching to prevent damage to the apparatus.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al. (US 2024/0392426) in view of HONDA (US 2006/0196846), WANG et al. (US 2018/0174901; hereinafter WANG II), and FUJII (US 2016/0146761) further in view of TAI et al. (US 2011/0005922).
Regarding claim 6,
WANG teaches applying a protective layer but does not teach an adhesion layer between the component and protective coating. However, TAI teaches that when forming an MgF2 protective layer the underlying aluminum component can be oxidized to and form diffusion bonds with the magnesium fluoride [0032]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to form a protective layer of both aluminum oxide and magnesium fluoride to provide improved protection from plasma inside the chamber.
Regarding claim 7,
WANG teaches the protective layer is dense and nonporous to prevent penetration of fluorine radicals [0052]. The nonporous layer has a porosity of less than 5%. The thickness of the protective layer is 100-300nm abstract which falls within the claimed range.
TAI teaches the oxide layer can include porous layers and nonporous “hard” and “transition” layers (0% porosity) [0028]. The reference teaches the total thickness of the oxide layer is 50µm [0034]-[0035] but does not expressly teach the thickness of the hard and transition layers of the oxide material. However, the thickness of the protective layer is considered to be a result effective variable because a thicker protective layer is expected to offer more/longer protection than a relatively thinner layer at the cost of more material and weight. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of a protective layer to balance the protective properties with the costs associated with the protective layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights