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 .
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 (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 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.
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) 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al.
(U.S. PGPUB. 2016/0273095 A1) in view of Xiong et al. "Development of mid-frequency AC
reactive magnetron sputtering for fast deposition of Y203 buffer layers", Physica C 497 (2014) 38-42.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
Regarding claim 10, Lin et al. '095 teach a method comprising depositing a metal oxide containing yttrium onto a substrate using a physical vapor deposition technique (Paragraph 0036), the metal oxide forming a film overlying the substrate (Paragraph 0036); and fluoro- annealing the film (Paragraph 0036), wherein after fluoro-annealing, the film has a fluorine atomic % of at least 10 at a depth of 30% of the total thickness of the film (Paragraphs 0041, 0042, 0044, 0051, 0054; Table 4 Samples D-G Location 2 at 3 microns 15.42%, 16.56%, 28.52% and 32.29% Atomic percent Fluorine. The film 9 microns. 3 microns is 30% the depth and meet the atomic percent required by the claims.) The difference between claim 10 and Lin et al. '095 is that utilizing alternating current power supply for the physical vapor deposition technique is not discussed. Regarding utilizing alternating current power supply for the physical vapor deposition technique (Claim 10): Lin et al. '095 teach utilizing reactive sputtering, sputtering and physical vapor deposition methods to produce the metal oxide containing yttrium. (Paragraphs 0036, 0047) Xiong et al. recognize problems with reactive sputtering utilizing DC current (which is a physical vapor deposition method) and proposes that mid-frequency alternating current (AC) sputtering can be used during reactive sputtering to stabilize the sputtering and prevent arcing. (page 38 - Introduction) Xiong et al. teach utilizing Y₂O₃ on a substrate utilizing AC power (Page 39 - Experimental Details) Xiong et al. teach that the Y₂O₃ films have a smooth, dense and crack-free structure. (Page 40 - Results and Discussion)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Lin et al.' s '095 deposition process by utilizing the
deposition process of Xiong for the yttria layer because it allows for preventing arcing during
sputtering and producing smooth dense crack free coatings.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein after fluoro-annealing, the film has no surface
cracks on the surf ace the film visible when viewing the surface of the film with a laser confocal
microscope at a magnification of 400x.
Regarding claim 11, Lin et al. '095 teach wherein after fluoro-annealing the film has no
surface cracks. (Paragraphs 0096; Figs. l lA-11 C, 12A-12C) With regard to the process of
measuring the film the film product has no surface cracks after annealing and therefore suggests
the product even though the process to measure is different from the prior art.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein after fluoro-annealing, the film has no
subsurface cracks below the surface of the film visible when using a laser confocal microscope
to view the full depth of the film at a magnification of 1 000x.
Regarding claim 12, Lin et al. '095 teach wherein after fluoro-annealing the film has no
surface cracks. (Paragraphs 0096; Figs. l lA-11 C, 12A-12C) With regard to the process of
measuring the film the film product has no surface cracks after annealing and therefore suggests
the product even though the process to measure is different from the prior art.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein after fluoro-annealing, the film has a fluorine
atomic% of at least 20 at a depth of 30% of the total thickness of the film.
Regarding claim 13, Lin et al. '095 teach wherein after fluoro-annealing, the film has a
fluorine atomic% of at least 20 at a depth of 3 0% of the total thickness of the film. (Paragraphs
0041, 0042, 0044, 0051, 0054; Table 4 Samples D-G Location 2 at 3 microns 15 .42%, 16. 56%,
28.52% and 32.29 % Atomic percent Fluorine. The film 9 microns. 3 microns is 30% the depth
and meet the atomic percent required by the claims.)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein after fluoro-annealing, the film has a fluorine
atomic% of at least 30 at a depth of 30% of the total thickness of the film.
Regarding claim 14, Lin et al. '095 teach wherein after fluoro-annealing, the film has a
fluorine atomic% of at least 20 at a depth of 3 0% of the total thickness of the film. (Paragraphs
0041, 0042, 0044, 0051, 0054; Table 4 Samples D-G Location 2 at 3 microns 15 .42%, 16. 56%,
28.52% and 32.29 % Atomic percent Fluorine. The film 9 microns. 3 microns is 30% the depth
and meet the atomic percent required by the claims.)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein after fluoro-annealing, the film has a fluorine
atomic% of at least 20 at a depth of 50% of the total thickness of the film.
Regarding claim 15, Lin et al. '095 teach wherein after fluoro-annealing, the film has a
fluorine atomic% of at least 20 at a depth of 50% of the total thickness of the film. (Paragraphs
0041 - 42 atomic percent or less fluorine, 0042, 0044 - 4 microns thick film with 2 microns
yttrium oxyfluoride, 00 51, 00 54)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein after fluoro-annealing, the film has a fluorine
atomic% of at least 30 at a depth of 50% of the total thickness of the film.
Regarding claim 16, Lin et al. '095 teach wherein after fluoro-annealing, the film has a
fluorine atomic% of at least 30 at a depth of 50% of the total thickness of the film. (Paragraphs
0041 - 42 atomic percent or less fluorine, 0042, 0044 - 4 microns thick film with 2 microns
yttrium oxyfluoride, 00 51, 00 54)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the fluoro-annealing is performed at a
temperature of about 300°C to about 650°C in fluorine containing atmosphere.
Regarding claim 17, Lin et al. '095 teach wherein the fluoro-annealing is performed at a
temperature of about 300°C to about 650°C in fluorine containing atmosphere. (Paragraph 0036,
0037)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the substrate is alumina.
Regarding claim 18, Lin et al. '095 teach wherein the substrate is alumina. (Paragraph
0040)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Xiong et al. is that it allows for preventing
arcing during sputtering and producing smooth dense crack free coatings. (See Introduction, See
Results and Discussions)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Lin et al. '095 by utilizing the features of Xiong et al.
because it allows for preventing arcing during sputtering and producing smooth dense crack free
coatings.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. '095 in
view of Xiong et al. as applied to claims I 0-18 above, and further in view of Lin et al (US
2019/0185997 Al).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the substrate is silicon.
Regarding claim 19:
Lin et al. '095 teach wherein the substrate chamber component can be alumina.
Lin'997 teaches substrates used as chamber components for coating include alumina and
silicon as a functional equivalents as vacuum compatible substrates in plasma process chambers
[0057] and [0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have replaced the alumina of Lin et al. '095 with the silicon of Lin et al.
'997 because Lin et al. '997 recognize the substrates as functionally equivalent substrate
material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Xiong et al. are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Xiong is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. Specifically Xiong is within the field of sputtering and addresses a different problem of arcing during sputtering that improves stability during sputtering which would be pertinent to the sputtering process of Lin et al.
In response to the argument that Xiong et al. are not combinable with Lin et al. because Xiong et al. does not look to solve the problem set forth by the claimed invention, it is argued that while Xiong et al. solve a different problem of arcing to produce stable sputtering and to produce crack dense-crack free coatings it is still within Lin et al.’s field of endeavor as discussed above.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Xiong et al. to prevent arcing during sputtering in order to stabilize the process and promote dense crack free coatings.
In response to the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Lin et al. utilizing the teachings of Xiong et al. because Lin et al. does not identify arcing as a problem, it is argued that it is argued that while Xiong et al. solve a different problem of arcing to produce stable sputtering and to produce dense crack free coatings it is still within Lin et al.’s field of endeavor as discussed above.
In response to the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Lin et al. utilizing the teachings of Xiong et al. because Xiong does not teach crack-free after fluor-annealing, it is argued that Applicant shows that AC sputtering reduces cracks and is an improvement of DC sputtering which produces cracks. Xiong utilizes AC sputtering which prevents arcing in order to produce stable sputtering and to produce dense crack free coatings. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Xiong et al. to modify Lin et al. to produce dense crack free coatings.
In response to the argument that the combination of prior art does not recognize the unexpected result of the coating lacking cracks when using alternating current and fluoro-annealing, it is argued that Applicant shows that AC sputtering reduces cracks and is an improvement of DC sputtering which produces cracks. Xiong et al. utilizes AC sputtering which prevents arcing in order to produce stable sputtering and to produce dense crack free coatings. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Xiong et al. to modify Lin et al. to produce dense crack free coatings. Lin et al. teach fluoro-annealing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off..
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RMApril 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights