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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/12/2025 and 7/7/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20220104528 A; see translation) in view of Nagaraj (JP 2004332113 A; see translation).
With regards to claim 1. Lee disclose(s):
Semiconductor manufacturing equipment ([lines 4-8 in page 2]) comprising:
a chamber ([lines 5 in page 2]); and
a structural member that is an inner wall of the chamber ([lines 5 in page 2]), the structural member including:
a base material; and a protective film covering a surface of the base material (see wall and thermal spray coating [lines 5-10 in page 2]),
Lee does not disclose(s):
wherein a roughness of the surface is a roughness with an average length RSm of 70 um or more.
Nagaraj teaches:
A structural member comprising:
a base material (112; figs 6-7), and
a protective film (142) covering a surface of the base material (112),
wherein a roughness of the surface is a roughness with an average length RSm of 70 um or more (lines 23-25 in page 10).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device/method/system of Lee by implementing the a roughness of the surface is a roughness with an average length RSm of 70 um or more as disclosed by Nagaraj in order to efficiently apply a thermal barrier to a base material while reducing costs as taught/suggested by Nagaraj ([lines 20-26 in page 1; lines 10-13 in page 5]).
With regards to claim 5. Lee as modified disclose(s):
(Currently Amended) The semiconductor manufacturing equipment structural member according to claim 1,
Nagaraj further discloses:
wherein the base material is formed of a material containing aluminum oxide [line 24 in page 5].
With regards to claim 6. Lee as modified disclose(s):
(Currently Amended) The semiconductor manufacturing equipment structural member according to claim 1,
Nagaraj further discloses:
wherein the protective film is formed of a material containing yttrium oxide [lines 29+ in page 5].
With regards to claim 8. Lee as modified disclose(s):
(New) The semiconductor manufacturing equipment according to claim 1,
Nagaraj further discloses:
wherein the semiconductor manufacturing equipment is a plasma etching system [lines 5-8 in page 2].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20220104528 A; see translation) in view of Nagaraj (JP 2004332113 A; see translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US 20160312351 A1)
With regards to claim 7. Lee as modified disclose(s):
(Currently Amended) The semiconductor manufacturing equipment structural member according to claim 1,
Lee as modified does not disclose(s):
wherein the protective film is formed by an aerosol deposition method.
Liu teaches:
the protective film is formed by an aerosol deposition method [0020].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device/method/system of Lee by implementing the protective film is formed by an aerosol deposition method as disclosed by Liu in order to apply a uniform layer or material onto another layer as taught/suggested by Liu ([0020]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of apply a uniform layer or material onto another layer of Liu to the know device using a technique of apply a uniform layer or material onto another layer of Lee yielding the predictable result of produce highly uniform layers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 9-13 is/are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regards to claim(s) 9: the prior art fails to disclose a/an structural member requiring:
a roughness of the surface is a roughness with an average length RSm of 70 pm or more and a root mean square slope Rdq of 15 pm or less, in combination with other limitations of the claim.
With regards to dependent claim(s) 10-13; it/they are allowable in virtue of their dependency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Renan Luque whose telephone number is (571)270-1044. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/RENAN LUQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights