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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority to International Application No. PCT/US2023/030811, filed August 22, 2023, and to the priority date of September 21, 2022. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is taken as September 21, 2022 for purposes of this action. Each reference relied upon below qualifies as prior art as of a date before that effective filing date.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted March 7, 2025 has been considered by the examiner. Signed and initialed copies of Form PTO/SB/08 (Form 1449) are enclosed.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites "the plasma phasing surface." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and the term "plasma phasing surface" is unclear. It cannot be determined whether "plasma phasing surface" is intended to refer to the previously recited "plasma facing surface" or to different subject matter. For purposes of examination, the limitation is treated as "plasma facing surface." Correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4–12, and 14–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naim et al. (US 2017/0301519 A1) ("D1").
D1 is a printed publication published October 19, 2017 and is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Claim 1. D1 discloses a semiconductor processing chamber member (i.e., a component for use in a plasma processing chamber system) comprising a body having a plasma-spray coating provided on the body to target a pyrochlore phase, wherein the coating is an ABO or ABCO complex-oxide solid-solution composition in which A, B, and C are selected from the group consisting of La, Zr, Ce, Gd, Y, Yb, and Si, and O is an oxide (D1, ¶46; claim 1). D1 further expressly discloses a La₂Zr₂O₇ coating provided on a plasma etch chamber part (D1, ¶49; Fig. 3). La₂Zr₂O₇ is a pyrochlore comprising zirconium (satisfying "at least one of zirconium and hafnium") and lanthanum (satisfying "at least one of lanthanum (La), samarium (Sm), yttrium (Y), erbium (Er), cerium (Ce), gadolinium (Gd), ytterbium (Yb), and neodymium (Nd)").
Thus D1 discloses a component body having a plasma facing surface comprising a pyrochlore comprising at least one of zirconium and hafnium and at least one of the recited rare-earth elements. To the extent the particular selection of zirconium and lanthanum is characterized as a difference over D1's disclosed genus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select La₂Zr₂O₇ (or a corresponding Zr + La pyrochlore) from the genus expressly disclosed by D1, which recites both La and Zr among its A/B/C constituents and names La₂Zr₂O₇ as a working composition. Such a selection from a finite number of identified, predictable options amounts to no more than the exercise of ordinary skill and yields predictable results, namely D1's taught benefit of a more robust and economical plasma-spray complex-oxide surface that reduces particle generation and improves wet-cleaning resistance in a plasma chamber (D1, ¶44). See MPEP 2144.05 (obviousness of selecting from a disclosed genus and of overlapping compositions) and MPEP 2143 (rationales including combining/selecting known elements to obtain predictable results and "obvious to try").
Claim 2 (pyrochlore comprises zirconium and La). D1 discloses a mechanically blended powder of La₂O₃ and ZrO₂ in blend ratios targeting a pyrochlore phase (~56 wt% La₂O₃, balance ZrO₂) (¶46) and an express La₂Zr₂O₇ composition (¶49; Fig. 3). Obvious for the reasons stated for claim 1.
Claim 4 (plasma facing surface comprises a coating on a surface of the component body). D1 discloses the pyrochlore/complex-oxide as a plasma-spray coating on the body (¶46) and a La₂Zr₂O₇ coating on the surface of a chamber part (¶49; Fig. 3).
Claim 5 (component body comprises an electrically conductive metal). D1 discloses a component body comprising a 6061 aluminum alloy shell (¶49; Fig. 3). Aluminum alloy is an electrically conductive metal.
Claim 6 (the electrically conductive metal is a refractory metal). D1 discloses a metallic (aluminum-alloy) component body coated with the pyrochlore surface (¶49). The examiner takes Official Notice that refractory metals (e.g., tungsten, molybdenum, tantalum) are well known in the art as structural materials for plasma-facing and high-temperature components of plasma processing chambers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the metallic component body of D1 from a refractory metal, as a selection of an art-recognized material for its known suitability where elevated temperature and erosion resistance are desired, with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. See MPEP 2144.03 (Official Notice); MPEP 2144.07 (selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended use); MPEP 2143 (simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results).
EXAMINER NOTE: D1's metal body is 6061 Al, which is not refractory. This claim is carried on Official Notice / obvious material selection. If applicant traverses the Official Notice, be prepared to supply documentary evidence of refractory-metal chamber components, or consider indicating claim 6 as containing allowable subject matter. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
Claim 7 (component body comprises a ceramic). D1 discloses a sintered ceramic part made from Al₂O₃ used in a plasma chamber (¶67).
Claim 8 (coating thickness in a range of 100 nm to 300 microns). D1 discloses a La₂Zr₂O₇ coating having a thickness of 0.006 inch (≈152 microns) (¶49; Fig. 3) and a Ce–Gd oxide solid-solution coating of 0.004 inch (≈102 microns) (¶67), both falling within the claimed range. Where the prior-art value lies within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 9 (component forms at least one of a gas injector, chamber liner, chamber wall, and dielectric window). D1 discloses forming a large part in a shape commonly used in a plasma etch chamber, including a cylindrical shell (i.e., a chamber liner and/or chamber wall) (¶49; Fig. 3). The recitation "at least one of" is satisfied by a chamber liner and/or chamber wall.
Claim 10 (component body comprises a ceramic laminate comprising a ceramic component body of a first ceramic powder and a pyrochlore layer on a surface of the component body). D1 discloses a sintered Al₂O₃ ceramic body (a ceramic component body of a first ceramic powder) bearing a plasma-spray complex-oxide/pyrochlore surface layer (¶67 in combination with ¶¶46, 49). Providing D1's pyrochlore/La₂Zr₂O₇ layer (¶¶46, 49) on D1's sintered Al₂O₃ ceramic body (¶67) yields the claimed ceramic laminate and would have been obvious for the reasons stated for claim 1.
Claim 11 (the ceramic component body of the first ceramic powder is not a pyrochlore). D1's sintered Al₂O₃ body (¶67) is not a pyrochlore.
Claim 12 (method for forming the component). D1 discloses forming such components by providing a body and forming the pyrochlore/complex-oxide plasma-facing surface thereon by plasma/thermal spray (¶¶44, 46, 49). Claim 12 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 in method form and is obvious over D1 for the same reasons.
Claim 14 (providing a bulk component body; and forming a pyrochlore coating on a surface of the bulk component body). D1 discloses providing a bulk part (e.g., the 6061 Al shell or sintered Al₂O₃ body) and forming a La₂Zr₂O₇/complex-oxide pyrochlore coating on its surface (¶¶49, 67).
Claim 15 (forming the pyrochlore coating by at least one of atomic layer deposition, aerosol deposition, thermal spraying, PVD, and CVD). D1 discloses forming the complex-oxide/pyrochlore coating by thermal spraying / plasma spraying (¶¶44, 46). The recitation "at least one of" is satisfied by thermal spraying.
Claim 16 (pyrochlore comprises zirconium and La). See claims 1–2; D1 ¶¶46, 49.
Claim 17 (a product made by the method as recited in claim 12). Claim 17 is a product-by-process claim. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not on the method of making it. See MPEP 2113. The product of claim 17 is the component of claims 1/12 and is obvious over D1 for the reasons stated above.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naim et al. (US 2017/0301519 A1) ("D1") in view of Kumar et al., "Attaining near-theoretical densification in nanograined pyrochlore La₂Zr₂O₇ (LZ) ceramic at 1150 °C by spark plasma sintering," Elsevier (Feb. 28, 2016) ("Kumar").
Kumar is a printed publication dated February 28, 2016 and is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Claim 3 (the component body comprises the pyrochlore forming a bulk component body). D1 discloses La₂Zr₂O₇ pyrochlore as the plasma-erosion-resistant material for plasma chamber components (¶¶44, 46, 49). D1's exemplified structure is a coating; D1 does not expressly disclose the pyrochlore forming a bulk component body. Kumar teaches that bulk La₂Zr₂O₇ pyrochlore ceramic can be consolidated to near-theoretical density by spark plasma sintering at 1150 °C (Kumar, title and abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form D1's plasma-resistant La₂Zr₂O₇ pyrochlore as a bulk (monolithic) component body, as taught by Kumar, in order to obtain a dense, monolithic plasma-facing component of the same erosion-resistant material rather than a coating alone, with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. See MPEP 2143 (combining prior-art teachings with predictable results; use of a known technique to improve a similar device/material in the same way).
Claim 13 (the forming of the component body comprises spark plasma sintering a ceramic powder). Kumar expressly teaches spark plasma sintering of La₂Zr₂O₇ pyrochlore ceramic powder to near-theoretical density (Kumar, title and abstract). It would have been obvious, for the reasons stated for claim 3, to form the pyrochlore ceramic body of D1 by spark plasma sintering a ceramic powder as taught by Kumar.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA C KING whose telephone number is (571)270-3429. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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 H. 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.
/MONICA C KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
7/11/2026
Prosecution Insights