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 in the reply filed on September 2,k, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 September 2, 2026.
Claims 1-12 are pending; claim 1 is independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed April 11, 2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the first US Patent document is missing the last digit (should be US 2004/0002221, US 2004/000222 has not been considered), further the WIPO document was not provided by applicant and has not been considered. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Specifically, 1) the abstract is not on its own sheet. 2) “is provided” in the first sentence is language that can be implied.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding “NSA” in claim 9, the examiner notes that this is defined in [0018] of their specification, “nickel super alloy; herein referred to as NSAs”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 5-7 are 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 or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, it is indefinite what a “thermal uniformity cladding” is definitely. A thorough examination of the specification fails to provide a definition and it is not a term of art. For purposes of examination, anything that may improve thermal uniformity as a structure will be considered to meet this limitation.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, these claims are rejected for their incorporation of the above due to their respective dependencies on claim 5.
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.
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 1-8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Donnell et al. (US-20040002221-A1), hereinafter O'Donnell.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 11, O’Donnell teaches a component of a semiconductor processing apparatuses including processing chamber walls ([0023]; [0026]) for use in a semiconductor processing chamber) that comprise a yttria containing coating that provides an outer surface resistance to plasma ([0024]; a metal oxide), the exposed internal surfaces of components are coated with the yttria containing coating ([0050]; a coating over the process facing surface), the yttria containing coating is provided on a metallic component such as stainless steel ([0060]; iron alloy), and the yttria containing material preferably consists essentially of yttria with a purity of more preferably from 99.5-100% and a porosity of less than about 1% by volume ([0027]; [0029]; 100% purity of any units overlaps with at least 99% by weight). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Regarding claim 2, O’Donnell teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above and further teaches the thickness of the yttria coating has a minimum that is sufficient to provide coverage of wear resistance and can be selected to be compatible with the plasma environment of the reactor ([0068]). O’Donnell does not specifically teach the coating thickness is 50-6000nm; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art to this claimed range. The motivation for doing so would have been that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed object, and an object having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art; the claimed object is not patentably distinct (MPEP 2144.04 IV. A). Further, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 II B), and one would have been routine optimization to adjust the thickness to provide coverage of wear resistance and can be selected to be compatible with the plasma environment of the reactor ([0068]).
Regarding claim 3, O’Donnell teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above and further teaches the exposed internal surfaces of components are coated with the yttria containing coating ([0050]; a coating over the process facing surface) and the yttria-containing coating is deposited directly onto a substrate without the formation of any intermediate layers ([0068]; direct contact with the process facing surface).
Regarding claim 4, O’Donnell teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above and further teaches the exposed internal surfaces of components are coated with the yttria containing coating ([0050]; a coating over the process facing surface) and one or more intermediate layers provided between the component surface that is coated and the yttria containing coating ([0062]), and the intermediate layer can be Al2O3 or AlN ([0065]; comprising aluminum layer).
Regarding claims 5-7, O’Donnell teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above. Examiner notes that “thermal uniformity cladding is subject to broadest reasonable interpretation and anything that may modify temperature may impact “thermal uniformity” and cladding is broadly any covering on a structure or material. Similarly, “temperature control system” is broadly interpretable as anything that may impact temperature.
O’Donnell further teaches a reactor chamber with a channel 24 through which a temperature control fluid is flowed ([0055]; thermal uniformity cladding that is a temperature control system with the fluid) and Fig. 4 shows the channel is opposite the process facing surface where the focus ring 14 is ([0054]; Fig. 4), further other equipment in the processing semiconductor can be aluminum ([0059]; including the channel).
Regarding claim 8, O’Donnell teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above and further teaches a yttria containing coating that provides an outer surface resistance to plasma ([0024]; a metal oxide), the exposed internal surfaces of components are coated with the yttria containing coating ([0050]; a coating over the process facing surface), the yttria containing coating is provided on a metallic component such as stainless steel ([0060]; iron alloy), wear resistant coatings can be used in various different plasma atmospheres for etching, for example, chlorine containing gases including, but not limited to, Cl 2, HCl and BCl3 ([0034]) and the term “wear resistant” includes, but is not limited to, resistance to erosion, corrosion and/or corrosion-erosion ([0023]; the stainless steel with the coating is resistant to corrosion from halogen [chlorine] containing plasma).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Donnell in view of Hazarika et al. (WO 2022/159278 A1, herein referring to US 2024/0062997 A1 [patent family member] for translation), hereinafter Hazarika (original provided herewith).
Regarding claim 9, O’Donnell teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above and further teaches the metallic material that can be coated is stainless steel and not particularly limited ([0060]. O’Donnell does not specifically teach SAE 316L grade stainless steel.
Hazarika is in the similar field of invention of semiconductor processing chamber components (Abstract) including a protective layer of yttria ([0079]) and teaches the material for cladding as a base material can be stainless steel 316L ([0104]; SAE 316L grade).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify O’Donnell to incorporate the substrate of Hazarika. The motivation for doing so would have been simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I B). The prior art contained the product differing from that claimed only by the substitution of the component body (see above citations; finding 1). The product differing and new component body type are known in the art (above citations) and one of ordinary skill in the art understands the functions of particular type of stainless steel (finding 2). One of ordinary skill in the art reasonably expects the substitution of a particular type of stainless steel into a semiconductor processing chamber to be predictable and would have looked to related art for a type of component to coat (finding 3).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell in view of Harada et al. (US 2008.0070028 A1), herein Harada (of record).
Regarding claim 12, O’Donnell teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above and further teaches the metallic material that can be coated is not particularly limited ([0060]. O’Donnell does not specifically teach component body is titanium alloy.
Harada is in the similar field of invention of an internal member for a plasma treating vessel with a yttria sprayed coating as a top coat (Abstract) in the field of manufacturing semiconductors ([0004]) and teaches the substrate for the sprayed coating may be titanium alloy (or stainless steel) ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify O’Donnell to incorporate the substrate of Harada. The motivation for doing so would have been simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I B). The prior art contained the product differing from that claimed only by the substitution of the component body (see above citations; finding 1). The product differing and new component body type are known in the art (above citations) and one of ordinary skill in the art understands the functions of particular type of titanium alloy (finding 2). One of ordinary skill in the art reasonably expects the substitution of a particular type of metal into a semiconductor processing chamber to be predictable and would have looked to related art for a type of component to coat (finding 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE CHRISTY whose telephone number is (303)297-4363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-4pm MT.
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.
/KATHERINE A CHRISTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights