DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on December 31, 2025. Claims 1, 12, 21, and 23 are amended; claims 7 and 14 are canceled; claims 34 and 35 are new.
The applicant contends that the cited prior art fails to disclose the new material presently recited by independent claims 1, 12, and 21, which designates a “secondary ions mass spectrometer” (p. 15).
In response, the examiner accepts this characterization and has withdrawn the outstanding rejections. Subsequent further search, new rejections have been elaborated below.
Drawings
Acknowledged are the replacement drawings submitted on December 31, 2025. These changes are acceptable and have been entered to the record.
Specification
The proposed changes to the specification submitted on December 31, 2025, are objected to because paragraph [0043] contains several informalities. For example, in the second line, “can be” has been deleted, generating the non-grammatical sentence: “In addition, the supplied voltage impacted by the tilted angle of wafer 154.” In two other instances, Applicant has inserted accelerator without deleting “accelerated,” yielding the nonsensical term: “the accelerated accelerator voltage.” Lastly, the deletion from the fifth line appears to only delete the final two letters of “about” rather than the entire word. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder – “element,” in this case – that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
The “grid elements” of claims 12 and 22;
The “first accelerator grid element” of claim 12;
The “second accelerator grid element” of claim 12.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Each of the grid elements, as well as the first (121) and second (122) accelerator grid elements, will be interpreted as a discrete section of the corresponding grid (120) in accordance with Fig. 1B.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim 12 and its dependents 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. The seventh paragraph of claim 12 refers to “grid elements” of the screen grid; however, the instant amendments to the fourth paragraph have deleted any reference to grid elements of the screen grid. As such, the attribution of grid elements to the screen grid in the seventh paragraph lacks antecedent basis, rendering the claim indefinite. To promote compact prosecution, the examiner will accept the prior art disclosure of a screen grid, with or without grid elements, as satisfying the contested limitation.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 21-23, 25, and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al., US 2019/0148109, in view of Kim et al., US 2021/0143323, and Williams et al., US 2003/0102402.
Claims 1-6, 21-22, 30, 32: Yun discloses an IBE system, comprising:
A process chamber (114) (Fig. 1B);
A plasma chamber (134) configured to provide a plasma [0038];
A screen grid (604) configured to extract ions from a plasma chamber and receive a voltage [0072], including:
First and second apertures (702) having a first diameter (Fig. 7A);
An accelerator grid (606) disposed adjacent to the screen grid, including:
First and second accelerator grid elements comprising third and fourth apertures (704) having a second diameter ([0075], Fig. 6);
A decelerator grid (608) disposed adjacent to the accelerator grid, including:
Fifth and sixth apertures having a third diameter (702);
A rotating fixture (116) configured to hold a wafer [0037].
Yun’s apparatus permits selective control of the voltage applied to each grid element, as well as to each discrete grid ([0089-91]; Figs. 7). As such, those limitations stipulating voltage values are matters of intended use, whereby it has been held that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959)). The operator of Yun’s system can simply bias the first accelerator grid negatively, the second grid at a different negative voltage, and the decelerator grid at ground. Further, the operator can selectively apply a first negative bias to a first zone (702) within the accelerator grid and supply a different, second negative bias to a second zone (704) within the same grid (Fig. 7A).
With regard to the “first wire” and “second wire” of claim 1, Yun does not explicitly state that wires facilitate the transmission of voltage to each grid zone [0089-91]. Even so, the examiner takes Official Notice that availing a wire to supply a voltage from an electrical source is known in the art. Figure 1A, for instance, connects an RF generator to a substrate support with a wire coupling. It would have been obvious to provide a wire connection between a voltage source and each of Yun’s accelerator grid zones to achieve the predictable result of transmitting the necessary electric potential.
Yun does not teach the new material reciting a “secondary ions mass spectrometer,” as recited by claims 1, 12, and 21. Kim, then, is cited to address this omission, whereby the reference describes a grid system for extracting ions within the context of ion beam etching [0021-22]. As shown by Figure 1, Yun disposes a secondary ion mass spectrometer (199) below the rotating fixture (122) bearing a wafer (103) [0024]. The spectrometer analyzes ion concentration or intensity to determine a process end point [0026]. To procure these same advantages, it would have been obvious to incorporate the aforesaid spectrometer within Yun’s apparatus, as using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Lastly, Yun is silent regarding the relative aperture diameter of each grid. In supplementation, Williams discloses a plasma discharge chamber having, at its output, three grids to shape the generated ion plasma beam [0020]. A first, positively biased screen grid (20) is disposed at the outlet of the chamber, followed by a negatively biased accelerator grid (26) and then a decelerator grid (28) (Fig. 2). In order to increase the acceleration voltage of the ion beam, the diameter of the accelerator grid aperture is formed to be smaller than that of a corresponding aperture of the screen grid, whereas the larger diameter aperture of the decelerator grid reduces ion potential, as designed [0008]. This aperture arrangement also reduces the phenomenon of backstreaming [0022]. Thus, it would have been obvious to form the apertures of Yun’s accelerator grid to be smaller than the corresponding aligned apertures of the screen and decelerator grids to increase ion potential through the accelerator grid, reduce ion potential through the decelerator grid, and minimize the probability of backstreaming.
Claims 23, 25: As depicted by Figure 9B, the accelerator grid can be subdivided into a quasi-infinite number of elements, whereby the biasing of each element can be individually tailored. Differentially biasing the sections of the grid will inherently yield to claimed result of generating multiple beams of varying “energy” levels.
Claim 28: As shown by Figure 2 of Williams, the separation (Ig) between the screen grid (20) and the accelerator grid (26) is less than that between the accelerator grid (26) and the decelerator grid (28).
Claim 29: As shown by Figure 2 of Williams, the respective thicknesses of the screen grid (20) and decelerator grid (28) are each less than that of the accelerator grid (26).
Claim 31: As noted above, the voltages applied to each grid and grid element are matters of intended use, whereby the prior art must merely demonstrate the structural capacity to reproduce the claimed functional recitations. Yun’s operator is capable of regulating voltage such that the screen grid is maintained at 1200 volts, the first grid element at -200 volts, and the second grid element at -240 volts. A recitation concerning the manner in which a claimed apparatus is to be employed does not differentiate the apparatus from prior art satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham 2, USPQ2D 1647).
Claims 12, 15, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Kim, Williams, and Abarra et al., US 2014/0124363.
Claims 12, 33-34: The rejection of claim 1, above, substantially addresses these limitations. Concerning the recitation of a “plasma bridge neutralizer,” Abarra discloses an analogous grid network for accelerating an ion beam towards a target substrate and positions an aforesaid neutralizer (510) between the final grid (203) and the rotating fixture (504) bearing the substrate (511) (Fig. 3). Abarra’s neutralizer (510) generates electrons to reduce the voltage of the ion beam, thereby preventing the electrification of the workpiece [0050]. As Yun shares this desideratum, it would have been obvious to integrate a plasma bridge neutralizer since using a known device to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Lastly, regarding the claim 12 stipulation that both the neutralizer and the spectrometer are “embedded in the same wall of the process chamber,” the examiner observes that Figure 1 of Kim depicts a portion of the spectrometer (199) as extending into a wall of the process chamber. Coupled with the observation that Kim’s gas port (124) is also embedded in a sidewall, the reference clearly establishes the process chamber as a suitable means by which to anchor various features of the etching system. Because different references disclose the neutralizer and the spectrometer, respectively, the Office cannot summon an image of both features embedded within the same wall. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to try this technique of anchoring, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within the scope of ordinary skill. In other words, the neutralizer and spectrometer must be secured to some stable, physical body, and it is the position of the Office that one of ordinary skill would understand the process chamber wall to constitute a suitable candidate.
Claim 15: As depicted by Figure 9B, the accelerator grid can be subdivided into a quasi-infinite number of elements, whereby the biasing of each element can be individually tailored. Differentially biasing the sections of the grid will inherently yield to claimed result of generating multiple beams of varying “energy” levels.
Claim 35: The rejection of claim 28, above, substantially addresses these limitations.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Tsujiyama et al., US 2017/0084419. Tsujiyama teaches an IBE apparatus comprising a plasma chamber (102), a screen grid, an accelerator grid, and a deceleration grid (109), as well as a tilted substrate support (110) (Fig. 1; [0037]).
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716