DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 October 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 102(a)(1): Walther
The remarks take the position that amending claim 4 into claim 1 distinguishes the claimed subject matter over Walther. This has not been found persuasive.
MPEP 1207.03(a) discusses situations that are not considered new grounds of rejection, specifically reciting:
“If the examiner’s answer cites a different portion of an applied reference which goes no farther than, and merely elaborates upon, what is taught in the previously cited portion of that reference, then the rejection does not constitute a new ground of rejection.”
Here, claim 4 now required by claim 1 is merely an additional requirement further limiting the grid arrangement to comprise an extraction grid and acceleration grid with the beam deflector plates therebetween. These limitations are clearly seen in figure 1 of Walther relied upon in the last office action and discussed further herein below. Therefore, “there is no new ground of rejection when the basic thrust of the rejection remains the same such that an appellant has been given a fair opportunity to react to the rejection” (MPEP 1203(a) (II)).
In other words, as no arguments were made as to why Walther fails to teach the limitations of claim 4, the remarks are unpersuasive as the relied upon figure 1 clearly demonstrates the claimed features discussed below.
Rejections under 102(a)(1): Zhang and Pitcher
By amendment Zhang and Pitcher no longer anticipate claim 1. Specifically, neither Zhang nor Pitcher teach the deflector plates between the extraction grid and the acceleration grid.
With respect to claim 1, the remarks have been found persuasive. However, previous claims 1 and 5 have been incorporated into a new claim 27. Zhang additionally teaches previous claim 6 (now claim 30).
Each of Zhang and Pitcher anticipate this claim, relying on the same embodiments discussed in the last office action.
Rejections under 102(a)(1): Yang
The remarks have properly invoked an exception under 102(b)(2)(c), therefore Yang is no longer available as prior art.
Double patenting:
The terminal disclaimer filed 06 October 2026 has been approved on 06 October 2026, therefore the double patenting rejections have been overcome.
New grounds rejection necessitated by amendment:
Dependent claims that were previously rejected in view of Zhang, Pitcher and Shork, which did not depend on claim 4 (i.e. amended into claim 1) or claim 5 (new claim 27) have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as discussed herein below.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 7-8, 10-12 (amended to be directed towards a distinct process) and 21-26 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1, 3, 5-6 and 27-31 drawn to an ion beam processing tool, classified in H01J37/08.
II. Claims 7-8, 10-12 and 21-26, drawn to an ion beam processing method, classified in H01J37/3053.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the process may be performed on a materially different product such as a single grid and/or gridless extraction system with a deflector downstream of the extraction assembly. Moreover, the process may be performed on a materially different apparatus such as an ion source that generates ions without a plasma source. Alternatively, the product as claimed may perform a materially different process such as etching or milling without sputtering or forming a layer and/or deflecting the ion beam is a first direction before forming the protective layer. Moreover the product may be used in a materially different process such as merely generating ions and deflecting them as no target is required by the apparatus.
With respect to the method and apparatus there would be search burden because finding prior art actively “forming a protective layer over the target; deflecting the ion beam in a first direction, after forming the protective layer” would require searching different CPC symbols and as evident from the prior art applied herein below, prior art teaching the product would not likely teach the method of use.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 7-8, 10-12 and 21-26 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walther (US pgPub 2008/0132046).
Regarding claim 1, Walther teaches an ion beam processing tool (figs. 1 and 3b), comprising:
a plasma source (fig. 1, 102, figure 3b 204);
a grid arrangement positioned proximate the plasma source to generate an ion beam (fig. 1, 158 positioned proximate to 102 and figure 3b, 210 positioned proximate 204 generates beam via extraction see paragraph [0052]);
a beam deflector (fig. 3b, 214/216 and figure 1, 162) positioned adjacent the grid arrangement (deflectors 214/216 in figure 3b are adjacent 210 and 162 in figure 1 is adjacent 158); and
a controller (power source 164) configured to control the beam deflector to deflect the ion beam to generate a tilted ion beam ([0036] teaches power source connected to deflection electrodes so that they generate electric fields that deflect ions propagating through the grid and figure 3b shows tilted ions from deflection electrodes 214/216 see paragraph [0052]).
wherein: the grid arrangement comprises an extraction grid (fig. 1, 158) and an acceleration grid (grid 168 is interpreted as an acceleration grid because grid 158 sets the implant energy ([0035]), therefore any increase or decrease of speed ion experience while passing through the grid is an acceleration (note the claim does not require any potential to be applied to the acceleration grid)), and the beam deflector comprises plates (fig. 1, electrodes 162 or figure 2b, electrodes 214/216 are interpreted as plates) between the extraction grid and the acceleration grid along a path of the ion beam (fig. 1 shows 162 between 158 and 168).
Regarding claim 3, Walther teaches wherein: the controller is configured to apply a first bias voltage to the plates to deflect the ion beam in a first direction and apply a second bias voltage to the plates having a polarity opposite the first bias voltage to deflect the ion beam in a second direction opposite the first direction ([0045] teaches opposite polarity applied to one of the first and second plurality of deflectors, therefore capable of switching directions).
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berry (US pgPub 2016/0064232).
Regarding claim 1, Berry teaches an ion beam processing tool (fig. 2), comprising:
a plasma source (105);
a grid arrangement positioned proximate the plasma source to generate an ion beam (109-113, see paragraph [0043], 109 is an extraction electrode with apertures (grid), paragraph [0045] teaches 111 is a focus electrode and 113 is a lower electrode);
a beam deflector (figs. 9, 920 or figure 24 deflector plates) positioned adjacent the grid arrangement ([0077] “In certain embodiments, the deflection plates are provided below the lowermost electrode in the ion source. In other embodiments, the deflection plates may be provided below a different electrode, for example below the second electrode, or below the third electrode (when counting from the bottom electrode upwards).”); and
a controller ([0120] teaches controller having instructions for controlling process operations in accordance with the present invention) configured to control the beam deflector to deflect the ion beam to generate a tilted ion beam ([0078] teaches opposite polarity to bars in figure 21 to cause deflection (i.e. tilt of the beam), which would similarly be applied to the MEMS device of figure 12 and paragraph [0079], wherein figure 15 and paragraph [0088] teach deflecting the beam towards the right or towards the left)
wherein: the grid arrangement comprises an extraction grid (fig. 2, 109, [0043]) and an acceleration grid ([0045] teaches ions are attached to the lower electrode 113 by a potential difference between 109 and 113, thus an accelerating grid), and the beam deflector comprises plates (fig. 9, 920 fig. 21 bars are plates or figures 23-24 for deflector plates in the MEMS device) between the extraction grid and the acceleration grid along a path of the ion beam ([0077] “n other embodiments, the deflection plates may be provided below a different electrode, for example below the second electrode, or below the third electrode (when counting from the bottom electrode upwards)”, thus the deflection plates of figure 9 between extraction grid 109 and accelerator grid 113. Note paragraph [0076] teaches “ it should be understood that the electrodes often have an array of apertures, with sets of deflection plates provided for each aperture on the relevant electrode”).
Regarding claim 3, Berry teaches wherein: the controller ([0120]) is configured to apply a first bias voltage to the plates to deflect the ion beam in a first direction and apply a second bias voltage to the plates having a polarity opposite the first bias voltage to deflect the ion beam in a second direction opposite the first direction ([0078] and paragraph [0088]).
Claim 27 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 101060060) (copy of publication and machine translation submitted with the office action of 06 July 2026).
Regarding claim 27, Zhang teaches an ion beam processing tool (fig. 2), comprising:
a plasma source (6);
a grid arrangement (1-3) positioned proximate the plasma source to generate an ion beam (1-3 proximate to 6);
a beam deflector ([0010] teaches a deflection plate is installed at the front end of the three grid lead out) positioned adjacent the grid arrangement ([0010]); and
a controller ([0013] teaches a DC deflection electrode plate at front end of the grid, therefore requiring a “controller” (i.e. DC power supply)) configured to control the beam deflector to deflect the ion beam to generate a tilted ion beam ([0013] teaches depleting ions to obtain a neutral atomic beam (i.e. ions are tilted or deflected). Additionally deflectors inherently deflect, thus tilt the ion beam)
the grid arrangement comprises an acceleration grid (2) and a deceleration grid (3), and
the beam deflector comprises plates disposed after the deceleration grid along a path of the ion beam ([0010] teaches a deflection plate is installed at the front end of the three grid lead out).
Regarding claim 29, Zhang teaches the grid arrangement comprises an extraction grid ([0030], shield grid 1 connected to a positive voltage to pull the plasma, thus extraction grid), and the acceleration grid (2) is disposed after the extraction grid along the path of the ion beam (as seen in figure 2).
Regarding claim 30, Zhang teaches the grid arrangement comprises a neutralizer (fig. 2, 5) and the plates are between the deceleration grid and the neutralizer along the path of the ion beam (deflector is at front of the three grid lead out ([0010]), figure 2 shows 5 downstream grids, thus deflector between neutralizer and grids)
Regarding claim 31, Zhang teaches wherein the deceleration grid is disposed after the acceleration grid along the path of the ion beam (3 is after 2, see figure 2 and paragraph [0030])
Claims 27 and 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pitcher (US pgPub 2015/0348753)
Regarding claim 27, Pitcher teaches an ion beam processing tool (fig. 1A), comprising:
a plasma source (110);
a grid arrangement (120/130) positioned proximate the plasma source to generate an ion beam (as seen in figure 1a);
a beam deflector ([0056]) positioned adjacent the grid arrangement (situated after the neutralizing device, i.e. proximate the grid assembly); and
a controller (inherent to deflectors) configured to control the beam deflector to deflect the ion beam to generate a tilted ion beam ([0056] see “Such ion deflector plates may be e.g. electrostatically charged to deflect any ionized particles from the beam path.”)
the grid arrangement comprises an acceleration grid (120 comprises three grids, [0034], wherein paragraph [0052] teaches an acceleration and deceleration of ions before they are neutralized. Since 130 is a neutralizer, one of the grids is an acceleration grid and one is a deceleration grid) and a deceleration grid (120 comprises three grids, [0034], wherein paragraph [0052] teaches an acceleration and deceleration of ions before they are neutralized. Since 130 is a neutralizer, one of the grids is an acceleration grid and one is a deceleration grid), and
the beam deflector comprises plates disposed after the deceleration grid along a path of the ion beam ([0056] teaches deflector plates after the neutralizing device, thus after the grids).
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, 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinclar (US pgPub 2015/0123006) in view of Proudfoot (USPN 6,346,768)
Regarding claim 1, Sinclair teaches an ion beam processing tool (figs. 1 and 2b), comprising:
a plasma source (fig. 1, 102);
a grid arrangement positioned proximate the plasma source to generate an ion beam (fig. 2b, 200 proximate 102);
a beam deflector (212) positioned adjacent the grid arrangement (212 adjacent 200); and
a controller (power source 114) configured to control the beam deflector to deflect the ion beam to generate a tilted ion beam ([0024]).
wherein: the grid arrangement comprises an extraction grid (fig. 2b, 210) and an acceleration electrode (modified example in fig. 7 including acceleration electrode 702), and the beam deflector comprises plates (fig. 2b, 212 are plates) between the extraction grid (210 on upper surface) and the acceleration electrode (702 below 106 in figure 7)along a path of the ion beam (as seen in figure 7, where deflection electrodes are seen in figure 2b).
Sinclair fails to disclose the accelerator electrode is a grid (fig. 1 accelerator grid 30).
Proudfoot is a finding that single aperture accelerator electrode such as in Sinclaire where known to the art (col. 2, lines 18-34). Proudfoot is further evidence that an accelerator grid was known to the art (col. 2, lines 25-32). Proudfoot is further a finding that substituting the accelerator electrode for a grid would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would provide for “a more gentle acceleration field between the first and second grids than between the second and third grids. This allows the beamlets to propagate at a larger net area, hence reducing the space charge repulsion inside the accelerator grid structure itself” to minimize beam divergence (col. 6, lines 38-44).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry in view of Abarra et al. (US pgPub 2014/0124363) (for claim 6, first interpretation interpreting any downstream neutralizing component to be part of the grid assembly) as evidenced by Pitcher (US pgPub 2015/0348753).
Regarding claim 5, Berry fails to disclose the grid arrangement comprises a deceleration grid disposed after the acceleration grid along the path of the ion beam.
However, Abarra et al. teaches a deceleration grid disposed after the acceleration grid along the path of the ion beam (fig. 1, deceleration grid 4c downstream acceleration grid 4b).
Abarra et al. modifies Berry by suggesting an additional deceleration grid downstream of the acceleration grid of Berry.
Since both inventions are directed towards ion processing devices it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the deceleration lens 4c downstream of the acceleration lens 4b in the device of Berry as suggested by Abarra because as evidenced by Pitcher “Ion accel-decel approaches can circumvent low energy ion beam transport effects and poor ion source performance characteristics at low energies (e.g. unusably low beam currents) to improve process control” ([0052] of Pitcher).
Regarding claim 6, Berry in view of Abarra teaches the grid arrangement comprises a neutralizer downstream of the deceleration grid along the path of the ion beam (Berry paragraph [0047] teaches an electron source for neutralization in the vicinity of the substrate 101, thus downstream of the grid arrangement and when the grid arrangement is modified by Abarra to include a decel. grid the electron source is downstream of the deceleration grid because it is in the vicinity of the substrate. Note in this interpretation the downstream neutralization electron source is interpreted as part of the grid arrangement).
Regarding claim 27, Berry teaches the commensurate limitations as discussed above in claim 1. Berry alternatively teaches in paragraph [0077] “the deflection plates are provided below the lowermost electrode in the ion source.” Thus, the deflector may alternatively be below the grids.
Berry does not expressly teach the grids comprise a deceleration grid, however such a modification would have been obvious as discussed in Abarra above.
Claim 28 requires commensurate limitations as claim 3 and is taught by Berry as discussed above.
Regarding claim 29 Berry teaches an extraction grid and downstream acceleration grid as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 30, Berry teaches a neutralizer in the vicinity of the substrate ([0047]) thus as modified by Aberra the deflector plates would be between the deceleration grid and the neutralizer.
Regarding claim 31, Berry in view of Aberra teaches the deceleration grid is disposed after the acceleration grid along the path of the ion beam (Aberra, see claim 5 above).
Claim(s) 6 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry in view of Abarra et al. (US pgPub 2014/0124363) (second interpretation interpreting the grid to fail to comprise a neutralizer) and further in view of Hwang et al. (US pgPub 2008/0164819) as evidenced by Pitcher.
Regarding claims 6 and 30, the combined device fails to disclose the grid arrangement comprises a neutralizer downstream of the deceleration grid along the path of the ion beam.
However Hwang et al. teach the grid arrangement comprises a neutralizer (fig. 5, 150a) downstream of the deceleration grid along the path of the ion beam (150/150a are downstream 130).
Hwang et al. modifies the combine device by providing a neutralizer with the grid ([0037]).
Since both devices are directed towards ion processing devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combined device to include a neutralizer as part of the grid assembly because it would allow for neutral beam processes to be performed on the substrate or by removing the neutralizing unit allowing ion beams to perform semiconductor processes ([0053]), therefore improving the diversity of semiconductor processes performable by a single ion source. Moreover, as evidenced by Pritcher, the electron source neutralization disclosed in Berry has the disadvantage of charge effects may not be entirely eliminate ([0023] discussing electron pulses or flood to neutralize). Therefore, using the surface interaction as suggested by Hwang ensures neutralization of particles ([0024]). Thus a higher efficient neutralization than an electron source as suggested in Berry.
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang or Pitcher in view of Schork et al. (USPN 6,087,615).
Regarding claim 28, Zhang or Pitcher fails to disclose the controller is configured to apply a first bias voltage to the plates to deflect the ion beam in a first direction and apply a second bias voltage to the plates having a polarity opposite the first bias voltage to deflect the ion beam in a second direction opposite the first direction.
However, Schork teaches apply a first bias voltage to the plates to deflect the ion beam in a first direction and apply a second bias voltage to the plates having a polarity opposite the first bias voltage to deflect the ion beam in a second direction opposite the first direction (abstract teaches different polarities applied to bars (i.e. deflection means 120)).
Schork modifies Pitcher by suggesting applying different polarities to the deflection means of Pitcher.
Since both inventions are directed towards a deflector downstream a grid system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Pitcher to apply different polarities to the plates as it would resolve the problem as to how to deflect the ions downstream of the grid system as desired in the device of Pitcher.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US4381453 and US4596687
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 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 MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
