DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “remarks”, filed 07 April 2025, with respect to claims 1-12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Non-Final Rejection of 06 January 2025 has been withdrawn.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7 and 12 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]).
Claim 7 is the method of claim 1 and taught as discussed in the citations above.
Regarding claim 12, Walther et al. teach, wherein: the target comprises a semiconductor wafer (150 is a wafer for ion implantation (that is, a semiconductor)).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 101060060) (copy of publication and machine translation submitted herewith).
Regarding claim 1, 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)).
Claims 1-2, 7 and 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pitcher (US pgPub 2015/0348753)
Regarding claim 1, 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.”).
Regarding claim 2, Pitcher teaches the beam deflector comprises plates ([0056]).
Claim 7 is commensurate in scope with claim 1 and is taught as in the citations above.
Regarding claim 12, Pitcher et al. teach, wherein: the target comprises a semiconductor wafer ([0020]).
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US pgPub 2022/0351939) .
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Yang et al. teach an ion beam processing tool (figs. 1a-1D), comprising:
a plasma source (103);
a grid arrangement (five grids 110,115,120,130 forming grid system 150 see paragraph [0024]) positioned proximate the plasma source to generate an ion beam (150 is proximate 103 as best seen in figures 1a-1b);
a beam deflector positioned adjacent the grid arrangement (134 or 137 in figures 1E and 1I are adjacent grid arrangement 110-130); and
a controller (best seen in figure 1F, 104) configured to control the beam deflector to deflect the ion beam to generate a tilted ion beam ([0044]).
Regarding claim 2, Yang et al. teach wherein: the beam deflector comprises plates (plates 135-136 seen in figures 1E-1H or 138/139 in figure 1J).
Regarding claim 3, Yang et al. teach 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 ([0043], wherein paragraph [0044] teaches the controller applies the voltages) having a polarity opposite the first bias voltage to deflect the ion beam in a second direction opposite the first direction ([0043] note different polarities applied to first and second deflector plates).
Regarding claim 4, Yang et al. teach, wherein: the grid arrangement comprises an extraction grid (115) and an acceleration grid (120), and the beam deflector comprises plates between the extraction grid and the acceleration grid along a path of the ion beam (as seen in figure 1E 134 between 115 and 120).
Regarding claim 5, Yang et al. teach wherein: the grid arrangement comprises an acceleration grid (120) and a deceleration grid (130), and the beam deflector comprises plates disposed after the deceleration grid along a path of the ion beam (deflector 137 downstream of 130).
Regarding claim 6, Yang et al. teach wherein: the grid arrangement comprises a neutralizer (fig. 1a, 106), and the plates are between the deceleration grid and the neutralizer along the path of the ion beam (fig. 1I shows deflector 137 downstream of 130 and part of 150, since figure 1a shows 150 upstream of 106 the deflector 137 is downstream of 130 of figure 1 and because it is part of 150 in figure 1 the deflector 137 is upstream 106).
Claim 7 is commensurate in scope with claim 1 and is taught as in the citations above.
Regarding claim 8, Yang et al. teach wherein: deflecting the ion beam in the first direction comprises applying a first bias voltage to plates of a beam deflector adjacent the ion beam, and deflecting the ion beam in the second direction comprises applying a second bias voltage to the plates different than the first bias voltage ([0043]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 9, Yang et al. teach comprising: forming a protective layer over the target prior to deflecting the ion beam in the first direction ([0074] teaches deflecting the ions with plates 135/136 or 138/139 such that ions het the wafer 154 sputtering materials from the surface until pattern is etched exposing the underlying layer of the wafer. Since the underlying layer is exposed via sputtering, the layer removed is interpreted as the protective layer formed prior to deflection).
Regarding claim 11, Yang in view of Walther teach iteratively repeating the forming of the protective layer (layer formed prior to sputter removal in Yang, [0074]), the deflecting of the ion beam in the first direction to remove the first portion of material from the target ([0074]), and the deflecting of the ion beam in the second direction to remove the second portion of material from the target ([0074], note pattern thus a second direction is suggested for deflection).
Regarding claim 12, Yang et al. teach, wherein: the target comprises a semiconductor wafer ([0024] teaches a wafer 154 and figure 2 shows a semiconductor device).
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) 3 and 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitcher in view of Schork et al. (USPN 6,087,615).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, 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.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. and further in view of Walther.
Regarding claim 10, Yang teaches forming a protective layer (inherent prior to sputtering in order for a layer to be removed (see claim 9 above)), however fails to disclose wherein forming the protective layer comprises: grounding plates of a beam deflector adjacent the ion beam; and performing a charge exchange process to neutralize the ion beam.
However, Walther teaches wherein :grounding plates of a beam deflector adjacent the ion beam; and performing a charge exchange process to neutralize the ion beam ([0064]).
Walther modifies Yang by suggesting grounding the deflector so as to at least partially neutralize charge on or proximate to the wafer.
Since both inventions are directed towards semiconductor manufacturing processes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to periodically ground the deflection plates of Yang in the manner suggested by Walther because it would allow for the wafer to be neutralized so that during ion beam etching the ions are not deflected towards undesired areas due to a charged wafer.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,961,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent is more limited than the instant claims and requires nearly every limitation. Any difference between the claimed invention and the patent would have been obvious in view of the references discussed herein above.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,542,254. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent is more limited than the instant claims and requires nearly every limitation. Any difference between the claimed invention and the patent would have been obvious in view of the references discussed herein above.
Claims 1-12 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/443,895 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the reference application are more limited and require most of the limitations of the instant claims. Any difference would have been obvious in view of the prior art discussed herein above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US4381453 anticipates claim 1 see figure 1 showing a deflector 12 downstream a grid arrangement of a plasma ion source.
US4596687 would also anticipate at least claim 1.
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
Prosecution Insights