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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 17, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-12, 14-15, and 17-22 are pending in this application.
Applicant elected without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on May 28, 2025.
Claims 18-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 May 28, 2025.
The Examiner notes that claims 1-12, 14-15 and 17 are examined and claims 18-22 are withdrawn.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to German Application No. DE102021127927.5, filed on October 27, 2021.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed March 17, 2026. Claims 1 and 17 are amended. Claim 13 is cancelled. Claims 18-22 remain withdrawn. The Examiner notes that claims 1-12, 14-15, and 17 are examined.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze (US 2006/0073684 A1) in view of Barthelmess (US 2005/0280076 A1) and Niedernostheide (US 2017/0140938 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Shulze teaches:
A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device in a region of the semiconductor body (semiconductor body 100) having a first surface (first side 101) and a second surface (second side 102),
the method comprising: implanting protons through the second surface (102) into the semiconductor body (100) (para. 37 “the semiconductor body 100 is irradiated with further particles via the implantation side 102 in order to implant said further particles into the semiconductor body 100. Said further particles are protons, for example”);
implanting ions through the second surface into the semiconductor body, wherein the ions are ions of a non-doping element having an atomic number of at least 9 (para. 37 “Said further particles are protons, for example, but may also be helium ions, argon ions.” Para. 19 “If, rather than protons, non-doping atoms, such as for example, helium atoms, silicon atoms, argon atoms etc., are used as further particles that promote the activation of the implanted dopant atoms, protons are in one case introduced into the semiconductor body in addition to these particles in order to reduce the explained effectiveness of defects as recombination centers”);
and after the implanting of the ions, processing the semiconductor body by thermal annealing (para. 38 “The irradiation of the semiconductor body 100 with the further particles is followed by an annealing step or activation step”).
wherein the thermal annealing activates hydrogen-related donors in the region of the semiconductor body implanted with the protons (para. 48 “some of the protons introduced into the semiconductor body by means of the proton implantation lead to the production of hydrogen-induced donors”),
wherein the implanting of the ions comprises one or more ion implantation processes that each generate additional vacancies in the region of the semiconductor body in which the protons are implanted (para. 49 “Such vacancies may be produced both by proton irradiation but also by irradiation with other particles, for example helium ions, argon ions, semiconductor ions or electrons.” para. 63 “If the implantation dose of the doping atoms that is necessary for the electrical doping effect does not suffice therefor, then further, non-doping ions such as, for example, Si, Ge, Ar or Kr may be implanted beforehand, afterward or in situ in order to at least partially amorphize the semiconductor body.”),
forming an n-doped region defined by n-doping particles (para 41 “said donors leading to an n-doping of the semiconductor body in this region”),
wherein the additional vacancies achieve targeted vacancy concentrations that increase a doping efficiency of proton irradiation by the ions of a non-doping element having an atomic number of at least 9 (para. 49 “vacancies resulting from the irradiation of the semiconductor body with the additional particles diffuse in the direction of the irradiated surface of the semiconductor body during the thermal step and thus energetically promote the incorporation of the implanted dopant particles at electrically active, substitutional lattice sites of the crystal lattice. Such vacancies may be produced both by proton irradiation but also by irradiation with other particles, for example helium ions, argon ions, semiconductor ions or electrons.”)
Schulze teaches that the majority of the majority of dopants are not the hydrogen-induced donors and therefore Shulze does not teach:
forming an n-doped region defined by the hydrogen-related donors,
wherein the additional vacancies achieve targeted vacancy concentrations that increase a doping efficiency of proton irradiation by the ions of a non-doping element having an atomic number of at least 9.
wherein at least some of the ions are implanted along a beam axis that deviates by at most 1.5° from a main crystal axis of the semiconductor body along which channeling occurs
Barthelmess teaches:
forming an n-doped region defined by the hydrogen-related donors, (para. 51 “this n-type doping being formed at least partly by hydrogen-induced donors”)
Schulze differs from Barthelmess in that Schulze creates an n-type doping region in which irradiation by ions of a non-doping element with an atomic number of at least 9 increases doping efficiency of a dopant that is not hydrogen by creating vacancies in a lattice. Barthelmess teaches that hydrogen may be used as a donor to create an n-type region. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Schulze by Barthelmess to use hydrogen instead of the doping atoms of Schulze to create an n-type region, satisfying the limitation:
wherein the additional vacancies achieve targeted vacancy concentrations that increase a doping efficiency of proton irradiation by the ions of a non-doping element having an atomic number of at least 9.
It would have been obvious to one to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Schulze to use hydrogen to create the n-type doping regions as taught by Barthelmess. All the claimed element in Schulze and Barthelmess were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the device of Schulze with the teachings of Barthelmess to form n-type regions with hydrogen-induced donors as claimed with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of creating n-type regions in a semiconductor device to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Niedernostheide teaches:
wherein at least some of the particles are implanted along a beam axis that deviates by at most 1.5° from a main crystal axis of the semiconductor body along which channeling occurs (para. 41 “the semiconductor body 205 is irradiated with particles as described above with reference to process feature 5100 in FIG. 1. Particle irradiation is illustrated by means of arrows 211. Thereby, vacancies 212 are generated in the semiconductor body 205 by lattice disturbance caused by the irradiation. Para. 33 “particle irradiation is carried out at an angle where channeling occurs, for example at an angle equal to or smaller than 0.2° with respect to a vertical direction perpendicular to a surface of the semiconductor body.”)
Although Neidernostheide teaches the use of a different irradiated particle (for example, electrons or protons per para. 31-32) to cause damage in the lattice that is replaced by a doping atom. However, the Examiner takes the position that the teaching of Neidernostheide to irradiate along a channeling direction to control the vacancy profile is applicable to other particles, such as the ions of atomic number 9 or greater taught by Schulze. Therefore, Schulze modified by Barthelmess and Neidernostheide teaches:
wherein at least some of the ions are implanted along a beam axis that deviates by at most 1.5° from a main crystal axis of the semiconductor body along which channeling occurs
It would have been obvious to one to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Schulze/Barthelmess to implant nondoping particles along a channeling direction taught by Neidernostheide. All the claimed element in Schulze, Barthelmess, and Neidernostheide were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the method of Schulze and Barthelmess with the teachings of Neidernostheide to create vacancies by implanting particles along a channeling direction which would have yielded the predictable result of controlling the spread of vacancies and causing them to penetrate deeper into the semiconductor structure. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to claim 2, Schulze further teaches:
wherein the thermal annealing is carried out in a temperature range from 350 C to 430 C (para. 41 “When protons are used as additional particles and when an activation temperature of approximately 400.degree. C”) for a period from 30 minutes to 4 hours (para. 81 “The duration of this activation step may be between 30 minutes and 24 hours, and in one case lies between 30 minutes and 4 hours).
With respect to claim 3, Schulze further teaches:
wherein the semiconductor body is a silicon semiconductor body (para. 43 “semiconductor body comprising silicon”) and the ions are selected from the group consisting of silicon, argon, krypton, xenon, neon, fluorine, and germanium (para. 37 “Said further particles are protons, for example, but may also be helium ions, argon ions, ions of the semiconductor material used for the semiconductor body 100).
With respect to claim 10, Schulze further teaches:
wherein the implanting of the ions comprises implanting the ions based on at least two different ion implantation energies (para. 41 “the further particles may, if required, be implanted with two or else a plurality of different energies, thereby resulting in different penetration depths of the further particles”).
With respect to claim 14 and 15, Schulze does not specify the order in which protons and ions are implanted at the second surface. Therefore, Schulze does not directly teach:
(Claim 14) wherein the protons are implanted through the second surface into the semiconductor body before the ions are implanted through the second surface into the semiconductor body.
(Claim 15) wherein the protons are implanted through the second surface into the semiconductor body after the ions are implanted through the second surface into the semiconductor body.
Claims 14 and 15 differ from each other and from Schulze in the order in which protons and ions are implanted. The ordinary artisan would recognize in order to implant both protons and ions of an atomic number of at least 9, it would be necessary to implant one before the other. There are a finite number of solutions to the problem, implanting the protons first as claimed in claim 14 and implanting the ions first, as claimed in claim 15. It would be obvious to the ordinary artisan to try either order with reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to try both implanting protons first as claimed in claim 14 and implanting ions first as claimed in claim 15, because a person of ordinary skill would have had good reason to pursue the known options of implantation order which is considered to be within their technical grasp. This leads to the anticipated success of implanting both kinds of particles into a semiconductor and it is determined that modifying the order in which the two particles are implanted is not of innovation, but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to claim 17, Schulze teaches:
A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device in a semiconductor body (semiconductor body 100) having a first surface (first side 101) and a second surface (second side 102),
the method comprising: introducing hydrogen through the second surface (102) into a region of the semiconductor body (100) (para. 37 “the semiconductor body 100 is irradiated with further particles via the implantation side 102 in order to implant said further particles into the semiconductor body 100. Said further particles are protons, for example.” Para. 50 also teaches that the proton implantation results in the inclusion of hydrogen atoms “hydrogen atoms resulting from the protons radiated”);
implanting ions through the second surface into the semiconductor body, wherein the ions are ions of a non-doping element having an atomic number of at least 9 (para. 37 “Said further particles are protons, for example, but may also be helium ions, argon ions.” Para. 19 “If, rather than protons, non-doping atoms, such as for example, helium atoms, silicon atoms, argon atoms etc., are used as further particles that promote the activation of the implanted dopant atoms, protons are in one case introduced into the semiconductor body in addition to these particles in order to reduce the explained effectiveness of defects as recombination centers”);
and after the implanting of the ions, processing the semiconductor body by thermal annealing (para. 38 “The irradiation of the semiconductor body 100 with the further particles is followed by an annealing step or activation step”).
forming an n-doped region defined by n-doping particles (para 41 “said donors leading to an n-doping of the semiconductor body in this region”),
wherein the additional vacancies achieve targeted vacancy concentrations that increase a doping efficiency of proton irradiation by the ions of a non-doping element having an atomic number of at least 9 (para. 49 “vacancies resulting from the irradiation of the semiconductor body with the additional particles diffuse in the direction of the irradiated surface of the semiconductor body during the thermal step and thus energetically promote the incorporation of the implanted dopant particles at electrically active, substitutional lattice sites of the crystal lattice. Such vacancies may be produced both by proton irradiation but also by irradiation with other particles, for example helium ions, argon ions, semiconductor ions or electrons.”)
Schulze teaches that the majority of the majority of dopants are not the hydrogen-induced donors and therefore Shulze does not teach:
forming an n-doped region defined by the hydrogen-related donors,
wherein the additional vacancies achieve targeted vacancy concentrations that increase a doping efficiency of proton irradiation by the ions of a non-doping element having an atomic number of at least 9.
wherein at least some of the ions are implanted along a beam axis that deviates by at most 1.5° from a main crystal axis of the semiconductor body along which channeling occurs
Barthelmess teaches:
forming an n-doped region defined by the hydrogen-related donors, (para. 51 “this n-type doping being formed at least partly by hydrogen-induced donors”)
Schulze differs from Barthelmess in that Schulze creates an n-type doping region in which irradiation by ions of a non-doping element with an atomic number of at least 9 increases doping efficiency of a dopant that is not hydrogen by creating vacancies in a lattice. Barthelmess teaches that hydrogen may be used as a donor to create an n-type region. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Schulze by Barthelmess to use hydrogen instead of the doping atoms of Schulze to create an n-type region, satisfying the limitation:
wherein the additional vacancies achieve targeted vacancy concentrations that increase a doping efficiency of proton irradiation by the ions of a non-doping element having an atomic number of at least 9.
It would have been obvious to one to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Schulze to use hydrogen to create the n-type doping regions as taught by Barthelmess. All the claimed element in Schulze and Barthelmess were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the device of Schulze with the teachings of Barthelmess to form n-type regions with hydrogen-induced donors as claimed with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of creating n-type regions in a semiconductor device to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Niedernostheide teaches:
wherein at least some of the particles are implanted along a beam axis that deviates by at most 1.5° from a main crystal axis of the semiconductor body along which channeling occurs (para. 41 “the semiconductor body 205 is irradiated with particles as described above with reference to process feature 5100 in FIG. 1. Particle irradiation is illustrated by means of arrows 211. Thereby, vacancies 212 are generated in the semiconductor body 205 by lattice disturbance caused by the irradiation. Para. 33 “particle irradiation is carried out at an angle where channeling occurs, for example at an angle equal to or smaller than 0.2° with respect to a vertical direction perpendicular to a surface of the semiconductor body.”)
Although Neidernostheide teaches the use of a different irradiated particle (for example, electrons or protons per para. 31-32) to cause damage in the lattice that is replaced by a doping atom. However, the Examiner takes the position that the teaching of Neidernostheide to irradiate along a channeling direction to control the vacancy profile is applicable to other particles, such as the ions of atomic number 9 or greater taught by Schulze. Therefore, Schulze modified by Barthelmess and Neidernostheide teaches:
wherein at least some of the ions are implanted along a beam axis that deviates by at most 1.5° from a main crystal axis of the semiconductor body along which channeling occurs
It would have been obvious to one to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Schulze/Barthelmess to implant nondoping particles along a channeling direction taught by Neidernostheide. All the claimed element in Schulze, Barthelmess, and Neidernostheide were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the method of Schulze and Barthelmess with the teachings of Neidernostheide to create vacancies by implanting particles along a channeling direction which would have yielded the predictable result of controlling the spread of vacancies and causing them to penetrate deeper into the semiconductor structure. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai (US 2018/0012762 A1) in view of Breymesser (US 2018/0040691 A1) and Niedernostheide (US 2017/0140938 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Mukai teaches in Fig. 4 and 5:
A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device in a semiconductor body having a first surface (top) and a second surface (bottom),
the method comprising:
implanting protons through the second surface into the semiconductor body (para. 49 “The plural levels of the n-type layers (hereinafter, first to fourth n-type layers) 10a to 10d are diffusion layers including protons and formed by multiple sessions of proton (H.sup.+) irradiation of differing ranges (projection ranges (projection lengths along angle of incidence)) Rp.” Para. 52 “the fifth n-type layer 10e is a diffusion layer that includes protons and helium and is formed by proton irradiation for forming the fourth n-type layer 10d”);
implanting ions through the second surface into the semiconductor body (first helium irradiation 31 and/or second helium irradiation 34),
and after the implanting of the ions, processing the semiconductor body by thermal annealing (para. 67, “Next, recovery of the lattice defects resulting from the first and second irradiations 31, 34 is performed by heat treatment (annealing) to adjust the amount of lattice defects in the semiconductor substrate and thereby”).
wherein the thermal annealing activates hydrogen-related donors in the region of the semiconductor body implanted with the protons (para. 62 “Next, protons in the semiconductor substrate are activated by heat treatment (annealing) (step S17)”),
forming an n-doped region defined by the hydrogen-related donors (para. 61 “Next, from the substrate rear surface side, protons are irradiated, forming the n-type FS layer 10”),
wherein the implanting of the ions comprises one or more ion implantation processes that each generate additional vacancies in the region of the semiconductor body in which the protons are implanted (para. 65 “The first helium irradiation 31 introduces a large amount of lattice defects at a position (position at a depth of the range Rp of the first helium irradiation 31 “),
wherein the additional vacancies achieve targeted vacancy concentrations that increase a doping efficiency of proton irradiation by the ions of a non-doping element (abstract teaches that (abstract “Next, helium is irradiated to a position deeper than the ranges of the proton irradiation from the substrate rear surface, introducing lattice defects. When the amount of lattice defects is adjusted by heat treatment, protons not activated in a fourth n-type layer are diffused, forming a fifth n-type layer”)
Mukai fails to teach:
wherein the ions are ions of a non-doping element having an atomic number of at least 9;
wherein the additional vacancies achieve targeted vacancy concentrations that increase a doping efficiency of proton irradiation by the ions of a non-doping element having an atomic number of at least 9.
wherein at least some of the ions are implanted along a beam axis that deviates by at most 1.5° from a main crystal axis of the semiconductor body along which channeling occurs
Breymesser teaches in para 55:
wherein the ions are ions of a non-doping element having an atomic number of at least 9; (“non-doping atoms such as atoms of silicon, germanium or noble gases, i.e. hydrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon”)
Combining the teachings of Mukai in which lattice defects caused by Helium allow hydrogen diffusion to create n-type regions with the teachings of Breymesser in which neon, argon, krypton, or xenon is used to make lattice defects teaches:
wherein the additional vacancies achieve targeted vacancy concentrations that increase a doping efficiency of proton irradiation by the ions of a non-doping element having an atomic number of at least 9.
Mukai differs from Breymesser in that Mukai uses helium to create lattice defects while Breymesser uses silicon, germanium, neon, argon, krypton, and/or/xenon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the element with an atomic number of at least 9 taught by Breymesser for the Helium ions of Mukai because they are known equivalents and it would have yielded the predictable result of creating lattice defects that help adjust the doping profile. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Niedernostheide teaches:
wherein at least some of the particles are implanted along a beam axis that deviates by at most 1.5° from a main crystal axis of the semiconductor body along which channeling occurs (para. 41 “the semiconductor body 205 is irradiated with particles as described above with reference to process feature 5100 in FIG. 1. Particle irradiation is illustrated by means of arrows 211. Thereby, vacancies 212 are generated in the semiconductor body 205 by lattice disturbance caused by the irradiation. Para. 33 “particle irradiation is carried out at an angle where channeling occurs, for example at an angle equal to or smaller than 0.2° with respect to a vertical direction perpendicular to a surface of the semiconductor body.”)
Although Neidernostheide teaches the use of a different irradiated particle (for example, electrons or protons per para. 31-32) to cause damage in the lattice that is replaced by a doping atom. However, the Examiner takes the position that the teaching of Neidernostheide to irradiate along a channeling direction to control the vacancy profile is applicable to other particles, such as the ions of atomic number 9 or greater taught by Schulze. Therefore, Mukai modified by Breymesser and Neidernostheide teaches:
wherein at least some of the ions are implanted along a beam axis that deviates by at most 1.5° from a main crystal axis of the semiconductor body along which channeling occurs
It would have been obvious to one to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Mukai/Breymesser to implant nondoping particles along a channeling direction taught by Neidernostheide. All the claimed element in Mukai, Breymesser, and Neidernostheide were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the method of Mukai and Breymesser with the teachings of Neidernostheide to create vacancies by implanting particles along a channeling direction which would have yielded the predictable result of controlling the spread of vacancies and causing them to penetrate deeper into the semiconductor structure. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to claim 4, Mukai/Breymesser further teaches:
wherein the ions are implanted at a dose smaller than 1013cm-2 (para. 72 “In the second helium irradiation 34, the dose was set to be 5.0×10.sup.10/cm.sup.2”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mukai in view of Breymesser and Niedernostheide as explained above.
With respect to claim 5, Mukai/Breymesser further teaches in Fig. 2A-B of Mukai:
further comprising,
before the implanting of the protons (S16),
forming semiconductor device elements by processing the semiconductor body at the first surface (S1-S8)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mukai in view of Breymesser and Niedernostheide as explained above.
With respect to claim 6, Mukai/Breymesser further teaches:
wherein a penetration depth of the protons (first n-type layer 10a, para. 71 “the first to fourth n-type layers 10a to 10d were formed as the n-type FS layer 10 by 4 sessions of proton irradiation of differing accelerating voltages”) is set smaller than a penetration depth of the ions (second helium reaching point 34a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mukai in view of Breymesser and Niedernostheide as explained above.
With respect to claim 7, Mukai/Breymesser further teaches:
wherein a penetration depth of the protons (first n-type layer 10d, para. 71 “the first to fourth n-type layers 10a to 10d were formed as the n-type FS layer 10 by 4 sessions of proton irradiation of differing accelerating voltages”) is set larger than a penetration depth of the ions (second helium reaching point 34a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mukai in view of Breymesser and Niedernostheide as explained above.
With respect to claim 8, Mukai/Breymesser further teaches:
wherein a ratio between a penetration depth of the ions (penetration depth of second He irradiation, 34a, which is 10 microns per Fig. 5) and a penetration depth of the protons (depth of 10e, which contains protons diffuse from formation of layer 10d, 35.1 microns per Fig. 5) ranges from 0.1 to 3 (10/35.1 = 0.285).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mukai in view of Breymesser and Niedernostheide as explained above.
With respect to claim 9, Mukai/Breymesser further teaches:
wherein a penetration depth of the protons (first n-type layer 10b, para. 71 “the first to fourth n-type layers 10a to 10d were formed as the n-type FS layer 10 by 4 sessions of proton irradiation of differing accelerating voltages”) is set substantially equal to a penetration depth of the ions (second helium reaching point 34a) (see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mukai in view of Breymesser and Niedernostheide as explained above.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze (US 2006/0073684 A1) in view of Barthelmess (US 2005/0280076 A1) and Niedernostheide (US 2017/0140938 A1) as applied to independent claim 1 above and further in view of Schustereder (US 2019/0051488 A1).
With respect to claims 11, Schulze teaches all limitations of independent claim 1 upon which claims 11 depends. Schulze fails to teach:
wherein the implanting of the ions comprises implanting the ions based on at least two different ion implantation tilt angles
Schustereder teaches:
wherein the implanting of the ions comprises implanting the ions based on at least two different ion implantation tilt angles (para. 71 “an implant with changing tilt angle θ during a single ion implantation process may achieve a result similar to processing several implant recipes”).
Schulze discloses the claimed invention except for the implantation occurring at multiple tilt angles. Schustereder teaches that it is known to implant ions at different tilt angles to improve the uniformity of the implantation profile. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implant ions with multiple angles as taught by Schustereder, since Schustereder states at para. 71 that such a modification would save time by not requiring implantation at multiple energies. See MPEP 2144.
With respect to claims 12, Schulze teaches all limitations of independent claim 1 upon which claims 12 depends. Schulze fails to teach:
wherein the implanting of the protons comprises implanting the protons based on at least two different proton implantation tilt angles
Schustereder teaches:
wherein the implanting of the ions comprises implanting the ions based on at least two different ion implantation tilt angles (para. 71 “an implant with changing tilt angle θ during a single ion implantation process may achieve a result similar to processing several implant recipes”).
The Examiner notes that protons are equivalent to hydrogen ions and that an ordinary artisan would expect the principles taught by Schustereder to apply to protons. Therefore, it would be obvious to try the method of Schustereder using protons as the ions.
Schulze discloses the claimed invention except for the implantation occurring at multiple tilt angles. Schustereder teaches that it is known to implant ions at different tilt angles to improve the uniformity of the implantation profile. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implant ions with multiple angles as taught by Schustereder, since Schustereder states at para. 71 that such a modification would save time by not requiring implantation at multiple energies. See MPEP 2144.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 17, and their dependent have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON MICHAEL WEGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7647. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30 AM - 5 PM.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/A.M.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights