DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 7/21/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 6 and 9 have been amended. Claim 5 is cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-4 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horsky (US 2010/0107980) in view of Buonodono (US 2018/0211816), Van Veen (US 2017/0221674) and Yu (TW 201707309).
Regarding claim 1, Horsky teaches an apparatus (Figs. 3 and 9) for controlling thermal distortion of an electrode, comprising:
an ion source (400) having a plurality of chamber walls defining an ion source chamber (500) and having an extraction aperture (504); and
an electrode (510) disposed outside the ion source chamber and having an aperture aligned with the extraction aperture (Fig. 9).
Horsky fails to further teach that the electrode is made of titanium and has an embedded cooling channel that is lined with a more thermally conductive material.
Buonodono teaches a source apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of chamber walls (walls of 111) and an extraction electrode (112) with an extraction aperture (205), and a suppression electrode (200) positioned outside and proximate the extraction aperture, wherein the suppression electrode is made of an electrically conductive metal: titanium (¶ 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate titanium as the material for the suppression electrode outside Horsky’s ion source, because titanium is a well known and used metal used for electrical conductivity, as taught in Buonodono.
Furthermore, Van Veen teaches a charged particle beam apparatus (Fig. 2) comprising a plurality of disc shaped electrodes wherein cooling conduits (105) are embedded inside the electrodes (Figs. 7a-d). Van Veen teaches that the presence of the cooling conduit may improve the apparatus’ accuracy and reliability (¶ 0099).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate embedded cooling channels in Horsky’s electrode so that system accuracy and reliability may be improved, as taught in Van Veen.
In addition, Yu teaches an aluminum nitride thermal conductive layer embedded in water channels (Abstract), which provides the advantage of enhancing cooling or heat dissipation efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate titanium suppression electrode (taught in Buonodono above) with embedded channels lined with aluminum nitride (wherein aluminum nitride is inherently more thermally conductive than titanium), because having an aluminum nitride thermal conductive layer embedded in channels provides the advantage of enhancing cooling or heat dissipation efficiency, as taught in Yu.
Regarding claim 2, Horsky in view of Buonodono, Van Veen and Yu teaches the apparatus of claim 1, comprising a fluid source (Van Veen ¶ 0179) in communication with the embedded cooling channel to allow a flow of fluid through the electrode.
Regarding claim 3, Horsky in view of Buonodono, Van Veen and Yu teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the fluid source comprises a chiller (cooling fluid; Van Veen ¶ 0179).
Regarding claim 4, Horsky in view of Buonodono, Van Veen and Yu teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the fluid source comprises a heater (heated cooling liquid; Van Veen ¶ 0113).
Regarding claim 7, Horsky in view of Buonodono, Van Veen and Yu teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the electrode comprises a suppression electrode (Horsky ¶ 0153).
Regarding claim 8, Horsky in view of Buonodono, Van Veen and Yu teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the electrode comprises a ground electrode (Horsky ¶ 0153).
Regarding claim 9, Horsky teaches an apparatus (Figs. 3 and 9) comprising:
an ion source (400) having a plurality of chamber walls defining an ion source chamber (500) and having an extraction aperture (504); and
an electrode (510) disposed outside the ion source chamber and having an aperture aligned with the extraction aperture (Fig. 9).
Horsky fails to further teach that the electrode has an embedded cooling channel that is lined with a more thermally conductive material, nor a fluid source is in communication with the embedded cooling channel, nor a controller is in communication with the fluid source to control a flow rate and/or temperature of a fluid flowing through the embedded cooling channel.
Buonodono teaches a source apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of chamber walls (walls of 111) and an extraction electrode (112) with an extraction aperture (205), and a suppression electrode (200) positioned outside and proximate the extraction aperture, wherein the suppression electrode is made of an electrically conductive metal: titanium (¶ 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate titanium as the material for the suppression electrode outside Horsky’s ion source, because titanium is a well-known and used metal used for electrical conductivity, as taught in Buonodono.
Furthermore, Van Veen teaches a charged particle beam apparatus (Fig. 2) comprising a plurality of disc shaped electrodes wherein cooling conduits (105) are embedded inside the electrodes (Figs. 7a-d), with a fluid source (¶ 0179) and a temperature controller (inherent in ¶ 0107). Van Veen teaches that the presence of the cooling conduit may improve the apparatus’ accuracy and reliability (¶ 0099).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate embedded cooling channels with a fluid source and temperature controller in Horsky’s electrode so that system accuracy and reliability may be improved, as taught in Van Veen.
In addition, Yu teaches an aluminum nitride thermal conductive layer embedded in water channels (Abstract), which provides the advantage of enhancing cooling or heat dissipation efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate titanium suppression electrode (taught in Buonodono above) with embedded channels lined with aluminum nitride (wherein aluminum nitride is inherently more thermally conductive than titanium), because having an aluminum nitride thermal conductive layer embedded in channels provides the advantage of enhancing cooling or heat dissipation efficiency, as taught in Yu.
Regarding claim 10, Horsky in view of Buonodono, Van Veen and Yu teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the controller maintains the electrode within a predetermined temperature range to control thermal distortion (Van Veen ¶ 0107).
Regarding claim 11, Horsky in view of Buonodono, Van Veen and Yu teaches the apparatus of claim 10, comprising a thermal sensor (Horsky ¶ 0173), wherein the controller uses information from the electrode to maintain the predetermined temperature range (Horsky ¶ 0162 and 0173).
Regarding claim 12, Horsky in view of Buonodono, Van Veen and Yu teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the thermal sensor is disposed on the electrode (Horsky ¶ 0162).
Regarding claim 13, Horsky in view of Buonodono, Van Veen and Yu teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the thermal sensor is not in direct contact with the electrode (thermocouple 850 in good thermal contact to a thermally representative portion of the extraction electrode assembly 805; Horsky ¶ 0166).
Regarding claim 14, Horsky in view of Buonodono, Van Veen and Yu teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the fluid source comprises a chiller (cooling fluid; Van Veen ¶ 0179).
Regarding claim 15, Horsky in view of Buonodono, Van Veen and Yu teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the fluid source comprises a heater (heated cooling liquid; Van Veen ¶ 0113).
Regarding claim 16, Horsky in view of Buonodono, Van Veen and Yu teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the controller controls a temperature of a fluid flowing through the embedded cooling channel based on a species being ionized in the ion source to control deposition on the electrode (controller is implied in ¶ 0202 discussing disabling heating fluid and maintaining the cooling liquid to achieve the desired/sensed temperature).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horsky (US 2010/0107980) in view of Buonodono (US 2018/0211816), Van Veen (US 2017/0221674) and Yu (TW 201707309), in further view of Burgin (US 5,920,076).
Regarding claim 6, Horsky in view of Buonodono, Van Veen and Yu teaches the apparatus of claim 5, but fails to further teach that the thermally conductive material is copper.
Burgin teaches an ion beam apparatus comprising a fluid conduit (16) for cooling parts of the apparatus, wherein the conduit comprises a material having good thermal conductivity, such as copper (Col. 11, lines 37-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate cooper as Horsky/Van Veen’s thermally conductive material, because it is well known in the art that copper has good thermal conductivity, as taught in Bergin.
Claim(s) 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal (US 2016/0013030) in view of Van Veen (US 2017/0221674) and Horsky (US 2010/0107980).
Regarding claim 17, Venugopal teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a plasma system/chamber (Fig. 1) having a plurality of chamber walls (walls of 102) and an extraction electrode (extraction assembly 104) defining a chamber (102), wherein the extraction electrode has an extraction aperture (122); and
wherein the extraction electrode has a cooling unit (121; ¶ 0035).
Venugopal fails to teach that the cooling unit (121) is an embedded cooling channel in the extraction electrode.
Van Veen teaches a charged particle beam apparatus comprising a plurality of disc shaped electrode (81) wherein cooling conduits (105) are embedded inside the electrodes (Figs. 7a-d). Van Veen teaches that the embedded cooling conduit structure improves cooling efficiency (¶ 0105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate an embedded structure cooling coils in Venugopal’s ion extraction aperture plate (500) as part of the cooling unit, so that cooling efficiency may be improved, as taught in Van Veen.
Venugopal further fails to teach an electrode disposed outside the chamber having an aperture aligned with the extraction aperture.
Horsky teaches an apparatus comprising an ionization chamber (500) and a suppression electrode (406) having an aperture, wherein an electrode (407) is disposed outside the chamber having an aperture aligned with the extraction aperture (Fig. 2). Horsky teaches that the combination of the suppression electrode (406) and the ground electrode (407) serves to suppress secondary electrode generated due to beam strike, thus preventing energetic electrons from back-streaming into the ion source (¶ 0162).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate Venugopal’s electrode that is disposed outside the chamber to function as a ground electrode, in order to prevent energetic electrons from back-streaming into the ion source, as taught by Horsky.
Regarding claim 18, Venugopal in view of Van Veen and Horsky teaches the apparatus of claim 17, comprising a fluid source (Van Veen ¶ 0179) in communication with the embedded cooling channel to allow a flow of fluid through the extraction electrode.
Regarding claim 19, Venugopal in view of Van Veen and Horsky teaches the apparatus of claim 18, wherein the fluid source comprises a chiller (Van Veen ¶ 0179).
Regarding claim 20, Venugopal in view of Van Veen and Horsky teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the embedded cooling channel is lined with a thermally conductive material (Van Veen ¶ 0103 and 0105).
Conclusion
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 HSIEN C TSAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8-5).
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.
/HSIEN C TSAI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881