DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 112(a)
Applicant’s arguments see pg. 7 of the remarks filed 04/13/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 5-18, and 20-24 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1, 5-18, and 20-24 under 35 USC 112(a) have been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks/Arguments filed 04/13/2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and, in view of the amendments to the independent claims, are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Basceri, et. al. (US 20060070637 A1).
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 10-13, 15-18, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anglin, et. al. (US 20200126757 A1), hereinafter Anglin, in view of Basceri, et. al. (US 20060070637 A1), hereinafter Basceri, and as evidenced by the instant application, Sinclair, et. al., hereinafter Sinclair.
Regarding claim 10, Anglin teaches a method of operating an ion implanter (Fig. 1, [0028]), comprising:
generating an ion beam having a dopant species to be used to perform an ion implantation process (ion beam 18 with dopant species, [0029]-[0030]) on a number of workpieces located in a process chamber (substrate mounted on platen within process chamber 46, [0029]);
after a criteria is met, performing a gas treatment process, wherein the ion beam having the dopant species is disabled from entering the process chamber (cleaning mode, [0040], Figs. 3- 4) and an oxygen-containing species is introduced during the gas treatment process ([0040], [0042], [0044]-[0045], Fig. 4) and interacts with depositions on walls to transform brittle film disposed on the walls into a softer more pliable film (pg. 15, lines 5-10 of the instant application states that it is known that when boron depositions are exposed to oxygen or moisture, the depositions may be transformed into boron oxide films which are much softer and more pliable. Since [0038], [0005]of Anglin teaches that the ion beam may include boron, and that beam constituents eventually create deposits, and [0031] teaches using an oxygen-containing gas as the cleaning material, it is inherent, as evidenced by the instant application, that the situation taught by Anglin (Boron depositions cleaned by oxygen-containing gas) would produce the effect of transforming boron depositions into softer and more pliable boron oxide film, even though Anglin does not explicitly recognize this effect (other than teaching “cleaning”, which may imply or involve the softening of a brittle film): see MPEP 2112, which teaches “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.”).
Anglin does not teach that the oxygen-containing species is introduced into the process chamber through a gas inlet disposed in the process chamber; rather, Anglin discusses an embodiment in which the oxygen-containing species is introduced into an EPM (an energy purity module—one of the beam-line components of the ion implantation system [0028]) through a gas inlet disposed in the EPM (see Fig. 2A and 2B, [0034]). However, Anglin states that “[although] described hereinafter with respect to the EPM 40 of the beamline components 16 for the sake of explanation, it will be appreciated that the embodiments described herein for in-situ plasma cleaning are applicable to virtually any component or surface of the system”, [0028], where the system 10 includes process chamber 46 (Fig. 1).
Basceri teaches the process chamber as the component of the system being cleaned and that the cleaning agent is introduced in the process chamber through a gas inlet disposed in the process chamber in order to perform the cleaning of this chamber (source 20 provides cleaning agent into chamber 12 through inlet 22 [0025]-[0026], Fig. 1, where chamber 12 can have various internal surfaces over which various unwanted residue materials can be deposited during the semiconductor processing steps, [0024], and chamber 12 is disclosed as being a processing chamber for ion implantation, [0023].).
Basceri modifies Anglin by suggesting cleaning the process chamber (instead of the EPM example of Anglin) in which the introduction of an oxygen-containing species, as taught by Anglin, is done by introducing a gas into the process chamber by a gas inlet disposed in the process chamber (just as the gas is introduced into the EPM by a gas inlet disposed in the EPM in Anglin’s example, as seen in Fig. 2B of Anglin).
Since both Anglin and Basceri are directed to the cleaning of components of an ion implantation apparatus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Basceri to achieve the claimed invention because in-situ cleaning of the process chamber via a gas inlet in the process chamber allows for accessible cleaning of unwanted residue that has accumulated in the process chamber during processing events, (Basceri, [0003]-[0008], [0016]).
Regarding claim 11, Anglin teaches wherein the gas treatment process comprises introducing oxygen gas ([0028], [0040], [0042], [0045], Fig. 1, Fig. 4).
While Anglin does not explicitly describe an embodiment for in-situ cleaning of the process chamber, Anglin states “the embodiments described herein for in-situ plasma cleaning are applicable to virtually any component or surface of the system”, [0028], where the system 10 includes process chamber 46 (Fig. 1).
Basceri teaches introducing the cleaning agent into the process chamber ([0023]-[0026]).
Basceri modifies Anglin by suggesting introducing the oxygen gas into the process chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Basceri to achieve the claimed invention because in-situ cleaning of the process chamber via a gas inlet in the process chamber allows for accessible cleaning of unwanted residue that has accumulated in the process chamber during processing events, (Basceri, [0003]-[0008], [0016]).
Regarding claim 12, Anglin teaches “[v]arious species may be introduced as the cleaning agent of the etchant gas” and that “[n]on-limiting examples of the cleaning agent may include atomic or molecular species containing H…, O,… or a combination thereof....”, ([0045]). Although Anglin does not explicitly teach wherein the gas treatment process further comprises introducing water vapor into the process chamber Anglin states “the composition of the etchant gas can be chosen to optimize chemical etching based on a composition of the deposit(s) formed on the conductive beam optics”, ([0046]). Consequently, the composition of the cleaning agent is demonstrated by Anglin to be a results-effective variable (different compositions of the etching gas more optimally etch different compositions of deposits), and, in combination with the disclosure of atomic/molecular species presented as examples by Anglin, introducing water vapor as part of the gas treatment process could be achieved through routine experimentation.
While Anglin does not explicitly describe an embodiment for in-situ cleaning of the process chamber, Anglin states “the embodiments described herein for in-situ plasma cleaning are applicable to virtually any component or surface of the system”, [0028], where the system 10 includes process chamber 46 (Fig. 1).
Basceri teaches introducing the cleaning agent into the process chamber ([0023]-[0026]).
Basceri modifies Anglin by suggesting introducing the water vapor into the process chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Basceri to achieve the claimed invention because in-situ cleaning of the process chamber via a gas inlet in the process chamber allows for accessible cleaning of unwanted residue that has accumulated in the process chamber during processing events, (Basceri, [0003]-[0008], [0016]).
Regarding claim 13, Anglin teaches “[v]arious species may be introduced as the cleaning agent of the etchant gas” and that “[n]on-limiting examples of the cleaning agent may include atomic or molecular species containing H…or a combination thereof....”, ([0045]). Although Anglin does not explicitly teach wherein the gas treatment process further comprises introducing hydrogen plasma into the process chamber Anglin states “the composition of the etchant gas can be chosen to optimize chemical etching based on a composition of the deposit(s) formed on the conductive beam optics”, ([0046]). Consequently, the composition of the cleaning agent is demonstrated by Anglin to be a results-effective variable (different compositions of the etching gas more optimally etch different compositions of deposits), and, in combination with the disclosure of atomic/molecular species presented as examples by Anglin, introducing hydrogen plasma as part of the gas treatment process could be achieved through routine experimentation.
While Anglin does not explicitly describe an embodiment for in-situ cleaning of the process chamber, Anglin states “the embodiments described herein for in-situ plasma cleaning are applicable to virtually any component or surface of the system”, [0028], where the system 10 includes process chamber 46 (Fig. 1).
Basceri teaches introducing the cleaning agent into the process chamber ([0023]-[0026]).
Basceri modifies Anglin by suggesting introducing the hydrogen plasma into the process chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Basceri to achieve the claimed invention because in-situ cleaning of the process chamber via a gas inlet in the process chamber allows for accessible cleaning of unwanted residue that has accumulated in the process chamber during processing events, (Basceri, [0003]-[0008], [0016]).
Regarding claim 15, Anglin teaches “[v]arious species may be introduced as the cleaning agent of the etchant gas” and that “[n]on-limiting examples of the cleaning agent may include atomic or molecular species containing …O…or a combination thereof....”, ([0045]). Although Anglin does not explicitly teach wherein the gas treatment process further comprises introducing ozone into the process chamber Anglin states “the composition of the etchant gas can be chosen to optimize chemical etching based on a composition of the deposit(s) formed on the conductive beam optics”, ([0046]). Consequently, the composition of the cleaning agent is demonstrated by Anglin to be a results-effective variable (different compositions of the etching gas more optimally etch different compositions of deposits), and, in combination with the disclosure of atomic/molecular species presented as examples by Anglin, introducing ozone as part of the gas treatment process could be achieved through routine experimentation.
While Anglin does not explicitly describe an embodiment for in-situ cleaning of the process chamber, Anglin states “the embodiments described herein for in-situ plasma cleaning are applicable to virtually any component or surface of the system”, [0028], where the system 10 includes process chamber 46 (Fig. 1).
Basceri teaches introducing the cleaning agent into the process chamber ([0023]-[0026]).
Basceri modifies Anglin by suggesting introducing the ozone into the process chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Basceri to achieve the claimed invention because in-situ cleaning of the process chamber via a gas inlet in the process chamber allows for accessible cleaning of unwanted residue that has accumulated in the process chamber during processing events, (Basceri, [0003]-[0008], [0016]).
Regarding claim 16, Anglin teaches “[v]arious species may be introduced as the cleaning agent of the etchant gas” and that “[n]on-limiting examples of the cleaning agent may include atomic or molecular species containing …O…or a combination thereof....”, ([0045]). Although Anglin does not explicitly teach wherein the gas treatment process further comprises introducing oxygen radicals and ions into the process chamber Anglin states “the composition of the etchant gas can be chosen to optimize chemical etching based on a composition of the deposit(s) formed on the conductive beam optics”, ([0046]). Consequently, the composition of the cleaning agent is demonstrated by Anglin to be a results-effective variable (different compositions of the etching gas more optimally etch different compositions of deposits), and, in combination with the disclosure of atomic/molecular species presented as examples by Anglin, introducing oxygen ions and radicals as part of the gas treatment process could be achieved through routine experimentation.
While Anglin does not explicitly describe an embodiment for in-situ cleaning of the process chamber, Anglin states “the embodiments described herein for in-situ plasma cleaning are applicable to virtually any component or surface of the system”, [0028], where the system 10 includes process chamber 46 (Fig. 1).
Basceri teaches introducing the cleaning agent into the process chamber ([0023]-[0026]).
Basceri modifies Anglin by suggesting introducing the oxygen ions and radicals into the process chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Basceri to achieve the claimed invention because in-situ cleaning of the process chamber via a gas inlet in the process chamber allows for accessible cleaning of unwanted residue that has accumulated in the process chamber during processing events, (Basceri, [0003]-[0008], [0016]).
Regarding claim 17, Anglin teaches “[v]arious species may be introduced as the cleaning agent of the etchant gas” and that “[n]on-limiting examples of the cleaning agent may include atomic or molecular species containing H,…N…or a combination thereof....”, ([0045]). Although Anglin does not explicitly teach wherein the gas treatment process further comprises introducing NH3 gas into the process chamber Anglin states “the composition of the etchant gas can be chosen to optimize chemical etching based on a composition of the deposit(s) formed on the conductive beam optics”, ([0046]). Consequently, the composition of the cleaning agent is demonstrated by Anglin to be a results-effective variable (different compositions of the etching gas more optimally etch different compositions of deposits), and, in combination with the disclosure of atomic/molecular species presented as examples by Anglin, introducing NH3 gas as part of the gas treatment process could be achieved through routine experimentation.
While Anglin does not explicitly describe an embodiment for in-situ cleaning of the process chamber, Anglin states “the embodiments described herein for in-situ plasma cleaning are applicable to virtually any component or surface of the system”, [0028], where the system 10 includes process chamber 46 (Fig. 1).
Basceri teaches introducing the cleaning agent into the process chamber ([0023]-[0026]).
Basceri modifies Anglin by suggesting introducing the NH3 gas into the process chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Basceri to achieve the claimed invention because in-situ cleaning of the process chamber via a gas inlet in the process chamber allows for accessible cleaning of unwanted residue that has accumulated in the process chamber during processing events, (Basceri, [0003]-[0008], [0016]).
Regarding claim 18, Anglin teaches “[v]arious species may be introduced as the cleaning agent of the etchant gas” and that “[n]on-limiting examples of the cleaning agent may include atomic or molecular species containing H,…N…or a combination thereof....”, ([0045]). Although Anglin does not explicitly teach wherein the gas treatment process further comprises introducing NH3 plasma into the process chamber Anglin states “the composition of the etchant gas can be chosen to optimize chemical etching based on a composition of the deposit(s) formed on the conductive beam optics”, ([0046]). Consequently, the composition of the cleaning agent is demonstrated by Anglin to be a results-effective variable (different compositions of the etching gas more optimally etch different compositions of deposits), and, in combination with the disclosure of atomic/molecular species presented as examples by Anglin, introducing NH3 plasma as part of the gas treatment process could be achieved through routine experimentation.
While Anglin does not explicitly describe an embodiment for in-situ cleaning of the process chamber, Anglin states “the embodiments described herein for in-situ plasma cleaning are applicable to virtually any component or surface of the system”, [0028], where the system 10 includes process chamber 46 (Fig. 1).
Basceri teaches introducing the cleaning agent into the process chamber ([0023]-[0026]).
Basceri modifies Anglin by suggesting introducing the NH3 plasma into the process chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Basceri to achieve the claimed invention because in-situ cleaning of the process chamber via a gas inlet in the process chamber allows for accessible cleaning of unwanted residue that has accumulated in the process chamber during processing events, (Basceri, [0003]-[0008], [0016]).
Regarding claim 24, Anglin teaches wherein the dopant species comprises boron ([0031]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anglin (US 20200126757 A1), in view of Basceri (US 20060070637 A1), as evidenced by Sinclair, further in view of Chen, et. al. (US 20050133736 A1), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 25, Anglin in view of Basceri does not explicitly teach wherein the brittle film comprises boron carbide and the softer more pliable film comprises boron oxide.
A discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 1, Anglin in view of Basceri as evidenced by Sinclair teaches that the cleaning process of Anglin can be adapted to take place in the process chamber of an ion implantation system and that it is inherent, based on the disclosure of Anglin and as evidenced by the instant application, that a brittle deposit film can be transformed to a softer, more pliable film by the cleaning process.
Chen teaches an ion implantation system containing a graphite Faraday cup in the process chamber (Faraday cup 34 in ion implantation chamber 26, [0029], Fig. 1).
Chen modifies the combination by suggesting a graphite Faraday cup in the process chamber of the combination. Consequently, if the processing mode and cleaning mode of Anglin is applied in the process chamber, as suggested by Basceri, and such a process chamber contains a graphite Faraday cup, as suggested by Chen, then a Boron ion beam (Anglin, [0031]) would have the effect of producing a boron carbide film on the graphite Faraday cup in the process chamber during implantation/processing mode (pg. 14 line 31 – pg. 15 line 1 of the instant application teach that boron ions may interact with graphite components to form a film of boron carbide. Consequently, it is inherent, as evidenced by the instant application, that the situation taught by the combination (ion implantation with a boron ion beam in a process chamber comprising a graphite Faraday cup) would produce the effect of a boron carbide film, even though the references do not explicitly recognize this effect: see MPEP 2112, which teaches “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.”), and the oxygen cleaning gas would have the effect of producing a boron oxide film during cleaning mode (pg. 15 lines 2-9 of the instant application teach that introducing oxygen during a gas treatment process may transform the boron carbide film into a boron oxide film. Consequently, it is inherent, as evidenced by the instant application, that the situation taught by Anglin (boron carbide film cleaned by oxygen-containing gas) would produce the effect of transforming the boron carbide film into softer and more pliable boron oxide film, even though Anglin does not explicitly recognize this effect (other than teaching “cleaning”, which may imply or involve the softening of a brittle film): see MPEP 2112, which teaches “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen because a graphite Faraday cup can be used to measure the current of an ion beam (Chen, [0018]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anglin (US 20200126757 A1), in view of Basceri (US 20060070637 A1), as evidenced by Sinclair, further in view of Bernstein, et. al. (US 6221169 B1), hereinafter Bernstein.
Regarding claim 14, although Anglin does not preclude using chemically inert species ([0045]), Anglin in view of Basceri does not explicitly teach wherein the gas treatment process further comprises changing a species of the ion beam to an inert species and directing the ion beam into the process chamber.
Bernstein teaches wherein the gas treatment process further comprises changing a species of the ion beam to an inert species and directing the ion beam into the process chamber (Col. 2, line 56 – Col. 3 line 4).
Bernstein modifies the combination by suggesting that the gas treatment process includes directing an inert ion beam into the process chamber in the presence of a reactive gas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bernstein because the method of Bernstein allows for removing contaminants from internal components of an ion implanter, (Bernstein, Col. 2 lines 24-37).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anglin (US 20200126757 A1), in view of Basceri (US 20060070637 A1), as evidenced by Sinclair, further in view of Davis, et. al. (US 5248636 A), hereinafter Davis.
Regarding claim 20, Anglin in view of Basceri does not teach wherein the criteria is based on a number of workpieces processes since a previous gas treatment process or based on a number of particles detected on a workpiece or in the process chamber.
Davis teaches wherein the criteria is based on a number of particles detected on a workpiece or in the process chamber (Col. 53, line 60- Col. 54 line 2 teaches that a load lock particulate sensor 202 and particle counter 850 detect number of particles in process module and provide input to control system to control a nitrogen purge loop).
Davis modifies the combination by suggesting that the criteria is based on a number of particles detected in the process chamber of Anglin.
Since Davis is directed to manufacture and processing of semiconductor devices, including ion implantation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Davis because using criteria based on a number of particles detected allows for controlling of a purging process to eliminate contamination (Davis, Col. 25 line 63 – Col. 26 line 25).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anglin (US 20200126757 A1), in view of Basceri (US 20060070637 A1), as evidenced by Sinclair, further in view of Banks (KR 20070029691 A).
Regarding claim 23, Anglin teaches the gas treatment process (see 102 rejection of claim 10).
Anglin in view of Basceri does not teach changing a feedgas used in an ion source to a species containing carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide so as to create an ion beam of oxygen ions and directing the ion beam of oxygen ions into the process chamber.
Banks teaches wherein the gas treatment process comprises changing a feedgas used in an ion source to a species containing carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide so as to create an ion beam of oxygen ions and directing the ion beam of oxygen ions into the process chamber ([14], [16]).
Banks modifies the gas treatment process of the combination by suggesting producing an ion beam by using CO or CO2 as the feedgas in an ion source.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Banks because using CO and CO2 as the source gas can produce a beam of oxygen ions in an ion implantation device (Banks, [14]).
Claims 1, 5, 8, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anglin (US 20200126757 A1), in view of Mitchell, et. al. (US 6525327 B1) and Basceri (US 20060070637 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Anglin teaches an ion implanter (Fig. 1, [0028]), comprising:
an ion source to generate an ion beam (ion source 14, [0028, Fig. 1);
a platen (platen [0029]) disposed within a process chamber (process chamber (system 10), [0028], Fig. 1), into which the ion beam is directed (io beam 18, [0029], Fig. 1);
a gas source (gas source 62, flow controller 64, gas inlet 58, and graphite electrodes, are collectively interpreted as the gas source [0034], [0047]) to supply an oxygen-containing gas (cleaning agent may include oxygen, [0045]); and a controller, wherein after a predetermined criteria is met ([0042]), the controller disables an ion beam comprising a dopant species from entering the process chamber and enables the oxygen-containing gas to be introduced into the process chamber ([0040], [0042], Fig. 3 shows processing mode and Fig. 4 shows cleaning mode, where in Fig. 4 a cleaning gas flows through the beam-line optics instead of an ion beam).
Anglin does not explicitly teach a dose cup assembly disposed within the process chamber and aligned with an incoming ion beam.
Mitchell teaches a dose cup assembly (beam stop 23 with Faraday cup 40, Fig. 1, Col. 6, line 16) disposed within the process chamber and aligned with an incoming ion beam (Fig. 1).
Mitchell modifies Anglin by suggesting a dose cup assembly within the process chamber and aligned with an incoming ion beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mitchell because dose cup assembly as suggested by Mitchell can be employed for obtaining measurements of the ion dose rate (Mitchell, Col.5, lines 47-55).
Anglin does not explicitly teach that the gas source is in communication with the process chamber through a gas inlet disposed in the process chamber; rather, Anglin discusses an embodiment in which the gas source is in communication with an EPM (an energy purity module—one of the beam-line components of the ion implantation system [0028]) through a gas inlet disposed in the EPM (see Fig. 2A and 2B, [0034]). However, Anglin states that “[although] described hereinafter with respect to the EPM 40 of the beamline components 16 for the sake of explanation, it will be appreciated that the embodiments described herein for in-situ plasma cleaning are applicable to virtually any component or surface of the system”, [0028], where the system 10 includes process chamber 46 (Fig. 1).
Basceri teaches the process chamber as the component of the system being cleaned and that the cleaning agent is introduced in the process chamber through a gas inlet disposed in the process chamber in order to perform the cleaning of this chamber (source 20 provides cleaning agent into chamber 12 through inlet 22 [0025]-[0026], Fig. 1, where chamber 12 can have various internal surfaces over which various unwanted residue materials can be deposited during the semiconductor processing steps, [0024], and chamber 12 is disclosed as being a process chamber for ion implantation, [0023].).
Basceri modifies Anglin by suggesting cleaning the process chamber (instead of the EPM example of Anglin) in which the introduction of an oxygen-containing species, as taught by Anglin, is done by introducing a gas into the process chamber by a gas inlet disposed in the process chamber (just as the gas is introduced into the EPM by a gas inlet disposed in the EPM in Anglin’s example, as seen in Fig. 2B of Anglin).
Since both Anglin and Basceri are directed to the cleaning of components of an ion implantation apparatus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Basceri to achieve the claimed invention because in-situ cleaning of the process chamber via a gas inlet in the process chamber allows for accessible cleaning of unwanted residue that has accumulated in the process chamber during processing events, (Basceri, [0003]-[0008], [0016]).
Regarding claim 5, Anglin teaches wherein the gas source comprises a plasma generator (graphite electrodes cause the gas to be generated into plasma, ([0034], [0047]).
Regarding claim 8, Anglin teaches wherein the gas source comprises a storage container containing the oxygen-containing gas (container of the feed source 28, [0030], Fig. 1, [0045]))
Regarding claim 21, Although Anglin states that “embodiments described herein for in-situ plasma cleaning are applicable to virtually any component or surface of the system”, [0028], Anglin does not explicitly show an embodiment wherein the gas inlet is affixed to a port of the process chamber (See Fig. 2B where gas inlet is affixed to port of EPM (56, 62, 64, [0034])).
Basceri teaches wherein the gas inlet is affixed to a port of the process chamber (gas inlet 22, Fig. 1, [0026]).
Basceri modifies Anglin by suggesting an embodiment for cleaning the process chamber in which the gas inlet is affixed to a port of the process chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Basceri to achieve the claimed invention because introducing a cleaning agent into the process chamber of an ion implantation device via a gas inlet affixed to a port of the process chamber allows for accessible cleaning of unwanted residue that has accumulated in the process chamber during processing events, (Basceri, [0003]-[0008], [0016]).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anglin (US 20200126757 A1), in view of Mitchell (US 6525327 B1) and Basceri (US 20060070637 A1), further in view of Singh, et. al. (US 20050260354 A1), hereinafter Singh.
Regarding claim 6, Anglin in view of Mitchell and Basceri does not teach further comprising a second gas source in communication with the process chamber, the second gas source supplying a NH3-containing gas into the process chamber.
Singh teaches further comprising a second gas source in communication with the process chamber, the second gas source supplying a NH3-containing gas into the process chamber ([0028]-[0030], where [0030] specifically teaches the cleaning gases may be introduced into the process chamber through separate gas ports, which indicates a secondary gas source.).
Singh modifies the combination by suggesting a second gas source in communication with the process chamber, supplying NH3-containing gas into the process chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Singh because different combinations of cleaning gases can be used based on the composition of the material being removed in order to react with and clean the undesired material, (Singh, [0029]).
Regarding claim 9, Anglin in view of Mitchell and Basceri does not teach further comprising a second gas source in communication with the process chamber, the second gas source supplying a hydrogen-containing gas into the process chamber.
Singh teaches further comprising a second gas source in communication with the process chamber, the second gas source supplying a hydrogen-containing gas into the process chamber ([0029]-[0030]).
Singh modifies the combination by suggesting a second gas source in communication with the process chamber, supplying hydrogen-containing gas into the process chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Singh because different combinations of cleaning gases can be used based on the composition of the material being removed in order to react with and clean the undesired material, (Singh, [0029]).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anglin (US 20200126757 A1), in view of Mitchell (US 6525327 B1) and Basceri (US 20060070637 A1), further in view of Yamamoto, et. al. (JP H0696716 A).
Regarding claim 7, Anglin in view of Mitchell does not teach wherein the gas source comprises an ozone generator.
Yamamoto teaches wherein the gas source comprises an ozone generator (ozone generator 21, [0016]).
Yamamoto modifies the combination by suggesting the gas source comprises an ozone generator.
Since Yamamoto is directed to an ion implantation device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto because an ozone generator is capable of introducing ozone gas so that excited oxygen atoms can react with and remove the scattered resist (Yamamoto, [0016], [0013]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anglin (US 20200126757 A1), in view of Mitchell (US 6525327 B1) and Basceri (US 20060070637 A1), as evidenced by Sinclair, further in view of Mitchell (US 6525327 B1) and Shiozaki, et. al. (US 5144147 A), hereinafter Shiozaki.
Regarding claim 22, Anglin in view of Basceri does not teach wherein the dose cup assembly is disposed at a back wall of the process chamber and comprises: a faceplate attached to the back wall of the process chamber of the ion implanter, the faceplate defining an opening; an aperture plate defining a plurality of slots; and a tunnel having walls and sidewalls and having a proximal end and a distal end, located between the faceplate and the aperture plate, such that the proximal end is nearer to the faceplate and the distal end is nearer to the aperture plate; wherein the gas inlet is disposed in the tunnel so that the oxygen-containing gas is introduced directly into the dose cup assembly.
Mitchell teaches wherein the dose cup assembly is disposed at a back wall of the process chamber and comprises: a faceplate attached to the back wall of the process chamber of the ion implanter, the faceplate defining an opening (front wall of Faraday cup 40 having beam aperture 41, Fig. 4); an aperture plate defining a plurality of slots (42 with slits 66, 67, 68, Figs. 2, 3); and a tunnel having walls and sidewalls and having a proximal end and a distal end, located between the faceplate and the aperture plate, such that the proximal end is nearer to the faceplate and the distal end is nearer to the aperture plate (side walls of the beam stop 23, Fig. 2, including liners 51 and 52 in Fig. 4 which are between 41 and 42 in Fig 4).
Mitchell modifies the combination by suggesting a dose cup assembly as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mitchell because dose cup assembly as suggested by Mitchell can be employed for obtaining measurements of the ion dose rate (Mitchell, Col.5, lines 47-55).
Shiozaki teaches wherein the gas inlet (gas inlet port 25, Col. 2, line 18-20, Fig. 3) is disposed in the tunnel (Fig. 3) so that the oxygen-containing gas is introduced directly into the dose cup assembly (Faraday gauge 23, Col.2, lines 18-21, Fig. 3).
Shiozaki modifies the combination by suggesting introducing oxygen gas source directly into the tunnel of the Faraday assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the oxygen inlet of Shiozaki in the beam stop of Mitchell because doing so provides a method of cleaning the ion beam implantation apparatus without needing to dismantle the apparatus, (Col. 2, lines 27-49).
Conclusion
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 LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Robert Kim can be reached at 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights