DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Anglin, et. al. (US 20200126757 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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 08/28/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 18/101,260 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5-18, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “the controller disables an ion beam comprising a dopant species from entering the process chamber” is not supported by the disclosure as filed. This limitation was not part of cancelled claim 2. Additionally, the process shown in Fig 3 is discussed on pgs. 11-12 of the specification and does not describe any disabling of an ion beam and does not describe a controller doing so. The process shown in Fig. 3 is never described or pictured to involve disabling the ion beam as written in the claim. Consequently, this limitation of claim 1 is not supported by the disclosure and therefore the claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for not meeting the written description requirement.
Claims 5-9 and 21-22 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “the ion beam having the dopant species is disabled from entering the process chamber” is not supported by the disclosure as filed. This limitation was not part of cancelled claim 2. Additionally, the process shown in Fig 3 is discussed on pgs. 11-12 of the specification and does not describe the ion beam being disabled. The process shown in Fig. 3 is never described or pictured to involve disabling the ion beam as written in the claim. Consequently, this limitation of claim 1 is not supported by the disclosure and therefore the claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for not meeting the written description requirement.
Claims 11-18, 20, and 23-24 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-11, 13, 16, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anglin, et. al. (US 20200126757 A1), hereinafter Anglin.
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 on a number of workpieces located in a process chamber ()
after a criteria is met, performing a gas treatment process (cleaning mode, [0040], Fig. 4), wherein the ion beam having the dopant species is disabled from entering the process chamber and an oxygen-containing species is introduced into the process chamber during the gas treatment process ([0040], [0042], [0045], Fig. 3, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Anglin teaches wherein the gas treatment process comprises introducing oxygen gas into the process chamber ([0028], [0040], [0042], [0045], Fig. 1, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Anglin teaches wherein the gas treatment process further comprises introducing hydrogen plasma into the process chamber ([0045]).
Regarding claim 16, Anglin teaches wherein the gas treatment process comprises introducing oxygen radicals and ions into the process chamber ([0045]).
Regarding claim 21, Anglin teaches wherein the gas inlet is affixed to a port of the process chamber (Fig. 1, [0028], [0030], [0034]).
Regarding claim 24, Anglin teaches wherein the dopant species comprises boron ([0031]).
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 1 and 8 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), hereinafter Mitchell.
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 in communication with the process chamber through a gas inlet (feed source 28, [0030]) to supply an oxygen-containing gas into the process chamber (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).
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]))
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 Shiozaki, et. al. (US 5144147 A), hereinafter Shiozaki.
Regarding claim 22, Anglin 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); wherein the gas inlet is disposed in the tunnel so that the oxygen-containing gas is introduced directly into the dose cup assembly.
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).
Mitchell modifies the Anglin by suggesting a dose cup assembly as claimed. Shiozaki modifies the combination by suggesting introducing oxygen gas source directly into the tunnel of the Faraday assembly.
Since both inventions are directed to Faraday assemblies in ion implantation devices, 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). 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).
Claims 5-6, 9, 12, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anglin (US 20200126757 A1), in view of Mitchell (US 6525327 B1), further in view of Graf (US 20160071734 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Anglin in view of Mitchell does not teach wherein the gas source comprises a plasma generator.
Graf teaches wherein the gas source comprises a plasma generator ([0099]).
Graf modifies the combination by suggesting the gas source comprises a plasma generator.
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 Graf because a plasma generator may be used to generate ions and radicals, (Graf, [0099]).
Regarding claim 6, Anglin in view of Mitchell 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.
Graf 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 ([0099]).
Graf modifies the combination by suggesting the secondary gas is selected from a group including NH3.
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 Graf because the secondary gas is chosen to enhance the GCIB treatment process, (Graf, [0096]).
Regarding claim 9, Anglin in view of Mitchell 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
Graf 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 (secondary gas can include a hydrogen-containing gas, [0098]).
Graf modifies the combination by suggesting a second gas source in communication with the process chamber, the second gas source supplying a 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 Graf because the secondary gas is chosen to enhance the GCIB treatment process, (Graf, [0096]).
Regarding claim 12, Anglin in view of Mitchell does not teach wherein the gas treatment process further comprises introducing water vapor into the process chamber.
Graf teaches wherein the gas treatment process further comprises introducing water vapor into the process chamber (H2O, [0099]).
Graf modifies the combination by suggesting introducing water vapor into the process chamber in the gas treatment process.
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 Graf because the type of gas can be chosen to enhance the GCIB treatment process, (Graf, [0096]).
Regarding claim 14, although Anglin does not preclude using chemically inert species ([0045]), Anglin in view of Mitchell 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.
Graf 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 (a neutral constituent of the GCIB can be separated and directed to treat the substrate (in the processing chamber), [0020], [0064], Fig. 5).
Graf modifies the combination by suggesting changing a species of the ion beam to an inert species and directing the ion beam 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 Graf because the neutral constituent of the GCIB can be used to treat the substrate, ([0020]).
Regarding claim 17, Anglin in view of Mitchell does not teach wherein the gas treatment process further comprises introducing NH3 gas into the process chamber.
Graf teaches wherein the gas treatment process further comprises introducing NH3 gas into the process chamber ([0099]).
Graf modifies the combination by suggesting introducing NH3 gas into the process chamber in the gas treatment process.
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 Graf because the type of gas can be chosen to enhance the GCIB treatment process, (Graf, [0096]).
Regarding claim 18, Anglin in view of Mitchell does not teach wherein the gas treatment process further comprises introducing NH3 plasma into the process chamber.
Graf teaches wherein the gas treatment process further comprises introducing NH3 plasma into the process chamber ([0099]).
Graf modifies the combination by suggesting introducing NH3 plasma into the process chamber in the gas treatment process.
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 Graf because the type of gas can be chosen to enhance the GCIB treatment process, (Graf, [0096]).
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), 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anglin (US 20200126757 A1) in view of Yamamoto, et. al. (JP H0696716 A).
Regarding claim 15, Anglin does not teach wherein the gas treatment process comprises introducing ozone into the process chamber.
Yamamoto teaches wherein the gas treatment process comprises introducing ozone into the process chamber ([0018], Fig. 1 where ozone generator 21 introduces ozone into Faraday box 5).
Yamamoto modifies the combination by suggesting introducing ozone into the process chamber as part of the gas treatment process.
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 introducing ozone allows excited oxygen atoms can react with and remove the scattered resist (Yamamoto, [0013]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anglin (US 20200126757 A1) in view of Davis, et. al. (US 5248636 A), hereinafter Davis.
Regarding claim 20, Anglin 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 Anglin 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 Banks (KR 20070029691 A).
Regarding claim 23, Anglin teaches the gas treatment process (see 102 rejection of claim 10).
Anglin 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 Anglin 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]).
Conclusion
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
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881