DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim interpretation under 35 USC § 112(f):
By amendment some of the limitations no longer invoke 112(f). However, the remarks did not address all limitations that invoke 112(f). Moreover, changing “implantation angle mechanism” to “implantation angle adjuster” does not provide sufficient structure to perform the claimed functional limitations. It should be noted that amending the support mechanism to platen drive provides sufficient structure not because of the requirement of the implantation angle adjuster but because a drive suggests structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 112(b):
The remarks point to paragraph [0036] for the equivalent structure to the blocking mechanism. Therefore, the rejection on this grounds is withdrawn. However, the remarks do not point to structure for the remaining limitations invoking 112(f), therefore these rejections are reiterated herein below.
Additionally, the remarks and amendments fail to address the remaining rejections under 112(a) and 112(b) therefore these rejections remain as reiterated herein below.
Claim rejections under 35 USC § 102(a)(1):
The remarks take the position that Ninomiya fails to disclose a beam non—irradiation range associated with the platen drive. This has been found unpersuasive. Specifically, paragraph [0056] recites “In FIG. 3, the ion beam B scans in the horizontal direction (the x direction), and the wafer W is reciprocated in the vertical direction (the y direction) while being held by the reciprocating movement mechanism 54. FIG. 3 illustrates the operation range of the reciprocating movement mechanism 54 by illustrating the wafer W1 at the uppermost position and the wafer W2 at the lowermost position.”
That is, the ion beam scans in the x direction and the wafer reciprocates by mechanism 54 in the Y direction. As illustrated in the annotated figure below, when the perimeter of the wafer is moved above or below the scanning ion beam it is in a non-irradiated position.
PNG
media_image1.png
847
1167
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, this point has been found unpersuasive.
Moreover, the remarks take the position that Ninomiya fails to disclose any timing relationship in which the wafer’s movement is reversed with respect to such a non-irradiation range. This has been found unpersuasive because paragraph [0056] teaches the movement in the y direction is reciprocal, thus when position W1 is reached the wafer moves towards the lowest position W2.
Lastly, the remarks argue that Ninomiya does not discloses all the steps recited in claim 1. This has been found unpersuasive. As previously discussed, Ninomiya is capable of performing all steps recited in claim 1. That is, claim 1 is written as an apparatus, not as a method. . MPEP 2114 (II) recites “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) ”
That is, the manner of operating the claimed device does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art. Here, all the structural requirements are required by the claimed therefore operating the ion implanter in the claimed manner is how the device is intended to be employed and therefore fails to distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
Moreover, claim 1 recites “a processor that controls the implantation angle adjuster and the platen drive; and a memory in which a program is stored… where on the basis of the program, the processor executes…”
That is, the claim requires a memory in which a program is stored, where on the basis of the program, the processor executes…”. As discussed in the last office action, the claim is indefinite because it is not clear whether the program instructs the processor to perform the steps (a)-(c-2) performed by the processor or whether the processor on the basis of the program is capable of performing the claimed steps (a)-(c-2). That is, in the former interpretation the program is a set of instructions stored in memory, however in the latter interpretation the memory is programmable to store a program to perform the steps (a)-(c-2)
MPEP 2114 (IV) recites “The court held that "programmable" claim language required only that the accused product could be programmed to perform the claimed functionality.”
Here, because the claim language does not clearly define the program as instructing the processor, it is not clear whether the steps require are required by the claim. The interpretation of the last office action is that the memory stores a program and on the basis of the program the steps are capable of being performed. In other words, the program is interpreted as a programmable which is within the capabilities of the device of Ninomiya.
Further with respect to the indefiniteness, the claim does requires the “processor executes” steps a-c-2. This amounts to a claimed apparatus and method in the same claim. MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) recites “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.”
Here, the claims are towards an ion implanter and a processor executing steps. Therefore it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows the steps to occur (i.e. as in Ninomiya) or if infringement occurs when the steps are actually executed.
Therefore the remarks are unpersuasive and the rejection stands as reiterated herein below.
Rejections under 35 USC 103:
The remarks disagree with the rejection without pointing to any specific rationale. This is not fully responsive. 37 CFR 1.111 (b) recites “In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action.”
Here, the remarks do not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors. However, since the claims as amended are clearly open to rejection on grounds of record, a final rejection is made herewith (see MPEP 714.04).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an implantation angle adjuster capable of adjusting an implantation angle of the workpiece supported with the workpiece holder with respect to the ion beam” in claim 1.
“a twist angle adjuster that adjusts a twist angle of the workpiece having a normal line, which is perpendicular to a processed surface at a center of the workpiece surface of the processed supported with the support mechanism, as a rotation axis, and the twist angle adjustment mechanism adjusts a twist angle in the first implantation angle to a first twist angle and adjusts a twist angle in the second implantation angle to a second twist angle different from the first twist angle” in claim 10.
“beam deflection device that deflects the ion beam with at least one of an electric field and a magnetic field, and that is switchable between an irradiation-enabled state in which the ion beam is directed in an irradiation-enabled direction in which the workpiece is capable of being irradiated with the ion beam, and an irradiation-disabled state in which the ion beam is directed in an irradiation-disabled direction in which the workpiece is incapable of being irradiated with the ion beam” in claim 16.
“a beam scanner that scans a predetermined scanning angle range with the ion beam with which the workpiece is irradiated by at least one of the electric field and the magnetic field” in claim 23.
“a beam blocking mechanism that is switchable between a blocking state in which the ion beam is physically blocked and a non-blocking state in which the ion beam is passed” in claim 25.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-17, 19-23 and 25-28 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.
Claims 1-17, 19-23 and 25-28 are rejected as a formality because the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph language in these claims does not have sufficient structure in the specification. This rejection matches the below indefiniteness rejection for the same language. Once that rejection is overcome, this one will be as well. MPEP 2163.03 (VI) “A claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language "shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof." 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention.”
Here, there is no clear link or association in the specification or prosecution history between the limitations invoking 112(f) and the structure (see further discussion below).
Claim 1 lacks written description for an ion implanter because the claim does not require the necessary components for ion implantation (i.e. an ion source, mass analyzer, etc…shown in figures 1-2). MPEP 2163.03 (V) recites “question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).”
Here, there is no disclosure as to a broad genus of an ion implanter without an ion source and the necessary components to perform ion implantation.
Moreover MPEP 2161.01 recites “the federal circuit has explained that a specification cannot always support expansive claim language to satisfy the requirements under 35 USC 112 “merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed”.
Here, the specification fails to teach an ion implanter having only the claimed components. That is, there is no disclosure of an ion implanter without the components of figures 1-2 as discussed in paragraphs [0032]-[0033] of the published application.
Therefore claim 1 fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 USC § 112(a).
Claims 2-17, 19-23 and 25-28 lack written description by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17, 19-23 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations:
“an implantation angle adjuster capable of adjusting an implantation angle of the workpiece supported with the workpiece holder with respect to the ion beam” in claim 1.
“a twist angle adjuster that adjusts a twist angle of the workpiece having a normal line, which is perpendicular to a processed surface at a center of the workpiece surface of the processed supported with the support mechanism, as a rotation axis, and the twist angle adjustment mechanism adjusts a twist angle in the first implantation angle to a first twist angle and adjusts a twist angle in the second implantation angle to a second twist angle different from the first twist angle” in claim 10.
“beam deflection device that deflects the ion beam with at least one of an electric field and a magnetic field, and that is switchable between an irradiation-enabled state in which the ion beam is directed in an irradiation-enabled direction in which the workpiece is capable of being irradiated with the ion beam, and an irradiation-disabled state in which the ion beam is directed in an irradiation-disabled direction in which the workpiece is incapable of being irradiated with the ion beam” in claim 16.
“a beam scanner that scans a predetermined scanning angle range with the ion beam with which the workpiece is irradiated by at least one of the electric field and the magnetic field” in claim 23
invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
MPEP 2181 (II) (C) recites:
The structure disclosed in the written description of the specification is the corresponding structure only if the written description of the specification or the prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Here, there is no clear links or association between the above claimed 112(f) limitations and structure. If the persecution history clearly links the above limitations to structure the rejection will be overcome.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite for reciting “wherein on the basis of the program, the processor executes…” because it is not clear whether the program instructs the processor to perform the steps (a)-(c-2) by the processor or whether the processor on the basis of the program is capable of performing the claimed steps (a)-(c-2). For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted that the processor is capable of executing the steps (i.e. programmable1). Additionally, in an obvious type rejection it will be interpreted that the program instructs the processor to execute.
Moreover, the claim does requires the “processor executes” steps a-c-2. This amounts to a claimed apparatus and method in the same claim. MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) recites “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.”
Here, the claims are towards an ion implanter and a processor executing steps. Therefore it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows the steps to occur (i.e. as in Ninomiya) or if infringement occurs when the steps are actually executed.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “irradiated with an ion beam” is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim i.e. ion implanter, support mechanism, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the ion implanter or support mechanism in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Claim 28 is vague and indefinite for requiring “a second beam current measuring device” and “a second predetermined value” because it is not clear whether or not there is a first beam current measuring device and a first predetermined value because claim 28 is dependent upon claim 25 and not claim 27.
Claims 2-17, 19-23 and 25-28 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ninomiya et al. (US pgPub 2017/0092464) (first interpretation).
Regarding claim 1, Ninomiya et al. teach an ion implanter (figs. 1-5) comprising:
a workpiece holder (52) that supports a workpiece to be irradiated with an ion beam ([0050], where wafer is in beam line along “B”);
a platen drive (54/56/58) including an implantation angle adjuster (56), wherein the implantation angle adjuster is capable of adjusting an implantation angle of the workpiece supported with the workpiece holder with respect to the ion beam (twist angles seen in figures 9a-9D or 10a-10D relative to ion beam B, wherein twist angle is controlled by 56, see paragraphs [0050]-[0051]);
a processor (fig. 5) that controls the implantation angle adjuster and the platen drive ([0074] via 68 of computer in figure 5 controls 56 and [0075] via 68 computer in figure 5 controls 54); and a
memory (66) in which a program is stored ([0074]-[0075] operations of 56 and 54 are stored in storage unit 66);
wherein the platen drive (54) reciprocates the workpiece holder in a direction intersecting with the ion beam ([0050], reciprocating in the y direction of figure 2 intersecting with ion beam “B”),
wherein a reciprocation range of the platen drive includes a beam irradiation range in which at least a part of the workpiece is irradiated with the ion beam (fig. 3 reciprocation range via 54 in the y direction where “W” is incident by “B” ), and a beam non-irradiation range which is adjacent to at least one end of the beam irradiation range and in which the workpiece is not irradiated with the ion beam (range where B stops irradiating W as 54 moves wafer to region W1 or W2);
wherein on the basis of the program, the processor executes
(a) moving the workpiece, which has been adjusted so as to have a first implantation angle by the implantation angle adjuster, from the beam irradiation range toward the beam non-irradiation range with the platen drive (fig. 3, movement from W to W1 via 54, wherein the twist angle is capable of being adjusted via 56);
(b) starting a change of the workpiece from the first implantation angle to a second implantation angle different from the first implantation angle with the implantation angle adjuster while the workpiece is moved within the beam non-irradiation range (via 56 a twist angle may change while 54 is moved within the non-irradiation range seen in figure 3) after the workpiece having the first implantation angle is moved from the beam irradiation range to the beam non-irradiation range with the platen drive (after W moves from “B” in y direction (figure 3) to a non-irradiation range), subsequently to the step (a) (since all the structure is taught the device is capable of performing steps subsequently thereto);
(c-1) reversing a movement direction of the workpiece at an end of the beam non-irradiation range with the platen drive and moving the workpiece toward the beam irradiation range, subsequently to the step (b) (from W1 back towards W in the Y direction, see figure 3); and
(c-2) completing the change of the workpiece from the first implantation angle to the second implantation angle with the implantation angle adjuster while the workpiece is moved within the beam non-irradiation range with the platen drive before the workpiece is returned from the beam non-irradiation range to the beam irradiation range with the platen drive, subsequently to the step (b) (since the device is capable of moving in and out of the irradiation range and changing the twist angle such a sequence is within the capabilities of the device. That is, twist angle adjustment via 56 may be completed outside of the irradiation of B before returning to irradiation via 54 by execution unit 68).
Regarding claim 2, Ninomiya et al. teach wherein the beam non-irradiation range includes a first beam non-irradiation range adjacent to one end of the beam irradiation range and a second beam non-irradiation range adjacent to the other end of the beam irradiation range (fig. 3, the other range leading to W2 in the y direction outside of the beam “B”).
Regarding claim 3, Ninomiya et al. teach a beam current sensor (42, 40L and 4R) for dose control (intended use) that measures in a case where the workpiece is irradiated with a part of the ion beam, as a beam current, another part of the ion beam with which the workpiece is not irradiated (as seen in figures 3-4 40R/L measure in regions C1 and C2 (i.e. another part off the ion beam with which the workpiece is not irradiated)); wherein in the step (a), the platen drive moves the workpiece within the beam irradiation range at a speed controlled depending on the beam current measured with the beam current sensor (since current is measured and speed is controlled [0072], the device is capable of moving the irradiation range at a speed controlled depending on beam current measured by 42/40L/R).
Regarding claim 4, Ninomiya et al. teach wherein in the step (b), the workpiece that is moved within the beam non-irradiation range is decelerated with the platen drive with respect to the end of the beam non-irradiation range (inherent for W1 to reciprocate by 54 in the downward y direction (i.e. decelerate in the change to the opposite direction)).
Regarding claim 5, Ninomiya et al. teach wherein in the step (c-1), the workpiece that is moved within the beam non- irradiation range is accelerated with the platen drive toward the beam irradiation range (inherent to reciprocate from the W1 back towards W via 54).
Regarding claim 6, Ninomiya et al. teach the workpiece is stopped for a predetermined stop time at the end of the beam non-irradiation range (when W1 is reached, the reciprocating device is capable of stopping by an predetermined amount of time)
Regarding claim 7, Ninomiya et al. teach wherein a sum of a time taken for the workpiece to move within the beam non- irradiation range toward the end of the beam non-irradiation range in the step (b), the stop time, and a time taken for the workpiece to move within the beam non-irradiation range toward the beam irradiation range in the step (c-1) is equal to or longer than a time required for the change of the workpiece from the first implantation angle to the second implantation angle with the implantation angle adjuster (the program control of figure 5 is capable of executing 54 to meet the claim limitations).
Regarding claim 8, Ninomiya et al. teach wherein the sum of the time taken for the workpiece to move within the beam non-irradiation range toward the end of the beam non-irradiation range in the step (b), the stop time, and the time taken for the workpiece to move within the beam non-irradiation range toward the beam irradiation range in the step (c-1) is 0.05 seconds or more and 1 second or less (the program control of figure 5 is capable of executing 54 to meet the claim limitations).
Regarding claim 9, Ninomiya et al. teach wherein the stop time is longer than 0 seconds and equal to or shorter than 0.45 seconds (the program control of figure 5 is capable of executing 54 to meet the claim limitations)
Regarding claim 10, Ninomiya et al. teach wherein the implantation angle adjuster includes a twist angle adjuster (56) that adjusts a twist angle of the workpiece having a normal line ([0051]), which is perpendicular to a processed surface at a center of the workpiece surface of the processed supported with the support mechanism (fig. 2 shows 56 perpendicular to a surface at the center of the workpiece W which is supported by 52), as a rotation axis (rotation axis best seen in figures 9a-9d), and the twist angle adjuster adjusts a twist angle in the first implantation angle to a first twist angle and adjusts a twist angle in the second implantation angle to a second twist angle different from the first twist angle (9A to 9B).
Regarding claim 11, Ninomiya et al. teach wherein a difference between the first twist angle and the second twist angle is larger than 0 degrees and equal to or smaller than 180 degrees (fig. 9B +90 degrees).
Regarding claim 12, Ninomiya et al. teach wherein in a case where the processor executes the steps (a) to (c-2) N times (N is a natural number equal to or larger than 2), a difference between the first twist angle and the second twist angle is equal for all N times (as seen in figures 9a-9D each twist angle is changed by 90 degrees for N=4).
Regarding claim 13, Ninomiya et al. teach wherein the N is an even number which is 2 or more and 32 or less (n=4 see figures 9A-9D).
Regarding claim 14, Ninomiya et al. teach wherein the difference between the first twist angle and the second twist angle is an angle obtained by dividing 360 degrees by the N (360/4 = 90 see figures 9a-9d).
Regarding claim 15, Ninomiya et al. teach an electrostatic chuck that holds the workpiece supported with the support mechanism by electrostatic attraction ([0050]).
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ninomiya et al. (US pgPub 2017/0092464) (second interpretation)2.
Regarding claim 1, Ninomiya et al. teach an ion implanter (figs. 1-3) comprising:
a workpiece holder (52) that supports a workpiece to be irradiated with an ion beam ([0050], where wafer is in beam line along “B”);
a platen drive (54/56/58) including an implantation angle adjuster (56), wherein the implantation angle adjuster is capable of adjusting an implantation angle of the workpiece supported with the workpiece holder with respect to the ion beam (twist angles seen in figures 9a-9D or 10a-10D relative to ion beam B, wherein twist angle is controlled by 56, see paragraphs [0050]-[0051]);
a processor (fig. 5) that controls the implantation angle adjuster and the platen drive ([0074] via 68 of computer in figure 5 controls 56 and [0075] via 68 computer in figure 5 controls 54); and a
memory (66) in which a program is stored ([0074]-[0075] operations of 56 and 54 are stored in storage unit 66);
wherein the platen drive (54) reciprocates the workpiece holder in a direction intersecting with the ion beam ([0050], reciprocating in the y direction of figure 2 intersecting with ion beam “B”),
wherein a reciprocation range of the platen drive includes a beam irradiation range in which at least a part of the workpiece is irradiated with the ion beam (fig. 3 reciprocation range via 54 in the y direction where “W” is incident by “B” ), and a beam non-irradiation range which is adjacent to at least one end of the beam irradiation range and in which the workpiece is not irradiated with the ion beam (range where B stops irradiating W as 54 moves wafer to region W1 or W2);
wherein on the basis of the program, the processor executes
(a) moving the workpiece, which has been adjusted so as to have a first implantation angle by the implantation angle adjuster, from the beam irradiation range toward the beam non-irradiation range with the platen drive (fig. 3, movement from W to W1 via 54, wherein the twist angle is capable of being adjusted via 56);
(b) starting a change of the workpiece from the first implantation angle to a second implantation angle different from the first implantation angle with the implantation angle adjuster while the workpiece is moved within the beam non-irradiation range (via 56 a twist angle may change while 54 is moved within the non-irradiation range seen in figure 3) after the workpiece having the first implantation angle is moved from the beam irradiation range to the beam non-irradiation range with the platen drive (after W moves from “b” in figure 3 to a non-irradiation range), subsequently to the step (a) (since all the structure is taught the device is capable of performing steps subsequently thereto);
(c-1) reversing a movement direction of the workpiece at an end of the beam non-irradiation range with the platen drive and moving the workpiece toward the beam irradiation range, subsequently to the step (b) (from W1 back towards W in the Y direction); and
(c-2) completing the change of the workpiece from the first implantation angle to the second implantation angle with the implantation angle adjuster while the workpiece is moved within the beam non-irradiation range with the platen drive before the workpiece is returned from the beam non-irradiation range to the beam irradiation range with the platen drive, subsequently to the step (b) (since the device is capable of moving in and out of the irradiation range and changing the twist angle such a sequence is within the capabilities of the device).
Ninomiya, in this interpretation, fails to disclose executing the steps based on a program.
However, as discussed above Ninomiya is capable of performing the claimed steps and discloses a program and computer. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct the steps above on a program because it would be within the capabilities of the device. MPEP 2114 (IV) recites “ implementing a known function on a computer has been deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the automation of the known function on a general purpose computer is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)”. Here since all functions are capable of being performed on the device implementing the known functions to the computer program of Ninomiya is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Claim(s) 16-17, 19-23 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ninomiya in view of Yagita (US pgPub 2020/0152409).
Regarding claim 16, Ninomiya et al. fails to disclose a beam deflection device that deflects the ion beam with at least one of an electric field and a magnetic field, and that is switchable between an irradiation-enabled state in which the ion beam is directed in an irradiation-enabled direction in which the workpiece is capable of being irradiated with the ion beam, and an irradiation-disabled state in which the ion beam is directed in an irradiation-disabled direction in which the workpiece is incapable of being irradiated with the ion beam, wherein on the basis of the program, the processor executes (d) switching the beam deflection device to the irradiation disabled state before a change of the workpiece from the first implantation angle to the second implantation angle with the implantation angle adjustment mechanism is started while the workpiece is moved within the beam non-irradiation range with the drive mechanism in the step (b); and (e) switching the beam deflection device to the irradiation enabled state after the change of the workpiece from the first implantation angle to the second implantation angle with the implantation angle adjustment mechanism in the step (c-2) is completed while the workpiece is moved within the beam non-irradiation range with the drive mechanism in the step (c-1).
However, Yagita teaches a beam deflection device (24 is a park device comprising a deflector 24 and a slit 23) that deflects the ion beam with at least one of an electric field and a magnetic field ([0035]), and that is switchable between an irradiation-enabled state in which the ion beam is directed in an irradiation-enabled direction in which the workpiece is capable of being irradiated with the ion beam (along “A” in figure 3), and an irradiation-disabled state in which the ion beam is directed in an irradiation-disabled direction in which the workpiece is incapable of being irradiated with the ion beam (along path “C” towards beam dump 26 in figure 3, see paragraph [0035]), wherein on the basis of the program (program is stored thus capable of having a program to perform the claimed functions), the processor executes (d) switching the beam deflection device to the irradiation disabled state (via park device 24) before a change of the workpiece from the first implantation angle to the second implantation angle with the implantation angle adjuster is started while the workpiece is moved within the beam non-irradiation range with the platen drive in the step (b) ([0050] teaches a twist angle adjustment, thus capable changing the workpiece angle while moving the workpiece within the beam non-irradiation range with a drive mechanism (54)); and (e) switching the beam deflection device to the irradiation enabled state after the change of the workpiece from the first implantation angle to the second implantation angle with the implantation angle adjuster in the step (c-2) is completed while the workpiece is moved within the beam non-irradiation range with the platen drive in the step (c-1) (since the structure is disclosed, it is capable of performing the claimed functions).
Yagita modifies Ninomiya by suggesting a park electrode in combination with a twist angle adjustment mechanism and drive mechanism.
Since both inventions are directed towards ion implanters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the park electrode of Yagita in the device of Ninomiya because it would prevent the ion beam from being implanted if the measured dose by faraday cups is not adequate for implantation into the wafer.
Regarding claim 17, Ninomiya in view of Yagita teach wherein the beam deflection device includes a pair of electrodes facing each other with the ion beam interposed therebetween ([0035] of Yagita) and is switchable between the irradiation enabled state and the irradiation disabled state depending on an electric field change caused by a change in a voltage to be applied to the pair of electrodes ([0035] of Yagita).
Regarding claim 19, Ninomiya in view of Yagita teach wherein a slit (Yagita, 23) is provided between the beam deflection device and the support mechanism (Yagita, 23 is between 25 and 50), the slit allows at least part of the ion beam directed in the irradiation-enabled direction to pass therethrough (as seen in figures 2-3 along direction “A”, Yagita), and the ion beam directed in the irradiation disabled direction collides with an outside of the slit and is blocked (to beam dump 26 see paragraph [0035] of Yagita).
Regarding claim 20-22, Ninomiya in view of Yagita teach wherein the deflection angle formed between the irradiation-enabled direction and the irradiation-disabled direction is from 5 degrees to 30 degrees (Yagita, [0060] theta1 in figure 3 is 10-30 degrees).
Regarding claim 11, Ninomiya in view of Yagita teaches a beam scanner (Yagita, 32) that scans a predetermined scanning angle range by at least one of the electric field and the magnetic field with the ion beam with which the workpiece is irradiated (Yagita,, [0039]).
Regarding claim 25, Ninomiya in view of Yagita teach a beam blocking mechanism (Yagita, fig. 2, 28/29, [0036]) that is switchable between a blocking state in which the ion beam is physically blocked and a non-blocking state in which the ion beam is passed (Yagita, as indicated by phantom of 28 in figure 2 showing 28 moving into a blocking state of trajectory “A” and unblocking state, see paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 26, Ninomiya in view of Yagita teach wherein the processor switches the beam blocking mechanism to the blocking state after the step (d) and switches the beam blocking mechanism to the non-blocking state before the step (e) (PU controls whole system, thus after step d) 28 may be moved to blocked position and the park electrode could switch to trajectory “A” such that ion beam may be detected by 28 before step e)).
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ninomiya in view of Yagita in view of Ninomiya et al. (US pgPub 2011/0297842).
Regarding claim 27, Ninomiya teaches a first beam current sensor (fig. 1, 42L, [0047]) that measures a beam current of the ion beam directed in the irradiation-enabled direction (as seen in figure 1, see paragraph [0047]).
The combined device fails to disclose fails to disclose wherein the processor determines that the beam deflection device is in the irradiation-disabled state and switches the beam blocking mechanism to the blocking state in a case where a beam current equal to or greater than a first predetermined value is not measured with the first beam current measuring device.
However Ninomiya et al. teaches wherein the processor determines that the beam deflection device is in the irradiation-disabled state and switches the beam blocking mechanism to the blocking state in a case where a beam current equal to or greater than a first predetermined value is not measured with the first beam current measuring device ([0049] “when the measured dose amount (beam current) is not smaller than a predetermined threshold value [[i.e. greater]], the CPU outputs the judgment signal indicating that the dose amount is appropriate. When the measured dose amount is smaller than the predetermined threshold value [[determines the beam deflection device is in the irradiation disabled state and not measured current value greater than a first threshold value]], the CPU outputs the judgment signal (NG signal) indicating that the dose amount is inappropriate to rapidly interrupt the ion beam irradiation to the wafer 58 by the park electrode 26 (beam deflection device for beam evacuation) installed at the upstream side of the beam deflection scanner 36 or by the Faraday cup 32 (insertion type beam interruption device). ).
Ninomiya et al. modifies the combined device by suggesting a thresholding of the side cups and when the dose does not exceed a threshold value to block the beam with the movable faraday.
Since both inventions are directed towards ion implanters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the CPU of the combined device to compare the beam current from side cups to a threshold as suggested in Ninomiya because it would deal with the dose amount fluctuation/beam current fluctuation to keep the in plane dose uniformity of the wafer ([0049]).
Regarding claim 16, Ninomiya teaches a second beam current measuring device (fig. 1, 42R) that measures a beam current of the ion beam directed in the irradiation-disabled direction ([0047]),
The combined device fails to disclose wherein the processor determines that the beam deflection device is in the irradiation-disabled state and switches the beam blocking mechanism to the blocking state in a case where a beam current equal to or greater than a second predetermined value is measured with the second beam current measuring device.
However, Ninomiya et al. teaches wherein the processor determines that the beam deflection device is in the irradiation-disabled state and switches the beam blocking mechanism to the blocking state in a case where a beam current equal to or greater than a second predetermined value is measured with the second beam current measuring device ([0049] “when the measured dose amount (beam current) is not smaller than a predetermined threshold value [[i.e. greater]], the CPU outputs the judgment signal indicating that the dose amount is appropriate. When the measured dose amount is smaller than the predetermined threshold value [[determines the beam deflection device is in the irradiation disabled state and not measured current value greater than a first threshold value]], the CPU outputs the judgment signal (NG signal) indicating that the dose amount is inappropriate to rapidly interrupt the ion beam irradiation to the wafer 58 by the park electrode 26 (beam deflection device for beam evacuation) installed at the upstream side of the beam deflection scanner 36 or by the Faraday cup 32 (insertion type beam interruption device). ).
Ninomiya et al. modifies the combined device by suggesting a thresholding of the side cups and when the dose does not exceed a threshold value to block the beam with the movable faraday.
Since both inventions are directed towards ion implanters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the CPU of the combined device to compare the beam current from side cups to a threshold as suggested in Ninomiya because it would deal with the dose amount fluctuation/beam current fluctuation to keep the in plane dose uniformity of the wafer ([0049]).
Relevant art of interest to the applicant’s representative:
Kariya et al. (US pgPub 2021/0020401) teaches similar subject matter to Yagita above.
Matsuhita et al. (US pgPub 2020/0303163) teaches in figure 13 a scanner and beam dump. Moreover Matsuhita et al. teach an ion implanter (fig. 13) comprising: a beam deflection device (scanner 34 dump 35) that deflects an ion beam by at least one of an electric field and a magnetic field ([0063]), and that is switchable between an irradiation-enabled state in which the ion beam is directed in an irradiation-enabled direction in which a workpiece is capable of being irradiated with the ion beam (fig. 14, see paragraph [0112]), and an irradiation-disabled state in which the ion beam is directed in an irradiation-disabled direction in which the workpiece is incapable of being irradiated with the ion beam (as seen in figure 13);a holding device that holds the workpiece to be irradiated with the ion beam ([0068] teaches a platen driving device not shown for holding the wafer W during ion implantation); a transfer device (44) that transfers the workpiece to or from the holding device ([0070] “ The substrate transfer device 44 is configured to transfer the wafer W between the load port 46 in which a wafer cassette 45 is placed and the implantation process chamber 40”. Since the platen supports the wafer in the chamber, the transfer device inherently transfers the wafer to the platen in the chamber so that it may undergo implantation); a processor (central control unit 50, [0071]) that controls the beam deflection device, the holding device, and the transfer device (paragraph [0071] teaches 50 controls the overall operation of the implanter (i.e. including the platen, the transfer device and deflector) ); and a memory in which a program is stored ([0071]), wherein on the basis of the program, the processor executes.
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 MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
1 MPEP 2114 (IV) recites “The court held that "programmable" claim language required only that the accused product could be programmed to perform the claimed functionality.);In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64, 169 USPQ 563, 566-67 (CCPA 1971”
2 Note dependent claims relied upon in the 102 rejection in view of Ninomiya would also be obvious. However, in the interest of brevity the rejections are not reiterated herein below.