DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f):
The remarks have pointed to structure of the blocking mechanism. 35 USC 112(f) is invoked, however the issues under 112(a) and 112(b) have been overcome by amendment.
Rejections under 112(a) and 112(b):
By amendment all issues under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) have been overcome by tying the claimed functional language to actual structure.
Rejections under 35 USC § 103: Ninomiya (US pgPub 2017/0092464) in view of Shen (US pgPub 2011/0037000) as evidenced by Inami (US pgPub 2019/0139741).
The remarks take the position that Ninomiya does not teach that the twist angle change is started while the wafer is being moved through the beam non-irradiation range.
This has not been found persuasive. As discussed in the interview mailed 19 August 2026, claim 1 recites “ starting, by the platen drive, a change of the workpiece from the first implantation angle to a second implantation angle different from the first implantation angle while the workpiece is crossing the beam non-irradiation range 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”.
The interpretation in the last office action was that the start of the change of the workpiece for the first implantation angle to a second implantation angle includes the translational movement outside of the irradiation range (i.e. the movement of wafer W to position W1 in figure 3 outside of the irradiation range). Specifically, paragraph [0084] defines each of 11a-11D as a separate implantation process (i.e. reciprocating scan of figures 3-4 and 6a). Thus, the twist position must be set in each of 11a-11d prior to reciprocal process (that is while in non-irradiation position.
In other words, the claim does not define the change of implantation angle to occur simultaneously with translation. Instead, at step a) the claim requires moving the workpiece from the beam irradiation range toward the beam non-irradiation range with the patent drive.
This is clearly shown in figure 3 of Ninomiya which shows an axis y indicating the direction of movement of the wafer W ([0056]). When the reciprocal motion starts moving towards the uppermost position W1 step (a) is met.
PNG
media_image1.png
685
1027
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step b) then requires a time for the starting of the change to occur. Specifically, “while the workpiece is crossing the beam non-irradiation range after the workpiece is…moved from the beam irradiation range to the beam non-irradiation range.
Here, the bottom of the wafer exits the irradiation range prior to reaching the uppermost position W1 as illustrated in the annotated figure below. Therefore, the workpiece is crossing the beam non-irradiation range after it is moved from the irradiation range to the beam non-irradiation range (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
824
1160
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step b) requires “starting…a change of the workpiece from the first implantation angle to a second [[different]] implantation angle while the workpiece is crossing.
As discussed previously in the Non-Final Rejection and in the interview. The starting a change does not require that rotation and translation are occurring simultaneously, only that the process of starting the change occurs. Here, the starting of the change is interpreted to be the remaining translation to the maximum uppermost position W1 (i.e. workpiece is crossing arrow in the annotated figure above). In other words, in order for the angular changes of figure 11 to occur the wafer must be outside of the irradiation range. Paragraph [0084] defines each of 11a-11D as a separate implantation process (i.e. reciprocating scan of figures 3-4 and 6a). Thus, the twist position must be set in each of 11a-11d prior to reciprocal process (that is while in non-irradiation position).
While Ninomiya et al. does not clarify when the different angular changes occur, angular change would inherently not occur while the wafer is in the irradiation position, therefore at some point after the bottom of the wafer has cleared the scanning beam as illustrated above the change of workpiece implantation angle is started by either by 1) stopping the wafer and changing the implantation angle (i.e. to stop would still require crossing some portion of the non-irradiation as a workpiece cannot stop instantly from a moving condition) or 2) changing the implantation angle while the workpiece is moving.
In either case, because the claim does not require simultaneous translation and rotation of the workpiece, Ninomiya et al. teaches the above limitation as the start of the change does not require any actual change in the implantation angle. The start of the change is therefore interpreted as any translation to the location of actual change of the implantation angle.
Therefore, the remarks are unpersuasive and the rejection stands as reiterated herein below.
With respect to C-2 the remarks take the position that Ninomiya fails to disclose “completing the change…while the workpiece is moved within the beam non-irradiation range”.
Similar to above, after the change of angle is completed, the wafer must be moved back into the irradiation position, therefore similar to above because the claim does not require simultaneous translation and rotation, the final translation back into the beam irradiation position is interpreted as completing the change of the workpiece.
Therefore, upon further consideration, Ninomiya completely anticipates claim 1 as discussed herein below.
However, with respect to Shen the remarks are additionally not persuasive. Specifically, the remarks take the position that Shen teaches continuous rotation and therefore does not teach implantation angle change or completion.
This has not been found persuasive. Initially, Niomiya unquestionably teaches an angular change that would require a start and finish outside of the irradiation range. Shen was only used as evidence to show that it was known to rotate outside of the irradiation range. That is, Shen was not used to modify Ninomiya to suggest continuous rotation, only used to suggest rotation while outside of the irradiation range. This modification to Ninomiya would suggest to rotate from, for example 11A to 11B, during reciprocal motion. The rationale for this modification came from the prior art of Inami, which demonstrates that stopping to rotate during reciprocal motion is detrimental to process efficiency. Therefore, taken together, it would have been obvious to adjust the implantation angles of Ninomiya during rotation outside of the irradiation range (as suggested by Shen) because as evidence by Inami such a modification would result in increased process efficiency.
That is, Shen is not relied upon for teaching the change from the first angle to the second angle, only to suggest angular change outside of the irradiation range. Applicant is reminded one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The remarks then argue that Inami as recognizing shortcomings of conventional implantation techniques and does not establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Ninomiya. This has not been found persuasive. First Ninomiya already discloses the change from a first angle to a second angle. In this interpretation, Ninomiya fails to disclose how this is accomplished. Shen is evidence that it was known to the art to rotate the workpiece in the non-irradiation region and Inami is evidence to suggest that such a continuous rotation (as suggested in Shen) to achieve position of the wafer in figure 11B of Ninomya would be advantageous because it would reduce the processing time. Taken together it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ninomya to adjust the twist angle of Ninomiya (figures 11a-11b) while in the non-irradiation position and while the platen is moving as suggested in Shen to improve the efficiency of the wafer processing by limiting the time of the wafer outside of the irradiation position for the purposes of rotation as evidenced by Inami.
MPEP 2141.03 (I) recites: “"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397.”
Here, the rationale to combine Ninoymia and Shen comes directly from evidence in the art to Inami. Therefore, the remarks are not persuasive.
The suggestion that there was no rationale for the combination is not persuasive as a rationale was clearly provided in the last office action.
The remarks conclude with piecemeal analysis, when the combination was suggested.
Rejection under 35 USC 103: Shen in view of Ninomiya
The remarks take the position that Shen rotates continuously and thus does not teach or suggest a first implantation angle and a second implantation angle. There is no requirement to claim 1 that the wafer is stationary during implantation. Clearly the last implantation angle of the wafer as it exits the beam is the first implantation angle, the rotation to the second implantation angle is completed when the wafer is first implanted from the reverse direction. In other words, the second implantation angle of the wafer is the angle of the wafer when it is first irradiated with the beam in the reverse direction. Because there is no requirement for the wafer to not rotate during irradiation, the claim fails to distinguish itself from Shen.
With respect to Ninomiya, the remarks have been found persuasive, however upon reconsideration, Shen has been found to anticipate claim 1 as discussed herein below.
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:
“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. The remarks filed 21 August 2026 recite that the corresponding structure is a faraday cup and drive unit (see page 14)
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ninomiya (US pgPub 2017/0092464) (first interpretation, interpreting starting and completion to include a translation, (i.e. the claim has no requirement that rotation and translation occur at the same time, therefore the translation is interpreted as part of the “starting” and “completing” steps)).
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”) from an ion generation device (12);
a platen drive (54/56/58) 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 or 11a-11D relative to ion beam B, wherein twist angle is controlled by 56, see paragraphs [0050]-[0051]);
a processor (fig. 5) that controls 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 the program, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to execute:
(a) moving the workpiece, which has been adjusted by the platen drive so as to have a first implantation angle, from the beam irradiation range toward the beam non-irradiation range with the platen drive (fig. 3, movement from W towards W1 via 54, wherein the twist angle is indicated by notch in figure 11a, see annotated figure 3 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
685
1027
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) starting a change, by the platen drive, of the workpiece from the first implantation angle to a second implantation angle different from the first implantation angle (Note starting change is interpreted as the translation (i.e. when bottom of wafer is outside of irradiation range of “b” in figure 3) to the point where the change from 11a to 11b (90 degree rotation). Note different implantation conditions (i.e. twist angle) are successively set ([0032]/[0032]/[0085]) (i.e. after each iteration of the reciprocal implantation process of figure 3-4 and 6)) while the workpiece is crossing within the beam non-irradiation range ( reciprocating ion implantation process of figures 3-4 and 6 occurs for each of 11A-11D [0085]. Thus, the rotation of twist angle occurs while in non-irradiation position(s) of figures 3-4. Specifically, paragraph [0084] defines each of 11a-11D as a separate implantation process (i.e. reciprocating scan of figures 3-4 and 6a). Thus the twist position must be set in each of 11a-11d prior to reciprocal process (that is while in non-irradiation position), see further discussion above in the response to arguments section) 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 (rotation of figure 11b occurs after the first reciprocal implantation process of figure 11a ([0084] first implantation process-fourth implantation process), thus after workpiece is moved to the non-irradiation range with the platen device)
(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 after twist rotation to 90 degrees as seen in 11B to restart reciprocal movement ([0084]-[0085])); and
(c-2) completing the change of the workpiece from the first implantation angle to the second implantation angle while the workpiece is moved within the beam non-irradiation range with the platen drive before the workpiece is returned from the non-irradiation range to the beam irradiation range with the platen drive, subsequently to step (b)) (change from figure 11a to 11b must occur before workpiece is returned from the non-irradiation range because each of 11a-11d is a separate implantation process at that particular twist angle ([0084]) characterized by a successive reciprocating movement ([0085], figures 3-4 and 6A). Therefore, after implantation process occurs at 11a via reciprocating movement (figures 3-4), the second implantation condition (i.e. rotation) seen in figure 11B is set and the reciprocating continues. As above, the translation after rotation is included in the completion step).
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 (fig. 3), at the end of implantation process of figure 11a, the workpiece is stopped for rotation to fig. 11B)
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 (inherent as the twist angle is changed between reciprocating implantation process of figure 3. Thus, the time it takes to change position is shorter than the time to move within the non-irradiation position and stop time (to change twist angle) and return to irradiation position).
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 platen driver 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 platen driver 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. 11B +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 or 11a-11D 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 or 11a-11D).
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 and 11a-11D).
Regarding claim 15, Ninomiya et al. teach an electrostatic chuck that holds the workpiece supported with the workpiece holder by electrostatic attraction ([0050]).
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shen (US pgPub 2011/0037000).
Regarding claim 1, Shen teaches an ion implanter (fig. 8) comprising:
a workpiece holder (support of wafer) that supports a workpiece to be irradiated with an ion beam (as seen in figure 8) from an ion generation device (801);
a platen drive (803/802) capable of adjusting an implantation angle of the workpiece supported with the workpiece holder with respect to the ion beam (803);
a processor (804) that controls the platen drive (as seen in figure 8); and
a memory in which a program is stored ([0057] teaches program code executed by a computer thus requiring a memory),
wherein the platen drive reciprocates the workpiece holder in a direction intersecting with the ion beam (via 802 see figures 4a-4f), 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. 4b-4D), 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 (fig. 4a and fig. 4e); wherein the program, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to execute
(a) moving the workpiece, which has been adjusted by the platen drive so to have a first implantation angle, from the irradiation range toward the beam non-irradiation range with the platen drive (fig. 4d to fig. 4e, when ions last strike rotating wafer before it exits the ion beam, the instantaneous implantation angle is interpreted as the first implantation angle adjusted by 803/802 towards the non-irradiation range);
(b) starting a change of the workpiece from the first implantation angle to a second implantation angle different from the first implantation angle (second implantation angle is interpreted to be the instantaneous rotational position when wafer returns to the irradiation position) while the workpiece is moved within the beam non-irradiation range 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, subsequently to the step (a) ([0032] “as shown in FIG. 4E, the wafer 40 is located at the other side (e.g., the right side) of the ion beam 41 after the simultaneous movement and rotation… by simultaneously moving and rotating again by reversing the movement direction but keeping the rotation direction, the wafer 40 is located at the other (e.g., the left) side of the ion beam 41 again” and fig. 4E from fig. 4D. That is, wafer rotates and translates in non-irradiation region from irradiation region);
(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) ([0032]); and
(c-2) completing the change of the workpiece from the first implantation angle to the second implantation angle 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) ([0032]. That is, the completion is interpreted to be the instantaneous implantation angle of the wafer when it first incident with the ion beam 41).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ninomiya (US pgPub 2017/0092464) (second interpretation interpreting the starting of the change to mean simultaneous rotation and translation) as evidenced by Inami (US pgPub 2019/0139741) or alternatively in view of Shen (US pgPub 2011/0037000) as evidenced by Inami (US pgPub 2019/0139741).
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”) from an ion generation device (12);
a platen drive (54/56/58) 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 or 11a-11D relative to ion beam B, wherein twist angle is controlled by 56, see paragraphs [0050]-[0051]);
a processor (fig. 5) that controls 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 the program, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to execute:
(a) moving the workpiece, which has been adjusted by the platen drive so as to have a first implantation angle, 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 indicated by notch in figure 11a);
(b) starting a change of the workpiece from the first implantation angle to a second implantation angle different from the first implantation angle (change from 11a to 11b (90 degree rotation). Note different implantation conditions (i.e. twist angle) are successively set ([0032]/[0032]/[0085]) (i.e. after each iteration of the reciprocal implantation process of figure 3-4 and 6)) 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 (rotation of figure 11b occurs after the first reciprocal implantation process of figure 11a ([0084] first implantation process-fourth implantation process), thus after workpiece is moved to the non-irradiation range with the platen device)
(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 after twist rotation to 90 degrees as seen in 11B to restart reciprocal movement ([0084]-[0085])); and
(c-2) completing the change of the workpiece from the first implantation angle to the second implantation angle 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) (change from figure 11a to 11b must occur before workpiece is returned from the non-irradiation range because each of 11a-11d is a separate implantation process at that particular twist angle ([0084]) characterized by a successive reciprocating movement ([0085], figures 3-4 and 6A). Therefore, after implantation process occurs at 11a via reciprocating movement (figures 3-4), the second implantation condition (i.e. rotation) seen in figure 11B is set and the reciprocating continues).
While Ninomiya suggests changing the twist between reciprocating ion beam from a non-irradiation position to an irradiation position, Ninomiya fails to expressly suggest that in step in step a) and step (c-2) the angle change occurs while the workpiece is moved within the beam non-irradiation range with the platen drive.
However, there are only two ways in which the change in twist angle can occur in the non-irradiation position of Ninomiya. The first is that the workpiece motion is stopped by platen and rotated before returning back into the irradiation range. The second is to rotate as the wafer is moved from out of the irradiation position to the uppermost maximum position (i.e. W1 in figure 1).
Inami is a finding that at the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art of stopping to rotate after reciprocation results in a deterioration of process efficiency ([0002]-[0003]). Moreover, as discussed above there are only two options to achieve the rotational twisted angles of figures 11a-11d (i.e. stop and rotate while outside the irradiation region or alternatively rotate while in reciprocal motion). Since the device of Ninomiya is capable of performing rotation of the twist angle it would have been obvious that a person or ordinary skill has good reason to pursue those options within their technical grasp. “If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” (MPEP 2143 (E)). That is, given that it was known that stopping to rotate twist results in deteriorated of process efficiency and Ninomiya was capable of changing the twist angle while the wafer is translated outside of the irradiation range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the second option because it would result in improving process efficiency.
Alternatively, Shen teaches the angle change occurs while the workpiece is moved within the beam non-irradiation range with the platen drive (figures 4e note paragraph [0032] rotation occurs while wafer 40 is on the right side of the ion beam 41 and rotating again by reversing direction).
Shen modifies Ninomiya by suggesting rotation of the wafer while in non-irradiation position and reversing the translation directional movement as opposed to the “movement-rotation-movement-rotation” repeated process of Ninomiya and discussed in paragraph [0005] and figures 2a-2e of Shen.
Since both inventions are directed towards reciprocal movement and changing the twist angle, it would have been obvious to change the twist angles of 11a-11d of Ninomiya such that the change occurs during the return motion of the wafer as suggested by Shen because as evidenced by as evidenced by Inami stopping to rotate after reciprocation results in a deterioration of process efficiency ([0002]-[0003]). Therefore, adjusting the twist angle of Ninomiya (figures 11a-11b) while in the non-irradiation position and while the platen is moving as suggested in Shen would improve the efficiency of the wafer processing by limiting the time of the wafer outside of the irradiation position for the purposes of rotation. That is, Ninomiya suggests the rotation after reciprocating from position of figure 11a to figure 11b. Shen suggests a continuous rotation process while in the non-irradiation position and Inami is evidence that such a continuous rotation to achieve position of the wafer in figure 11B of Ninomya would be advantageous because it would reduce the processing time.
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 (fig. 3), at the end of implantation process of figure 11a, the workpiece is stopped for rotation to fig. 11B)
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 (inherent as the twist angle is changed between reciprocating implantation process of figure 3. Thus, the time it takes to change position is shorter than the time to move within the non-irradiation position and stop time (to change twist angle) and return to irradiation position).
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 platen driver 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 platen driver 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. 11B +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 or 11a-11D 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 or 11a-11D).
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 and 11a-11D).
Regarding claim 15, Ninomiya et al. teach an electrostatic chuck that holds the workpiece supported with the workpiece holder 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(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 Shen (US pgPub 2011/0037000) as evidenced by Inami (US pgPub 2019/0139741) 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 23, 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 fields 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 blocker (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 Shen (US pgPub 2011/0037000) as evidenced by Inami (US pgPub 2019/0139741) 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
Prosecution Insights