DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f):
Claim 25 has been amended to require a beam blocker, however this still fails to provide sufficient structure to perform the required function of being 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. Therefore, the claim interpretation under 35 USC § 112(f) remains. Additionally, because no structure is clearly associated on the record with the respective structure, rejections under 112 still remain. The issues may be overcome by requiring actual structure to the beam blocker or by accepting the interpretation under 112(f) and indicating on the record the associated structure of the beam blocker.
Rejections under 112(a) and 112(b):
With the exception of the issues related to 35 USC 112(f), the remarks and amendments have persuasively overcome some of the indefiniteness rejections and all of the 112(a). However, by amendment new issues have arisen as discussed in detail below.
Prior art rejections:
As discussed in the interview summary, by amendment the prior art rejections have been overcome, however, upon further search and consideration, the claims have been found to be obvious as discussed in detail 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.
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).
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:
“a beam blocker 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 invokes 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 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 1 recites the limitation “not 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 1 recites the limitation “(a) moving the workpiece, which has been adjusted to have a first implantation angle” 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 or platen drive, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the platen drive 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 1 recites the limitation “(b) starting a change of the workpiece from the first implantation angle to a second implantation angle different from the first implantation angle” 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 or platen drive, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the platen drive 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.
Additionally claim 16 requires the indefinite language “on the basis of the program, the processor executes”. See full discussion on the last paragraph of page 16 through page 17 of the Final Rejection of 01 April 2026 for the rationale as to why this language is indefinite
Claims 2-17, 19-23 and 25-28 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1.
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) in view of Shen (US pgPub 2011/0037000) as evidenced by Inami (US pgPub 2019/0139741).
Alternatively, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen in view of Ninomiya
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) 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 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)) while the workpiece is moved within the beam non-irradiation range (workpiece moves so as to achieve 90 degree rotation. Note 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)) 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 with the implantation angle adjuster 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 (c-2) the angle change occurs while the workpiece is moved within the beam non-irradiation range with the platen drive.
However, 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.
Alternatively, 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);
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, toward the beam non-irradiation range with the platen drive (fig. 4d to fig. 4e);
(b) starting 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 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) 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]).
Shen teaches continuously rotating and translating the wafer through the reciprocal motion of the irradiation region and the non-irradiation region, therefore fails to disclose at step (a) the change occurs which has been adjusted so as to have a first implantation angle from the beam irradiation range and c-2 completing the change.
However, Ninomiya teaches fixed changes of rotational angles (see figures 9-11 showing twist angle changes and completing the change prior to translation into the reciprocal motion of figures 3-4 and 6).
Ninomiya modifies Shen by suggesting completing the rotation in the non-irradiation region and translating through the ion beam.
Since both inventions are directed towards adjusting the twist angle of the wafer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shen to complete the twist rotation before reentering the reciprocal motion because it would allow for each current density distribution of the ion beam to be irradiated to each region of the wafer surface to be different ([0079]) allowing for the dose amount to be adjusted based on the design needs of the wafer ([0063]). That is, Ninomiya facilitates the flexibility of using the using the ion implanter of Shen for additional applications such as non-uniform ion implantation.
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 take 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 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 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
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