DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/17/26 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amendment necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented due to the added language of “independently variable with respect to each other”.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-22 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 7-22 is/are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sinclair et al. (US 20200294755 A1) [hereinafter Sinclair] in view of Sinclair et al. (US 20180286653 A1) [hereinafter Sinclair II].
Regarding claim 1, Sinclair teaches an apparatus, comprising:
an electrodynamic mass analysis (EDMA) assembly (see e.g. [0025]), comprising:
a first stage (e.g. in fig 1a: 102a,124a; alternately in 110), comprising a first upper electrode (e.g. 102a), disposed above a beam axis, and a first lower electrode (e.g. 124a) (alternately 112,116), disposed below the beam axis, opposite the first upper electrode (see annotated fig 1a);
a second stage (e.g. 102c,124c; alternately 130), disposed downstream of the first stage and comprising a second upper electrode (e.g. 102c), disposed above the beam axis, and a second lower electrode (e.g. 124c) (alternately 132,134), disposed below the beam axis;
and
a deflection assembly (see electrodes around e.g. 102b,124b,109, providing deflection on upper and lower sides towards or away from the exit aperture, per fig 1b, [0036]), disposed between the first stage and the second stage (see fig 1), the deflection assembly comprising a blocker (see 109), disposed along the beam axis (see 101), an upper deflection electrode (e.g. 102b), disposed on a first side of the blocker, and a lower deflection electrode (e.g. 124b), disposed on a second side of the blocker, wherein the ion beam processing apparatus further comprises a first stage power supply (see e.g. Sinclair, fig 4: 420, 422, AC source), arranged to apply a first RF voltage signal between the first upper electrode and the first lower electrode (see [0034,38]),
Sinclair may fail to explicitly disclose a second stage power supply, arranged to apply a second RF voltage signal between the second upper electrode and the second lower electrode, and wherein the first RF voltage signal applied to the first stage and the second RF voltage signal applied to the second stage are independently variable with respect to one another. Further, it is unclear if the other power supplies of Sinclair provide RF control (see e.g. fig 4: 420, 408).
However, the use of multiple stage power supplies was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Sinclair II teaches an EDMA system comprising separate power supplies for providing adjustable RF and DC voltages to different stages of the analyzer (see e.g. Sinclair II, fig 1: 130, 150, 165, 167) which enables the ability to control beam extraction (see e.g. [0025]), phase differences between electrodes (see e.g. [0032-33]), and steering the beam (e.g. [0035-37]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Sinclair II in the system of the prior art to further improve control of upstream extraction and downstream beam steering, including using the known advantageous adjustable RF and DC control taught by Sinclair II. Therefore, the combined teaching of Sinclair and Sinclair II teaches a second stage power supply (e.g. Sinclair II, fig 1: 165), arranged to apply a second RF voltage signal between the second upper electrode and the second lower electrode (redefining second stage as around bending optics in 160, 162, corresponding to Sinclair, fig 4: 406), and wherein the first RF voltage signal applied to the first stage (redefining as extraction region, around 125, 127, corresponding to Sinclair, fig 4: 404; note obviousness of separating electrodes into segments) and the second RF voltage signal applied to the second stage are independently variable with respect to one another (see discussion above). Alternately, it is noted that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use separate power supplies in the chamber of Sinclair fig 1a, for example to reduce loads on an individual power supply (2 supplies connected to every electrode) and/or split the chamber into multiple separate segments run by independently variable power supplies operated at the same RF/DC (1 supply connected to every electrode), for example to provide modularity or simplify manufacturing. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Alternately a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
PNG
media_image2.png
2070
1035
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox ((Annotated) (alternative rejection))][AltContent: textbox (102a)][AltContent: textbox (102b)][AltContent: textbox (124a)][AltContent: textbox (124b)][AltContent: textbox (124c)][AltContent: textbox (102c)]
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Sinclair and Sinclair II teaches a center of the blocker is disposed downstream with respect to the upper deflection electrode and the lower deflection electrode (defining as the deflection electrodes upstream of the blocker, see Sinclair, figs 1a,b).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Sinclair and Sinclair II teaches the second upper electrode (see e.g. Sinclair, fig 1a: 132) is shorter than the first upper electrode (redefining as e.g. fig 4: 404 on top side) along a direction parallel to the beam axis, and wherein the second lower electrode (e.g. 134) is shorter than the first lower electrode (redefining as e.g. other electrode of 404; alternately as e.g. 103) along a direction parallel to the beam axis (see fig 4).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Sinclair and Sinclair II teaches a deflection power supply (e.g. Sinclair, fig 4: 420 or 422), arranged to apply a static bias voltage (see DC bias, fig 4) to the upper deflection electrode and lower deflection electrode (applied to electrodes in 103 and not blocker, see [0032]).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Sinclair and Sinclair II teaches a controller (required for intended operation of system, see e.g. all power source electronics in Sinclair, fig 4, e.g. [0038]), arranged to independently vary a first magnitude of the first RF voltage signal with respect to a second magnitude of the second RF voltage signal (separate power supplies naturally capable of independently varying amplitudes, see Sinclair II, e.g. [0032-33]; see generally Sinclair, [0038]) and arranged to vary a first phase of the first RF voltage signal with respect to a second phase of the second RF voltage signal (see Sinclair II, [0032-33]; see Sinclair, capable of independently varying phases, see [0038]).
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 extension fee 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 James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights