DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
The amendment filed 06/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 29-46 are pending. In the amendment filed 06/11/2026 no claims were amended, no claims were canceled, and no claims were newly added.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 29 and 43 recite language of a controller configured to cause specific operations of the apparatus. The instant specification does not contain any indication that the controller includes any form of monitoring or detecting of the substrate surface to provide feedback control of the controller. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited claim language is that the controller is not aware of what is occurring on the substrate surface and that the controller is merely inclusive of being configured to cause a first gas (claim 29) or a first and second gas (claim 43) to flow into the chamber (e.g. by commanding a gas supply valve to open) and is also configured to cause the electron source to generate electrons to expose the substrate surface to electrons (e.g. by commanding an electron source to generate electrons). The controller itself is not aware of whether the specific commands resulted in the stated effects (i.e. modifying or converting a surface layer or removing a layer) because the controller may run the program when inert gases are connected to the line or no substrate is present, without a modification to the controller. Similarly, limitations directed to a specific gas or substrate are not interpreted as specific configurations of the controller (i.e. that the controller is only limited to operating with these gases) because there is no indication that the controller includes verifying the specific gas is present. For purpose of compact prosecution on the merits, where the prior art recites performing the same modifying, converting, and/or removing steps, the prior art was cited as teaching the limitation.
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:
“process gas unit” in claim 29-46 interpreted as one or more inlets through which process gas flows [0093], and equivalents thereof.
“vacuum unit” in claim 34 interpreted as a vacuum pump [0096], and equivalents thereof.
“charge neutralization unit” in claim 35 interpreted as a plasma source, an ultraviolet light source, or an electron source [0028], and equivalents thereof.
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 29-30, 34, and 42-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom (prev. presented US 2011/0192820) in view of Liu (prev. presented US 7,416,989).
Regarding claim 29, Yeom teaches an apparatus for semiconductor processing (abstract, Fig 1), the apparatus comprising: a processing chamber (80 Fig 1) that includes chamber walls that at least partially bound a chamber interior (80 Fig 1); a wafer support (50 Fig 1) for holding a substrate (51 Fig 1) housed in the chamber interior; a process gas unit (60 or 70 Fig 1) configured to flow a first process gas into the chamber interior [0032-0033] and onto the substrate in the chamber interior (Fig 1); an electron source (10 Fig 1 and 11 Fig 2) configured to deliver electrons from the electron source to the chamber interior ([0034], note the beam includes electrons); and a controller (40 Fig 1). Yeom fails to teach the controller includes instructions that are configured to: cause the process gas unit to flow the first process gas to the processing chamber and cause the substrate in the chamber interior to be exposed to the first process gas, wherein the first process gas is configured to modify one or more layers of material on the substrate to form one or more modified layers, and cause the electron source to generate the electrons and thereby cause the one or more modified surface layers on the substrate to be exposed to the electrons, wherein the one or more modified surface layers are removed, without using a plasma. In the same field of endeavor of atomic layer etching (abstract), Liu teaches an atomic layer etching method including steps to cause the process gas unit to flow the first process gas to the processing chamber (401 and/or 405 Fig 4 and col 9, ln 55 to col 10 ln 30) and cause the substrate in the chamber interior to be exposed to the first process gas (401 and/or 405 Fig 4 and col 9, ln 55 to col 10 ln 30), wherein the first process gas is configured to modify one or more layers of material on the substrate to form one or more modified layers (401 and/or 405 Fig 4 and col 9, ln 55 to col 10 ln 30), and cause the electron source to generate the electrons and thereby cause the one or more modified surface layers on the substrate to be exposed to the electrons (411 Fig 4 and col 10, ln 35-55), wherein the one or more modified surface layers are removed, without using a plasma (col 10, ln 35-55). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Yeom to include instructions to perform the method of Liu because the structure of the apparatus of Yeom contains the structures needed to perform the method of Liu and because Yeom and Liu are both directed to atomic layer etching. Having multiple modes of atomic layer etching in the same apparatus increases the market value of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 30, the claim is directed to the contents of the apparatus during operation. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Regarding claim 34, Yeom teaches the apparatus further comprising a vacuum unit (line 72 Fig 1 and pump [0032]) configured to evacuate gases from the chamber interior [0032], wherein the controller further comprises instructions configured to: cause the vacuum unit to generate a vacuum in the chamber interior and purge gases from the chamber interior [0053].
Regarding claim 42, Yeom teaches the apparatus further comprising an isolation valve or shutter (20 Fig 1) interposed between the chamber interior and the electron source (Fig 1), wherein the isolation valve or shutter are configured to allow the electrons to reach the chamber interior [0031].
Regarding claim 43, Yeom teaches an apparatus for semiconductor processing (abstract, Fig 1), the apparatus comprising: a processing chamber (80 Fig 1) that includes chamber walls that at least partially bound a chamber interior (80 Fig 1); a wafer support (50 Fig 1) for holding a substrate (51 Fig 1) housed in the chamber interior; a process gas unit (60 or 70 Fig 1) configured to flow a first process gas into the chamber interior [0032-0033] and onto the substrate in the chamber interior (Fig 1); an electron source (10 Fig 1 and 11 Fig 2) configured to deliver electrons from the electron source to the chamber interior ([0034], note the beam includes electrons); and a controller (40 Fig 1). Yeom fails to teach the controller includes instructions that are configured to: cause the process gas unit to flow the first process gas and the second process gas to the processing chamber and cause the substrate in the chamber interior to be exposed to the first and the second process gas, wherein the first process gas is configured to modify one or more layers of material on the substrate to form one or more modified layers, and the second process gas is configured to convert the modified layer to one or more converted layers, and cause the electron source to generate the electrons and thereby cause the one or more converted layers on the substrate to be exposed to the electrons, wherein the one or more converted layers are removed, without using a plasma. In the same field of endeavor of atomic layer etching (abstract), Liu teaches an atomic layer etching method including steps to cause the process gas unit to flow the first process gas and the second process gas to the processing chamber (401 and 405 Fig 4 and col 9, ln 55 to col 10 ln 30) and cause the substrate in the chamber interior to be exposed to the first process gas and second process gas (401 and 405 Fig 4 and col 9, ln 55 to col 10 ln 30), wherein the first process gas is configured to modify one or more layers of material on the substrate to form one or more modified layers, and the second process gas is configured to convert the modified layer to one or more converted layers (401 and 405 Fig 4 and col 9, ln 55 to col 10 ln 30), and cause the electron source to generate the electrons and thereby cause the one or more converted layers on the substrate to be exposed to the electrons (411 Fig 4 and col 10, ln 35-55), wherein the one or more converted surface are removed, without using a plasma (col 10, ln 35-55). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Yeom to include instructions to perform the method of Liu because the structure of the apparatus of Yeom contains the structures needed to perform the method of Liu and because Yeom and Liu are both directed to atomic layer etching. Having multiple modes of atomic layer etching in the same apparatus increases the market value of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 44, the limitation is directed to the article worked upon. Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Regarding claims 45 and 46, the claims are directed to the contents of the apparatus during operation. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Claim(s) 31 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom in view of Liu as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Tu (prev. presented US 2017/0168387).
Regarding claim 31 and 33, the combination remains as applied to claim 29 above. Yeom in view of Liu fails to teach the electron source comprises a thermionic source or a field electron emission source. In the same field of endeavor of etching using an electron beam [0043], Tu teaches the source of the electrons may be a field electron emission source or a thermionic source using tungsten zirconium oxide [0043]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yeom and the combination to use a field electron emission source or a thermionic source using tungsten zirconium oxide as the electron source because Tu teaches this is a functional alternative structure for providing an electron beam to the substrate.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom in view of Liu and Tu as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Norikane (prev. presented US 2015/0311035).
Regarding claim 32, the combination remains as applied to claim 31 above. Yeom in view of Liu and Tu as applied to claim 31 teaches a thermionic source but fails to teach the thermionic source comprises lanthanum hexaboride. In the same field of endeavor of substrate processing apparatuses (abstract), Norikane teaches a thermionic electron source includes lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6) [0025]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to use lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6) as the thermionic emission source because Tu does not limit the material of the thermionic emission source and Norikane teaches lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6) is a suitable material for a thermionic emission source.
Claim(s) 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom in view of Liu as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Al-Bayati (prev. presented US 2006/0272772).
Regarding claim 35, the combination remains as applied to claim 29 above. Yeom in view of Liu fails to teach a charge neutralization unit as claimed. In the same field of endeavor of electron beam apparatuses for processing a substrate, Al-Bayati teaches a charge neutralization unit (plasma gun 540 Fig 5) configured to neutralize a charge of the substrate [0056], wherein the controller further comprises instructions configured to: cause the charge neutralization unit to neutralize the charge of the substrate [0056]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yeom in view of Liu to include the neutralization unit and controller configured to cause charge neutralization because Al-Bayati teaches charge neutralization reduces charge build up on the substrate that may damage the substrate [0090].
Regarding claim 36-37, the combination remains as applied to claim 35 above. The charge neutralization unit of the combination including Al-Bayati includes a plasma source and the combination includes instructions to generate plasma in the chamber to perform the neutralization (Al-Bayati [0056]).
Claim(s) 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom in view of Liu as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Kanarik (prev. presented US 2017/0069462).
Regarding claim 38, the combination remains as applied to claim 29 above. Yeom in view of Liu fails to teach a plasma generator configured to generate a plasma in the chamber interior, wherein: the plasma generator is one of: a capacitively coupled plasma, an inductively coupled plasma, an upper remote plasma, and a lower remote plasma, and the controller further comprises instructions configured to cause the plasma generator to generate the plasma in the chamber interior. Addressing the same problem of performing atomic layer etching (abstract), Kanarik teaches modifying the substrate surface includes reactant plasma (204 Fig 2) and therefore teaches a plasma generator configured to generate a plasma in the chamber interior (433 Fig 4), wherein: the plasma generator is one of: an inductively coupled plasma, an upper remote plasma (433 Fig 4) [0041], and the controller further comprises instructions configured to cause the plasma generator to generate the plasma in the chamber interior (controller 430 and see flow instructions in Fig 2 step 204). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yeom in view of Liu to include exposing to plasma during the surface modified layer formation step because Kanarik teaches plasma formation may be used depending on the material to be etched [0038], [0041].
Regarding claim 39 and 40, the combination remains as applied to claim 38 above. Kanarik as applied in the combination teaches the plasma includes 50-2000 W and a bias of 0-500V for the inductively coupled plasma.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom in view of Liu and Kanarik as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Lai (prev. presented US 2017/0330764).
Regarding claim 41, the combination remains as applied to claim 38 above. Yeom in view of Liu and Kanarik fails to teach a pulsing frequency is between about 10 Hz and about 200 Hz. In the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing apparatus (abstract), Lai teaches plasma may be provided continuously or pulsed at 10 Hz to 100 kHz [0005]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the plasma may be pulsed because Lai teaches this is a functional alternative to continuously supplied plasma [0005].
Claim(s) 29-30 and 43-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2003/0047691 of Musil et al., hereinafter Musil (cited in IDS filed 6/11/2026), in view of Liu (prev. presented US 7,416,989).
Regarding claim 29, Musil teaches an apparatus for semiconductor processing (abstract, Fig 1), the apparatus comprising: a processing chamber (200 Fig 1) that includes chamber walls that at least partially bound a chamber interior (200 Fig 1) [0034]; a wafer support (210 Fig 1) for holding a substrate (220 Fig 1) housed in the chamber interior [0036]; a process gas unit (300 including 310, 320, 330, 340, 350 Fig 1) configured to flow a first process gas into the chamber interior [0038] and onto the substrate in the chamber interior (Fig 1); an electron source (100 Fig 1 [0034-0035]) configured to deliver electrons from the electron source to the chamber interior [0034-0035]; and a controller (480 Fig 1) [0035-0037], wherein the controller includes instructions [0036] (taught as CPU). Musil fails to specifically teach the controller includes instructions that are configured to: cause the process gas unit to flow the first process gas to the processing chamber and cause the substrate in the chamber interior to be exposed to the first process gas, wherein the first process gas is configured to modify one or more layers of material on the substrate to form one or more modified layers, and cause the electron source to generate the electrons and thereby cause the one or more modified surface layers on the substrate to be exposed to the electrons, wherein the one or more modified surface layers are removed, without using a plasma. It is noted that Musil teaches performing a method on the apparatus including supplying etching gas (514 Fig 3) and exposing to electron beam (516). Therefore, instructions on the controller to perform these steps appears to be an obvious modification to provide automated control of the process. Broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of atomic layer etching (abstract), Liu teaches an atomic layer etching method including steps to cause the process gas unit to flow the first process gas to the processing chamber (401 and/or 405 Fig 4 and col 9, ln 55 to col 10 ln 30) and cause the substrate in the chamber interior to be exposed to the first process gas (401 and/or 405 Fig 4 and col 9, ln 55 to col 10 ln 30), wherein the first process gas is configured to modify one or more layers of material on the substrate to form one or more modified layers (401 and/or 405 Fig 4 and col 9, ln 55 to col 10 ln 30), and cause the electron source to generate the electrons and thereby cause the one or more modified surface layers on the substrate to be exposed to the electrons (411 Fig 4 and col 10, ln 35-55), wherein the one or more modified surface layers are removed, without using a plasma (col 10, ln 35-55). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Musil to include instructions to perform the method of Liu because the structure of the apparatus of Musil contains the structures needed to perform the method of Liu and because Musil and Liu are both directed to etching. Having multiple modes of etching in the same apparatus increases the market value of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 30, the claim is directed to the contents of the apparatus during operation. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Regarding claim 43, Musil teaches an apparatus for semiconductor processing (abstract, Fig 1), the apparatus comprising: a processing chamber (200 Fig 1) that includes chamber walls that at least partially bound a chamber interior (200 Fig 1) [0034]; a wafer support (210 Fig 1) for holding a substrate (220 Fig 1) housed in the chamber interior [0036]; a process gas unit (300 including 310, 320, 330, 340, 350 Fig 1) configured to flow a first process gas into the chamber interior [0038] and onto the substrate in the chamber interior (Fig 1); an electron source (100 Fig 1 [0034-0035]) configured to deliver electrons from the electron source to the chamber interior [0034-0035]; and a controller (480 Fig 1) [0035-0037], wherein the controller includes instructions [0036] (taught as CPU). Musil fails to specifically teach the controller includes instructions that are configured to: cause the process gas unit to flow the first process gas to the processing chamber and cause the substrate in the chamber interior to be exposed to the first process gas, wherein the first process gas is configured to modify one or more layers of material on the substrate to form one or more modified layers, and cause the electron source to generate the electrons and thereby cause the one or more modified surface layers on the substrate to be exposed to the electrons, wherein the one or more modified surface layers are removed, without using a plasma. It is noted that Musil teaches performing a method on the apparatus including supplying etching gas (514 Fig 3) and exposing to electron beam (516). Therefore, instructions on the controller to perform these steps appears to be an obvious modification to provide automated control of the process. Broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of atomic layer etching (abstract), Liu teaches an atomic layer etching method including steps to cause the process gas unit to flow the first process gas and the second process gas to the processing chamber (401 and 405 Fig 4 and col 9, ln 55 to col 10 ln 30) and cause the substrate in the chamber interior to be exposed to the first process gas and second process gas (401 and 405 Fig 4 and col 9, ln 55 to col 10 ln 30), wherein the first process gas is configured to modify one or more layers of material on the substrate to form one or more modified layers, and the second process gas is configured to convert the modified layer to one or more converted layers (401 and 405 Fig 4 and col 9, ln 55 to col 10 ln 30), and cause the electron source to generate the electrons and thereby cause the one or more converted layers on the substrate to be exposed to the electrons (411 Fig 4 and col 10, ln 35-55), wherein the one or more converted surface are removed, without using a plasma (col 10, ln 35-55). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Musil to include instructions to perform the method of Liu because the structure of the apparatus of Yeom contains the structures needed to perform the method of Liu and because Musil and Liu are both directed to etching. Having multiple modes of etching in the same apparatus increases the market value of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 44, the limitation is directed to the article worked upon. Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Regarding claims 45 and 46, the claims are directed to the contents of the apparatus during operation. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Claim(s) 31 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musil in view of Liu as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Tu (prev. presented US 2017/0168387).
Regarding claim 31 and 33, the combination remains as applied to claim 29 above. Musil in view of Liu fails to teach the electron source comprises a thermionic source or a field electron emission source. In the same field of endeavor of etching using an electron beam [0043], Tu teaches the source of the electrons may be a field electron emission source or a thermionic source using tungsten zirconium oxide [0043]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Musil and the combination to use a field electron emission source or a thermionic source using tungsten zirconium oxide as the electron source because Tu teaches this is a functional alternative structure for providing an electron beam to the substrate.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musil in view of Liu and Tu as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Norikane (prev. presented US 2015/0311035).
Regarding claim 32, the combination remains as applied to claim 31 above. Musil in view of Liu and Tu as applied to claim 31 teaches a thermionic source but fails to teach the thermionic source comprises lanthanum hexaboride. In the same field of endeavor of substrate processing apparatuses (abstract), Norikane teaches a thermionic electron source includes lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6) [0025]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to use lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6) as the thermionic emission source because Tu does not limit the material of the thermionic emission source and Norikane teaches lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6) is a suitable material for a thermionic emission source.
Claim(s) 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musil in view of Liu as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Al-Bayati (prev. presented US 2006/0272772).
Regarding claim 34, Musil teaches the apparatus is a vacuum chamber [0034-0036]) but fails to teach the structure for forming a vacuum. Musil does teach forming a vacuum in the chamber [0043] which will purge gases from the chamber interior. Musil fails to explicitly teach the apparatus further comprising a vacuum unit (line 72 Fig 1 and pump [0032]) configured to evacuate gases from the chamber interior [0032]. Examiner notes that these structures are well understood and conventional for vacuum chambers. Further, Al-Bayati teaches a vacuum unit (line having 112 Fig 1 and a pump [0043]) to generate a vacuum in the chamber [0043]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Musil to include the line and pump because Musil teaches a vacuum chamber and Al-Bayati teaches a line and pump for forming a vacuum in a chamber [0043].
Regarding claim 35, the combination remains as applied to claim 29 above. Musil in view of Liu fails to teach a charge neutralization unit as claimed. In the same field of endeavor of electron beam apparatuses for processing a substrate, Al-Bayati teaches a charge neutralization unit (plasma gun 540 Fig 5) configured to neutralize a charge of the substrate [0056], wherein the controller further comprises instructions configured to: cause the charge neutralization unit to neutralize the charge of the substrate [0056]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Musil in view of Liu to include the neutralization unit and controller configured to cause charge neutralization because Al-Bayati teaches charge neutralization reduces charge build up on the substrate that may damage the substrate [0090].
Regarding claim 36-37, the combination remains as applied to claim 35 above. The charge neutralization unit of the combination including Al-Bayati includes a plasma source and the combination includes instructions to generate plasma in the chamber to perform the neutralization (Al-Bayati [0056]).
Claim(s) 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musil in view of Liu as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Kanarik (prev. presented US 2017/0069462).
Regarding claim 38, the combination remains as applied to claim 29 above. Musil in view of Liu fails to teach a plasma generator configured to generate a plasma in the chamber interior, wherein: the plasma generator is one of: a capacitively coupled plasma, an inductively coupled plasma, an upper remote plasma, and a lower remote plasma, and the controller further comprises instructions configured to cause the plasma generator to generate the plasma in the chamber interior. Addressing the same problem of performing atomic layer etching (abstract), Kanarik teaches modifying the substrate surface includes reactant plasma (204 Fig 2) and therefore teaches a plasma generator configured to generate a plasma in the chamber interior (433 Fig 4), wherein: the plasma generator is one of: an inductively coupled plasma, an upper remote plasma (433 Fig 4) [0041], and the controller further comprises instructions configured to cause the plasma generator to generate the plasma in the chamber interior (controller 430 and see flow instructions in Fig 2 step 204). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Musil in view of Liu to include exposing to plasma during the surface modified layer formation step because Kanarik teaches plasma formation may be used depending on the material to be etched [0038], [0041].
Regarding claim 39 and 40, the combination remains as applied to claim 38 above. Kanarik as applied in the combination teaches the plasma includes 50-2000 W and a bias of 0-500V for the inductively coupled plasma.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musil in view of Liu and Kanarik as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Lai (prev. presented US 2017/0330764).
Regarding claim 41, the combination remains as applied to claim 38 above. Musil in view of Liu and Kanarik fails to teach a pulsing frequency is between about 10 Hz and about 200 Hz. In the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing apparatus (abstract), Lai teaches plasma may be provided continuously or pulsed at 10 Hz to 100 kHz [0005]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the plasma may be pulsed because Lai teaches this is a functional alternative to continuously supplied plasma [0005].
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musil in view of Liu as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Yeom.
Regarding claim 42, Musil in view of Liu fails to teach an isolation valve or shutter between the chamber interior and the electron source, wherein the solation valve or shutter are configured to allow the electrons to reach the chamber interior. In the same field of endeavor of etching including exposure to a beam (abstract, Fig 1), Yeom teaches the apparatus further comprising an isolation valve or shutter (20 Fig 1) interposed between the chamber interior and the beam source (Fig 1), wherein the isolation valve or shutter are configured to allow the beam to reach the chamber interior [0031]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Musil to include the shutter of Yeom because Yeom teaches this allows for adjusting the supply of the beam to the substrate [0031].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (reply p7-8) that Yeom does not teach applying an electron beam to the surface because Yeom teaches neutralizing the beam. Examiner notes that applicant’s arguments rely on a complete neutralization of the beam, which is not indicated. Further examiner notes that the controller is configured to cause the formation of the electron beam and supply of a beam to the substrate. The controller is not aware of the contents of the beam and there is no indication of feedback control or any control change that occurs when the beam neutralization screen is omitted. Applicant is relying on the controller to limit contents of the apparatus when the controller is not taught or disclosed as having any means of detecting the contents of the apparatus. Additionally examiner notes that Liu does not teach a specific apparatus and instead relies on a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand the apparatus that may be used. If applicant insists that Liu requires formation of an electron beam, it is noted that the screen may be omitted for Liu. Further, a new reference that was identified based on the submission of the IDS on 6/11/2026, Musil, as cited above, teaches an electron beam source for the chamber. Therefore these arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of instant claims 29 and 43 or claims dependent therefrom.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 8,043,972 teaches electron beam application to remove modified material on the substrate surface (Fig 4).
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 06/11/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
