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 .
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: “plasma forming device” (claim 1); “focusing device” (claim 1, 3, 4), “sorting device” (claim 1), “blocking member” (claim 3).
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. For the purpose of examination, “plasma forming device” (claim 1) shall be interpreted as comprising high frequency supply 29 or equivalents thereof in light of para. [0021] and Fig. 1; “focusing device” (claim 1, 3) shall be interpreted as comprising electrodes 111a and 111b and an Einzel lens 112, or equivalents thereof in light of para.[0028] and Fig. 2; “sorting device” (claim 1) shall be interpreted as comprising a pair of magnets and a blocking member 122, or equivalents thereof in light of para.[0031], [0047] and Fig. 2, wherein blocking member 122 is further interpreted as comprising a plate with holes in light of para. [0037] and Fig. 2; “blocking member” (claim 3) shall be interpreted as comprising a plate with at least one hole or aperature or equivalents thereof in light of para. [0037] and Fig. 2.
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.
Other claim interpretation:
Regarding claim 4, limitation “multiple sets of the focusing device and the at least one pair of magnets,” Examiner interprets a single set of the focusing device and the at least one pair of magnets as comprising at least one pair of magnets with the corresponding apertures formed in the electrodes and Einzel lens of the focusing device, wherein multiple sets comprise more than one pair of magnets and corresponding apertures in the electrodes and Einzel lens of the focusing device as understood from Fig. 2 and para. [0039]-[0040]. See annotated Fig. 2 of the instant invention below.
PNG
media_image1.png
1030
925
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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, 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP2011065968A1 hereinafter referring to English Machine Translation) in view of Tuggle et al. (US 2012/0261565 A1 hereinafter “Tuggle”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Sasaki teaches: a plasma processing apparatus (comprising vacuum processing apparatus 1 including surface processing chamber 6, Fig. 1, para. [0011]), comprising:
a processing vessel (comprising surface processing chamber 6 including vacuum chamber 9 and ion generation chamber chamber 11, Fig. 1, para. [0014]) in which a substrate (comprising processing object 55, Fig. 1) as a target of a plasma processing is disposed (para. [0019]);
a plasma forming device interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f) as comprising a high frequency power supply (comprising high frequency power supply 14, Fig. 1, para. [0014]) or equivalents thereof and configured to form plasma within the processing vessel (comprising 6 including 11 and 9, Fig. 1);
a focusing device interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f) as comprising electrodes (comprising electrodes 16, 17, 30, Fig. 1) and an Einzel lens (comprising 40, Fig. 1, para. [0019]), or equivalents thereof, disposed within the processing vessel (comprising 6 including 11 and 9, Fig. 1) (para. [0016]-[0018]), and configured to focus multiple ions in the plasma to output an ion beam (para. [0018]-[0019]).
Sasaki does not explicitly teach: a sorting device interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f) as comprising a pair of magnets and a plate with holes wherein the sorting device is configured to sort out, from the ion beam outputted from the focusing device, a specific ion to be supplied to the substrate.
However, Tuggle teaches an ion beam apparatus (comprising focused ion beam column 104, Fig. 1) including a sorting device comprising a pair of magnets (comprising two electrodes 130 forming two magnetic poles 132, Fig. 1 and 2, para. [0029]) and a plate (comprising plane 120, Fig. 1) with an aperture (comprising mass separation aperture 122, Fig. 1) wherein the sorting device is configured to sort out, from the ion beam outputted from the focusing device (comprising upper lens 106, Fig. 1), a specific ion to be supplied to the substrate (comprising 112, Fig. 1) (para. [0003], [0029]). Tuggle teaches that such a configuration enables filtering of species of ion based on mass of the ion which is well-known in the art (para. [0029]-[0030]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide a sorting device comprising a pair of magnets and a blocking member comprising a plate with at least one hole because Tuggle teaches that such a configuration is well-known in the art of focused ion beams which enables filtering of species of ion based on mass of the ion (Tuggle: para. [0029]-[0030]) for suitable substrate processing.
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki in view of Tuggle teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above and Sasaki further teaches wherein the focusing device comprises multiple electrodes (comprising electrodes 16, 17, 30, Fig. 1) configured to accelerate the multiple ions in the plasma based on a potential difference (para. [0016]-[0018]; electrode 16 is positive potential, electrode 30 is negative potential, and electrode 17 is ground potential, thus the potential difference extract and accelerate the ions from the plasma); and an Einzel lens (comprising 40, Fig. 1, para. [0019]), configured to focus the accelerated multiple ions based on an electromagnetic field (para. [0018]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 3, Sasaki in view of Tuggle teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above and Tuggle further teaches wherein the sorting device comprises: at least one pair of magnets (130, Fig. 1 and 2, para. [0029]) provided at positions with the ion beam outputted from the focusing device (comprising 106, Fig. 1) therebetween, and configured to generate a magnetic field configured to change a traveling direction of the specific ion among the multiple ions included in the ion beam; and a blocking member interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f) comprising a plate (comprising 120, Fig. 1) having at least one hole (comprising 122, Fig. 1) configured to allow the specific ion whose traveling direction is changed by the magnetic field of the at least one pair of magnets to pass through while blocking ions other than the specific ion (para. [0029]). Thus, when combining Sasaki with Tuggle to include the sorting device the resulting apparatus would meet claim 3 limitations.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahlin (US 2003/0193294 A1) in view of Sasaki (JP2011065968A1 hereinafter referring to English Machine Translation), Langois et al. (US 11,993,011 B1 hereinafter “Langois”), and Tanjyo et al. (US 5,189,303 hereinafter “Tanjyo”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Wahlin teaches a plasma processing apparatus, comprising:
a processing vessel (comprising plasma discharge chamber 109 and shroud 102, Fig. 1A, para. [0030]);
a substrate (comprising target 160, Fig. 1A) as a target of a plasma processing (para. [0032]);
a plasma forming device interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f) as comprising a high frequency power supply (comprising 13.56 MHz /RF power supply 150, Fig. 1A) or equivalents thereof and configured to form plasma within the processing vessel (comprising 109 and 102, Fig. 1A, para. [0030]);
a focusing device interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f) as comprising electrodes (comprising extraction grid 156, acceleration grid 158, focus grid 160, Fig. 1A, para. [0031]; comprising extraction grid 206, acceleration grid 208, Fig. 2, para. [0035]-[0036]) disposed within the processing vessel (comprising 102, Fig. 1A), and configured to focus multiple ions in the plasma to output an ion beam (para. [0032]-[0035]).
Wahlin does not explicitly teach the substrate is disposed in the processing vessel; the focusing device (as interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f)) further includes an Einzel lens or equivalents thereof, and a sorting device interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f) as comprising a pair of magnets and a plate with at least one hole wherein the sorting device is configured to sort out, from the ion beam outputted from the focusing device, a specific ion to be supplied to the substrate.
However, Sasaki teaches a plasma processing apparatus (comprising vacuum processing apparatus 1 including surface processing chamber 6, Fig. 1, para. [0011]), comprising: a processing vessel (comprising surface processing chamber 6 including vacuum chamber 9 and ion generation chamber chamber 11, Fig. 1, para. [0014]) in which a substrate (comprising processing object 55, Fig. 1) as a target of a plasma processing is disposed (para. [0019]); a focusing device interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f) as comprising electrodes (comprising electrodes 16, 17, 30, Fig. 1) and an Einzel lens (comprising 40, Fig. 1, para. [0019]) disposed within the processing vessel (comprising 6 including 11 and 9, Fig. 1) (para. [0016]-[0018]), and configured to focus multiple ions in the plasma to output an ion beam (para. [0018]-[0019]). Sasaki teaches that such a configuration enables converging the ion beam (para. [0018]).
Additionally, Langois teaches that an Einzel lens provides the benefit of more accurately controlling the degree of focusing and location of the focus for the plasma/ion beam (col 6 line 45-50).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processing vessel to house a substrate as target of a plasma processing to be disposed (i.e. provide a vacuum vessel/chamber surrounding the substrate 160 of Wahlin which is connected to the plasma chamber 102 and 109 of Wahlin) because Sasaki teaches this is a known suitable configuration of a plasma processing apparatus wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that such a chamber would isolate the substrate from the surrounding environment and provide a controlled environment for substrate processing.
Additionally, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the focusing device to further include an Einzel lens because Sasaki teaches this is a known alternative configuration of a focusing device in a plasma processing apparatus suitable for converging the ion beam wherein Langois teaches further motivation that an Einzel lens configuration provides more accurately controlling the degree of focusing and location of the focus for the plasma/ion beam (Langois: col 6 line 45-50).
Wahlin in view of Sasaki and Langois as applied above does not explicitly teach a sorting device interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f) as comprising a pair of magnets and a plate with at least one hole wherein the sorting device is configured to sort out, from the ion beam outputted from the focusing device, a specific ion to be supplied to the substrate.
However, Tanjyo teaches a plasma processing apparatus (Fig. 1, 4, 9; col 1 line 14-17; col 12 line 64-col 14 line 22) including a sorting device interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f) as comprising a pair of magnets (comprising 28, Fig. 5 and 6; comprising 55, Fig. 9 and 10) and a plate (comprising 3, Fig. 5 and 9) with at least one hole (comprising 13, Fig. 5, 6, 9 and 10) wherein the sorting device is configured to sort out, from the ion beam outputted from the focusing device (comprising 1 and 51, Fig. 9, col 13 line 5-15,), a specific ion to be supplied to the substrate (abstract, col 2 line 45-48; col 11 line 22-col 12 line 16). Tanjyo teaches that such a configuration enables providing selection of desired ions based on mass for a large area ion beam source and also enables reducing the electric and magnetic field (col 1 line 63-66; col 14 line 1-22).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide a teach a sorting device interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f) as comprising a pair of magnets and a plate with at least one hole wherein the sorting device is configured to sort out, from the ion beam outputted from the focusing device, a specific ion to be supplied to the substrate because Tanjyo teaches that such a configuration enables selecting desirable ions based on mass from an ion beam to be directed toward the substrate for suitable substrate processing (col 1 line 63-66, col 14 line 1-22).
Regarding claim 2, Wahlin in view of Sasaki, Langois, and Tanjyo teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above and Wahlin further teaches wherein the focusing device comprises: multiple electrodes (comprising extraction grid 156, acceleration grid 158, focus grid 160, Fig. 1A, para. [0031]; comprising extraction grid 206, acceleration grid 208, Fig. 2, para. [0035]-[0036]) configured to accelerate the multiple ions in the plasma based on a potential difference (para. [0035]); and Sasaki further teaches an Einzel lens (comprising 40, Fig. 1, para. [0019]) configured to focus the accelerated multiple ions based on an electromagnetic field (Sasaki: para. [0019]). Thus, the combination of Wahlin in view of Sasaki, Langois, and Tanjyo as applied in claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Wahlin in view of Sasaki, Langois, and Tanjyo teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above and Tanjyo further teaches the sorting device comprises: at least one pair of magnets (comprising 28, Fig. 5 and 6; comprising 55, Fig. 9 and 10) provided at positions with the ion beam outputted from the focusing device therebetween (as understood from Fig. 5,6, 9, 10), and configured to generate a magnetic field configured to change a traveling direction (i.e. bend) of the specific ion among the multiple ions included in the ion beam (col 4 line 29-37; col 12 line 4-14); and a blocking member interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as comprising a plate (comprising ) having at least one hole (comprising 13, Fig. 5, 6, 9, 10) configured to allow the specific ion whose traveling direction is changed by the magnetic field of the at least one pair of magnets to pass through while blocking ions other than the specific ion (col 12 line 4-14).
Regarding claim 4, Wahlin in view of Sasaki, Langois, and Tanjyo teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 and 3 above and already teaches that the substrate is disposed in the processing vessel (as applied in claim 1) Wahlin already teaches a focusing device (comprising extraction grid 156, acceleration grid 158, focus grid 160, Fig. 1A, para. [0031]; comprising extraction grid 206, acceleration grid 208, Fig. 2, para. [0035]-[0036]) that is disposed above the substrate.
Wahlin in view of Sasaki, Langois, and Tanjyo as applied above does not clearly and explicitly teach “multiple sets of the focusing device and the at least one pair of magnets are disposed above the substrate”, and “the blocking member has, at a position corresponding to each set of the focusing device and the at least one pair of magnets, a hole through which the specific ion passes.” {See claim interpretation for claim 4 in “Claim Interpretation” section above}
However, Tanjyo teaches wherein multiple sets (i.e. corresponding apertures/holes 11, Fig. 9) of the focusing device (comprising 1 and 51, Fig. 9, col 13 line 5-15) and the at least one pair of magnets (comprising 28, Fig. 5 and 6; comprising 55, Fig. 9 and 10)), and the blocking member (comprising 3, Fig. 9 and 10) has, at a position corresponding to each set of the focusing device and the at least one pair of magnets, a hole (comprising 13, Fig. 5, 6, 9 and 10) through which the specific ion passes (abstract, col 2 line 45-48; col 11 line 22-col 12 line 16). Tanjyo teaches that such a configuration enables providing a large area ion beam source by providing partial small ion beams passing through a hole that are bent independently by the sorting device (comprising Wien Filter including 2 having the magnets 55 and mas filtering plate 3, Fig. 9) enabling using low electric and low magnetic field which lowers the cost of manufacturing (col 4 line 29-39; col 14 line 5-23, abstract).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the apparatus to comprise multiple set of the focusing device (i.e. corresponding aperture/holes of the focusing device) and the at least one pair of magnets disposed above the substrate in the processing vessel and the blocking member hast, at a position corresponding to each set of the focusing device and the at least one pair of magnets, a hole through which the specific ion passes because Tanjyo teaches that such a configuration enables providing an ion beam source with a large area that uses low electric and magnetic field which lowers the cost of manufacturing (Tanjyo: col 4 line 29-39; col 14 line 5-23, abstract) for suitable substrate processing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brailove et al. (US 2003/0168588 A1) teaches a sorting device comprising at least one pair of magnets (comprising first magnet 22 and second magnet 23, Fig. 2) and a plate with at least one hole (comprising collimator wall 26 having channel 22a, Fig. 2) (abstract, see also Fig. 4B and 4B, para. [0034]-[0054]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/PARVIZ HASSANZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1716