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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-14, 16 17, and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krippendorf, et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0122850 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Krippendorf discloses an energy filter assembly for an ion implantation system, comprising:
An energy filter having at least one filter element (“filter chip” see, e.g. Fig. 4) absorbing the beam energy of an ion beam (Fig. 1);
A first filter frame (“filter frame” see, e.g. Figs. 4 and 5); and
At least one coupling element for elastically connecting the first filter frame with the energy filter (Fig. 4; paragraph 0108).
Regarding claim 2, Krippendorf discloses wherein the at least one coupling element is arranged at the at least one filter element of the energy filter (paragraph 0108).
Regarding claim 3, Krippendorf discloses a second filter frame (“locking element” see Fig. 5) accommodating the energy filter, wherein the at least one coupling element elastically connects the first filter frame with the second filter frame (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Krippendorf discloses wherein the at least one coupling element is configured as a micro spring element (Fig. 4; paragraph 0108).
Regarding claim 7, Krippendorf discloses wherein the at least one coupling element is integrally formed with at least one of the energy filter and the first filter frame (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Krippendorf discloses wherein the at least one coupling element is integrally formed with at least one of the first filter frame and the second filter frame (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Krippendorf discloses wherein the at least one coupling element is connected to the energy filter and the first filter frame and the second filter frame by a bonding technique or at least one mechanical fixture (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Krippendorf discloses wherein the at least one filter element is triangular prism-shaped or pyramidically shaped (Figs. 1, 3, 11, 12, 19).
Regarding claim 11, Krippendorf discloses wherein the at least one filter element is arranged in a plane which is perpendicular to the beam direction of the ion beam (Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 12, Krippendorf discloses at least one aperture element (collimator, see Figs. 21 and 40) arranged in a plane which is perpendicular to the beam direction of the ion beam (Figs. 21 and 40); and a substrate (Fig. 40); wherein the at least one aperture element is arranged between the energy filter and the substrate such that a filtered ion beam is transmitted to the substrate (Fig. 40).
Claim 13 does not further limit claim 12, because claim 13 recites a fixed or movable substrate; the substrate can only possibly be either fixed or movable in at least one direction.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Krippendorf discloses at least one Faraday cup (paragraph 0182) scanning the ion beam in at least one minimal scanning area (Figs. 40-42).
Regarding claim 17, Krippendorf discloses wherein the at least one filter element is made of silicon (paragraph 0038).
Claims 22 and 23 are drawn to the method of providing and assembling the apparatus of claims 1 and 3, and the same rejections apply mutatis mutandis.
Claim 24 is drawn to the method of using the apparatus of claim 1, and the same rejection applies mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 25, Krippendorf discloses scanning the ion beam beyond the energy filter, the at least one coupling element, and the first filter frame (Figs. 40-42) such that at least one detecting element is irradiated (paragraph 0182, Faraday cup).
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) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krippendorf.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Krippendorf discloses the energy filter assembly according to claim 4, but does not specify the dimensions of the micro spring element; however, one of ordinary skill in the art, having advanced education/training in engineering/physics, would know how to select the thickness, width, and length of a spring to obtain the desired size and spring force. These dimensions are result-effective variables that determine the tension applied to the filter element by the micro spring element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try the micro spring thickness, width, and length recited in claims 5 and 6 while performing routine optimization of result-effective variables with predictable results. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-31 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claims 26-28, the prior art fails to teach the combination of detailed steps claimed; Krippendorf does not recite any buried oxide (BOX) layer, or any steps involving it.
Regarding claim 29, the prior art fails to teach incrementally removing several 10nm up to several micrometer per step and performing several removal steps for a given structure, wherein the sequentially removing is performed according to a predefined 3-D layout of an energy filter, a first frame, and at least one coupling element for elastically connecting the first filter frame with the energy filter.
Regarding claim 30, the prior art fails to teach cutting out the at least one coupling element from the filter and filter frame layers.
Regarding claim 31, the prior art fails to teach the steps of creating at least one elastic element between the energy filter and the first filter frame by laser ablation, and separating the energy filter from the first filter frame by material ablation.
Claims 15 and 18-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 15, the prior art fails to teach wherein the scanning area extends beyond the at least one detecting element (Faraday cup). Regarding claims 18-21, the prior art fails to teach wherein the at least one coupling element is preloaded for keeping the connection between the first filter frame and the energy filter under a controlled tension.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P MASKELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3210. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10A-6P.
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 MASKELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881 10 January 2026