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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 3, 6, and 9, in the reply filed on 6/30/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-8 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/30/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The claimed phrase “unfocused ion beam” in claim 1 has been interpreted as interchangeable with “broad ion beam”.
The claimed phrase “pointer profile” in claim 6 has been interpreted as a “target ion beam profile” (consistent with Specification para 0030) or a “desired ion beam profile”.
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, 3, 6, and 9 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.
Amended claim 1 recites the limitation "the generated backscattered electrons". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 3, 6, and 9 are also rejected as depending 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al (US 8,158,016) in view of Ichimura et al (JP No. 2002216653, machine translation cited below) and Yasuo (JP No. 08005528, machine translation cited below).
With respect to claim 1, Hayes discloses an ion etching device (i.e. claimed “ion milling device”) (Abstract; fig. 1; col. 1, lines 27-36; col. 4, lines 37-53), wherein fig. 1 depicts the ion milling device comprises: a vacuum processing system [12] including a process chamber (i.e. claimed “vacuum chamber”) [12a] having an internal pressure controlled via vacuum pump (i.e. claimed “vacuum exhaust system”) [13] (col. 4, lines 37-51); an ion source (i.e. claimed “ion gun”) [10] attached to the vacuum chamber [12a] and configured to emit an ion beam [15] that is a “broad ion beam” (e.g. claimed “unfocused ion beam”) (col. 4, lines 49-67; col. 5, lines 1-39; Example 1); a substrate support (i.e. claimed “sample stand”) [21] disposed in the vacuum chamber [12a] and configured to hold a wafer or substrate (i.e. claimed “sample”) [11] (col. 4, lines 37-41; col. 6, lines 13-15); a “plurality Faraday probes” configured (or fully capable) to measure an “ion beam current density distribution” for estimating a desired processing profile of the ion beam (e.g. claimed “ion beam profile showing intensity distribution of the ion beam”) of the sample [11] processed by the unfocused ion beam [15] (col. 3, lines 3-7; col. 9, lines 45-67; col. 10, lines 1-21 and 37-52); and a controller (i.e. claimed “control unit”) [87] (8, lines 45-46); and an electromagnet (i.e. claimed “magnetic field generation device”) [42] configured to generate a magnetic field [75] in a discharge chamber (i.e. claimed “ionization chamber”) [16] of the ion gun [10] and including an electromagnetic coil [72],[74] and magnetic path (col. 2, lines 54-61; col. 4, lines 54-56; col. 7, lines 25-29). The control unit [87] is connected to the plurality of Faraday probes that measures the ion beam characteristic to allow for adjusting a current from power supply [86] to the electromagnet [42] (fig. 10; col. 8, lines 15-17; col. 9, lines 13-19). In addition the claim requirement of “the control unit is configured to: control a value of a current, which is applied to the electromagnetic coil, based on the ion beam profile” relates to the intended functioning of the claimed ion milling device and control unit, with the ion milling device and control unit [87] of Hayes fully capable of functioning in the claimed manner as taught at least by col. 9, lines 13-19 and fig. 10.
However Hayes is limited in that while the Faraday probes (i.e. claimed “current probes”) are “inserted into the path of the ion beam” and necessarily have an ammeter (e.g. instrument for measuring current) for measuring the ion beam current density distribution (col. 10, lines 1-21), a location of the current probes is specifically not suggested.
Ichimura teaches in fig. 10 an ion beam milling device configured for controlling ion beam distribution comprising a “Faraday cup” (i.e. Faraday or current probe) [43] for measuring the ion beam distribution (para 0001, 0024, and 0044), similar to the ion beam milling device of Hayes. Fig. 10 further shows the ion beam milling device comprises the current probe [43] between “ion source” (i.e. ion gun) [1] and a substrate (i.e. sample) [40] (para 0024 and 0044)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have at least one of the current probes of Hayes be located between the ion gun [10] and sample [11] as taught by Ichimura to yield the predictable result of measuring ion beam current density distribution. In addition it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have at least one of the current probes of Hayes be located between the ion gun [10] and sample [11] as taught by Ichimura since Hayes fails to specify a location of the current probes, and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation for success in making the modification since Ichimura teaches a similar ion milling device that uses a similar Faraday probe (i.e. current probe) as Hayes.
However the combination of references Hayes and Ichimura is further limited in that an electron trap between the current probe and the sample is not suggested.
Yasuo teaches in fig. 1 an ion beam milling device with an ion beam [11] from an ion gun [10] for evaluating a sample [41] (para 0013 and 0052), similar to the ion milling devices of Hayes and Ichimura. Yasuo further teaches in fig. 1 an electrode [50] surrounding and extending both above and below the sample [41] so as to absorb (i.e. trap) secondary electrons while also capable of absorbing or collecting any backscattered electrons (para 0039), wherein the electrode [50] has a positive voltage applied to collect the secondary electrons (para 0049-0050); thus the electrode [50] is the claimed “electron trap” [50]. Yasuo cites the advantage of the electron trap [50] as preventing electrons from reaching a “detection means” (such as a current probe) while not affecting the ion beam [11] from the ion gun [10] when the detection means is in use of measuring the ion beam [11] (para 0035, 0039, and 0050)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the electron trap of Yasuo into the ion milling device of the combination of references to gain the advantages of preventing electrons from reaching the current probe while also not affecting the ion beam.
In summary, the combination of references Hayes, Ichimura, and Yasuo has: Ichimura’s fig. 10 showing the current probe [43] disposed between the ion gun [1] and sample [40]; and Yasuo’s fig. 1 showing the electron trap [50] extends from below the sample [41] to above the sample [41]; thus the electron trap [50] of Yasuo would then extend above the sample [40] of Ichimura so as to be between the current probe [43] and the sample [40] of Ichimura.
With respect to claim 3, the combination of references Hayes, Ichimura, and Yasuo has: Ichimura’s fig. 10 showing the current probe [43] as a linear ion beam current probe that extends in a first direction, and current probe drive unit for moving the current probe [43] along a trajectory (indicated via double-arrows) that extends in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction to cross the ion beam (para 0044); and Hayes teaching the control unit [87] measures the ion beam profile by associating an ion beam current that flows through the Faraday probes (i.e. current probe [43] of Ichimura) with a position on the trajectory of the Faraday probes when the Faraday probes are inserted into the ion beam via a current probe drive (col. 9, lines 13-19; col. 10, lines 1-21).
With respect to claim 6, modified Hayes further discloses the control unit [87] reads and controls current to the electromagnet [42] based on “algorithm”, “performance data” and/or “experimental matrix (for example, a lookup table) as described in the Examples” and associated Tables 1 and 2 (col. 8, lines 45-67; col. 9, lines 1-19); the algorithm, performance date, and/or experimental matrix being a desired ion beam profile or claimed “pointer profile” targeted by the ion beam [15]. The value of the current to the electromagnet [42] (and also the electromagnetic coil [72],[74] from col. 7, lines 25-26) is adjusted via the control unit [87] such that the ion beam profile measured by the Faraday probes (i.e. current probe [43] of Ichimura) matches the pointer profile (col. 3, lines 3-10; col. 8, lines 45-67; col. 9, lines 1-19). In addition the claim requirement of “the control unit reads a pointer profile targeted by the ion beam, and adjusts the value of the current applied to the electromagnetic coil such that the ion beam profile matches the pointer profile” relates to the intended functioning of the claimed ion milling device and control unit, with the ion milling device and control unit [87] of Hayes fully capable of functioning in the claimed manner as taught at least by col. 3, lines 3-10 col. 8, lines 45-67; col. 9, lines 1-27, col. 10, lines 1-21, and fig. 10.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al (US 8,158,016), Ichimura et al (JP No. 2002216653, machine translation cited below), and Yasuo (JP No. 08005528, machine translation cited below) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asai et al (US 10,304,653).
With respect to claim 9, the combination of references Hayes, Ichimura, and Yasuo is cited as discussed for claim 1. Modified Hayes further depicts in fig. 1 the ion gun [10] includes a gas source [23] that supplies a gas to the ionization chamber [16] (col. 4, lines 66-67; col. 5, lines 1-3).
However the combination of references is limited in that the ion source [10] comprising first and second cathodes, a cathode ring, and an anode is not suggested.
Asai teaches in fig. 2 an ion gun [1] comprising: a gas supply mechanism [40] to an ionization chamber [18] (col. 4, lines 65-67; col. 5, lines 1-10 and 31-34), similar to Hayes; a first cathode [11] facing second cathode [12] (col. 5, lines 29-33 and 48-49); a permanent magnet having “a cylindrical shape” (i.e. claimed “cathode ring”) [14] (col. 5, lines 37-43); and an anode [13] insulated from the cathode ring [14] via insulator [13] and configured to be applied with a positive voltage with respect to negative potentials of the first and second cathodes [11],[12] (col. 5, lines 61-64; col. 6, lines 1-3). Fig. 2 further depicts the ionization chamber [18] is a region surrounded by the first and second cathodes [11],[12] with the anode [13] (col. 5, lines 31-34 and 61-64); and an acceleration electrode [15] (electrically connected to power source [22]) provided with an opening that surrounds the cathode ring [14] (col. 6, lines 30-33), wherein the acceleration electrode [15] inherently produces a magnetic field (via Oersted’s law), thus the acceleration electrode [15] is a magnetic field generation device that provides a magnetic path. Asai cites the advantage of the ion gun [1] comprising the first and second cathodes [11],[12], cathode ring [14], and anode [13] as achieving a higher milling rate than previous methods (such as taught by Hayes) (col. 1, lines 36-42; col. 2, lines 29-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the first and second cathodes, cathode ring, and anode as taught by Asai into the ion gun of the combination of references to gain the advantage of a higher etching rate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 8-12 filed 4/15/2025 are addressed below.
112 Rejections
Claim 1 and dependent claims 3, and 6 have each been amended to provide structure for the claimed “ion milling device”; the previous 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
102 & 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 9-12 with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references Hayes, Ichimura, and Yasuo being applied in the current rejection.
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 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 MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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 A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794