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 II: claims in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4-9/202 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the argument that Savas fails to teach automated or motorized actuator movements, this limitation is not present in independent claim 9. The claim recites 'actuating movable parts... to horizontally move one mesh.' Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term 'actuating' encompasses both manual, hand-operated movement and automated movement. Because the claim does not necessitate automation, the Examiner’s argument that Savas fails to teach automated/controlled/motorized movement is not persuasive
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.
Claim(s) 9-17 & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savas et al. (US 20200227239 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20200161093 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
726
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 9. Savas et al. discloses a method for plasma processing a substrate, the method comprising:
exposing a prior substrate to a prior plasma in a vacuum chamber (It is well-understood in the art that such vacuum chambers operate sequentially on numerous wafers, making subsequent processing a predictable step.);
after exposing the prior substrate, actuating movable parts mechanically coupled to a plurality of planar meshes to horizontally move one mesh of the plurality of plana meshes of a mesh assembly in an associated plane of the one mesh, the mesh assembly comprising a vertical stack of meshes of the plurality of planar meshes, wherein the horizontally moving adjusts a vertical permeability of the stack (Savis et al. ¶61 – Applicant’s disclosure identifies mesh positioning as the mechanism for adjusting “vertical permeability.” Paragraph [0061]1 of Savas teaches this same mechanism, positioning (e.g. rotating or misaligning) grid holes to control particle flow and transparency. Even if Savas does not explicitly use the term 'vertical permeability,' the result is at minimum obvious, as a POSITA would recognize that performing the same mechanical adjustment necessarily achieves the same physical result. A POSITA would recognize that adjusting the overlap and gaps of these meshes/grids directly dictates the vertical permeability of the stack to plasma species.
Further, The prior art discloses plasma chambers using mechanical, movable parts (Savas ¶61) to alter the hole alignment of the grids to “affect transparency of both charged and neutral particles”. is a predictable, routine method for adjusting process parameters between different process batches.);
loading a substrate 114 on a substrate holder in a first portion of a vacuum chamber (Savas ¶26), the first portion being segregated from a second portion of the vacuum chamber along a vertical direction by a mesh assembly 200 (210 + 220) (Savas et al. Fig. 1); and
Savas may be silent upon after completing the positioning/horizontal moving (e.g. “rotating”, exposing the substrate to an ion flux and a radical flux from plasma generated in the second portion of the vacuum chamber, the ion flux and the radical flux being based on the vertical permeability of the stack. While though out the Savas document describes inductive coupling, thereby inferring generation ion and radical flux, the tuning based on the permeably of the stack may not be clearly describe. Such feature would however be recognized and obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention as at they were known optimizable parameters for inductive plasma processing to achieve desired results (deposition, implanting, etching, etc..)
Lee teaches that resulting Ion flux and radical flux reaching the substrate are based on specific configuration an electrical state of the chamber’s internal stack defined by faceplate 106 and RF mesh 108 (¶ [65-67]). Li explicitly teaches that the magnitude and profile of both ion an radical fluxes are highly sensitive to these stack parameters, allowing for the independent tuning of species distribution (¶[67-68] and figs. 2A-B & 3A-B).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to incorporate Li's teachings, that species flux is a function of stack configuration, into the apparatus of Savas. The motivation for this combination is found in the need for precise process control; since Savas teaches the mechanical means to adjust permeability (¶ [0061]–[0063]), and Li demonstrates that such vertical stack arrangements are the primary mechanism for regulating the ion and radical flux reaching the substrate (Li ¶ [0067]), combining these teachings is a predictable application of known plasma engineering principles to optimize substrate processing, since applying a known technique to a known process to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
CLAIM 10. Savas et al. in view of Li et al. discloses a method of claim 9, wherein the horizontally moving adjusts the vertical permeability by varying a cross-sectional area of line-of-sight vertical paths passing through the stack via overlapping holes of the meshes (Savas ¶61- i.e. mesh/grid opening alignment/mis-alignment).
CLAIM 11. Savas et al. in view of Li et al. discloses a method of claim 9, wherein the horizontally moving comprises operating a mesh positioning equipment, the mesh positioning equipment comprising: movable parts mechanically coupled to the plurality of planar meshes, wherein the movable parts are configured to move one of the plurality of planar meshes in the associated plane of the mesh; and an actuator configured to move the movable parts (Savas ¶61,64, 71, 74 – the Appartus and process using a “automatic control system” is understood to require actuators for relative movement of the mesh/grids.)..
CLAIM 12. Savas et al. in view of Li et al. discloses a method of claim 9, wherein the horizontally moving is performed prior to loading the substrate (It would have been obvious to a POSITA to perform the grid positioning in Savas prior to loading the substrate to ensure the chamber environment is pre-set according to the process recipe. Such a modification represents a routine optimization of the process sequence to ensure repeatability—a predictable result that requires only ordinary skill (MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(C)).
CLAIM 13. Savas et al. in view of Li et al. discloses a method of claim 9, wherein the horizontally moving comprises rotating one of the planar meshes in the associated plane of the mesh (Savas ¶61,63).
CLAIM 14. Savas et al. in view of Li et al. discloses a method of claim 9, wherein the horizontally moving comprises sliding (rotating/moving relative are both analogous to “sliding”) one of the planar meshes in one direction in the associated plane of the mesh (Savas ¶61, 63).
CLAIM 15. Savas et al. in view of Li et al. discloses a method of claim 9, wherein exposing the substrate to the ion flux and the radical flux from the plasma generatred in the second portion of the vacuum chamber comprises: introducing gas into the chamber through a gas inlet coupled to the second portion; ionizing the gas with electromagnetic (EM) power from a first electrode, the first electrode being configured to couple EM power to the gas in the chamber from a first EM power source coupled to the first electrode; and pumping gas out of the chamber through a gas outlet coupled to the first portion, the pumping directing the ion flux and the radical flux toward the substrate (Savas ¶22-35 & Li ¶61-65 – Li teaches introducing gas through a gas distribution assembly (e.g. faceplate 106) and ionizing it with RF power while the pressure differential of the vacuum system is recognized to direct species flux toward the substrate.).
CLAIM 16. Savas et al. in view of Li et al. discloses a method of claim 9, wherein the plasma provides, in the first portion, a first ion density, a first electron temperature, a first radical density, an ion flux, and a radical flux directed from the mesh assembly to the substrate, and wherein the plasma provides a second ion density and a second electron temperature in the second portion, the second ion density being greater than the first ion density, and the second electron temperature being greater than the first electron temperature (Savas ¶27, 37 61-63 – Savas teaches that the shield reduces capacitive coupling and ion bombardment, which is understood to result in a lower ion density and electron temperature in the substrate portion (i.e. 1st portion) compared to the generation portion (2nd portion). Effectively, the shield acts like a sieve that filters out high-energy heat, keeping the substrate area much cooler (lower electron temperature) than the main plasma-generation area.).
CLAIM 17. Savas et al. in view of Li et al. discloses a method of claim 9, may be silent upon the exact recited ranges of wherein adjusting the vertical permeability adjusts a ratio of the ion flux to the radical flux from a maximum value of 75 % to 95 % of a reference value to a minimum value of a millionth to a trillionth of the reference value, wherein the reference value is the ratio of the ion flux to the radical flux without the mesh assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the ratio adjustments through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the ratio adjustments is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
22. Savas et al. in view of Li et al. discloses a method of claim 9, further including: having a controller configured to control the actuator; and sending control signals from the controller to the actuator to perform the positioning (Savas (paragraphs [0002]-[0009, 0054, 0074]) teaches an apparatus for processing with an automated controller for managing the system operations and relative movement of components via actuators. While Savas may not explicitly specify that the controller automatically moves the movable grid system, Savas teaches an overall apparatus controller utilizing motors to adjust processing components.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to automate the movement of the movable grid system because substituting automatic control for manual adjustment of a component is a predictable variation, which provides the same functionality. Automating the grid movement using the existing controller, as taught in Savas, merely involves applying a known technique (automation) to a known device ready for improvement (the grid system) to yield predictable results (consistent and quickly repeatable grid adjustment). See MPEP § 2144.04 III: Automating a manual activity; MPEP § 2141 III. A: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Claim(s) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savas et al. (US 20200227239 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20200161093 A1) in view of Nagorny et al. (US 20170207077 A1).
CLAIM 23. (New) A method for plasma processing a substrate, the method comprising:
positioning one planar mesh of a plurality of planar meshes in an associated plane of the one planar mesh, wherein the positioning adjusts a vertical permeability of a vertical stack of the plurality of planar meshes of a mesh assembly (Savis et al. ¶61 – Applicant’s disclosure identifies mesh positioning as the mechanism for adjusting “vertical permeability.” Paragraph [0061]2 of Savas teaches this same mechanism, positioning (e.g. rotating or misaligning) grid holes to control particle flow and transparency. Even if Savas does not explicitly use the term 'vertical permeability,' the result is at minimum obvious, as a POSITA would recognize that performing the same mechanical adjustment necessarily achieves the same physical result. A POSITA would recognize that adjusting the overlap and gaps of these meshes/grids directly dictates the vertical permeability of the stack to plasma species.
Further, The prior art discloses plasma chambers using mechanical, movable parts (Savas ¶61) to alter the hole alignment of the grids to “affect transparency of both charged and neutral particles”. is a predictable, routine method for adjusting process parameters between different process batches.);
loading a substrate on a substrate holder in a first portion of a vacuum chamber, the first portion being segregated from a second portion of the vacuum chamber along a vertical direction by the mesh assembly comprising the vertical stack of the plurality of planar meshes 200 (210 + 220) (Savas et al. Fig. 1).
Savas may be silent upon after completing the positioning/horizontal moving (e.g. “rotating”, exposing the substrate to an ion flux and a radical flux from plasma generated in the second portion of the vacuum chamber, the ion flux and the radical flux being based on the vertical permeability of the stack. While though out the Savas document describes inductive coupling, thereby inferring generation ion and radical flux, the tuning based on the permeably of the stack may not be clearly describe. Such feature would however be recognized and obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention as at they were known optimizable parameters for inductive plasma processing to achieve desired results (deposition, implanting, etching, etc..)
Lee teaches that resulting Ion flux and radical flux reaching the substrate are based on specific configuration an electrical state of the chamber’s internal stack defined by faceplate 106 and RF mesh 108 (¶ [65-67]). Li explicitly teaches that the magnitude and profile of both ion an radical fluxes are highly sensitive to these stack parameters, allowing for the independent tuning of species distribution (¶[67-68] and figs. 2A-B & 3A-B).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to incorporate Li's teachings, that species flux is a function of stack configuration, into the apparatus of Savas. The motivation for this combination is found in the need for precise process control; since Savas teaches the mechanical means to adjust permeability (¶ [0061]–[0063]), and Li demonstrates that such vertical stack arrangements are the primary mechanism for regulating the ion and radical flux reaching the substrate (Li ¶ [0067]), combining these teachings is a predictable application of known plasma engineering principles to optimize substrate processing, since applying a known technique to a known process to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Salvas may be silent upon wherein each planar mesh of the plurality of planar meshes comprises an insulating outer surface. While Savas does not explicitly specify the material for each planar mesh, it is well-known in the art that meshes in analogous processing chambers incorporate insulating or dielectric outer surfaces. Nagorny (¶ 0043) teaches that grid plates may be constructed from dielectric materials such as quartz or ceramic, or from electrically conductive materials with a ground connection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the meshes of Savas with the known materials taught in Nagorny. Such a modification constitutes the application of a known technique (material selection) to a known device (plasma grid stack) to yield predictable results (desired permittivity) [KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385].
CLAIM 24. (New) The method of claim 23, wherein each planar mesh of the plurality of planar meshes comprises a perforated sheet of an insulating material (Savas as modified by Nagorny ¶43 – grid/meshes are known to be of an insulating material.).
CLAIM 25. (New) The method of claim 24, wherein the insulating material comprises alumina, quartz, or a ceramic (Savas as modified by Nagorny ¶43 – grid/meshes are known to be of an insulating material such as quartz.).
Claim(s) 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savas et al. (US 20200227239 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20200161093 A1) in view of Nagorny et al. (US 20170207077 A1) in Liu et al. (US 20220223381 A1).
CLAIM 26. Savas et al. in view of Li et al. in view of Nagorny et al. teach the method of claim 23, teaches that grids may comprise a conductive and/o insulative materials, Nagorny may be silent upon specifically teaching wherein each planar mesh of the plurality of planar meshes comprises a conductive material with an insulating coating.
Nogorny teaches grids may be formed of aluminum and may be conductive and/or insulative. As taught in Liu et al. ¶37 grids may be formed of anodized aluminum.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a anodized aluminum grid, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 27. Savas et al. in view of Li et al. in view of Nagorny et al. in view of Liu teach the method of method of claim 26, wherein the conductive material with an insulating coating comprises anodized aluminum or a metal coated with yttria ( Savas as modifed by Liu ¶37 – selection of known material.).
CLAIM 28. Savas et al. in view of Li et al. in view of Nagorny et al. in view of Liu teach the method of method of claim 26, wherein one planar mesh of the plurality of planar meshes is coupled to an RF bias source, a pulsed RF bias source, or a pulsed DC bias source (Li – Abstract – Grid/Meshes are connected to RF/DC bias).
Claim(s) 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savas et al. (US 20200227239 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20200161093 A1) in view of Zhou et al. (US 20190157066 A1).
CLAIM 18. Savas et al. in view of Li et al. discloses a method for plasma processing a substrate, the method comprising: loading a substrate on a substrate holder in a first portion of a vacuum chamber (Savas Fig. 1), the first portion being segregated from a second portion of the chamber along a vertical direction by a mesh assembly comprising a vertical stack of planar meshes 200 (Savas Fig. 1), the stack having an adjustable vertical permeability (Savas ¶61-64); performing, in situ, a number of cycles of a process sequence, the sequence comprising:
setting the vertical permeability of the vertical stack to a first vertical permeability, the setting comprising horizontally moving one of the meshes of the vertical stack of the planar meshes to a second position in an associated plane of the one mesh being moved, the second position being different from the first position the setting comprising horizontally moving one of the meshes of the vertical stack of the planar meshes to a first position (Savas ¶61-64 – eg setting/selecting a relative mesh/grid position); exposing the substrate to a first ion flux and a first radical flux for a first time duration, the first ion and radical fluxes being based on the first vertical permeability (Savas ¶61-64 & Li ¶[67-68] and figs. 2A-B & 3A-B);
setting the vertical permeability of the vertical stack to a second vertical permeability (Savas ¶61-64 & Li ¶[67-68] and figs. 2A-B & 3A-B – See regarding claim 9); and exposing the substrate to a second ion flux and a second radical flux for a second time duration, a difference between the first ion and radical fluxes and the second ion and radical fluxes being based on a difference between the first vertical permeability and the second vertical permeability (Li demonstrates that the ion flux and the radical flux reaching the substrate are directly based on the configuration of the internal chamber stack (faceplate 106 and mesh 108). Specifically, Li shows that changing the stack’s parameters significantly alters the magnitude and profile of both ion and radical fluxes.
Savas teaches that a multi-layered mesh assembly can be adjusted in situ to take on two or more pre-determined configurations during different periods of a processing operation (Savas ¶2-9, 61-68]), while Li establishes that the resulting ion flux and radical flux reaching the substrate are directly dictated by such physical and electrical configurations of the internal chamber stack (Li ¶[67-68] and figs. 2A-B & 3A-B – See regarding claim 9). Therefore, a POSITA would have found it obvious to vary the vertical permeability of the mesh stack across distinct time durations to achieve predictably different flux profiles for specialized processing phases required “to sustain a stable plasma in a variety of process gases and under a variety of different conditions (e.g. gas flow, gas pressure, etc.).” (Sava ¶2) when forming complex devices).
Zhou et al. is additional cited for explicitly teaching what is inferred or understood from Savas and Li. Zhou teaches an analogous plasma chamber apparatus for performing analogous plasma processing. As demonstrated in Zhou such chambers are understood to be capable of performing various processing steps in-situ to achieve desired results when forming complex devices such as mentioned in Sava paragraphs 2-9. Zhou teaches (¶34, 45, 68) first using the apparatus for etching followed by deposition in order to achieve reduced roughness. Such conventional processes recipes, require setting to second parameters when in-situ etching then depositing.).
CLAIM 19. Savas et al. in view of Li et al. in view of Zhou et al. discloses a method of claim 18,wherein adjusting the vertical permeability comprises positioning one of the planar meshes in the associated plane of the mesh, the positioning varying a cross-sectional area of line-of-sight vertical paths passing through the mesh assembly via overlapping holes of the meshes, wherein the positioning comprises operating a mesh positioning equipment, the mesh positioning equipment comprising movable parts mechanically coupled to the meshes (Savas teaches automated control, which requires the recited feature to achieve relative movement and control of the parts.), wherein the movable parts are configured to move one of the planar meshes in the associated plane of the mesh, and an actuator configured to move the movable parts (Savas ¶61-64 -Adjusting the overlap directly varies the cross sectional area of the paths through which plasma species pass through.).
CLAIM 20. Savas et al. in view of Li et al. in view of Zhou et al. discloses a method of claim 18, wherein a ratio of the first ion flux to the first radical flux, is different from a ratio of the second ion flux to the second radical flux (Li Figs. 3A-4, demonstrating during operation, as stack parameters are adjusted, the ion flux and the radical flux change at different rates. This demonstrates the ratio of these fluxes are a tunable optimizable variable dependent on configuration of the mesh/faceplate.).
CLAIM 21. Savas et al. in view of Li et al. in view of Zhou et al. discloses a method of claim 18, wherein exposing the substrate to the first ion flux and the first radical flux removes material from the substrate (Savas ¶2-9 & Zhou ¶34, 45, 68 - etching); and wherein exposing the substrate to the second ion flux and the second radical flux deposits material on the substrate (Savas ¶2-9 & Zhou ¶34, 45, 68 - deposition);
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 JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
4/23/2026
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
1 Savas et al. - [0061] The first grid plate 210 can have a first grid pattern having a plurality of holes. The second grid plate 220 can have a second grid pattern having a plurality of holes. The first grid pattern can be the same as or different from the second grid pattern, or the patterns can be the same and the grids aligned relative to one another, or rotated, so that the holes in the first grid and the second grid do not overlap. In some embodiments, the grids are the same pattern but are misaligned so that the holes do not overlap and in consequence the charged particles will have to flow with the gas between the grids on the way from a hole in the first to a nearby hole in the second grid, thereby substantially recombining on the surfaces of the grids in their path through the offset holes of each grid plate 210, 220 in the separation grid. Neutral species (e.g., radicals), however, with their lower probability of recombination on the surface of a grid can flow relatively freely through the holes in the first grid plate 210 and the second grid plate 220 while not recombining. The size of the holes, alignment, pattern and thickness of each grid plate 210 and 220 can affect transparency for both charged and neutral particles.
2 Savas et al. - [0061] The first grid plate 210 can have a first grid pattern having a plurality of holes. The second grid plate 220 can have a second grid pattern having a plurality of holes. The first grid pattern can be the same as or different from the second grid pattern, or the patterns can be the same and the grids aligned relative to one another, or rotated, so that the holes in the first grid and the second grid do not overlap. In some embodiments, the grids are the same pattern but are misaligned so that the holes do not overlap and in consequence the charged particles will have to flow with the gas between the grids on the way from a hole in the first to a nearby hole in the second grid, thereby substantially recombining on the surfaces of the grids in their path through the offset holes of each grid plate 210, 220 in the separation grid. Neutral species (e.g., radicals), however, with their lower probability of recombination on the surface of a grid can flow relatively freely through the holes in the first grid plate 210 and the second grid plate 220 while not recombining. The size of the holes, alignment, pattern and thickness of each grid plate 210 and 220 can affect transparency for both charged and neutral particles.
Prosecution Insights