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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites “wherein the reactive gas bleed operation is performed while the gallium ion beam in maintained in an ON state” contains a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein a metallic gallium material is deposited on one or more surfaces within a downstream portion of the ion implanter…and performing a reactive gas bleed operation into at least one location of the downstream portion of the ion implanter…” is indefinite because the term “downstream” is a relative term. The term “downstream” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no reference provided as to what the portion is downstream of. Consequently, it is not defined what comprises the downstream portion.
Claims 2-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the reactive gas bleed operation is periodically in the ion implanter” is indefinite because the limitation appears to contain a grammatical/typographical error. As written, the adverb “periodically” is modifying the verb “is”, suggesting that the reactive gas bleed sometimes takes place in the ion implanter and sometimes does not take place in the ion implanter (sometimes takes place somewhere else). In light of the specification and claims, this does not appear to be the intended meaning. See paragraph [0029] of the instant application, for example. The Office suggests amending the claim to state “wherein the reactive gas bleed operation is performed periodically in the ion implanter.” For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as stating “wherein the reactive gas bleed operation is performed periodically in the ion implanter.”
Claims 9-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sweeney, et. al. (US 20200083015 A1), hereinafter Sweeney, as evidenced by the instant application, Sinclair, et. al., hereinafter Sinclair.
Regarding claim 1, Sweeney teaches a method of reducing gallium particle formation in an ion implanter (intended use), comprising:
performing a gallium implant process in the ion implanter ([0028], ion implantation system 10, [0048], Fig. 1, Fig. 4), the gallium implant process comprising implanting a first dose of gallium ions from a gallium ion beam into a first set of substrates ([0057]-[0058]), while the first set of substrates are disposed in a process chamber of the ion implanter (substrate element 328 disposed on rotatable holder 330 in ion implant chamber 301, [0057]-[0058]), wherein a metallic gallium material is deposited on one or more surfaces within a downstream portion of the ion implanter ([0069] teaches that deposits of dopant elements may form on the interior walls. Since the dopant is disclosed in [0028] to be gallium nitride or gallium oxide or a combination thereof, then gallium is a dopant element that may form on the interior walls as disclosed in [0069]. Since, the ‘a downstream portion’ is not defined by the claim, ‘a downstream portion’ is interpreted to be any area of the system downstream of the gas source 166 in Fig. 5 or 302 in Fig. 4 since these areas are downstream of where the gas begins.); and
performing a reactive gas bleed operation into at least one location of the downstream portion of the ion implanter, the reactive bleed operation comprising providing a reactive gas through a gas injection assembly ([0053], [0040]), wherein the metallic gallium material is altered by reaction with the reactive gas ([0069] teaches that deposits of dopants elements may form on the interior walls. Since the dopant is disclosed in [0028] to be gallium nitride or gallium oxide or a combination thereof, then gallium is a dopant element that may form on the interior walls as disclosed in [0069]. Sinclair teaches that when nitrogen gas is flowed through the system, it will react with the metallic gallium deposit to form GaN (see Sinclair [0031]. Since Sweeney teaches the same situation,i.e. the reactive gas as nitrogen gas, and the nitrogen gas is being flowed through the area where the gallium deposits have formed (see [0069] of Sweeney), the same result, the formation of GaN, would occur in Sweeney. Please see MPEP 2112 (II), which teaches that "the fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.”).
Regarding claim 2, Sweeney teaches wherein the reactive gas comprises N2 or PH3, or a combination thereof ([0040]), and wherein the metallic gallium material forms a Ga-N material, a Ga-P material, or a combination thereof ([0069] teaches that deposits of dopants elements may form on the interior walls. Since the dopant is disclosed in [0028] to be gallium nitride or gallium oxide or a combination thereof, then gallium is a dopant element that may form on the interior walls as disclosed in [0069]. Sinclair teaches that when nitrogen gas is flowed through the system, it will react with the metallic gallium deposit to form GaN (see Sinclair [0031]. Since Sweeney teaches the same situation,i.e. the reactive gas as nitrogen gas, and the nitrogen gas is being flowed through the area where the gallium deposits have formed (see [0069] of Sweeney), the same result, the formation of GaN, would occur in Sweeney. Please see MPEP 2112 (II), which teaches that "the fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.”).
Regarding claim 6, Sweeney teaches wherein the reactive gas bleed operation is performed in an in-situ manner during the gallium implant process ([0040]).
Regarding claim 8, Sweeney teaches wherein the reactive gas bleed operation is periodically in the ion implanter (the reactant gas flows whenever the ion implantation system is being used to generate gallium ions for gallium ion implantation, [0040]. So if the system is on sometimes and off sometimes, then the reactive gas bleed occurs from time to time (periodically) in the ion implanter.).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the reactive gas bleed operation is performed while the gallium ion beam in maintained in an ON state ([0057], since the reactant gas assists in producing the ion beam in Sweeney, the reactant gas must flow when the ion beam is active.).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney, et. al. (US 20200083015 A1), as evidenced by Sinclair (instant application), in view of Likhanskii, et. al. (US 20200161076 A1), hereinafter Likhanskii, and Chang, et. al. (US 20190259560 A1), hereinafter Chang.
Regarding claim 3, Sweeney does not teach wherein the downstream portion of the ion implanter comprises an electrostatic energy filter, a plasma flood gun, and a dose cup chamber.
Likhanskii teaches the downstream portion of the ion implanter comprises an electrostatic energy filter and a plasma flood gun (plasma flood gun 122, [0029], electrostatic filter 40 is a vertical electrostatic energy filter, [0027]).
Likhanskii modifies the combination by suggesting an electrostatic energy filter and a plasma flood gun in the downstream portion of the ion implanter system.
Since both inventions are directed to ion implanter systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Likhanskii because an electrostatic energy filter with plasma flood gun create a high beam bend electrostatic filter assembly that controls the deflection deceleration, and focus of the ion beam, ([0027]) and defines an exit tunnel leading from the main chamber, ([0030]), and allows the filter to process ion beams of widely varying energy, ([0039]).
Chang teaches the downstream portion of the ion implanter comprises a dose cup chamber (chamber containing dose cup 59 as seen in Fig. 5, [0032]).
Chang modifies the combination by suggesting a dose cup chamber in the downstream portion of the ion implanter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chang because the housing houses the dose cup and provides a container through which the ion beam travels to reach the dose cup, ([0032]).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney, et. al. (US 20200083015 A1), as evidenced by Sinclair (instant application), Likhanskii (US 20200161076 A1), and Chang (US 20190259560 A1), further in view of Colvin, et. al. (US 20190348252 A1), hereinafter Colvin.
Regarding claim 7, Sweeney does not teach wherein a flow rate of the reactive gas is between 1 sccm and 10 sccm.
Colvin teaches wherein a flow rate of the reactive gas is between 1 sccm and 10 sccm (3 sccm, 8 sccm, 10sccm, [0049], [0057]).
Colvin modifies the combination by suggesting a flow rate of the reactive gas in the claimed range.
Colvin renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 9, Sweeney does not teach wherein a flow rate of the reactive gas is between 1 sccm to 20 sccm.
Colvin teaches wherein a flow rate of the reactive gas is between 1 sccm and 10 sccm (3 sccm, 8 sccm, 10 sccm, [0049], [0057]).
Colvin modifies the combination by suggesting a flow rate of the reactive gas in the claimed range.
Colvin renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 11 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:
Claim 4 is indicated as allowable subject matter for reciting “wherein the gas injection assembly comprises a dose cup injection assembly, located in the dose cup chamber. “
Claim 5 is indicated as allowable subject matter for reciting “wherein the gas injection assembly comprises a plasma flood gun injection assembly, located at the plasma flood gun. “
Claim 11 is indicated as allowable subject matter for reciting, “wherein the gallium implant process is a first gallium implant process, the method further comprising performing a second gallium implant process after the reactive gas bleed operation, while not venting the ion implanter for maintenance between the first gallium implant process and the second gallium implant process, the second gallium implant process comprising implanting a second dose of gallium ions into a second set of substrates, while the second set of substrates are disposed in the process chamber.”
The prior art of record does not teach said limitations in an anticipatory or obvious manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881