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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the RCE dated 05/22/2026 have been entered. Claim 19 has been canceled. Claims 1-18 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome some of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action dated 03/23/2026, hereinafter FOA0323, however at least one 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue remains. See below for further discussion.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because they pertain to amended claim limitations not present at the time of FOA0323. See below for discussion/mapping of amended claim limitations.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8 and 10 have been considered but are moot because they pertain to amended claim limitations not present at the time of FOA0323. See below for discussion/mapping of amended claim limitations. However, for clarity of the record, Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument regarding Hong are not convincing.
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). In this case, Hong was not used to disclose the particular use case, but rather the technique of using air to remove halogen contaminants as discussed in FOA0323. Thus, attacking Hong for lacking applying the technique in such a use case is not convincing, because Hong was not applied in the combination to teach such limitations.
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.
As previously indicated, and as acknowledged by Applicant’s remarks dated 05/22/2026, 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: “a measuring device that measures a temperature” in claim 2.
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.
In this case, the corresponding structure in the specification is a thermocouple, radiation thermometer, or a thermography, as indicated in [58], which is also cited by Applicant in the remarks dated 05/22/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “…and to an air supply source and through which air flows from an air supply source into the interior of the ion source…”, which Examiner believes should read ‘…and to an air supply source and through which air flows from the air supply source into the interior of the ion source…’;
Claim 5 recites “the halogen gas supply”, which should read ‘the halogen gas source’.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites “wherein the ion beam irradiation apparatus is configured to allow a coolant from the cooling passage to circulate to cool the ion source”, which is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what is and is not required by the claim, which pertains to an apparatus. The recited functions do not follow from the structures recited in the claim, i.e., the claim does not require a coolant source/supply, so it is unclear whether the functions require some other structure(s) or is simply a result of operating the apparatus in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. As in FOA0323, for purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as only requiring the structures explicitly recited, and the functionality which does not have sufficient structure in the claim is interpreted as intended use which does not further limit the claim, and thus, this limitation is interpreted as requiring a cooling passage, understood as a fluid supply passage capable of supplying and circulating (understood as supplying and removing) a coolant that in some way cools the ion source.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horsky (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20060097645 A1) in view of Ray (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090294698 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Horsky teaches an ion beam irradiation apparatus (Title; Abstract; [0054]) comprising:
an ion source (Title; Abstract; [0054]) including:
a plasma generation container in which plasma is generated (See Fig. 2, item 455; [0095]); and
a vaporizer including a crucible that is connected to the plasma generation container (See Fig. 2, item 445, connected to item 455; See Fig. 8; [0110]);
a halogen gas supply passage that is fluidly connected to the crucible and a halogen gas source (See Figs. 2, 8, showing multiple supply passages fluidly connected to the vaporizer housing the crucible, connected to respective gas sources, capable of supplying halogens, e.g., items 430, 435, 440; [0008]-[0009]; [0065]; [0094]-[0095]; [0110]) and through which a halogen gas flows from the halogen gas source into the vaporizer without passing through the plasma generation container (See Fig. 2, items 450, 443 (see priority appl. of Horsky, International Patent Application No. PCT/US2004/041525, for discussion), with item 450 being connected to the vaporizer via 435, 440 without passing through the plasma generation container; Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of such a limitation in an apparatus claim is a supply path that is capable of flowing halogen gases in such a manner; [0095]);
an air supply passage that is fluidly connected to an interior of the ion source (See Fig. 2, items 430, 435, 440, each fluidly connected to an interior of the ion source; Examiner notes that the BRI of such a limitation in an apparatus claim is a supply path that is capable of flowing air in such a manner; These passages are capable of flowing air, given a connection to such a source; [0095]); and
an evacuation passage that is fluidly connected to the interior of the ion source and to a vacuum source that produces a vacuum in the evacuation passage (See Fig. 2, passage connected to item 420, that is fluidly connected to the interior of the ion source, and to item 420, with vacuum pumps 421, 422, which are inherently capable of producing a vacuum in the passage connected to item 420; See: ‘Chemical Cleaning System’ section of International Patent Application No. PCT/US2004/041525 incorporated by Horsky),
wherein the ion beam irradiation apparatus is configured to allow residual halogen gas in the vaporizer to react with the air in the ion source to produce a reaction product (Examiner notes that the BRI of this limitation is that the apparatus be capable of allowing halogen gas in the vaporizer to react with air in the ion source; However, were air and residual halogen gas present in the ion source and vaporizer of Horsky, they would naturally react to produce a reaction product in the arrangement shown in Fig. 2 of Horsky, and thus the limitation is met, as only the capability is required), and to evacuate the reaction product to an outside of the ion beam irradiation apparatus via the evacuation passage using the vacuum source (Examiner notes that the BRI of this limitation is that the apparatus be capable of evacuating such a reaction product outside of the apparatus via the evacuation passage using the vacuum source; However, were such a reaction product present in Horsky, the vacuum system 420 would be capable of evacuating the reaction product out of the apparatus using the vacuums 421, 422, and thus the limitation is met, as only the capability is required).
Horsky does not teach an air supply passage that is fluidly connected to an interior of the ion source and to an air supply source (Emphasis added by Examiner), as Horsky does not disclose an air source or the use of air. However, Horsky does disclose the use of a cleaning gas being applied to the system to remove residuals within the apparatus to be pumped out via the vacuum system 420 ([0090]; [0094]-[0095]; Examiner notes that 455 is a reactive gas used for cleaning as discussed in [0094], which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to include gases which react with residual gases and/or deposits to clean the system; Additionally, item 465 is a cleaning feed gas supplied for cleaning the chamber, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to include gases which react with residual gases and/or deposits to clean the system).
However, it is Examiner’s opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the use of air as a cleaning/reactive gas to react with deposits or residual gases in such systems to clean them for further use or for safe opening.
Nevertheless, Ray discloses the use of air as a reactive cleaning gas and teaches an air supply passage that is fluidly connected…to an air supply source (See Fig. 3, item 260, passage connected thereto; [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Horsky to include an air supply passage that is fluidly connected…to an air supply source (Emphasis added by Examiner), as taught by Ray, in order to achieve an air supply passage that is fluidly connected to an interior of the ion source and to an air supply source, by the combination.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use an inexpensive, readily available, reactive cleaning gas (i.e., air), as disclosed by Ray, to clean the chamber in the manner discussed by Horsky.
Regarding claim 2, Horsky in view of Ray teaches the ion beam irradiation apparatus as recited in claim 1.
Horsky further teaches comprising a measuring device that measures a temperature of the plasma generation container (See Fig. 2, item TD; [0095]).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Horsky in view of Ray teaches the ion beam irradiation apparatus as recited in claim 1.
Horsky further teaches comprising a cooling passage,
wherein the ion beam irradiation apparatus is configured to allow a coolant from the cooling passage to circulate to cool the ion source (See Figs. 1 and 2, one of passages fluidically connected to the ion source; Examiner notes that while Horsky does not explicitly disclose the passage being for a coolant, the claim only requires the passage (see 112(b) discussion above), and the passages are capable of supplying a coolant therethrough, and are fluidically coupled to the ion source, and as such the requirements of the element are met).
For completeness, Examiner notes that the prior art of record Horsky’803 also discloses a cooling passage for cooling the ion source (Detailed Description, Ion Implantation Sources, Paragraphs 1, 4, 8-9, discussing conventional ion source technology).
Regarding claim 5, Horsky in view of Ray teaches the ion beam irradiation apparatus as recited in claim 1.
Horsky further teaches further comprising:
a vacuum chamber comprising the ion source (See Figs. 2, item 410; [0090]-[0095]);
a halogen supply valve in the halogen gas supply passage (See Fig. 2, each of passages to items 420, 435, 450, 465, 466, having valves, and in particular, items 430, 435, 440; [0008]-[0009]; [0065]; [0094]-[0095]; [0110]);
an air supply valve in the air supply passage (See Fig. 2, each of passages to items 420, 435, 450, 465, 466, having valves, and in particular, items 430, 435, 440; [0008]-[0009]; [0065]; [0094]-[0095]; [0110]; Examiner notes the disclosed passages and valves are suitable for use with air); and
an evacuation valve in the evacuation passage (See Fig. 2, passages to items 420, 435, 450, 465, 466, having valves), wherein the halogen supply valve controls a supply of the halogen gas from the halogen gas supply to the vaporizer (Examiner notes that the disclosed valves of Horsky are capable of controlling the supply of the gases through their respective passages; See Fig. 2, valves along 435, and along branches therefrom to bottles; See also item 443; [0008]-[0009]; [0065]; [0094]-[0095]; [0110]), the air supply valve controls a supply of the air from the air supply source to the interior of the ion source (Examiner notes that the disclosed valves of Horsky are capable of controlling the supply of the gases through their respective passages; See Fig. 2, valves along 435, and along branches therefrom to bottles; See also item 443; [0008]-[0009]; [0065]; [0094]-[0095]; [0110]), and the evacuation valve controls an evacuation of the reaction product from the interior of the ion source using the vacuum source (Examiner notes that the disclosed valves of Horsky are capable of controlling the flow of the gases through their respective passages; See Fig. 2, valve connected to item 420, or valves to items 421, 422).
Regarding claim 6, Horsky in view of Ray teaches the ion beam irradiation apparatus as recited in claim 5.
Horsky further teaches wherein the halogen gas source comprises a halogen gas supply line connected to the halogen gas supply passage (See Fig. 1, gas line connected to item 450, communicatively connected to passage to item 445 via valve; See also Fig. 2; See also item 443) and the air supply source comprises an air supply line connected to the air supply passage (See Fig. 1, gas line connected to item 455, communicatively connected to passage 430 via valve).
Regarding claim 7, Horsky in view of Ray teaches the ion beam irradiation apparatus as recited in claim 5.
Horsky in view of Ray further teaches wherein the halogen gas source comprises a halogen gas supply bottle (See Horsky: Fig. 2, items 443, 450; [0006]; [0009]; [0095]; Examiner notes that the gases disclosed include halogens) connected to the halogen gas supply passage (See Horsky: Fig. 2, showing item 450 connected to passages 430, 435, 440; Examiner notes that 465 is disclosed as also potentially delivering halogens in [0095], and is also connected to a passage that is communicatively connected to the vaporizer) and the air supply source comprises an air supply bottle connected to the air supply passage (See Horsky: Fig. 2, item 465; [0090]; [0094]-[0095]; Examiner notes that 455 is a reactive gas used for cleaning as discussed in [0094], which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to include gases which react with residual gases and/or deposits to clean the system; Additionally, item 465 is a cleaning feed gas supplied for cleaning the chamber, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to include gases which react with residual gases and/or deposits to clean the system; See Ray: Fig. 3, item 260, passage connected thereto; [0048]).
Regarding claim 17, Horsky in view of Ray teaches the ion beam irradiation apparatus as recited in claim 1.
Horsky does not explicitly teach further comprising a thermometer that measures a temperature of the plasma generation container (Emphasis added by Examiner).
However, as discussed in regards to claim 2, Horsky discloses a temperature sensor that measures a temperature of the plasma generation container. An ordinarily skilled artisan would understand a temperature sensor and a thermometer to be functional equivalents, and obvious variants from within the group of typical temperature measuring instruments (additionally including, e.g., temperature transducers, thermocouples, thermography, IR sensors, etc.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Horsky to explicitly include further comprising a thermometer that measures a temperature of the plasma generation container (Emphasis added by Examiner).
Doing so represents simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, because the type of temperature measuring device is the only difference between the disclosure of Horsky and the requirements of the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of both temperature sensors and thermometers and their functionality, and would be able to substitute one for the other with a reasonable expectation of success, as each would allow functionally equivalent temperature sensing capabilities.
Regarding claim 18, Horsky in view of Ray teaches the ion beam irradiation apparatus as recited in claim 1.
Horsky does not explicitly teach further comprising a thermocouple that measures a temperature of the plasma generation container (Emphasis added by Examiner).
However, as discussed in regards to claim 2, Horsky discloses a temperature sensor that measures a temperature of the plasma generation container. An ordinarily skilled artisan would understand a temperature sensor and a thermocouple to be functional equivalents, and obvious variants from within the group of typical temperature measuring instruments (additionally including, e.g., temperature transducers, thermometers, thermography, IR sensors, etc.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Horsky to explicitly include further comprising a thermocouple that measures a temperature of the plasma generation container (Emphasis added by Examiner).
Doing so represents simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, because the type of temperature measuring device is the only difference between the disclosure of Horsky and the requirements of the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of both temperature sensors and thermocouples and their functionality, and would be able to substitute one for the other with a reasonable expectation of success, as each would allow functionally equivalent temperature sensing capabilities.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horsky (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20060097645 A1) in view of Ray (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090294698 A1) and Horsky’803 (WIPO Doc. No. WO 0243803 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Horsky in view of Ray teaches the ion beam irradiation apparatus as recited in claim 1.
Horsky further teaches comprising a nitrogen supply passage that is fluidly connected to the interior of the ion source and to a [gas] supply source (See Fig. 2, items 430, 435, 440, each fluidly connected to an interior of the ion source, and connected to a gas source; [0095]),
wherein the ion beam irradiation apparatus is configured to allow nitrogen from the nitrogen supply source to circulate within the ion source to cool the plasma generation container (See Fig. 2, items 430, 435, 440, each fluidly connected to an interior of the ion source and to the plasma generation container 455; Examiner notes that the BRI of such a limitation in an apparatus claim is the apparatus be capable of allowing nitrogen from a source to circulate within the ion source to cool the plasma generation container; These passages are capable of flowing nitrogen to cool the plasma generation container, given a connection to a nitrogen source (e.g., if container 450 held nitrogen), as flowing nitrogen (of a proper temperature) will naturally cool items it comes into contact with, as is common in the art, often using liquid nitrogen; [0095]; In other words, the structure disclosed by Horsky is inherently capable of the claimed functionality given a proper source).
Horsky does not explicitly teach comprising a nitrogen supply passage that is fluidly connected to the interior of the ion source and to a nitrogen supply source (Emphasis added by Examiner).
However, the use of nitrogen as a cooling liquid/gas is well represented across various arts and one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of such techniques.
Nevertheless, Horsky’803 teaches comprising a nitrogen supply passage that is fluidly connected to the interior of the ion source and to a nitrogen supply source (Detailed Description, Ion Implantation Sources, Paragraphs 1, 4, 8-9, discussing conventional ion source technology).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Horsky to include comprising a nitrogen supply passage that is fluidly connected to the interior of the ion source and to a nitrogen supply source, as taught by Horsky’803.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use a typical process gas/fluid in its conventional fashion.
For completeness, Examiner notes that the prior art of record Takeuchi (provided via the IDS dated 07/17/2023) also specifically discloses a nitrogen supply passage through which nitrogen is supplied to the plasma generation container (See Fig. 1).
Claims 8, 10-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi (JPO Doc. No. JPH 07326320 A) in view of Hong (CNIPA Doc. No. CN 110660706 A).
Regarding claim 8, Takeuchi teaches a method comprising:
after stopping an ion beam producing operation of an ion beam irradiation apparatus that uses halogen gas to produce an ion beam ([0008]-[0010]):
performing a halogen gas reducing operation that reduces a concentration of the halogen gas in the ion beam irradiation apparatus ([0008]-[0010]; [0017]-[0025]; Examiner notes that the steps described reduce the halogen concentration) by performing one or more times both of supplying [cleaning gas] to the ion beam irradiation apparatus and evacuating the ion beam irradiation apparatus ([0017]-[0025]); and
[cleaning gas] to the ion beam irradiation apparatus ([0017]-[0025]).
Takeuchi does not explicitly teach the use of air as a cleaning gas to remove residual halogens via a reaction with air, and additionally does not explicitly disclose the cleaning gas supply step being performed before and after the evacuation, but Takeuchi notes that the order of cleaning gas supply and evacuation is not limited to the order explicitly disclosed therein, and additionally discloses potentially bringing the system to atmospheric pressure via the nitrogen cleaning gas simultaneously with evacuation.
Hong teaches the use of air, including mixtures of clean dry air and water vapor, to remove residual halogen from an element previously exposed to halogen process gas (Detailed Description, Paragraphs 18-24, 34-40), which would inherently reduce halogen concentration in the case of the above disclosed cleaning gases, and discloses the use of a gas sensor in the system to detect halogen gas levels while passing the cleaning gas to allow one to adjust the flow of the cleaning gas as necessary to ensure proper removal thereof (Detailed Description, Paragraphs 34-40). Examiner interprets adjusting the flow of the cleaning gas as functionally equivalent to supplying air twice, as the air supply is performed with different conditions. Examiner additionally notes that Hong discloses the cleaning gases C1 and C2 as potentially being the same, and in such a case, the application of one and the other could be interpreted as plural applications of the cleaning gas. Each could reasonably read on both a halogen gas reducing step, and as a pressure change operation, as both functions occur by the supply of cleaning gas.
It is Examiner’s opinion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeuchi with the techniques of Hong to use air as a cleaning gas, and to monitor and adjust the flow of the cleaning gas based on the level of halogen sensed in the chamber in order to achieve
…performing one or more times both of supplying air to the ion beam irradiation apparatus and evacuating the ion beam irradiation apparatus; and after performing the halogen gas reducing operation, performing a pressure change operation by supplying air to the ion beam irradiation apparatus again to bring an inside of the ion beam irradiation apparatus to an atmospheric pressure (Emphasis added by Examiner), as taught by the combination of Takeuchi and Hong.
Doing so represents combining known prior art techniques according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to ensure that the cleaning gas of Takeuchi sufficiently removes the residual halogens via the technique used in Hong.
Examiner notes that while Hong pertains to a slightly different technological application, i.e., cleaning a processed item rather than the chamber itself, the cleaning process is equivalent, as the cleaning process is applied to ensure residual halogens are not present to prevent potential hazards therefrom upon removal from the chamber.
Regarding claim 10, Takeuchi teaches a method comprising:
stopping a supply of halogen gas to a vaporizer in a vacuum chamber of an ion beam irradiation apparatus ([0008]-[0010]; Examiner interprets this limitation as inherent in view of the disclosure of these paragraphs, as the supply of the halogen gas discussed in [0009] is necessarily stopped prior to the maintenance discussed);
performing a halogen gas reducing operation that reduces a concentration of the halogen gas in the vacuum chamber ([0017]-[0025]), the halogen gas reducing operation including:
performing an [cleaning gas] supply step in which [cleaning gas] is supplied to the vacuum chamber such that the [cleaning gas] reacts with the halogen gas to produce a reaction product ([0017]-[0025]; Interaction of cleaning gas and residual halogens has some reaction, physical or chemical); and
performing an evacuation step in which the reaction product is evacuated from the vacuum chamber ([0017]-[0025]); and
performing a pressure change operation by performing the air supply step ([0017]-[0025]).
Takeuchi does not explicitly teach the use of air as a cleaning gas to remove residual halogens via a reaction with air, and additionally does not explicitly disclose the cleaning gas supply step being performed before and after the evacuation, but notes that the order of cleaning gas supply and evacuation is not limited to the order explicitly disclosed therein, and additionally discloses potentially bringing the system to atmospheric pressure via the nitrogen cleaning gas simultaneously with evacuation.
Hong teaches the use of air, including mixtures of clean dry air and water vapor, to remove residual halogen from an element previously exposed to halogen process gas (Detailed Description, Paragraphs 18-24, 34-40), which would inherently produce reaction products in the case of the above disclosed cleaning gases, and discloses the use of a gas sensor in the system to detect halogen gas levels while passing the cleaning gas to allow one to adjust the flow of the cleaning gas as necessary to ensure proper removal thereof (Detailed Description, Paragraphs 34-40). Examiner interprets adjusting the flow of the cleaning gas as functionally equivalent to ‘performing the air supply step again’ (Emphasis added by Examiner), as the air supply is performed with different conditions. Examiner additionally notes that Hong discloses the cleaning gases C1 and C2 as potentially being the same, and in such a case, the application of one and the other could be interpreted as plural applications of the cleaning gas.
It is Examiner’s opinion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeuchi with the techniques of Hong to use air as a cleaning gas, and to monitor and adjust the flow of the cleaning gas based on the level of halogen sensed in the chamber in order to achieve performing an air supply step in which air is supplied to the vacuum chamber such that the air reacts with the halogen gas to produce a reaction product; and…performing a pressure change operation by performing the air supply step again to bring the vacuum chamber from a vacuum to an atmospheric pressure (Emphases added by Examiner), as taught by the combination of Takeuchi and Hong.
Doing so represents combining known prior art techniques according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to ensure that the cleaning gas of Takeuchi sufficiently removes the residual halogens via the technique used in Hong.
Examiner notes that while Hong pertains to a slightly different technological application, i.e., cleaning a processed item rather than the chamber itself, the cleaning process is equivalent, as the cleaning process is applied to ensure residual halogens are not present to prevent potential hazards therefrom upon removal from the chamber.
Regarding claim 11, Takeuchi in view of Hong teaches the method as recited in claim 10.
Takeuchi in view of Hong does not explicitly teach wherein before performing the pressure change operation, both the air supply step and the evacuation step are performed a plurality of times.
However, Hong discloses monitoring the level of residual halogens in order to adjust the cleaning gas applied to remove the residual halogens, and one of ordinary skill in the art could readily apply this technique until the residual halogen levels are sufficiently low, including via repetition of the technique. Furthermore, these limitations amount to a mere duplication of disclosed method steps.
As such, it is Examiner’s opinion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeuchi in view of Hong to include wherein before performing the pressure change operation, both the air supply step and the evacuation step are performed a plurality of times.
Doing so would allow one ensure sufficient removal of halogens using the disclosed monitor technique of Hong in the same manner via a mere duplication of disclosed method steps. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by the teachings of Hong to monitor the halogen levels and continue the removal thereof until levels are sufficiently low.
Regarding claim 12, Takeuchi in view of Hong teaches the method as recited in claim 10.
Hong further teaches further comprising waiting for a period of time between the air supply step and the evacuation step ([0038]-[0039]; Examiner notes these portions disclose evacuating released halogens after their release from the substrate, which occurs either via reaction with a reactive gas or via irradiation, which Examiner interprets as waiting for a period of time between the supply step and the evacuation step).
Regarding claim 13, Takeuchi in view of Hong teaches the method as recited in claim 10.
Takeuchi does not explicitly teach further comprising waiting for a period of time between stopping the supply of halogen gas and performing the halogen gas reducing operation.
However, some time would inherently elapse in the system of Takeuchi between stopping the supply of the halogen and the supply of the cleaning gas, which Examiner believes would read on ‘waiting for a period of time’, as no specifics are required about the waiting period, and thus any period of time elapsing would inherently read on the limitation.
Nevertheless, Hong also discloses transferring a substrate after processing with a halogen process gas to a chamber wherein a gas detector measures for halogens, which occurs prior to supplying the cleaning gas ([0033]-[0035]). Examiner interprets this period of time as reading on waiting for a period of time between stopping the supply of the halogen gas and performing the air supply step.
Regarding claim 16, Takeuchi in view of Hong teaches the method as recited in claim 10.
Takeuchi further teaches further comprising supplying nitrogen to a plasma generation container of the ion beam irradiation apparatus (See Fig. 1; [0005]).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi (JPO Doc. No. JPH 07326320 A) in view of Hong (CNIPA Doc. No. CN 110660706 A) and Horsky (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20060097645 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Takeuchi in view of Hong teaches the method as recited in claim 8.
Takeuchi in view of Hong further teaches wherein the performing the halogen gas reducing operation reduces the concentration of the halogen gas in an inside of a vacuum chamber of the ion beam irradiation apparatus (See Takeuchi: [0004]-[0005]; [0008]-[0010]; [0017]-[0025])
wherein the performing the pressure change operation brings the inside of the vacuum chamber from a vacuum to the atmospheric pressure (Takeuchi: [0017]-[0025]; Hong: Detailed Description, Paragraphs 18-24, 34-40).
Takeuchi in view of Hong does not explicitly teach the ion beam irradiation apparatus that includes a plasma generation container and a vaporizer having a crucible (Emphasis added by Examiner).
However, Examiner notes that Takeuchi merely lacks disclosure of the details of the particular ion beam irradiation apparatus, and rather pertains to the technique of cleaning the system. One of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of typical systems utilizing halogen gas reacting with metal present in a crucible vaporizer to provide a source gas to generate a plasma for creating ion beams, such as with plasma generation electrodes, or functional equivalents, e.g., electron beams, other plasma generation means.
Nevertheless, Horsky teaches the ion beam irradiation apparatus that includes a plasma generation container and a vaporizer having a crucible (See Fig. 2, item 455, 445; See Fig. 8; [0095]; [0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeuchi to include the ion beam irradiation apparatus that includes a plasma generation container and a vaporizer having a crucible, as disclosed by Horsky.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow the combined techniques of Takeuchi and Hong to be applied to a particular type of ion beam source that is found in the prior art and that can be similarly cleaned of potentially hazardous residual halogens.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi (JPO Doc. No. JPH 07326320 A) in view of Hong (CNIPA Doc. No. CN 110660706 A) and Toshiaki (KIPO Doc. No. KR 20030091051 A).
Regarding claim 15, Takeuchi in view of Hong teaches the method as recited in claim 10.
Takeuchi does not explicitly teach further comprising cooling a plasma generation container of the ion beam irradiation apparatus with a coolant.
However, cooling a plasma generation container/chamber with a coolant is well represented in the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised thereof.
Nevertheless, Toshiaki teaches further comprising cooling a plasma generation container of the ion beam irradiation apparatus with a coolant (See Fig. 1, item 44 bringing coolant for cooling container 6; [0028]-[0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeuchi to include further comprising cooling a plasma generation container of the ion beam irradiation apparatus with a coolant, as taught by Toshiaki.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to maintain a desired temperature of the plasma chamber, in a manner typical in the art.
See also: Horsky’803, which discloses cooling a vaporizer and discloses temperature controlling a source mounting flange and source block, as well as cooling a plasma generation container with water and/or nitrogen gas cooling in the discussion of conventional ion source technology.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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 14, while the prior art discloses monitoring the temperature of a plasma generation container, including monitoring a temperature thereof for a threshold value, and separately discloses an air supply step, it fails to specifically disclose measuring such a temperature and subsequently waiting for the temperature of a plasma generation container to be less than a threshold before performing an air supply step. This would allow the potentially hazardous reaction products between residual halogens and the supplied air to be limited to certain temperature ranges, and would limit such reactions from being in more hazardous temperature ranges. Furthermore, it is Examiner’s opinion that it would not be obvious to modify the prior art disclosures to achieve such functionality without some prior art provided teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so, which was not found in the prior art of record and that searched.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Horsky’ (WO 2005059942 A2), which is incorporated by reference in Horsky, referenced above as ‘International Patent Application No. PCT/US2004/041525’.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 H 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881 /MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights