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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 12/22/2025 have been entered. Claims 17-19 have been added. Claims 1-19 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 10/28/2025, hereinafter NFOA1028.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in NFOA1028.
In regards to Applicant’s remarks regarding claim interpretation, it is unclear how Applicant’s inclusion of new claims are intended to avoid the means plus function interpretation adopted for the language recited in claim 2. Claims 17-18 do not invoke 112(f) interpretation, nor do they preclude 112(f) interpretation for claim 2. As indicated in NFOA1028: “If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Accordingly, claim 2 is interpreted as discussed in NFOA1028, and below.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth in NFOA1028. However, Applicant’s amendments to the claims have introduced additional indefiniteness issues. See below for further discussion.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s submission that the Hahto reference is disqualified as prior art under the 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) exception.
Applicant accordingly argues that the rejections that relied upon Hahto have been rendered moot. Examiner agrees that the previously presented rejections of NFOA1028 that relied upon Hahto have been rendered moot.
See below for detailed discussion of amended claim 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 indicated in NFOA1028, 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. See also discussion of claim 19 below, which is interpreted as not invoking means plus function interpretation for the reasons outlined below.
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].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-9 and 17-19 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 reaction between a halogen gas from the halogen gas supply passage and air from the air supply passage produces a reaction product and the reaction product exits through the evacuation passage to an outside of the ion beam irradiation apparatus”, 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. First, it is unclear whether the final clause includes a method step under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). The recited functions do not follow from the structures recited in the claim, i.e., the claim does not require a halogen gas source/supply, an air source/supply, or an element to evacuate a reaction product (e.g., a pump), 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. Additionally, it is unclear how a reaction product can be produced through a reaction between the halogen gas and the air if there is neither a halogen gas source nor an air source. 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. 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. To this end, Examiner notes that in order for a functionality to have patentable weight in an apparatus claim, there must be structure achieving that claimed functionality (i.e., via interconnectivity, communication, or positioning in this case) included in the claim. Claims to functionality on non-apparatus elements (i.e., the gases and reaction products, and mixing and removing thereof) without any specific claim requirements on the relative positioning/interconnectedness of the generic recited components of the system does not further limit those components (their structure or their positioning), or by extension the apparatus itself. At present, claim 1 is understood as requiring: an ion beam irradiation apparatus, including: (1) a plasma generation container capable of having a plasma generated therein, (2) a vaporizer connected to the plasma generation container, (3) a halogen gas supply passage (e.g. a gas supply passage capable of supplying halogen, without connectivity limitations), (4) an air supply passage (e.g. a gas supply passage capable of supplying air, without connectivity limitations), (5) an evacuation passage (e.g. a passage capable of evacuating, without connectivity limitation). It is Examiner’s opinion that, while the limitations of the last clause are indefinite as noted above, the BRI of the limitations includes some requirement that the halogen gas supply passage, the air supply passage, and the evacuation passage are in some way fluidically connected. However, as best understood and viewed under the BRI, the claim appears to indicate that the halogen gas, the air, and the reaction product are not elements of the apparatus, and are thus not required by the claim.
Examiner suggests rephrasing the desired functionality as capabilities of the system, including all required elements to achieve the functionality, e.g., ‘wherein the vaporizer is fluidically connected to a halogen gas source via the halogen gas supply passage and the plasma generation container is fluidically connected to an air source via the air supply passage, and wherein the plasma generation container is fluidically connected to an evacuation pump via the evacuation passage; and the ion beam irradiation apparatus is configured allow residual halogen gas in the vaporizer to react with air from the air supply passage to produce a reaction product therebetween, and wherein the ion beam irradiation apparatus is further configured to evacuate the reaction product to an outside of the ion beam irradiation apparatus via the evacuation passage using the evacuation pump’.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the nitrogen from the nitrogen supply passage circulates within the plasma generation container to cool the plasma generation container”, which is indefinite for similar reasons to claim 1 above, as it is unclear whether additional elements (e.g., a nitrogen source) are required to achieve such functionality. Additionally, ‘the nitrogen’ lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as requiring a nitrogen supply passage, understood as a fluid supply passage capable of supplying nitrogen that is in some way fluidically connected to the plasma generation container.
Claim 4 recites “wherein a coolant from the cooling passage circulates in the plasma generation container to cool the plasma generation chamber”, which is indefinite for similar reasons to claim 1 above, as it is unclear whether additional elements (e.g., a coolant source) are required to achieve such functionality. Additionally, ‘the plasma generation chamber’ lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as requiring a cooling passage, understood as a fluid supply passage capable of supplying a coolant that is in some way fluidically connected to the plasma generation container.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the halogen supply valve controls a supply of the halogen gas to the vaporizer, the air supply valve controls a supply of the air to the vacuum chamber, and the evacuation valve controls an evacuation of the reaction product from the vacuum chamber”, which is indefinite for similar reasons to claim 1 above, as it is unclear whether additional elements are required to achieve such functionality (e.g., sources and pump). The claim is similarly interpreted as only requiring the valves in the positions claimed previously in the claim, and being capable of controlling a flow of some kind therethrough.
Examiner again suggests rephrasing (for each of claims 3-5) the functionalities desired as capabilities in a similar manner to the example for claim 1 above, including all necessary structure and connectivity to achieve the capabilities, as the claims pertain to an apparatus.
While claim 8 is directed toward a method, it is indefinite for similar reasons to that of claim 1 because the method is for operating ‘an ion beam irradiation apparatus’, however, the ion beam irradiation apparatus recited in the preamble does not have the necessary structure to perform the method steps in the claim. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as requiring a halogen gas source/supply, an air source/supply, and an element to evacuate a reaction product (e.g., a pump).
Similarly, claim 9 is interpreted as requiring the required elements to achieve the functionality claimed (i.e., the elements recited above in regards to claim 8).
Claim 9 recites “the air” in two places, however, claim 8 refers to air being supplied at least two times (and potentially more), and as such it is unclear what recitation is being referred to in claim 9. Examiner believes the final two clauses of the claim are intended to further limit two of the method steps recited in claim 8, however, the claim language does not make this connection clearly. Additionally, the claim refers to “the inside” of the vacuum chamber, however, claim 8 only previously recites “an inside of the ion beam irradiation apparatus”, not specifically of the vacuum chamber, and thus ‘the inside’ lacks antecedent basis in claim 9. While claim 9 requires the ion beam irradiation apparatus comprises a vacuum chamber, the elements are nevertheless not the same element. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘wherein, in performing the one or more times both of supplying the air and evacuating the reaction product, the air is supplied to the vacuum chamber and the reaction product is evacuated from the vacuum chamber, and wherein, in supplying air again, the air is supplied again to bring an inside of the vacuum chamber from a vacuum to the atmospheric pressure.’.
Claim 19 recites “the halogen gas supply passage is configured to be connected to a halogen gas source for supplying the halogen gas to the vaporizer” and “the air supply passage is configured to be connected to an air source for supplying air to the vaporizer” and “the evacuation passage is configured to be connected to an evacuation system for evacuating the reaction product to the outside of the ion beam irradiation apparatus”, which are vague and indefinite because it is not clear what is required by the claim because the language is ambiguous. First, it is unclear whether each of the ‘for…’ clauses further limits the apparatus, or whether this is merely a recitation of intended use/using the apparatus in a particular way. Additionally, it is unclear what each of the ‘for…’ portions are intended to be linked to. For instance, it is unclear whether ‘for supplying the halogen gas to the vaporizer’ is intended to be linked to the ‘configured to be connected’ or ‘the halogen gas source’. In other words, it is unclear if ‘for supplying…’ is intended to limit the reason for the passage being configured to be connected to the source, or if ‘for supplying’ is intended to further specify the halogen gas source (which would also invoke 112(f) interpretation). E.g., it is unclear whether this portion should be read as ‘the halogen gas supply passage is configured to be connected to a halogen gas source, the halogen gas supply passage thereby facilitating supplying the halogen gas to the vaporizer’ or as ‘the halogen gas supply passage is configured to be connected to a halogen gas source, the halogen gas source for supplying the halogen gas to the vaporizer’ or as ‘the halogen gas supply passage is configured to be connected to a halogen gas source, the reason for connecting being to supply the halogen gas to the vaporizer’. Because of this ambiguity, it is also unclear whether this portion is intended to invoke 112(f) interpretation. Similar issues are present for the other two clauses as well. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as discussed for previous claims, as only requiring the physical connection: ‘the halogen gas supply passage is configured to be connected to a halogen gas source’ and ‘the air supply passage is configured to be connected to an air source’ and ‘the evacuation passage is configured to be connected to an evacuation system’, respectively; the latter portions (i.e., ‘for…’ portions) are interpreted as intended use. Examiner notes that this interpretation is taken in view of the fact that the vaporizer is not previously required to be connected to the halogen gas supply passage or the air supply passage, and the reaction product was previously interpreted as not being a part of the apparatus.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horsky (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20060097645 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Horsky teaches an ion beam irradiation apparatus (Title; Abstract; [0054]) comprising:
a plasma generation container in which plasma is generated (See Figs. 1 and 2, items 500; [0093]-[0094]);
a vaporizer connected to the plasma generation container (See Figs. 1 and 2, items 445; [0090]-[0091]; [0095]);
a halogen gas supply passage (See Figs. 1 and 2, passages connected to items 445, 450, or 455, each of which is capable of carrying a gas);
an air supply passage (See Figs. 1 and 2, passages connected to items 445, 450, or 455, each of which is capable of carrying a gas); and
an evacuation passage (See Figs. 1 and 2, passage connected to item 420),
wherein a reaction between a halogen gas from the halogen gas supply passage and air from the air supply passage produces a reaction product and the reaction product exits through the evacuation passage to an outside of the ion beam irradiation apparatus (Examiner notes that the halogen gas and the air are interpreted as not part of the apparatus, nor is the reaction therebetween or a reaction product therefrom; See Figs. 1 and 2, item 420, is in some manner fluidically connected with the equivalents of the halogen supply passage and the air supply passage, and thus the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Horsky 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 3, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Horsky teaches the ion beam irradiation apparatus as recited in claim 1.
Horsky further teaches comprising a nitrogen supply passage,
wherein the nitrogen from the nitrogen supply passage circulates within the plasma generation container to cool the plasma generation container (See Figs. 1 and 2, one of passages fluidically connected to the plasma generation container 500; Examiner notes that while Horsky does not explicitly disclose the passage being for nitrogen, the claim only requires the passage (see 112(b) discussion above), and the passages are capable of supplying nitrogen therethrough, and are fluidically coupled to the plasma generation container, and as such the requirements of the element are met).
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), and Horsky’803 (WIPO Doc. No. WO 0243803 A1) also discloses a nitrogen supply passage for cooling the plasma generation container (Detailed Description, Ion Implantation Sources, Paragraphs 1, 4, 8-9, discussing conventional ion source technology).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Horsky teaches the ion beam irradiation apparatus as recited in claim 1.
Horsky further teaches comprising a cooling passage,
wherein a coolant from the cooling passage circulates in the plasma generation container to cool the plasma generation chamber (See Figs. 1 and 2, one of passages fluidically connected to the plasma generation container 500; 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 plasma generation container, 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 plasma generation container (Detailed Description, Ion Implantation Sources, Paragraphs 1, 4, 8-9, discussing conventional ion source technology).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Horsky teaches the ion beam irradiation apparatus as recited in claim 1.
Horsky further teaches further comprising:
a vacuum chamber comprising the plasma generation container and the vaporizer (See Figs. 1 and 2, item 410; [0090]-[0095]);
a halogen supply valve in the halogen gas supply passage (See Fig. 1, each of the passages to items 420, 445, 450, 455 having a valve and similarly in Fig. 2, passages to items 420, 435, 450, 465, 466, having valves);
an air supply valve in the air supply passage (See Fig. 1, each of the passages to items 420, 445, 450, 455 having a valve and similarly in Fig. 2, passages to items 420, 435, 450, 465, 466, having valves); and
an evacuation valve in the evacuation passage (See Fig. 1, each of the passages to items 420, 445, 450, 455 having a valve and similarly in Fig. 2, passages to items 420, 435, 450, 465, 466, having valves),
wherein the halogen gas supply passage is communicatively connected to the vaporizer (See Fig. 1, with at least three passages communicatively connected to item 445; See also Fig. 2), the air supply passage is communicatively connected to the vacuum chamber (See Fig. 1, with at least three passages communicatively connected to item 410; See also Fig. 2), and the evacuation passage is communicatively connected to the vacuum chamber (See Fig. 1, passage from 420 communicatively connected to item 410; See also Fig. 2), and
wherein the halogen supply valve controls a supply of the halogen gas to the vaporizer (See Fig. 1, valve capable of controlling gas disposed on passages communicatively connected to item 445), the air supply valve controls a supply of the air to the vacuum chamber (See Fig. 1, valve capable of controlling gas disposed on passages communicatively connected to item 410), and the evacuation valve controls an evacuation of the reaction product from the vacuum chamber (See Fig. 1, valve capable of controlling flow disposed on passage communicatively connecting item 420 to item 410).
Examiner notes that Horsky does not explicitly disclose controlling the flow of halogen gas, air, and a reaction product therebetween, however, as discussed above, only the necessary structure is required by the claim under the BRI as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Horsky teaches the ion beam irradiation apparatus as recited in claim 5.
Horsky further teaches further comprising 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) and 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).
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 7 and 19 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 7, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Horsky teaches the ion beam irradiation apparatus as recited in claim 5.
Horsky further teaches further comprising a halogen gas supply bottle (See Fig. 1, item 450; [0006]; [0009]; [0090]; Examiner notes that the feed gases disclosed include halogens) connected to the halogen gas supply passage (See Fig. 1, showing item 450 connected to passage 441; Examiner notes that 455 is disclosed as also potentially delivering halogens in [0094], and is also connected to a passage that is communicatively connected to the vaporizer) and an [cleaning gas] supply bottle connected to the air supply passage (See Figs. 1 and 2, items 455 and 465, respectively; [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).
Horsky does not explicitly teach an air supply bottle connected to the air supply passage (Emphasis added by Examiner).
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 bottle connected to the air supply passage (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 bottle connected to the air supply passage (Emphasis added by Examiner), as taught by Ray.
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 19, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Horsky teaches the ion beam irradiation apparatus as recited in claim 1.
Horsky further teaches wherein:
the halogen gas supply passage is configured to be connected to a halogen gas source (See Figs. 1 and 2, items 450, 455 and passages connected thereto; [0006]; [0009]; [0094]) for supplying the halogen gas to the vaporizer (Interpreted as intended use; See 112(b) section above);
the air supply passage is configured to be connected to an [cleaning gas] source (See Figs. 1 and 2, items 455 and 465, respectively, and passages connected thereto; [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) for supplying air to the vaporizer (Interpreted as intended use; See 112(b) section above); and
the evacuation passage is configured to be connected to an evacuation system (See Figs. 1 and 2, item 420 and passage connected thereto) for evacuating the reaction product to the outside of the ion beam irradiation apparatus (Interpreted as intended use; See 112(b) section above).
Horsky does not explicitly teach the air supply passage is configured to be connected to an air source (Emphasis added by Examiner).
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 the air supply passage is configured to be connected to an air 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 the air supply passage is configured to be connected to an air source (Emphasis added by Examiner), as taught by Ray.
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.
Claims 8-9 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) and Horsky (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20060097645 A1).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Takeuchi teaches a method for an ion beam irradiation apparatus ([0001]) comprising a plasma generation container in which plasma is generated (See Fig. 2, items 2 and 4; [0003]-[0010]), passage ([0009]; Examiner notes that halogen containing ion source gas is supplied to ion source 2, which Examiner interprets as inherently disclosing a halogen gas supply passage), an [cleaning gas] supply passage (See Fig. 2, nitrogen supply passage upstream of item 10; [0005]), and an evacuation passage (See Fig. 1, items 26, 28, 30, 40, 42; [0005]; [0014]-[0023]), the method comprising:
after stopping an ion beam producing operation of the ion beam irradiation apparatus ([0008]-[0010]): performing one or more times both of supplying [cleaning gas] via the supply passage, [residual halogen] via the evacuation passage ([0017]-[0025]); and
supplying [cleaning gas] ([0017]-[0025]).
Examiner additionally notes that a cleaning gas source and ion source gas source are inherently disclosed in [0005] and [0009], and a pump is disclosed in [0004]-[0005] and [0015]-[0016].
Takeuchi does not explicitly teach a vaporizer connected to the plasma generation container and an air supply passage (Emphasis added by Examiner) and 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 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 ‘supplying air 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
after stopping an ion beam producing operation of the ion beam irradiation apparatus: performing one or more times both of supplying air via the air supply passage, the air reacting with a halogen gas in the vaporizer to produce a reaction product, and evacuating the reaction product via the evacuation passage; and supplying air 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.
Takeuchi in view of Hong does not explicitly teach a vaporizer connected to the plasma generation container.
However, Examiner notes that Takeuchi merely lacks disclosure of the details of the particular plasma generation system, and rather pertains to the technique of cleaning the ion generation 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 a vaporizer connected to the plasma generation container (See Figs. 1 and 2, item 445 connected to item 500; [0090]-[0095]).
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 a vaporizer connected to the plasma generation container, 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.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Takeuchi in view of Hong and Horsky teaches the method as recited in claim 8.
Takeuchi in view of Hong and Horsky further teaches wherein the ion beam irradiation apparatus further comprises a vacuum chamber including the plasma generation container and the vaporizer (Takeuchi: [0004]-[0005]; Horsky: See Figs. 1-2, item 500 in chamber 410), and
wherein the air is supplied to the vacuum chamber and the reaction product is evacuated from the vacuum chamber (Takeuchi: [0017]-[0025]; Hong: Detailed Description, Paragraphs 18-24, 34-40; See also: Horsky: [0090]-[0095], in particular regarding reactive gas and cleaning feed gas), and wherein the air is supplied again to bring the inside of the vacuum chamber from a vacuum to the atmospheric pressure (Takeuchi: [0017]-[0025]; Hong: Detailed Description, Paragraphs 18-24, 34-40).
As discussed in regards to claim 8, 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. As further discussed in regards to claim 8, Hong teaches such limitations as discussed above, and as such, the combination teaches each and every limitation of the claim.
Claims 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 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 an [cleaning gas] supply step in which [cleaning gas] is supplied to the vacuum chamber ([0017]-[0025]);
performing an evacuation step in which ([0017]-[0025]); and
performing the [cleaning gas] supply step [cleaning gas] is supplied to the vacuum chamber to bring the vacuum chamber from a vacuum to an atmospheric pressure ([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 stopping a supply of halogen gas to a vaporizer in a vacuum chamber of an ion beam irradiation apparatus; performing an air supply step in which air is supplied to the vacuum chamber; performing an evacuation step in which a reaction product between the air and residual halogen gas is evacuated from the vacuum chamber; and performing the air supply step again in which air is supplied to the vacuum chamber 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 air supply step again, 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 air supply step again, 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 air supply step.
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]).
Claim 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.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horsky (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20060097645 A1).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Horsky 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, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Horsky 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.
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’803 (WO 0243803 A1);
Horsky’096 (US 20050051096 A1);
Horsky’634 (US 6107634 A).
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 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