DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species E, Fig. 5 in the reply filed on 05/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5, 9-11, 15, 16 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/13/2026.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2021/0189533 to Hautala in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0158643 to Park.
In regards to Claim 1, Hautala teaches a plasma source 10 Fig. 4 comprising: a chamber housing 18 defining a plasma chamber (see plasma 16); and a plasma generator 36 to create a plasma 16 within the plasma chamber; wherein a first portion (portion of 20, 40) of the chamber housing includes a first extraction aperture 40 [0017-0036].
Hautala does not expressly teach a second portion of the chamber housing includes a second extraction aperture, wherein the first portion and the second portion are not coplanar, i.e., a duplication of the aperture.
Park teaches a plasma source 110 Fig. 5, 7 [0030] defining a plasma chamber 100 with a first portion (left side of 110) and a second portion (right side of 110) with a first extraction aperture in the first portion and a second extraction apertures in the second portion, the apertures being duplicated side by side along their lengths, the angles being between 30-150° as shown in Fig. 5 where the angles are split around 180° in thirds, the apertures being rotated for symmetrical ion irradiation [0028-0095].
PNG
media_image1.png
656
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to duplicate the apertures in Hautala, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). MPEP 2144.04 VI-B. As Park also teaches more than one aperture for a plasma source, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have duplicated the aperture in Hautala. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim, as by duplicating the apertures side by side along their length in Hautala, there would be another aperture around the plasma source chamber, which is cylindrically shaped, such that an additional aperture would not be coplanar, as it would have to fit around the cylindrical chamber.
In regards to Claim 2, Hautala in view of Park teach a first line perpendicular to the first portion and passing through the first extraction aperture and a second line perpendicular to the second portion and passing through the second extraction aperture intersect within the plasma chamber, as lines that fit perpendicularly around a cylinder would intersect through the center of the cylinder.
In regards to Claim 3, Hautala in view of Park wherein the first line and the second line form an angle of between 30 and 150 degrees, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above, as Park teaches the angle of the apertures is determined for the symmetric of the ion beam irradiation. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. As the teachings of Hautala in view of Park expressly teach the ranges as taught are result effective variables for symmetrical ion beam irradiation, such that the optimization is known within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, with an articulated rationale supporting the rejection, changing the ranges is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
See MPEP 2144.05 II. A, B. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
In regards to Claim 4, Hautala in view of Park teach a first line perpendicular to the first portion and passing through the first extraction aperture and a second line perpendicular to the second portion and passing through the second extraction aperture intersect within the plasma chamber, as lines that fit perpendicularly around a cylinder would intersect through the center of the cylinder.
In regards to Claim 8, Hautala teaches the chamber housing comprises a cylindrical body, wherein the first extraction aperture and the second extraction aperture are disposed on the cylindrical body, as shown in Fig. 4.
In regards to Claim 12, Hautala teaches a processing system Fig. 4, comprising: the plasma source of claim 1 (as per the rejection of Claim 1 and Hautala in view of Park); and a workpiece holder 22 [0019], movable in a scanning direction, 52 wherein a workpiece 24 disposed on the workpiece holder is exposed to particles or ions exiting 32 the first extraction aperture at some locations along the scanning direction, and is exposed to particles or ions exiting the second extraction aperture at other locations along the scanning direction (as per the combined teaches of the apertures which teach the scanning the substrate with two apertures).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2021/0189533 to Hautala in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0158643 to Park, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2022/0384138 to Noonan et al.
The teachings of Hautala in view of Park are relied as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 6, Hautala teaches an external plate 48 set outside of the apertures but used to collimate the ion beam/focus the ion beam but does not expressly teach a first external plate having a first electrode aperture disposed outside the plasma chamber proximate the first extraction aperture, and a second external plate having a second electrode aperture disposed outside the plasma chamber proximate the second extraction aperture, wherein the first external plate and the second external plate are negatively biased relative to the chamber housing using an electrode power supply so as to attract ions through the first extraction aperture and the second extraction aperture.
Noonan teaches a plasma source 204 with an aperture 216b with a first external plate 208 (an extractor electrode which collimates plasma electrons [0045-0046]) having a first electrode aperture 234 disposed outside the plasma chamber proximate the first extraction aperture 216b, the external plate being negatively biased relative to the chamber housing using an electrode power supply [0045-0047] so as to attract ions through the first extraction aperture and the second extraction aperture, [0027-0074].
Noonan teaches the focus region of the plasma can have a smaller diameter allowing for more precise plasma ion beams [0046].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Hautala with the generic collimator with the negative electrode collimator as per the teachings of Noonan. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of create a more focused plasma ion beam. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II.
In regards to Claim 7, Hautala in view of Park and Noonan does not expressly teach at least a second set of external plates, wherein the second set of external plates are disposed outside the first external plate and second external plate, respectively, and are biased at a different voltage than the first external plate and the second external plate.
However, Park teaches focusing electrodes 140, 142, 444 has powered electrodes with that form more than one set (first set and second set) that are biased, or powered by a positive voltage V1, a negative voltage V2, and a ground voltage V3, such that there are different biases for different sets of plates outside of the apertures [0033-0037], to thus further accelerate the ions towards the substrate.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modified the electrodes plates of Hautala in view of Park and Noonan, with the extra teachings of the electrodes of Park, by adding different sets of electrodes that are biased differently. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of further accelerating the ions. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2021/0189533 to Hautala in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0158643 to Park and United States Patent Application No. 2006/0289802 to Nakaya.
The teachings of Hautala in view of Park are relied as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 13, Hautala teaches a processing system Fig. 4, comprising: a plasma source 12, comprising: a chamber housing 18 including a cylindrical body [0018] and two ends that define a plasma chamber; a first extraction aperture 20, 40 disposed along the cylindrical body; and at least one antenna element (34a, 34b, antenna as they are plasma source electrodes) disposed within the plasma chamber to generate a plasma [0020]; a workpiece holder 22, movable in a scanning direction 52, wherein a workpiece 24 disposed on the workpiece holder is exposed to particles or ions 32, 48 exiting the first extraction aperture at some locations along the scanning direction [0017-0036].
Hautala does not expressly teach a second portion of the chamber housing includes a second extraction aperture.
Park teaches a plasma source 110 Fig. 5, 7 [0030] defining a plasma chamber 100 with a first portion (left side of 110) and a second portion (right side of 110) with a first extraction aperture in the first portion and a second extraction apertures in the second portion, the apertures being duplicated side by side along their lengths, the angles being between 30-150° as shown in Fig. 5 where the angles are split around 180° in thirds, the apertures being rotated for symmetrical ion irradiation [0028-0095].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to duplicate the apertures in Hautala, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). MPEP 2144.04 VI-B. As Park also teaches more than one aperture for a plasma source, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have duplicated the aperture in Hautala. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim, as by duplicating the apertures side by side along their length in Hautala, there would be another aperture around the plasma source chamber, which is cylindrically shaped.
Hautala does not expressly teach a scan motor, the scan motor allows the substrate is exposed to particles or ions exiting the second extraction aperture at other locations along the scanning direction.
Hautala does expressly teach that the workpiece holder moves in a scanning direction 52.
Nakaya teaches an ion beam irradiation apparatus wherein the substrate holder/workpiece holder 4 Fig. 1-4 is moved via linear motors 14 in X, Y and Z (a scan motor) directions and thus implicitly in a scanning direction underneath an ion beam 58 [0023-0026; Claims 1-4].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Hautala in view of Park, by substituting the workpiece holder with that Nakaya which expressly teaches a scan motor, as an art analogous structure for moving the workpiece holder. See MPEP 2143 Motivation B.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 14, Hautala in view of Park teach a first line perpendicular to the first portion and passing through the first extraction aperture and a second line perpendicular to the second portion and passing through the second extraction aperture intersect within the plasma chamber, as lines that fit perpendicularly around a cylinder would intersect through the center of the cylinder
Hautala in view of Park wherein the first line and the second line form an angle of between 30 and 150 degrees, as per the rejection of Claim 13 above, as Park teaches the angle of the apertures is determined for the symmetric of the ion beam irradiation. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. As the teachings of Hautala in view of Park expressly teach the ranges as taught are result effective variables for symmetrical ion beam irradiation, such that the optimization is known within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, with an articulated rationale supporting the rejection, changing the ranges is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
See MPEP 2144.05 II. A, B. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claim(s) 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2021/0189533 to Hautala in view of United States Patent Application No. 2018/0158643 to Park and United States Patent Application No. 2006/0289802 to Nakaya, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2022/0384138 to Noonan et al.
The teachings of Hautala in view of Park and Nakaya are relied as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 17, Hautala teaches an external plate 48 set outside of the apertures but used to collimate the ion beam/focus the ion beam but does not expressly teach a first external plate having a first electrode aperture disposed outside the plasma chamber proximate the first extraction aperture, and a second external plate having a second electrode aperture disposed outside the plasma chamber proximate the second extraction aperture, wherein the first external plate and the second external plate are negatively biased relative to the chamber housing using an electrode power supply so as to attract ions through the first extraction aperture and the second extraction aperture.
Noonan teaches a plasma source 204 with an aperture 216b with a first external plate 208 (an extractor electrode which collimates plasma electrons [0045-0046]) having a first electrode aperture 234 disposed outside the plasma chamber proximate the first extraction aperture 216b, the external plate being negatively biased relative to the chamber housing using an electrode power supply [0045-0047] so as to attract ions through the first extraction aperture and the second extraction aperture, [0027-0074].
Noonan teaches the focus region of the plasma can have a smaller diameter allowing for more precise plasma ion beams [0046].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Hautala in view of Park and Nakaya with the generic collimator with the negative electrode collimator as per the teachings of Noonan. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of create a more focused plasma ion beam. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II.
In regards to Claim 18, Hautala in view of Park and Nakaya and Noonan do not expressly teach at least a second set of external plates, wherein the second set of external plates are disposed outside the first external plate and second external plate, respectively, and are biased at a different voltage than the first external plate and the second external plate.
However, Park teaches focusing electrodes 140, 142, 444 has powered electrodes with that form more than one set (first set and second set) that are biased, or powered by a positive voltage V1, a negative voltage V2, and a ground voltage V3, such that there are different biases for different sets of plates outside of the apertures [0033-0037], to thus further accelerate the ions towards the substrate.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modified the electrodes plates of Hautala in view of Park and Nakaya and Noonan, with the extra teachings of the electrodes of Park, by adding different sets of electrodes that are biased differently. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of further accelerating the ions. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. United States Patent Application No. 2003/0205680 to Benveniste et al, which teaches a plasma ion source.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights