DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the election filed on January 12th, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 1-9 and 17-20 being directed to the elected invention.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group 1 in the reply filed on January 12th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 124 in fig. 1. Please amend the description to include a name for this object and, if necessary for understanding, a description of the general workings of and purpose for the inclusion of the element in the ion implanter.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “step for,” 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) use functional language without reciting sufficient acts to perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “predicting a set of control parameters and associated values for the ion implanter based on the set of process parameters and associated values by the inverted control model” in claims 1-9 and “configuring a component of the ion implanter based on the set of control parameters” in claim 9.
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 particular, “predicting a set of control parameters and associated values for the ion implanter based on the set of process parameters and associated values by the inverted control model” will be interpreted to mean the artificial neural network performs matrix calculations to backcast (“predict”) the hardware and software settings (“control parameters”) necessary to achieve the process parameters (desired beam properties); and “configuring a component of the ion implanter based on the set of control parameters” will be interpreted to mean adjusting the hardware and software settings (“control parameters”) to the values previously “predicted”.
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(b)
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 5 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 5 recites “a charge parameter”. It is unclear what this means. It is not a standard term in the art, nor it is defined in the specification. Charge is itself a parameter of an ion, but how this would relate to control of an ion implanter is unclear, nor is it clear what parameters would relate to the charge.
Claim 5 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 5 recites a control parameter for an ion implanter comprising “an energy parameter”. It is unclear what this means. The ion beam created by an ion implanter will have energy parameters, and the ion implanter has parameters the effect the energy of said beam, such as extraction voltage, acceleration voltage, etc. However, an ion implanter does not have any parameters that relate directly to energy.
Claim 5 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 5 recites “an acceleration or deceleration parameter”. It is unclear what this means. It is not a standard term in the art, nor it is defined in the specification. Examiner’s best guess is that it refers to a potential used to accelerate or decelerate an ion beam. If this is correct the rejection can be overcome by replacing the phrase “an acceleration or deceleration parameter” with the phrase “an acceleration or deceleration voltage”. The specification would also need to be amended to match.
Claim 5 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 5 recites “a dopant and flow parameter”. It is unclear what this means. It is not a standard term in the art, nor it is defined in the specification. Examiner’s best guess is that it refers to a parameter related to the flow of the dopant gas into the ion source, most likely the gas flow rate. If this is correct the rejection can be overcome by replacing the phrase “a dopant and flow parameter” with the phrase “a dopant gas flow rate”. The specification would also need to be amended to match.
Claim 5 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 5 recites “a diluent and flow parameter”. It is unclear what this means. It is not a standard term in the art, nor it is defined in the specification. Examiner’s best guess is that it refers to a parameter related to the flow of a diluent gas into the ion source, most likely the gas flow rate. If this is correct the rejection can be overcome by replacing the phrase “a diluent and flow parameter” with the phrase “a diluent gas flow rate”. The specification would also need to be amended to match.
Claim 5 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 5 recites “a source parameter”. It is unclear what the “source” is. Examiner’s best guess is that the “source” referred to is the ion source, though it may also refer a power source or a data source, both referred to throughout the specification. If examiner is correct the rejection can be overcome by replacing the phrase “a source parameter” with the phrase “an ion source parameter”.
Claim 5 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 5 recites “a corrector parameter”. It is unclear what the “corrector” is. As far as examiner can determine, the disclosure never describes a “corrector”, only referencing such an element in phrases like “corrector parameter” and “corrector current” without any disclosure of what a corrector is or what purpose it serves in the ion implanter. It is possible that this refers to an angle adjusting element, sometimes called an angle corrector in the art. However, examiner can find no mention of such a component in the specification. It is also possible applicant intends to claim the post-beam scanner collimator, sometimes referred to as a corrector magnet in the art. However, examiner can find no incidents of the specification referring to the collimator as a corrector or corrector magnet.
Claim 5 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 5 recites “a suppression parameter”. It is unclear what is being suppressed and by what, therefore the relevant parameters are unclear. The specification does not appear to mention suppression beyond the recitation of a “suppression parameter”, never defined.
Claim 5 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.
The term “a quadrupole lens current parameter” in claim 5 is used by the claim to mean “a quadrupole lens current,” while the accepted meaning is “a parameter associated with a quadrupole lens current.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. This rejection could be overcome by removing the word “parameter” at the end. In a similar manner, the term “a post-acceleration voltage parameter” is used by the claim to mean “a post-acceleration voltage,” while the accepted meaning is “a parameter associated with a post-acceleration voltage”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The suggested correction is the same.
Claim 7 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.
The term “a beam height parameter” in claim 7 is used by the claim to mean “a beam height,” while the accepted meaning is “a parameter associated with a beam height.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. This rejection could be overcome by removing the word “parameter” at the end. The same indefinite phrasing is used with multiple other parameters in the claim.
Claim 7 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 7 recites “full half height maximum (FHHM)”. It is unclear what this means. It is not a standard term in the art, nor it is defined in the specification. Examiner searched the patent database for the phrase and received only a handful of results, all applications by the same applicant, none of which define the term. Examiner also searched the internet using both Google and Bing, and received zero hits. Hence, the meaning of the phrase cannot be gleaned from the general state of the art.
Claim 7 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 7 recites “vertical within device angle (VWIDA)”. It is unclear what this means. It is not a standard term in the art, nor it is defined in the specification. Examiner searched the patent database for the phrase and received only a handful of results, all applications by the same applicant, none of which define the term. Examiner also searched the internet using both Google and Bing, and received zero hits. Hence, the meaning of the phrase cannot be gleaned from the general state of the art. Claim 7 later recites related parameters “a VWIDA mean (VWIDAM)”, “a horizontal within device angle (HWIDA)”, “a HWIDA mean (HWIDAM)”, “standard deviation of VWIDA”, and “standard deviation of HWIDA mean (HWIDA)”, all of which are indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 7 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 7 recites “a vacuum interface (VI) parameter” as a process parameter. It is unclear what a “vacuum interface” refers to in this context. The term “vacuum interface” is generally used in the art to refer to physical components that connect areas with different levels of pressure, at least one of which is a vacuum pressure. As per the specification, a process parameter generally corresponds to a beam property or a metric associated with a beam property, for an ion beam generated by the ion implanter. A physical connector has no clear connection to any beam property or metric.
Claim 7 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 7 recites “a width (full not half)”. Without a recitation to what is being measured, a recitation of a “width” is meaningless. Examiner would have assumed that applicant intended to recite a width of the beam, but the beam width is already recited in the same Markush grouping and therefore the “width (full not half)” must refer to something different. Examiner is unable to come up with any other possible interpretations.
Claim 7 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 7 recites “spotscore”. It is unclear what this means. It is not a standard term in the art, nor it is defined in the specification. Examiner searched the patent database for the term and, when the results were narrowed to those that include phrases associated with the art (“ion beam” or “ion implantation”), received only a handful of results, all applications by the same applicant, none of which define the term. Examiner also searched the internet using both Google and Bing, and received zero hits when combined with relevant phrasing. Hence, the meaning of the term cannot be gleaned from the general state of the art.
Claim 7 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 7 recites “a region of interest (ROI) current”. It is unclear what this means. It is not a standard term in the art, nor it is defined in the specification. A region of interest would seem to refer to a portion of the substrate, but how this relates to a current is unclear.
Claim 8 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 8 recites “a linear activation function to generate a continuous output value, the linear activation function comprising a rectified linear unit (ReLU) function, a leaky ReLU function, or a parametric ReLU function.” None of the three activation functions listed meet the standard definition of a linear activation function. The term “linear activation function” in claim 8 is used by the claim to mean “an activation function which is piecewise linear,” while the accepted meaning is “the identify function”, which is linear throughout the entire range with the same slope. See https://www.v7labs.com/blog/neural-networks-activation-functions (NPL included with this Office action) for the standard definitions of linear activation function and the three above listed functions, note that all three are specifically called out as non-linear. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 20 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 20 recites (whole claim) “The ion implanter of claim 17, the processing circuitry to configure the at least one beamline component of the ion implanter based on the set of control parameters.” Aside from the introductory clause, the claim consists entirely of a subject (“the processing circuitry”) and an infinitive clause (“to configure the at least one beamline component of the ion implanter based on the set of control parameters.”) without a verb (excepting those in the dependent clause). Therefore, the claim does not appear to claim anything. For the purposes of examination, examiner will assume applicant intends to the claim processing circuitry is configured to adjust a setting of at least one beamline component of the ion implanter to the values “predicted” by the method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claims are directed to a method of predicting a set of control parameters with a model, but the limitations relate to the datasets used to train the model. The claimed method proceeds identically whether the datasets used to train the model are the ones recited in claims 2 & 3 or some different training data. Hence, the claimed method is not further limited. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claims are directed to an ion implanter including circuitry with instructions to predict a set of control parameters using a model, but the limitation relates to the datasets used to train the model. The ion implanter, including the processing circuitry and instructions, are identical regardless of what data was used to train the control model. Hence the claimed ion implanter is not further limited. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of the mathematical concept type without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method with three steps; 1. receiving a set of process parameters and associated values (mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g)); 2. predicting a set of control parameters and associated values (mathematical calculations, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)); and 3. Displaying the control parameters (insignificant post-solutional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the predicted control parameters are never used to control, improve, or transform anything. They are merely displayed.
Regarding the dependent claims, claims 2-3 do not further limit the method, and furthermore relate only an additional abstract idea of mathematical type; claims 4-7 further specify the parameters, or input and output, which amounts to specifying a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); and claim 8 further limits the model used to perform the calculations, which is a field of use limitation. None of these integrate the method into a practical application, because none involve improving anything or make use of the predicted control parameters in any application.
It is suggested applicant amend by incorporating the subject matter of claim 9 into the independent claim, since claim 9 does integrate the judicial application into a practical application – the control of an ion implanter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0301817 (Takemura).
Regarding claim 17, Takemura et al. discloses an ion implanter, comprising:
an ion source to generate an ion beam (fig. 1, element 2);
at least one beamline component to direct the ion beam towards a substrate (fig. 1, elements 3-7);
a processing circuitry (fig. 1, elements 8-9); and
a memory communicatively coupled to the processing circuitry (“The control device 8 is a computer comprising at least one CPU, a memory, a display, and input means,” P 48), the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, causes the processing circuitry to:
receive a set of process parameters and associated values for the ion implanter by an inverted control model (“when the CPU and its peripherals are cooperatively operated according to control program code stored in the memory, execute the control program code to function as a recipe acceptance part 81,” P 48), the inverted control model comprising an artificial neural network (ANN) (“The machine learning part 92 is a function brought out by the aforementioned artificial intelligence feature, and is configured to update the above learning algorithm, based on supervised learning, unsupervised learning, reinforcement learning or deep learning, etc.” P 77, where it is understood that deep learning requires a neural network); and
predict a set of control parameters and associated values for the ion implanter based on the set of process parameters and associated values by the inverted control model (“The program code when executed by a computer, such as a central processing unit (CPU) or a microprocessor, may perform the functions of a control device to input at least a processing condition during new processing and a monitored value indicative of a state of at least one of the modules during processing just before the new processing to a trained machine learning algorithm and receive as an output from the trained machine learning algorithm an initial value of each basic operation parameter for controlling an operation of a respective one of the modules,” P 40).
Regarding claim 18, the claim does not further limit the ion implanter, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 17.
Regarding claim 20, Takemura discloses the ion implanter of claim 17, the processing circuitry to configure the at least one beamline component of the ion implanter based on the set of control parameters (“input the selected initial value to the respective one of the modules,” P 37).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0301817 (Takemura).
Regarding claim 1, Takemura et al. discloses a method, comprising:
receiving a set of process parameters and associated values for an ion implanter by an inverted control model (“The recipe includes a variety of information indicative of the quality of the ion beam IB generated by the ion beam irradiation apparatus 100 such as an ion species of dopant ions included in the ion beam IB, a beam energy of the ion beam IB, and/or a beam current of the ion beam IB.” P 50), the inverted control model comprising an artificial neural network (ANN) (“The machine learning part 92 is a function brought out by the aforementioned artificial intelligence feature, and is configured to update the above learning algorithm, based on supervised learning, unsupervised learning, reinforcement learning or deep learning, etc.” P 77, where it is understood that deep learning requires a neural network);
predicting a set of control parameters and associated values for the ion implanter based on the set of process parameters and associated values by the inverted control model (“The program code when executed by a computer, such as a central processing unit (CPU) or a microprocessor, may perform the functions of a control device to input at least a processing condition during new processing and a monitored value indicative of a state of at least one of the modules during processing just before the new processing to a trained machine learning algorithm and receive as an output from the trained machine learning algorithm an initial value of each basic operation parameter for controlling an operation of a respective one of the modules,” P 40);
Takemura does not disclose presenting the set of control parameters and associated values on a graphical user interface (GUI) of an electronic display. Takemura does disclose an electronic display (“The machine learning device 9 is a computer comprising at least one CPU, a memory, a display, input means, such as a keyboard, mouse, trackpad, touch screen display, etc., and an artificial intelligence feature.” P 68) and presenting values on such a display screen in a GUI is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to display the values in such a GUI so that the user could view them.
Regarding claims 2-3, these claims do not further limit the method, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Takemura et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each control parameter corresponds to a hardware or software setting that controls a configuration or operation of a component of the ion implanter (“Here, the basic parameter refers to a setting item used to control an operation of the respective one of the modules M, and is preliminarily set with respect to the respective one of the modules M.” P 51).
Regarding claim 5, Takemura et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each control parameter comprises a charge parameter, an energy parameter, an acceleration or deceleration parameter, a dopant and flow parameter, a diluent and flow parameter, a source parameter, an analyzer parameter, a corrector parameter, a suppression parameter, a focus parameter, a scan parameter, a quadrupole lens current parameter, or a post-acceleration voltage parameter (“Further, examples of the basic parameter set for the ion source system-module may include a flow rate of gas to be supplied to the plasma chamber; a supply current to be supplied to the source magnet; and/or an arc current.” P 54 and “Further, examples of the basic parameter set for the beam line electromagnetic field system-module may include a magnetic flux density of the mass separation magnet 3, a voltage to be applied to the acceleration tube 4, a magnetic flux density of the energy separation magnet 5, and/or a magnetic flux density of the beam parallelizing magnet 7.” P 58).
Regarding claim 6, Takemura et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each process parameter corresponds to a metric associated with a beam property for an ion beam generated by the ion implanter (“The recipe includes a variety of information indicative of the quality of the ion beam TB generated by the ion beam irradiation apparatus 100 such as an ion species of dopant ions included in the ion beam TB, the beam energy of the ion beam TB, and/or the beam current of the ion beam IB.” P 50).
Regarding claim 7, Takemura et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each process parameter comprises a beam height parameter, a beam width parameter, full half height maximum (FHIM) parameter, a vertical within device angle (VWIDA) parameter, a VWIDA mean (VWIDAM) parameter, a horizontal within device angle (HWIDA) parameter, a HWIDA mean (HWIDAM) parameter, a standard deviation of VWIDA (VWIDAS) parameter, a standard deviation of HWIDA mean (HWIDAS) parameter, a vacuum interface (VI) parameter, a width (full not half) parameter, a spotscore parameter, an energy parameter, a region of interest (ROI) current parameter, or a uniformity parameter (“The recipe includes a variety of information indicative of the quality of the ion beam TB generated by the ion beam irradiation apparatus 100 such as an ion species of dopant ions included in the ion beam TB, the beam energy of the ion beam TB, and/or the beam current of the ion beam IB.” P 50).
Regarding claim 9, Takemura et al. discloses the method of claim 1, comprising configuring a component of the ion implanter based on the set of control parameters (“input the selected initial value to the respective one of the modules,” P 37).
Claim(s) 8 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemura et al. as applied to claims 1 & 17 above, and further in view of https://www.v7labs.com/blog/neural-networks-activation-functions (Baheti).
Regarding claims 8 & 19, Takemura et al. discloses the claimed invention, wherein the inverted control model comprises a regression neural network comprising one input layer, one or more hidden layers, and an output layer, where each neuron in the one or more hidden layers performs computations on input data using an activation function to generate an output value (inherent in a deep learning neural network).
Takemura et al. does not disclose whether the activation function generates a continuous output value or whether the activation function comprising a rectified linear unit (ReLU) function, a leaky ReLU function, or a parametric ReLU function. Baheti discloses that each of these activation functions is known and generates a continuous output value (see sections titled ReLU function, Leaky ReLU, and Parametric ReLU function). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a rectified linear unit (ReLU) function for the unspecified activation function of Takemura because it is computationally efficient, as disclosed by Baheti (“Since only a certain number of neurons are activated, the ReLU function is far more computationally efficient when compared to the sigmoid and tanh functions.”). It would have been obvious to use a leaky ReLU function instead because this solves the dying ReLU problem, as disclosed by Baheti (“Leaky ReLU is an improved version of ReLU function to solve the Dying ReLU problem as it has a small positive slope in the negative area.”). Finally, it would have been obvious to use a parametric ReLU function to solve the problem of dead neurons, as disclosed by Baheti (“The parameterized ReLU function is used when the leaky ReLU function still fails at solving the problem of dead neurons, and the relevant information is not successfully passed to the next layer.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert 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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881