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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because Fig. 7 is not introduced in the ‘BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS” section.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 10, 12, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 7 and 16, “causes the ion beam to apply to a predetermined location…” should be “causes the ion beam to be applied to a predetermined location…”.
In claim 10, “one or more second power supply sources configured to generate one or more second potential” should be “one or more second power supply sources configured to generate one or more second potentials”.
In claim 12, “the one or more second power supply sources is” should be “the one or more second power supply sources are”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-12 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 11 recites “the accelerating potential to increase power of the ion beam; andthe decelerating potential to decrease power of the ion beam.” The phrase “power of the ion beam” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite because the claim does not define what “power” means in this context, how it is measured, or whether “power” refers to beam energy, beam current, beam flux, dose rate, or another parameter. This ambiguity prevents one of ordinary skill in the art from determining the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty. Further, the specification uses the term “power” inconsistently with other beam parameters, and does not provide a clear definition of “power of the ion beam”, which increases the ambiguity of the claim scope. Accordingly, claim 11 is indefinite.
In addition, claim 11 recites the limitations “second power potentials” and “second current sources”. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0020399 A1 [hereinafter Likhanskii] in view of US 2001/0042836 A1 [hereinafter Olson], and further in view of US 4929840 A [hereinafter Dykstra].
Regarding Claim 1:
Likhanskii teaches an ion implantation apparatus (Abstract: an ion implantation system), comprising:
an ion source (Fig. 1 -14) configured to generate an ion beam (Fig. 1-18) directed at a substrate positioned on a platen (paras. [0017-0018]): “an ion source 14 for producing an ion beam 18...may be directed toward a substrate mounted on a platen”);
a first power supply source configured to generate a powering potential to power the ion source (para. [0024]: “the ion source 14 may be coupled to a targeted voltage”, (i.e., “a first power supply source) and “to generate a targeted ion energy for ions”;
one or more second power supply sources configured to generate an accelerating potential or a decelerating potential, the accelerating potential or the decelerating potential is configured to affect generation of the ion beam by the ion source for application to the substrate (paras. [0024-0025]: “to process the substrate, the ion beam 18 may be accelerated to acquire a target energy by establishing a voltage (potential) difference between the ion source 14 and the wafer.... More specifically, the ion source 14 may be biased at a +120 kV potential, while beamline components 16, such as ... the first acceleration or deceleration stage 36... may be biased at +60 kV);
an energy filter (Fig. 1-40) positioned in a path of the ion beam between the ion source and the substrate (para. [0018]: the energy filter (EF40) located in the beam path);
However, Likhanskii does not specifically note a does compensation controller and operating steps may be performed by that controller as claimed.
Olson teaches a does compensation controller configured to (para. [0029]: ion source controller 100):
determine a first current value based on the powering potential powering the ion source (paras. [0031-0032]: determine beam current
I
E
while the ion source is powered/bias driven – “The ion source controller 100 may receive…a current sense signal which is representative of extraction current
I
E
supplied by extraction power supply 80... The electrical extraction current
I
E
…
corresponds to the beam current in ion beam 74.” “The output of the PID loop may be fed… to arc power supply, bias power supply, and filament power supply… to maintain the extraction current
I
E
)”.
As such, Likhanskii in view of Olson teaches:
determine a second current value based on the accelerating potential or the decelerating potential (Likhanskii para. [0025]: acceleration/deceleration stage 36 is biased at a defined potential – “first acceleration or deceleration stage 36… may be biased at +60 kV…” relative to the wafer at 0 V; Olson paras. [0031-0032]: determine beam current
I
E
via current sense signal representative of supply current – “current sense signal… representative of extraction current
I
E
supplied by extraction power supply… corresponds to the beam current”), and thus determine beam current
I
E
(beam-current proxy) while the acceleration/deceleration potential is applied to the acceleration/deceleration stage);
determine one or more energy filter supply current values based on one or more energy filter supply potentials supplied to the energy filter (Likhanskii paras. [0022 and 0030]: energy filter power supply provides both voltage (potential) and current to the energy filter electrodes/beam optics – “The EF 40 may be configured to independently control deflection, acceleration, deceleration, and focus of the ion beam 18,” and electrostatic lens (energy filter) 40 includes a power supply 76, which “supplies a voltage and a current to the EF 40”; Olson paras. [0031-0032]: controller receives a “current sense signal… representative of … current supplied by [a] power supply,” thereby “determining” the energy filter supply current values by sensing the energy filter power supply current while applying the energy filter electrode potentials).
Likhanskii teaches an ion implantation beamline including an acceleration/deceleration stage and an energy filter positioned in the beam path, where the system operates using defined bias potentials along the beam path (e.g., stage 36 biased at +60 kV, wafer at 0 V), and where the energy filter includes a power supply supplying current to the conductive beam optics/electrodes that control beam deflection/acceleration/deceleration/focus. Olson teaches determining a current value associated with an applied power supply potential by using a current sense signal representative of a power supply current, and further teaches that the sensed supply current corresponds to beam current (beam-current proxy). Thus, Olson provides explicit support for “determining” current values based on applied power supply potentials using supply-current sensing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Olson’s current-sense monitoring technique into the ion implantation system of Likhanskii in order to determine current values associated with beamline power supply potentials (including accel/decel stage potentials and energy filter electrode potentials) for use in feedback control and compensation. Accordingly, a POSITA would have been motivated to monitor/sense the output current of the accel/decel stage power supply and the energy filter power supply in Likhanskii while applying their respective electrode potentials, because such current monitoring is a known and predictable way to provide beam-related feedback information, improve implant process stability, detect abnormal beamline loading, and enhance closed-loop compensation/control during implantation.
The combined references of Likhanskii and Olson do not specifically note that generate, based on the first and second current values and the one or more energy filter supply current values, one or more platen position values; and cause adjustment of a position of the platen in the path of the ion beam using the one or more platen position values.
Dykstra teaches generate, based on the first and second current values and the one or more energy filter supply current values, one or more platen position values (Abstract and Col. 1, Lls. 57-58; Col. 4, Lls19-27: teaches generating platen position step values based on beam current/dose feedback (beam-current proxy), and further explains that each rotation step is “clocked by the measured dose increment” and “controlled in relation to the beam current” which is derived from a Faraday cup beam current signal, and when the incremental dose reaches the calculated dose per step, the controller outputs a command to move the platen by one step); and
cause adjustment of a position of the platen in the path of the ion beam using the one or more platen position values (Abstract and Col. 4, Lls. 1-5 and 19-27: teaches a stepper motor controller causes adjustment of platen position by driving a stepper motor to rotate the wafer/platen one step; Specifically, when the incremental accumulated dose equals the dose per step, the controller provides “a signal … to rotate the wafer one step”).
Dykstra teaches a wafer mounted on a platen and controlling platen position using beam current/dose feedback from a Faraday cup signal, where the controller determines dose per step and commands the platen to rotate one step when the incremental accumulated dose reaches the threshold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Dykstra’s platen stepping control into the implantation system of the combined references of Likhanskii and Olson because doing so provides a closed-loop implant process control in which platen position is adjusted in response to measured beam conditions, thereby enabling more uniform dose distribution across the wafer, reducing local over-implantation/under-implantation, and improving repeatability of implantation across a processing run. Further, incorporating Dykstra into Likhanskii is a predictable substitution of one known wafer positioning technique into another ion implantation system, and Olson provides explicit determination of current values associated with applied beamline potentials (including accel/decel and energy filter supply potentials) so that such current values can be used as beam-current proxies to trigger or refine platen position step values during implantation. Accordingly, the combined system improves implant dose uniformity and beam/process stability by using beam-related current feedback to control platen motion while implanting the substrate.
Regarding Claim 10:
Likhanskii teaches an ion implantation system (Abstract: an ion implantation system), comprising:
an ion source (Fig. 1 -14) configured to generate an ion beam (Fig. 1-18) directed at a substrate positioned on a platen (paras. [0017-0018]): “an ion source 14 for producing an ion beam 18...may be directed toward a substrate mounted on a platen”);
a first power supply source configured to generate a powering potential to power the ion source (para. [0024]: “the ion source 14 may be coupled to a targeted voltage”, (i.e., “a first power supply source) and “to generate a targeted ion energy for ions”;
one or more second power supply sources configured to generate one or more second potential, the one or more second potentials are configured to affect generation of the ion beam by the ion source for application to the substrate (paras. [0024-0025]: “to process the substrate, the ion beam 18 may be accelerated to acquire a target energy by establishing a voltage (potential) difference between the ion source 14 and the wafer.... More specifically, the ion source 14 may be biased at a +120 kV potential, while beamline components 16, such as ... the first acceleration or deceleration stage 36... may be biased at +60 kV);
an energy filter (Fig. 1-40) positioned in a path of the ion beam between the ion source and the substrate (para. [0018]: the energy filter (EF40) located in the beam path).
However, Likhanskii does not specifically note a first and second current values are determined based on potentials, at least one processor and functions may be performed by that processor as claimed.
Olson teaches wherein a first current value is determined based on the powering potential (paras. [0031-0032]: determine beam current
I
E
while the ion source is powered/bias driven – “The ion source controller 100 may receive…a current sense signal which is representative of extraction current
I
E
supplied by extraction power supply 80... The electrical extraction current
I
E
…
corresponds to the beam current in ion beam 74.” “The output of the PID loop may be fed… to arc power supply, bias power supply, and filament power supply… to maintain the extraction current
I
E
)”.
at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory storage media storing instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to… (para. [0029]: ion source controller 100 which may be a programmed controller. Since the controller is configured to receive beam current/does signal and general control signals to adjust platen motion, such a controller inherently includes one or more processors and associated non-transitory memory storing program instruction executable by the processor to perform the described control operations.).
As such, Likhanskii in view of Olson teaches:
wherein a second current value is determined based on the one or more second potentials (Likhanskii para. [0025]: acceleration/deceleration stage 36 is biased at a defined potential – “first acceleration or deceleration stage 36… may be biased at +60 kV…” relative to the wafer at 0 V; Olson paras. [0031-0032]: determine beam current
I
E
via current sense signal representative of supply current – “current sense signal… representative of extraction current
I
E
supplied by extraction power supply… corresponds to the beam current”), and thus determine beam current
I
E
(beam-current proxy) while the acceleration/deceleration potential is applied to the acceleration/deceleration stage);
determine one or more energy filter supply current values based on one or more energy filter supply potentials supplied to the energy filter (Likhanskii paras. [0022 and 0030]: energy filter power supply provides both voltage (potential) and current to the energy filter electrodes/beam optics – “The EF 40 may be configured to independently control deflection, acceleration, deceleration, and focus of the ion beam 18,” and electrostatic lens (energy filter) 40 includes a power supply 76, which “supplies a voltage and a current to the EF 40”; Olson paras. [0031-0032]: controller receives a “current sense signal… representative of … current supplied by [a] power supply,” thereby “determining” the energy filter supply current values by sensing the energy filter power supply current while applying the energy filter electrode potentials).
Likhanskii teaches an ion implantation beamline including an acceleration/deceleration stage and an energy filter positioned in the beam path, where the system operates using defined bias potentials along the beam path (e.g., stage 36 biased at +60 kV, wafer at 0 V), and where the energy filter includes a power supply supplying current to the conductive beam optics/electrodes that control beam deflection/acceleration/deceleration/focus. Olson teaches determining a current value associated with an applied power supply potential by using a current sense signal representative of a power supply current, and further teaches that the sensed supply current corresponds to beam current (beam-current proxy). Thus, Olson provides explicit support for “determining” current values based on applied power supply potentials using supply-current sensing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Olson’s current-sense monitoring technique into the ion implantation system of Likhanskii in order to determine current values associated with beamline power supply potentials (including accel/decel stage potentials and energy filter electrode potentials) for use in feedback control and compensation. Accordingly, a POSITA would have been motivated to monitor/sense the output current of the accel/decel stage power supply and the energy filter power supply in Likhanskii while applying their respective electrode potentials, because such current monitoring is a known and predictable way to provide beam-related feedback information, improve implant process stability, detect abnormal beamline loading, and enhance closed-loop compensation/control during implantation.
The combined references of Likhanskii and Olson do not specifically note that generate, based on the first and second current values and the one or more energy filter supply current values, one or more platen position values; and cause adjustment of a position of the platen in the path of the ion beam using the one or more platen position values.
Dykstra teaches generate, based on the first and second current values and the one or more energy filter supply current values, one or more platen position values (Abstract and Col. 1, Lls. 57-58; Col. 4, Lls19-27: teaches generating platen position step values based on beam current/dose feedback (beam-current proxy), and further explains that each rotation step is “clocked by the measured dose increment” and “controlled in relation to the beam current”, which is derived from a Faraday cup beam current signal, and when the incremental dose reaches the calculated dose per step, the controller outputs a command to move the platen by one step); and
cause adjustment of a position of the platen in the path of the ion beam using the one or more platen position values (Abstract and Col. 4, Lls. 1-5 and 19-27: teaches a stepper motor controller causes adjustment of platen position by driving a stepper motor to rotate the wafer/platen one step; Specifically, when the incremental accumulated dose equals the dose per step, the controller provides “a signal … to rotate the wafer one step”).
Dykstra teaches a wafer mounted on a platen and controlling platen position using beam current/dose feedback from a Faraday cup signal, where the controller determines dose per step and commands the platen to rotate one step when the incremental accumulated dose reaches the threshold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Dykstra’s platen stepping control into the implantation system of the combined references of Likhanskii and Olson because doing so provides a closed-loop implant process control in which platen position is adjusted in response to measured beam conditions, thereby enabling more uniform dose distribution across the wafer, reducing local over-implantation/under-implantation, and improving repeatability of implantation across a processing run. Further, incorporating Dykstra into Likhanskii is a predictable substitution of one known wafer positioning technique into another ion implantation system, and Olson provides explicit determination of current values associated with applied beamline potentials (including accel/decel and energy filter supply potentials) so that such current values can be used as beam-current proxies to trigger or refine platen position step values during implantation. Accordingly, the combined system improves implant dose uniformity and beam/process stability by using beam-related current feedback to control platen motion while implanting the substrate.
Regarding Claim 2:
The combined references of Likhanskii, Olson and Dykstra teach the apparatus of claim 1. Likhanskii further teaches wherein the accelerating potential is configured to increase an energy of the ion beam (paras. [0024-0025]: Likhanskii teaches an implantation system including a first acceleration stage 36 that is biased at a selected potential (e.g., stage 36 biased at +60 kV while the ion source is biased at +120 kV and the wafer is at 0 V). Likhanskii further teaches that, in order to process the substrate, the ion beam is accelerated to acquire a target energy by establishing a potential difference between the ion source and the wafer. Thus, Likhanskii teaches that applying an accelerating potential in the acceleration stage increases beam energy);
the decelerating potential is configured to decrease an energy of the ion beam (paras. [0004, 0024-0025]: Likhanskii teaches an implantation system including a first deceleration stage 36 that is biased at a selected potential, and when the high-current implantation systems operate in “drift/deceleration modes,” the ion beam is transported at a fixed energy and is then “decelerated to the final energy at a later stage,” thereby teaching that a decelerating potential (e.g., applied by the acceleration/deceleration stage 36) is configured to reduce the ion beam energy to a lower final implant energy at the wafer).
Regarding Claim 11:
The combined references of Likhanskii, Olson and Dykstra teach the system of claim 10. Likhanskii further teaches wherein
the one or more second power potentials include an accelerating potential or a decelerating potential (paras. [0024-0025]: teaches an implantation system including a first acceleration or deceleration stage 36 that is biased at a selected potential (e.g., stage 36 biased at +60 kV while the ion source is biased at +120 kV and the wafer is at 0 V).
the one or more second current sources are configured to generate the accelerating potential to increase power of the ion beam (paras. [0024-0025]: teaches that, in order to process the substrate, the ion beam is accelerated to acquire a target energy by establishing a potential difference between the ion source and the wafer. Thus, Likhanskii teaches that applying an accelerating potential in the acceleration stage increases beam energy); and
the decelerating potential to decrease power of the ion beam (paras. [0004, 0024-0025]: teaches when the high-current implantation systems operate in “drift/deceleration modes,” the ion beam is transported at a fixed energy and is then “decelerated to the final energy at a later stage,” thereby teaching that a decelerating potential (e.g., applied by the acceleration/deceleration stage 36) is configured to reduce the ion beam energy to a lower final implant energy at the wafer).
Regarding Claims 4 and 13:
The combined references of Likhanskii, Olson and Dykstra teach the apparatus of claim 1 and the system of claim 10, respectively. Likhanskii further teaches wherein the energy filter includes one or more electrodes configured to affect one or more parameters of the ion beam passing through the energy filter (para. [0022]: teaches an energy filter having electrodes energized by potentials to affect beam parameters (e.g., deflection/conditioning)).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14:
The combined references of Likhanskii, Olson and Dykstra teach the apparatus of claim 4 and the system of claim 13, respectively. Likhanskii further teaches wherein the one or more parameters include at least one of the following: a direction of the ion beam, an energy of the ion beam, a focus of the ion beam, a trajectory of the ion beam, and any combination thereof (para. [0022]: an energy filter having electrodes energized by potentials to affect beam parameters and “The EF 40 may be configured to independently control deflection, acceleration, deceleration, and focus of the ion beam 18”).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Likhanskii, Olson, and Dykstra, further in view of US 6130436 A [hereinafter Renau].
Regarding Claim 3:
The combined references of Likhanskii, Olson and Dykstra teach the apparatus of claim 1. However, the combined references do not teach wherein application of the decelerating potential is disabled while application of the accelerating potential is enabled; and application of the accelerating potential is disabled while application of the decelerating potential is enabled. Renau teaches wherein application of the decelerating potential is disabled while application of the accelerating potential is enabled; and application of the accelerating potential is disabled while application of the decelerating potential is enabled (Abstract: Renau teaches “selectably accelerating or decelerating ions” using an acceleration/deceleration column (i.e., enabling one mode while not operating the other)).
Renau teaches operating an ion beamline selectively “in an acceleration mode” or “in a deceleration mode,” which would have been an obvious implementation detail for Likhanskii’s acceleration/deceleration control to provide operator-selectable implant modes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Likhanskii to include Renau’s explicit acceleration-mode vs deceleration-mode selection because ion implantation processes commonly require different beam energy and transport conditions depending on implant recipe (e.g., high energy implants versus low energy implants). A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate such selectable mode control into Likhanskii’s acceleration/deceleration stage (36) to provide predictable process flexibility and stable beam delivery by enabling acceleration when higher implant energy is desired and enabling deceleration when lower final implant energy is desired.
Regarding Claim 12:
The combined references of Likhanskii, Olson and Dykstra teach the system of claim 11. However, the combined references do not teach wherein the one or more second power supply sources is configured to at least one of: disable application of the decelerating potential and enable application of the accelerating potential; and disable application of the accelerating potential and enable application of the decelerating potential. Renau teaches wherein the one or more second power supply sources is configured to at least one of: disable application of the decelerating potential and enable application of the accelerating potential; and disable application of the accelerating potential and enable application of the decelerating potential (Abstract: Renau teaches “selectably accelerating or decelerating ions” using an acceleration/deceleration column (i.e., enabling one mode while not operating the other)).
Renau teaches operating an ion beamline selectively “in an acceleration mode” or “in a deceleration mode,” which would have been an obvious implementation detail for Likhanskii’s acceleration/deceleration control to provide operator-selectable implant modes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Likhanskii to include Renau’s explicit acceleration-mode vs deceleration-mode selection because ion implantation processes commonly require different beam energy and transport conditions depending on implant recipe (e.g., high energy implants versus low energy implants). A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate such selectable mode control into Likhanskii’s acceleration/deceleration stage (36) to provide predictable process flexibility and stable beam delivery by enabling acceleration when higher implant energy is desired and enabling deceleration when lower final implant energy is desired.
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Likhanskii, Olson, and Dykstra, further in view of US 2005/0269526 A1 [hereinafter Rathmell].
Regarding Claims 6 and 15:
The combined references of Likhanskii, Olson and Dykstra teach the apparatus and system of claims 1 and 10, respectively. However, the combined references do not specifically note the platen position determination is based on a difference between a sum of the first and second current values and the one or more energy filter supply current values.
Rathmell teaches the idea of using a difference/relationship between beam current measured at two different points, including a current measurement associated with the energy filter region (AEF does cup) vs an end station/wafer region measurement, to compensate for beam transport effect such as charge exchange/outgassing.
As such, the combined references of Likhanskii, Olson and Dykstra, in view of Rathmell teaches the one or more platen position values are determined based on a difference between a sum of the first and second current values and the one or more energy filter supply current values (Likhanskii - (previous discussed) teaches an implanter having an ion source with a powering potential and an acceleration/deceleration stage/potentials along the beam path, and an energy filter/electrostatic beam optics element is along the beam path and is supplied with electrical potentials an currents to the energy filter/beam optics electrodes; Olson - (previous discussed) teaches the concept of sensing/determining current associated with an applied potential in an ion implanter power supply context; Dykstra - (previous discussed) teaches a wafer on a platen and a controller that uses beam current/does feedback to generate platen motion setpoints and adjust the platen accordingly; Rathmell - Claims 7, 10, 12-13, para. [0013]: discloses an AEF system having “an AEF does cup…immediately following the final energy bend… accurately measure the ion current, that “readings from a dose cup near the workpiece are compared to those of the AEF cup” to determine a charge-exchange related difference, and using this current-based compensation in motion control, stating the “ASF does cup measurement is used to control the scan velocity of the workpiece,” corresponding to generating platen/workpiece position values based on current difference and adjusting platen position accordingly).
The combined references of Likhanskii, Olson and Dykstra teach obtaining current values associated with ion generating/acceleration and the energy filter, and generating platen position values using those current values. Rathmell teaches that implantation performance is affected by beam transport changes (e.g., charge changed/outgassing effects), and that a compensation signal can be obtained by comparing beam current measurements at different points along the beamline. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to use (i) the upstream current value (s) associated with ion generation/acceleration (e.g., the powering current and the accelerating/decelerating current taught by Likhanskii/Olson /Dykstra) as a first comparison input, and (ii) the energy filter related current (s) as a second comparison unit, and to compute a difference between the first and second comparison inputs as taught by Rathmell, because both current values correspond to beam transport conditions at different points along the beamline and thus provide a predictable compensation variable for adjusting platen/workpiece positioning.
Regarding Claims 7 and 16:
The combined references of Likhanskii, Olson, Dykstra, and Rathmell teach the apparatus and system of claims 6 and 15, respectively. Dykstra further teaches wherein adjusting of the position of the platen based on the one or more platen position values causes the ion beam to apply to a predetermined location on the substrate (Col. 4, Lls. 5-30: adjusting a platen position (rotating the wafer by discrete step increment) using predetermined position increments/values (e.g., 1-degree steps, starting at a desired starting point, such that the ion beam is applied to predetermined locations on the wafer corresponding to each angular position during implantation).
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Likhanskii, Olson, Dykstra and Rathmell, further in view of US 2009/0236547 A1 [hereinafter Huang].
Regarding Claims 8 and 17:
The combined references of Likhanskii, Olson, Dykstra, and Rathmell teach the apparatus and system of claims 6 and 11, respectively. Likhanskii further teaches one or more electrodes in the energy filter (para. [0022]: energy filter (EF40) may include a set of supper electrodes and a set of lower electrodes). However, the combined references do not specially note a filter current measurement component configured to adjust one or more electrode parameters. Huang teaches a filter current measurement component configured to adjust one or more electrode parameters (paras. [0051 and 0066]: a controller, taking readings from a measurement system indicative of the end of scan beam current, can adjust the ion beam to the required beam current by adjusting the voltage of the one or more electrodes in the ion implantation system).
Huang teaches using a measurement system (including Faraday cup) to provide beam current readings to a controller, and the controller selectively controls voltage supplies that apply voltages to electrodes (electrode parameters) to adjust the beam. Likhanskii teaches an energy filter, including upper and lower sets of electrodes, with a power supply supplying current to conductive beam optics and controlling beam behavior (deflection/focus/accel/decel). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled person, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Huang’s measurement-based electrode tuning into Likhanskii’s energy filter electrodes because ion implantation beam optics drift over time (beam current/trajectory varies with conditions), and feedback control using measured beam signals is a known technique to maintain target beam characteristics.
Regarding Claims 9 and 18:
The combined references of Likhanskii, Olson, Dykstra, Rathmell, and Huang teach the apparatus and system of claims 8 and 17, respectively. The combined references further teach
wherein the one or more electrode parameters include at least one of the following:
one or more current values determined based on one or more potentials supplied to the one or more electrodes (Olson- (previously discussed) teaches extraction power supply current sense representative of extracted beam current; Huang- para. [0050]: beam current modulated by controlling extraction/suppression voltage supplies; measurement system readings),
one or more position values associated with one or more positions of the one or more electrodes in the energy filter, and any combination thereof (Huang para [0050]: teaches physical movement/position adjustment mechanisms for an electrode/aperture assembly- “A first and second mechanism 512 and 514 are designed to move the suppression and ground electrodes, 338 and 340... so as to be movable together, in the X and y directions.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled person, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Huang’s teachings of adjusting/positioning an electrode/aperture assembly into the energy filter/beamline system of the combined refences, since such positional adjustability is a known way o tune ion beam transmission and alignment in an implantation beamline. A POSITA would have been motivated to do implement Huang’s movable electrode structure to allow the system to adjust electrode position values as a controllable parameter in response to operating conditions, yielding the predictable result of stable/optimized beam delivery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881