DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Biloiu fails to disclose the claimed structural arrangement because the analysis maps the claimed vertical dimension of “height” onto a horizontal dimension. The argument is unpersuasive because the term “height” is dependent on the frame of reference from which an object is perceived, and is therefore subject to this frame. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, one could perceived the mapped distances as heights when viewed along the y axis of Fig. 9. Consequently, Biloiu teaches each and every limitation of the claim, including “wherein a height of the second beam blocker is equal to a height of the second extraction aperture, and wherein heights of the first beam blocker and the third beam blocker are less than heights of the first extraction aperture and the third extraction aperture, respectively.” Applicant also asserts that to achieve different ion beam angles across the array, Biloiu does not alter the physical height or structure of the electrodes, rather, Biloiu varies the electrical bias applied to the electrodes. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., achieving different ion beam angles across the array by altering the physical height or structure of the electrodes) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, Biloiu teaches each and every limitation of the claim, Biloiu anticipates the claimed 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Biloiu, et. al. (US 20150179409 A1), hereinafter Biloiu.
Regarding claim 1, Biloiu teaches an ion extraction optics for extracting a plurality of ion beams (Abstract, 0002]), comprising:
an extraction plate (extraction plate 910, [0054]) defining a first extraction aperture aperture 904, [0054]), a second extraction aperture (aperture 914, [0054), and a third extraction aperture (aperture 924, [0054]), the second extraction aperture being located between the first extraction aperture and the third extraction aperture (Fig. 9);
a first beam blocker located adjacent the first extraction aperture (deflection electrode 902, [0054]), wherein the first beam blocker and the first extraction aperture define a first extraction slit and a second extraction slit (Fig. 9 shows slits where set of beams 906 goes through, [0054]);
a second beam blocker located adjacent the second extraction aperture (deflection electrode 912, [0054]), wherein the second beam blocker and the second extraction aperture define a third extraction slit and a fourth extraction slit (Fig. 9 shows slits where set of beam 916 goes through, [0054]); and
a third beam blocker located adjacent the third extraction aperture (deflection electrode 922, [0054]), wherein the third beam blocker and the third extraction aperture define a fifth extraction slit and a sixth extraction slit (Fig. 9 shows slits where set of beams 926 goes through, [0054]);
wherein a height of the first extraction slit is greater than a height of at least one of the third extraction slit and the fourth extraction slit (height of the right side of the extraction slit on the left side of 902 is greater than the left side of the extraction slit on the left side of 912, Fig. 9), and wherein a height of the sixth extraction slit is greater than the height of at least one of the third extraction slit and the fourth extraction slit (height of the left side of the extraction slit on the right side of 922 is greater than the left side of the extraction slit on the left side of 912, Fig. 9), and
wherein a height of the second beam blocker is equal to a height of the second extraction aperture (height at bottom of 912 is equal to height of the top of the interpreted second extraction aperture 914, as seen in Fig. 9), and wherein heights of the first beam blocker and the third beam blocker are less than heights of the first extraction aperture and the third extraction aperture, respectively (the horizontal height of the bottom of the first and third beam blockers 902 and 922 are less than the horizontal height across the first and third extraction apertures 904 and 924, respectively, as seen in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 11, Biloiu teaches a processing apparatus (Abstract, [0002]) comprising:
a plasma chamber adapted to contain a plasma (plasma chamber 104, [0023], Fig. 1A);
a process chamber located adjacent the plasma chamber and adapted to contain a substrate for processing (process chamber 142, [0022], Fig. 1A);
ion extraction optics located between the plasma chamber and the process chamber and adapted to extract a plurality of ion beams from the plasma chamber and to direct the plurality of ion beams into the process chamber (extraction optics, [0024], Fig. 1A, Fig. 9), the ion extraction optics comprising:
an extraction plate (extraction plate 910, [0054]) defining a first extraction aperture aperture 904, [0054]), a second extraction aperture (aperture 914, [0054), and a third extraction aperture (aperture 924, [0054]), the second extraction aperture being located between the first extraction aperture and the third extraction aperture (Fig. 9);
a first beam blocker located adjacent the first extraction aperture (deflection electrode 902, [0054]), wherein the first beam blocker and the first extraction aperture define a first extraction slit and a second extraction slit (Fig. 9 shows slits where set of beams 906 goes through, [0054]);
a second beam blocker located adjacent the second extraction aperture (deflection electrode 912, [0054]), wherein the second beam blocker and the second extraction aperture define a third extraction slit and a fourth extraction slit (Fig. 9 shows slits where set of beam 916 goes through, [0054]); and
a third beam blocker located adjacent the third extraction aperture (deflection electrode 922, [0054]), wherein the third beam blocker and the third extraction aperture define a fifth extraction slit and a sixth extraction slit (Fig. 9 shows slits where set of beams 926 goes through, [0054]);
wherein a height of the first extraction slit is greater than a height of at least one of the third extraction slit and the fourth extraction slit (height of the right side of the extraction slit on the left side of 902 is greater than the left side of the extraction slit on the left side of 912, Fig. 9), and wherein a height of the sixth extraction slit is greater than the height of at least one of the third extraction slit and the fourth extraction slit (height of the left side of the extraction slit on the right side of 922 is greater than the left side of the extraction slit on the left side of 912, Fig. 9), and
wherein a height of the second beam blocker is equal to a height of the second extraction aperture (height at bottom of 912 is equal to height of the top of the interpreted second extraction aperture 914, as seen in Fig. 9), and wherein heights of the first beam blocker and the third beam blocker are less than heights of the first extraction aperture and the third extraction aperture, respectively (the horizontal height of the bottom of the first and third beam blockers 902 and 922 are less than the horizontal height across the first and third extraction apertures 904 and 924, respectively, as seen in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 2, Biloiu teaches wherein the first extraction slit is further away from the second extraction aperture than the second extraction slit (extraction slit on left side of 902 is further from 914 than extraction slit on right side of 902, Fig. 9), the sixth extraction slit is further away from the second extraction aperture than the fifth extraction slit (extraction slit on right side of 922 is further away from 914 than extraction slit on left side of 922, Fig. 9), the second extraction slit and the fifth extraction slit have a first height (height of the right side of the extraction slit on the right side of 902 and height of the left side of the extraction slit on the left side of 922 as seen in Fig. 9 is the interpreted first height), the first extraction aperture and the sixth extraction aperture have a second height (height of the right side of the extraction slit on the left side of 902 and height of the left side of the extraction slit on the right side of 922 as seen in Fig. 9 is the interpreted second height), wherein the second height is greater than the first height (the interpreted second height is greater than the interpreted first height as seen in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 12, Biloiu teaches wherein the first extraction slit is further away from the second extraction aperture than the second extraction slit (extraction slit on left side of 902 is further from 914 than extraction slit on right side of 902, Fig. 9), the sixth extraction slit is further away from the second extraction aperture than the fifth extraction slit (extraction slit on right side of 922 is further away from 914 than extraction slit on left side of 922, Fig. 9), the second extraction slit and the fifth extraction slit have a first height (height of the right side of the extraction slit on the right side of 902 and height of the left side of the extraction slit on the left side of 922 as seen in Fig. 9 is the interpreted first height), the first extraction aperture and the sixth extraction aperture have a second height (height of the right side of the extraction slit on the left side of 902 and height of the left side of the extraction slit on the right side of 922 as seen in Fig. 9 is the interpreted second height), wherein the second height is greater than the first height (the interpreted second height is greater than the interpreted first height as seen in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Biloiu teaches wherein the first height is in a range of 1 millimeter to 3 millimeters and wherein the second height is in a range of 3 millimeters to 5 millimeters ([0034] teaches a distance of 3.5 mm or 4.5 mm between the extraction plate and deflection electrode. Consequently, if applying these measurements and measuring from 1 mm below the left/bottom side of the interpreted first extraction aperture or the right/bottom side of the interpreted sixth extraction aperture, this bottom side of the aperture measures at a height of 1mm, and the height of the top/left side of the interpreted second extraction aperture or the top/right side of the interpreted fifth extraction aperture would measure 1mm + 3.5 mm = 4.5 mm, which is within the claimed range. See Fig. 9. Biloiu renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Regarding claim 13, Biloiu teaches wherein the first height is in a range of 1 millimeter to 3 millimeters and wherein the second height is in a range of 3 millimeters to 5 millimeters ([0034] teaches a distance of 3.5 mm or 4.5 mm between the extraction plate and deflection electrode. Consequently, if applying these measurements and measuring from 1 mm below the left/bottom side of the interpreted first extraction aperture or the right/bottom side of the interpreted sixth extraction aperture, this bottom side of the aperture measures at a height of 1mm, and the height of the top/left side of the interpreted second extraction aperture or the top/right side of the interpreted fifth extraction aperture would measure 1mm + 3.5 mm = 4.5 mm, which is within the claimed range. See Fig. 9. Biloiu renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Regarding claim 4, Biloiu teaches wherein the first extraction slit is configured to produce an ion beam at a first angle of extraction, the second extraction slit is configured to produce an ion beam at a second angle of extraction, and the third extraction slit is configured to produce an ion beam at a third angle of extraction, wherein the first angle of extraction and the second angle of extraction are less than 1 degree different from the third angle of extraction (The claim language “configured to” merely requires that the apparatus be capable of producing the claimed angles of extraction (See MPEP 2114 II). Biloiu demonstrates this capability as follows: Fig. 9 shows each of the extraction slits producing ion beams at an angle. [0036] and [0051] teach that the position of the deflection electrode and the bias voltage applied to a deflection electrode or extraction plate may be adjusted to control ion beam trajectories including the ion beam angles. Consequently, the apparatus of Biloiu is configured such that the bias voltage and/or position of the deflection electrode can be controlled to achieve first and second angles of extraction that are less than 1 degree different from the third angle of extraction.).
Regarding claim 14, Biloiu teaches wherein the first extraction slit is configured to produce an ion beam at a first angle of extraction, the second extraction slit is configured to produce an ion beam at a second angle of extraction, and the third extraction slit is configured to produce an ion beam at a third angle of extraction, wherein the first angle of extraction and the second angle of extraction are less than 1 degree different from the third angle of extraction (The claim language “configured to” merely requires that the apparatus be capable of producing the claimed angles of extraction (See MPEP 2114 II). Biloiu demonstrates this capability as follows: Fig. 9 shows each of the extraction slits producing ion beams at an angle. [0036] and [0051] teach that the position of the deflection electrode and the bias voltage applied to a deflection electrode or extraction plate may be adjusted to control ion beam trajectories including the ion beam angles. Consequently, the apparatus of Biloiu is configured such that the bias voltage and/or position of the deflection electrode can be controlled to achieve first and second angles of extraction that are less than 1 degree different from the third angle of extraction.).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the fourth extraction slit is configured to produce an ion beam at a fourth angle of extraction, the fifth extraction slit is configured to produce an ion beam at a fifth angle of extraction, and the sixth extraction slit is configured to produce an ion beam at a sixth angle of extraction, wherein the fifth angle of extraction and the sixth angle of extraction are less than 1 degree different from the fourth angle of extraction (The claim language “configured to” merely requires that the apparatus be capable of producing the claimed angles of extraction (See MPEP 2114 II). Biloiu demonstrates this capability as follows: Fig. 9 shows each of the extraction slits producing ion beams at an angle. [0036] and [0051] teach that the position of the deflection electrode and the bias voltage applied to a deflection electrode or extraction plate may be adjusted to control ion beam trajectories including the ion beam angles. Consequently, the apparatus of Biloiu is configured such that the bias voltage and/or position of the deflection electrode can be controlled to achieve fifth and sixth angles of extraction that are less than 1 degree different from the fourth angle of extraction.).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the fourth extraction slit is configured to produce an ion beam at a fourth angle of extraction, the fifth extraction slit is configured to produce an ion beam at a fifth angle of extraction, and the sixth extraction slit is configured to produce an ion beam at a sixth angle of extraction, wherein the fifth angle of extraction and the sixth angle of extraction are less than 1 degree different from the fourth angle of extraction (The claim language “configured to” merely requires that the apparatus be capable of producing the claimed angles of extraction (See MPEP 2114 II). Biloiu demonstrates this capability as follows: Fig. 9 shows each of the extraction slits producing ion beams at an angle. [0036] and [0051] teach that the position of the deflection electrode and the bias voltage applied to a deflection electrode or extraction plate may be adjusted to control ion beam trajectories including the ion beam angles. Consequently, the apparatus of Biloiu is configured such that the bias voltage and/or position of the deflection electrode can be controlled to achieve fifth and sixth angles of extraction that are less than 1 degree different from the fourth angle of extraction.).
Regarding claim 6, Biloiu teaches wherein the third extraction slit and the fourth extraction slit have a height of zero (If measuring the height from lower edge of the interpreted extraction slit as the reference, then the lower edge of the third and fourth extraction slits have a height of zero as seen in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 16, Biloiu teaches wherein the third extraction slit and the fourth extraction slit have a height of zero (If measuring the height from lower edge of the interpreted extraction slit as the reference, then the lower edge of the third and fourth extraction slits have a height of zero as seen in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7, Biloiu teaches wherein the second beam blocker has a first height (height of the top part of 912 is the interpreted first height, Fig. 9) and wherein the first beam blocker and the third beam blocker have a second height (height at the bottom part of 902 and 922 is the interpreted second height, Fig. 9), wherein the first height is greater than the second height (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 17, Biloiu teaches wherein the second beam blocker has a first height (height of the top part of 912 is the interpreted first height, Fig. 9) and wherein the first beam blocker and the third beam blocker have a second height (height at the bottom part of 902 and 922 is the interpreted second height, Fig. 9), wherein the first height is greater than the second height (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 9, Biloiu teaches wherein the first extraction slit, the second extraction slit, the third extraction slit, the fourth extraction slit, the fifth extraction slit, and the sixth extraction slit are equal in width (as seen in Fig. 9, with width measured in the horizontal direction).
Regarding claim 19, Biloiu teaches wherein the first extraction slit, the second extraction slit, the third extraction slit, the fourth extraction slit, the fifth extraction slit, and the sixth extraction slit are equal in width (as seen in Fig. 9, with width measured in the horizontal direction).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20120248328 A1 (from IDS filed 06/24/2025) Fig. 2 shows apertures of different sizes
US 9293301 B2 (from IDS filed 04/23/2024)
US 20160013030 A1 (from IDS filed 06/24/2025)
US 20210305001 A1
US 20200098540 A1
US 20140272179 A1
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights