DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 6/11/2026.
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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 15-20 are currently withdrawn.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 12, 14 are currently amended.
Claim Interpretation
For clarity of the record, the Examiner notes claims 1 and 9 have been amended to recite a system controller with memory storing instructions. Limitations recited in this way are construed as structurally limiting relating to the programming contained on said controller.
In contrast, none of the dependent claims specifically recite any functional language as part of said programming, thus are still interpreted as an intended use of the apparatus.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen (US Pub. 2022/0359217) in view of Biloiu (US Pub. 2020/0098540) and Renau (US Pub. 2012/0248328).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Andersen teaches a plasma processing apparatus (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021], semiconductor processing apparatus), comprising:
a plasma chamber operable to contain a plasma (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021], ion source chamber 100), the chamber defined by a plurality of sidewalls, a first end wall, and a second end wall opposite the first end wall (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021], plurality of chamber walls 101 at top, left, right, and bottom sides);
an extraction assembly coupled to the second end wall (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0023], extraction plate 103 coupled to chamber side walls 101), the extraction assembly comprising an aperture positionable relative to a substrate (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0023], extraction aperture 105 located above workpiece 10), wherein ions are extracted through the aperture and delivered to the substrate at a non-zero angle relative to a perpendicular extending from the substrate (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0023]-[0024], ions exit aperture 105 at non-zero angles as beamlets 191 and 192), and wherein the substrate is positioned external to the chamber (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021]-[0025], workpiece 10 is located external to chamber 100); and
an actuator operable to dither the substrate relative to the extraction assembly as the ions are extracted through the aperture (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021]-[0025], scan motor 157 moves the platen 155 holding workpiece 10 in direction 151),
a power supply operable to provide a pulsed bias (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0029], workpiece bias power supply 160 output is a pulsed DC voltage); and
a system controller in communication with the power supply, the system controlled comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions (Anderson – [0029] and Fig. 1, controller #170 comprises processor and computer readable storage, controls all aspects of the apparatus).
Andersen does not teach wherein the extraction assembly comprises a plurality of apertures.
However, Biloiu teaches a plurality of apertures (Biloiu, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0028], cut-out region 128 is formed into apertures 132 and 134, with beam blockers 124A and 124B, respectively, to form four angled ion beams 130).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the extraction plate of Andersen in the manner of Biloiu to incorporate multiple apertures and beam blockers as doing so affords the ability to increase beam current and processing throughput in a compact plasma-based ion beam system, in comparison to known 2-slit configurations (Biloiu, [0041]-[0043]).
Modified Anderson does not teach wherein the instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the power to: reduce a duty cycle of the pulsed bias when the substrate is at a first position and at a second position, wherein the first position corresponds to a first end of a pass scan; and increase the duty cycle of the pulsed bias as the substrate passes between the first position and the second position.
However, Renau teaches the above limitation (Renau – [0041] and Fig. 2: workpiece is scanned in a horizontal direction, pulsed bias has a duty cycle that is adjusted according to an intended implantation profile and scan position).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Anderson apparatus to include the adjustable bias duty cycle procedure of Renau in order to provide further control over the relative amount of workpiece exposure from ion beams (Renau – [0041]).
To clarify the record, the limitations “wherein ions are extracted through the plurality of apertures and delivered to the substrate at a non-zero angle relative to a perpendicular extending from the substrate“ and “dither the substrate relative to the extraction assembly as the ions are extracted through the plurality of apertures” are merely intended uses and are given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
The modified Andersen comprises all the structural elements of the apparatus (Anderson: a chamber, a coil disposed around the chamber and connected to a power supply, an extraction plate disposed downstream of the plasma and above a workpiece, an aperture within the extraction plate, a blocker disposed in line with the aperture, a motor associated with the platen, a power supply connected to the platen, and a controller in communication with the gas supply, power supplies, and scanning motor; Biloui: extraction plate with a plurality of apertures), thus is regarded as capable of meeting the claim limitations since no other elements are required in accordance with the instant disclosure.
Regarding claim 2, Andersen teaches an RF coil to energize a process gas to form a plasma in the chamber (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021], RF antenna 110 ionizes a feed gas in chamber 100).
To clarify the record, the limitation “to energize a process gas to form a plasma in the chamber” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The apparatus of Andersen comprises a chamber, a coil disposed around the chamber and connected to a power supply, a gas supply in communication with a gas source and the chamber, and a controller in communication with the gas supply and power supplies (Andersen, [0029]), thereby being capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 3, Andersen teaches wherein the second end wall has an interior side opposite an exterior side, and wherein the substrate is positioned adjacent the exterior side (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021], RF antenna 110 ionizes a feed gas in chamber 100).
Regarding claim 4, Andersen teaches wherein the extraction assembly comprises an extraction plate comprising a beam blocker (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0024], beam blocker 150), wherein ion beamlets are extracted through the aperture (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0024], beamlets 191 and 192 exit aperture 105), and wherein the aperture is defined by the beam blocker (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0024], beam blocker 150 is located above aperture 105).
Andersen fails to teach a plurality of apertures and associated plurality of beam blockers.
However, Biloiu teaches a plurality of apertures and associated plurality of beam blockers (Biloiu, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0028], cut-out region 128 is formed into apertures 132 and 134, with beam blockers 124A and 124B, respectively, to form four angled ion beams 130).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the extraction plate of Andersen in the manner of Biloiu to incorporate multiple apertures and beam blockers as doing so affords the ability to increase beam current and processing throughput in a compact plasma-based ion beam system, in comparison to known 2-slit configurations (Biloiu, [0041]-[0043]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein ion beamlets are extracted through the plurality of apertures” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The apparatus of Andersen comprises a chamber, a coil disposed around the chamber and connected to a power supply, an extraction plate disposed downstream of the plasma and above a workpiece, an aperture within the extraction plate, a blocker disposed in line with the aperture, a power supply connected to the platen, and a controller in communication with the gas supply, and power supplies (Andersen, [0029]), thereby being capable of meeting the claim limitations. Similarly, the apparatus of Biloiu comprises an extraction plate disposed downstream of the plasma and above a workpiece, a plurality of apertures within the extraction plate, and a plurality of beam blockers disposed in line with the apertures, thereby being capable of meeting the claim limitation. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 5, Andersen teaches wherein the first end wall, the second end wall, and the plurality of sidewalls are a dielectric material (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021], chamber walls 101 may be constructed of a dielectric material), and wherein the extraction plate is conductive (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0023], extraction plate 103 may be constructed of an electrically conductive material).
Regarding claim 6, Andersen teaches wherein the duty cycle in response to the pulsed bias varies (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0029], workpiece bias power supply 160 can vary frequency and amplitude) as the substrate is dithered relative to the extraction assembly as the ions are extracted through the aperture (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021]-[0025], scan motor 157 moves the platen 155 holding workpiece 10 in direction 151).
Andersen fails to teach a plurality of apertures.
However, Biloiu teaches a plurality of apertures (Biloiu, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0028], cut-out region 128 is formed into apertures 132 and 134, with beam blockers 124A and 124B, respectively, to form four angled ion beams 130).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the extraction plate of Andersen in the manner of Biloiu to incorporate multiple apertures and beam blockers as doing so affords the ability to increase beam current and processing throughput in a compact plasma-based ion beam system, in comparison to known 2-slit configurations (Biloiu, [0041]-[0043]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein a duty cycle in response to the pulsed bias varies as the substrate is dithered relative to the extraction assembly as the ions are extracted through the plurality of apertures“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The apparatus of Andersen comprises a chamber, a coil disposed around the chamber and connected to a power supply, an extraction plate disposed downstream of the plasma and above a workpiece, an aperture within the extraction plate, a blocker disposed in line with the aperture, a motor associated with the platen, a power supply connected to the platen that can pulse and vary frequency/amplitude, and a controller in communication with the gas supply, power supplies, and scanning motor (Andersen, [0029]), thereby being capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 7, Andersen teaches wherein the pulsed bias is a pulsed DC bias (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0029], workpiece bias power supply 160 output is a pulsed DC voltage).
Regarding claim 8, Andersen teaches wherein the actuator is operable to dither the substrate repeatedly between a first position and a second position (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021]-[0025], scan motor 157 moves the platen 155 holding workpiece 10 in direction 151).
To clarify the record, the limitations “dither the substrate repeatedly between a first position and a second position, and wherein the power supply reduces the duty cycle when the substrate is in the first position and the second position“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The apparatus of Andersen comprises a chamber, a coil disposed around the chamber and connected to a power supply, an extraction plate disposed downstream of the plasma and above a workpiece, an aperture within the extraction plate, a blocker disposed in line with the aperture, a motor associated with the platen, a power supply connected to the platen that can pulse and vary frequency/amplitude, and a controller in communication with the gas supply, power supplies, and scanning motor (Andersen, [0029]), thereby being capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 11, Andersen teaches wherein the extraction plate comprises a beam blocker (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0024], beam blocker 150), and wherein ion beamlets are extracted through the beam blocker to process one or more areas of the substrate (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0024], beamlets 191 and 192 from blocker 150 exit aperture 105 towards workpiece 10).
Andersen fails to teach a plurality of apertures and associated plurality of beam blockers.
However, Biloiu teaches a plurality of apertures and associated plurality of beam blockers (Biloiu, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0028], cut-out region 128 is formed into apertures 132 and 134, with beam blockers 124A and 124B, respectively, to form four angled ion beams 130).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the extraction plate of Andersen in the manner of Biloiu to incorporate multiple apertures and beam blockers as doing so affords the ability to increase beam current and processing throughput in a compact plasma-based ion beam system, in comparison to known 2-slit configurations (Biloiu, [0041]-[0043]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein ion beamlets are extracted through the plurality of apertures” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The apparatus of Andersen comprises a chamber, a coil disposed around the chamber and connected to a power supply, an extraction plate disposed downstream of the plasma and above a workpiece, an aperture within the extraction plate, a blocker disposed in line with the aperture, a power supply connected to the platen, and a controller in communication with the gas supply, and power supplies (Andersen, [0029]), thereby being capable of meeting the claim limitations. Similarly, the apparatus of Biloiu comprises an extraction plate disposed downstream of the plasma and above a workpiece, a plurality of apertures within the extraction plate, and a plurality of beam blockers disposed in line with the apertures, thereby being capable of meeting the claim limitation. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 12, Andersen teaches wherein the duty cycle in response to the pulsed bias varies (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0029], workpiece bias power supply 160 can vary frequency and amplitude) as the substrate is dithered relative to the extraction assembly as the ions are extracted through the opening (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021]-[0025], scan motor 157 moves the platen 155 holding workpiece 10 in direction 151).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein a duty cycle in response to the pulsed bias varies as the substrate is dithered relative to the extraction assembly as the ions are extracted through the opening “ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The apparatus of Andersen comprises a chamber, a coil disposed around the chamber and connected to a power supply, an extraction plate disposed downstream of the plasma and above a workpiece, an aperture within the extraction plate, a blocker disposed in line with the aperture, a motor associated with the platen, a power supply connected to the platen that can pulse and vary frequency/amplitude, and a controller in communication with the gas supply, power supplies, and scanning motor (Andersen, [0029]), thereby being capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 13, Andersen teaches wherein the pulsed bias is a pulsed DC bias (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0029], workpiece bias power supply 160 output is a pulsed DC voltage).
Regarding claim 14, Andersen teaches wherein the actuator is operable to dither the substrate repeatedly between the first position and the second position (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021]-[0025], scan motor 157 moves the platen 155 holding workpiece 10 in direction 151).
To clarify the record, the limitation “dither the substrate repeatedly between a first position and a second position“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The apparatus of Andersen comprises a chamber, a coil disposed around the chamber and connected to a power supply, an extraction plate disposed downstream of the plasma and above a workpiece, an aperture within the extraction plate, a blocker disposed in line with the aperture, a motor associated with the platen, a power supply connected to the platen that can pulse and vary frequency/amplitude, and a controller in communication with the gas supply, power supplies, and scanning motor (Andersen, [0029]), thereby being capable of meeting the claim limitations. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen (US Pub. 2022/0359217), Biloiu (US Pub. 2020/0098540), and Renau (US Pub. 2012/0248328), as applied in claims 1-9 and 11-14, and further in view of Ventzek (US 20220068607 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-9 and 11-14 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, Andersen teaches an RF coil to energize a process gas to form a plasma in the plasma chamber (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021], RF antenna 110 ionizes a feed gas in chamber 100).
Modified Andersen fails to teach wherein the RF coil is positioned adjacent the first end wall of the plasma chamber.
However, Ventzek teaches wherein the RF coil is positioned adjacent the first end wall of the plasma chamber (Ventzek, Fig. 3B, [0055], for plasma subsystem 370, RF power source can be coupled to a planar coil over a top dielectric cover of chamber 350).
Ventzek is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have substituted the RF coil configuration of Andersen wherein the coil surrounds the sidewalls of the plasma chamber with the planar coil over a top dielectric cover of the plasma chamber as taught by Ventzek as they are art recognized equivalents known for the same purpose. Andersen teaches RF antenna 110 surrounds sidewalls of chamber 100 to ionize a feed gas and produce a plasma (Andersen, Fig. 1, [0021]). Ventzek similarly teaches coil 356 surrounds chamber walls 354 of chamber 350 to ionize a gas and produce a plasma (Ventzek, Fig. 3B, [0054]). Ventzek further teaches that an equivalent embodiment for plasma subsystem 370, Fig. 3B, would be a planar coil over a top dielectric cover of chamber 350 (Ventzek, [0055]). See MPEP 2144.06 (II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amended Drawings are accepted in response to the previous objection, which is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejections have been carefully considered, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as presented herein. The Examiner respectfully submits that Renau remedies any alleged deficiencies of the other prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights