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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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) 1, 2, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shemesh et al. (2019/00431830).
Regarding Claim 1, Shemesh et al. (2019/00431830) discloses a system, comprising:
a target (object 1500);
an ion beam source (electron source 1430) configured to create a plasma from which an ion beam (particle beam 1432) is emitted along corresponding emission axis disposed coincident with an axis of the target throughout the emission (see below); and
an electron suppressor electrode (1450) disposed asymmetrically with respect to the ion beam (1432) at a radial distance (see solid arrow below) away from and entirely below the emission axis (See annotated figure 14 below), the electron suppressor being configured to suppress back-streaming of electrons (backscattered electron) toward the ion beam source (1430) (paragraphs [0060] to [0062]).
Claim 9 is rejected similarly as discussed above.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Shemesh discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the electron suppressor electrode (1450) comprises an elongated electrically conductive member (detects electron).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shemesh et al. (2019/0043183) in view of Gaury et al. (2023/0335374).
Regarding Claim 8, as discussed above, Shemesh essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 1, further comprising an extraction electrode positioned between the ion beam source and the target, and configured to extract ions from the plasma for creation of the ion beam.
However, Gaury discloses an extract electrode (302) to extract or accelerate electrons generated from electron source assembly (Fig. 3, paragraph [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided extract electrode in Shemesh in order to accelerate electrons generated from electron source assembly as taught by Gaury.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (2009/0236547) in view of Shemesh et al. (2019/0043183).
Regarding Claim 1, Huang et al. (2009/0236547) discloses a system, comprising:
a target (a target plane, paragraph [0049]; workpiece, fig. 3);
an ion beam source (ion source 302 comprises a plasma generating component, paragraph [0036]) configured to create a plasma from which an ion beam (ion beam 332, paragraph [0036]) is emitted along corresponding emission axis (e.g. direction X) disposed coincident with an axis of the target (a target plane, paragraph [0049]; workpiece, fig. 3); and
an electron suppressor electrode (suppression electrode 338, paragraph [0041]) disposed with respect to the ion beam (332, e.g. X direction, Fig. 3), and configured to suppress back-streaming of electrons toward the ion beam source (suppress secondary electrons from back-streaming toward the source, paragraph [0065]).
PNG
media_image2.png
668
975
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As discussed above, Huang essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not literally disclose the suppressor electrode 338 disposed asymmetrically with respect to the ion beam 322. However, since the suppression electrode 338 is as shown disposed in Y direction and the ion beam 332 travels in X direction (Fig. 3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized or interpreted that both the suppression electrode and the ion beam are not disposed along the same axis, therefore the suppression electrode 338 disposed asymmetrically with respect to the ion beam 322.
As discussed above, Huang essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose an electron suppressor electrode disposed asymmetrically with respect to the ion beam at a radial distance away from and entirely below the emission axis.
However, Shemesh et al. (2019/0043183) teaches an electron suppressor electrode (1450) disposed asymmetrically with respect to the ion beam (1432) at a radial distance (see solid arrow below) away from and entirely below (1450 is entirely below ion beam) the emission axis (axis along the ion beam 1432) to process the signals and detect voids in interconnects (paragraphs [0060] to [0062]).
PNG
media_image3.png
482
731
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time was filed to have provided and located a BSE detector as electrode entirely below the emission axis in Huang in order to process the signals and detect voids in interconnects as taught by Shemesh.
Claim 9 is rejected similarly as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 2, Huang discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the electron suppressor electrode comprises an elongated electrically conductive member (338 and 340 each can comprise two separate electrically conductive plates, paragraph [0055]) (see below in Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
668
975
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Huang discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a bias voltage source coupled to the electron suppressor electrode, whereby the electron suppressor electrode is held at a bias voltage (the suppression electrode is biased by a voltage supply, paragraphs [0011], [0057]) with respect to the target (target plane, workpiece).
Regarding Claim 4, Huang discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the bias voltage is negative (the suppression electrode is biased by a voltage supply to a negative potential relative to ground, paragraph [0011]; voltage biased positively and negatively, respectively, relative to ground, paragraph [0066]).
Regarding Claim 5, Huang discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the bias voltage is positive (positive bias, paragraph [0041]; for a beam of positive ions, the ion source is maintained by a voltage supply at the positive voltage, paragraph [0009]; voltage biased positively and negatively, respectively, relative to ground, paragraph [0066]).
Regarding Claim 7, Huang discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the bias voltage source is variable (“sets of the extraction electrode 336 and suppression 338 electrodes having respective supplies that can be independently varied to alter the respective voltages applied to those electrode”, paragraph [0050]).
Regarding Claim 8, Huang discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising an extraction electrode (336) positioned between the ion beam source (302 or filament) and the target (workpiece, target plane) (Fig. 3), and configured to extract ions from the plasma for creation of the ion beam (332) (fig. 3).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (2009/0236547) in view of Shemesh et al. (2019/0043183) further in view of Maas et al. (2021/0327678), further in view of Dzengeleski et al. (8,698,108).
Regarding Claim 6, as discussed above, Huang essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 5, further comprising a diagnostic circuit coupled to the electron suppressor electrode and configured to monitor electrons emitted by the target and impinging on the electron suppressor electrode.
However, Maas et al. (2021/0327678) discloses a diagnostic circuit (15, 17) for monitoring electrons emitted by the target (Fig. 2).
In addition, Dzengeleski et al. (8,698,108) discloses a measuring device to measure the electrons from the suppression electrode (Col. 4, lines 19-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the monitoring device of Maas for monitoring the electrons emitted the target and the measuring device of Dzengeleski for measuring the electrons from suppression electrode in Huang/Shemesh in order to adjust and regulate the ion beam output as taught by Maas and Dzengeleski.
Claim(s) 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (2009/0236547) in view of Shemesh et al. (2019/0043183) further in view of Maas et al. (2021/0327678).
Regarding Claim 10, Huang discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the electron suppressor electrode is positively biased with respect to the target (For creating a beam 332 of positive ions, the ion source 302 can be maintained by a voltage supply at a positive voltage relative to ground, paragraph [0056]) but does not explicitly disclose whereby back-streamed electrons from the target are attracted to the electron suppressor electrode.
However, Maas et al. (2021/0327678) discloses a diagnostic circuit (15, 17) for monitoring electrons emitted by the target (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the monitoring device of Maas for monitoring the back-streamed electrons emitted the target in Huang/Shemesh in order to adjust and regulate the ion beam output as taught by Maas.
Regarding Claim 11, Huang/Shemesh discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the electron suppressor electrode is negatively biased with respect to the target (The suppression electrode 24 is biased by a voltage supply to a negative potential relative to ground, paragraph [0011]) but does not explicitly disclose whereby back-streamed electrons from the target are repelled by the electron suppressor electrode from returning toward the ion source.
However, Maas et al. (2021/0327678) discloses a diagnostic circuit (15, 17) for monitoring electrons emitted by the target (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the monitoring device of Maas for monitoring the back-streamed electrons emitted the target in Huang/Shemesh in order to adjust and regulate the ion beam output as taught by Maas.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Wilson Lee whose telephone number is (571) 272-1824. Proposed amendment and interview agenda can be submitted to Examiner’s direct fax at (571) 273-1824.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. Papers related to the application may be submitted by facsimile transmission. Any transmission not to be considered an official response must be clearly marked "DRAFT". The official fax number is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/WILSON LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights