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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species D, Sub Species DA (Claims 13-18) in the reply filed on 02/09/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claim 15 recites “the workpiece is scanned such that a portion of the workpiece is exposed to the plasma and is then subsequently exposed to heat”
It is not clear if subsequently exposed to heat is part of positively recited method step of Claim 1 “heating the workpiece” or a separate heating process.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat claim’s “is then subsequently exposed to heat” as part of “heating the workpiece” step of Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erokhin et al. (US 2009/0084757 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US 6,309,922 B2).
Regarding Claim 13 Erokin (Fig. 2-4) discloses a method of processing a workpiece, comprising:
directing ions toward a workpiece (110, Substrate) using an ion beam (ion beam from ion implanter 300 may include an ion source 310);
creating a plasma within an auxiliary plasma source (202, Plasma source) using a process gas (“Additional parameters may include background pressure of one or more neutral gas species that may be supplied by one or more individually adjustable gas flow controllers, the gas species used to generate plasma for plasma etching, plasma density, neutral density in the plasma, electron temperature and degree of electron confinement.”) [0020], wherein
the auxiliary plasma source (202) is located proximate the workpiece (110) in an end station (104), wherein
ions and radicals (“atomic species such as the reactive species, inert species, metastable (electronically excited) species, neutral reactive species and/or reactive low energy ions” [0031], for radicals see Fig. 4 step 408 and [0037-0038]) from the plasma exit the auxiliary plasma source (202) and react with a surface of the workpiece (110); and
heating the workpiece (“temperature control of the substrate can be achieve through gas assisted cooling of the platen 112 or by cooling or heating the substrate 110”).
Erokin does not explicitly disclose heating the workpiece after the reacting, wherein heat repairs damage caused by the ion beam on the surface of the workpiece.
Liu (discloses heating a workpiece (chip) after a reacting, wherein heat repairs damage caused by the ion beam on the surface of the workpiece (“A post-implant anneal may be required to electrically activate the implanted ions as well as to repair damage to the chip resulting from the surface bombardment of the ions.”) column 6, lines 37-40]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method of processing a workpiece Erokin in view of Liu such that process comprises heating the workpiece after the reacting, wherein heat repairs damage caused by the ion beam on the surface of the workpiece in order to repair damage to the chip resulting from the surface bombardment of the ions. [column 6, lines 37-40]
Regarding Claim 14 Erokin in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 13, wherein
the ion beam (ion beam from ion implanter 300 may include an ion source 310) is used to implant ions into the workpiece. (“The ion beam 108 can be any type of charged particle beam such as an energetic ion beam used to implant the substrate 110.”) [0011]
Examiner notes: Regarding the language of " is used to implant ions into the workpiece.", the examiner notes that such language merely recites an intended outcome or result of the positively recited method step of " directing ions toward a workpiece". The examiner notes recitations directed to the intended use/outcome/result of a specific step in a method claim does not narrow scope of the method claim past the specific recited step. See MPEP § 2106 II C and MPEP § 2111.04. As such, the claim as currently written does not actually require " implant ions into the workpiece ", but merely requires " directing ions toward a workpiece ", which is taught by the prior art of Erokin in view of Liu.
Regarding Claim 15, Erokin in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 13, wherein
the workpiece is scanned such that a portion of the workpiece [0032-0036] is exposed to the plasma (“a scanned ion beam”) and is then subsequently exposed to heat. [column 6, lines 37-40 Liu]
Regarding Claim 16, Erokin in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the workpiece is heated to a temperature between 100° and 500° C. (“A typical anneal within a hydrogen atmosphere in a tube furnace will take place at a temperature of between 300 and 1000 degrees Centigrade”) Liu
Erokin in view of Liu does not explicitly disclose a temperature between 100° and 500° C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method of processing a workpiece Erokin in view of Liu such that process comprises a temperature between 100° and 500° C since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and to repair damage to the chip resulting from the surface bombardment of the ions. [column 6, lines 37-40]
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erokhin et al. (US 2009/0084757 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US 6,309,922 B2) and further in view of Papasouliotis et al. (US 2011/0309049 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Erokin in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the process gas.
Erokin in view of Liu does not explicitly disclose gas comprises a hydrogen/nitrogen mixture.
Papasouliotis discloses gas comprises a hydrogen/nitrogen mixture. [0141].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method of processing a workpiece Erokin in view of Liu and Papasouliotis such that process comprises gas comprises a hydrogen/nitrogen mixture since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07) and to have dopant gas and inert gases [0141].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRIY YEMELYANOV whose telephone number is (571)270-7920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m.-6p.m.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571) 272-1731. 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.
/DMITRIY YEMELYANOV/Examiner, Art Unit 2891