DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a slit width change computation module” in claims 5 and 9 to calculate a time-dependent slit width change indicator according to the expressions disclosed in paragraphs [0045-0049] of the instant application.
“a dose adjustment computation module” in claims 7 and 12 to adjust a dosage of the ion beam according to the expression disclosed in paragraph [0052] of the instant application. The instant application determines the dose adjustment through a module CM2 disclosed as an open loop or closed loop dosimetry control system (see paragraph [0068] of the instant application”.
“an operation fault detection module” in claims 8 and 13 to compare a rate of change of the time-dependent slit width change indicator with a predetermined threshold.
“an implant dose control system” in claim 9 to control a dosage of the ion beam according to the expression disclosed in paragraph [0052] of the instant application
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, the instant specification teaches an equation to calculate a time-dependent slit width change (see paragraph [0045-0049] of the instant application). However, the specification does not clearly define how a “factor x, with x>1” is determined such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to calculate the time-dependent slit width change as disclosed.
Furthermore, the slit width change computation module CM1 (e.g. paragraph [0061]) lacks any descriptive structure that would allow such a computation to take place. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to calculate the time-dependent slit width change as claimed.
Claim 6 depends on claim 5 and are rejected for the same reasons above.
Regarding claim 7, the instant application teaches the dose adjustment computation is done on a dose adjustment computation module CM2 (see paragraph [0063] of the instant application), which may include an open loop or closed loop dosimetry control system (see paragraph [0068]). However, the dose adjustment computation module MC2 lacks any descriptive structure that would allow such a computation to take place. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to calculate the dose adjustment as disclosed.
Regarding claim 8, the instant application teaches the operation fault detection comparison is done on an operation fault detection module CM3 (see paragraph [0069]). However, the operation fault detection module lacks any descriptive structure that would allow such a comparison to take place. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to compare the rate of change of the time-dependent slit width change as disclosed.
Regarding claim 9, the instant specification teaches an equation to calculate a time-dependent slit width change (see paragraph [0045-0049] of the instant application). However, the specification does not clearly define how a “factor x, with x>1” is determined such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to calculate the time-dependent slit width change as disclosed.
The instant application further teaches the implant dose control system is done on a dose adjustment computation module CM2 (see paragraph [0063] of the instant application), which may include an open loop or closed loop dosimetry control system (see paragraph [0068]). However, the dose adjustment computation module MC2 lacks any descriptive structure that would allow such a computation to take place. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to calculate the dose adjustment as disclosed.
Claims 10-14 depend on claim 9 and are rejected for the same reasons above.
Regarding claim 15, the instant specification teaches an equation to calculate a time-dependent slit width change (see paragraph [0045-0049] of the instant application). However, the specification does not clearly define how a “factor x, with x>1” is determined such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to calculate the time-dependent slit width change as disclosed.
Claims 16-20 depend on claim 15 and are rejected for the same reasons above.
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 5-20 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 5 recites the limitation “a slit width change computation module” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (as discussed above). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The instant application teaches the equation for calculating a time-dependent slit width change (see paragraphs [0045-0049] of the instant application). However, the specification does not clearly define how a “factor x, with x>1” is determined such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to calculate the time-dependent slit width change as disclosed.
Furthermore, the instant application teaches the time-dependent slit width change calculation is done on a slit width change computation module CM1 (see paragraph [0061] of the instant application). However, the slit width change computation module CM1 (e.g. paragraph [0061]) lacks any descriptive structure that would allow such a computation to take place. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to calculate the time-dependent slit width change as disclosed.
Claim 6 does not further define the limitations set forth in claim 5 and are indefinite for the same reasons above.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a dose adjustment computation module” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (as discussed above). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The instant application teaches the dose adjustment computation is done on a dose adjustment computation module CM2 (see paragraph [0063] of the instant application), which may include an open loop or closed loop dosimetry control system (see paragraph [0068]). However, the dose adjustment computation module MC2 lacks any descriptive structure that would allow such a computation to take place. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to calculate the dose adjustment as disclosed.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “an operation fault detection module” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (as discussed above). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The instant application teaches the operation fault detection comparison is done on an operation fault detection module CM3 (see paragraph [0069]). However, the operation fault detection module lacks any descriptive structure that would allow such a comparison to take place. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to compare the rate of change of the time-dependent slit width change as disclosed.
Regarding claim 9, the instant specification teaches an equation to calculate a time-dependent slit width change (see paragraph [0045-0049] of the instant application). However, the specification does not clearly define how a “factor x, with x>1” is determined such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to calculate the time-dependent slit width change as disclosed.
The instant application further teaches the implant dose control system is done on a dose adjustment computation module CM2 (see paragraph [0063] of the instant application), which may include an open loop or closed loop dosimetry control system (see paragraph [0068]). However, the dose adjustment computation module MC2 lacks any descriptive structure that would allow such a computation to take place. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to calculate the dose adjustment as disclosed.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “an operation fault detection module” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (as discussed above). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The instant application teaches the operation fault detection comparison is done on an operation fault detection module CM3 (see paragraph [0069]). However, the operation fault detection module lacks any descriptive structure that would allow such a comparison to take place. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to compare the rate of change of the time-dependent slit width change as disclosed.
Claims 10-14 depend on claim 9 and are rejected for the same reasons above.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “an operation fault detection module” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (as discussed above). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The instant application teaches the operation fault detection comparison is done on an operation fault detection module CM3 (see paragraph [0069]). However, the operation fault detection module lacks any descriptive structure that would allow such a comparison to take place. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to compare the rate of change of the time-dependent slit width change as disclosed.
Regarding claim 15, the instant specification teaches an equation to calculate a time-dependent slit width change (see paragraph [0045-0049] of the instant application). However, the specification does not clearly define how a “factor x, with x>1” is determined such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to calculate the time-dependent slit width change as disclosed.
Claims 16-20 depend on claim 15 and are rejected for the same reasons above.
Therefore, the claims 5-20 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Potkins et al. (US PGPub 2021/0134559, hereinafter Potkins).
Regarding claim 1, Potkins discloses an ion beam current measurement device (a beam profiler that is disposed downstream of the beam scanner and measures a beam current distribution of the ion beam, see abstract), comprising:
a first Faraday cup having a first ion beam entrance slit of a first width W1, the first Faraday cup being configured to generate a first current signal (cup electrode 122 having a width IB2, see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0053]; cup electrode array 120 may be multiple Faraday cups, see paragraph [0050]; beam current measurer in which a plurality of Faraday cups measure a beam current distribution of an ion beam, see paragraph [0003]); and
a second Faraday cup having a second ion beam entrance slit of a second width W2, the second Faraday cup being configured to generate a second current signal (cup electrode 121 having a width IB1, see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0053]; cup electrode array 120 may be multiple Faraday cups, see paragraph [0050]; beam current measurer in which a plurality of Faraday cups measure a beam current distribution of an ion beam, see paragraph [0003]),
wherein W-2 is greater than W1 (IB1 is larger than IB2, see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Potkins discloses W-2 is greater than W1 (IB1 is larger than IB2, see Fig. 4) such that W2/W1 is equal to or greater than 1.5 (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Potkins discloses a Faraday cup frame to which the first ion beam entrance slit and the second ion beam entrance slit are mounted (cup electrode array 120 supports the plurality of first apertures 111 and second apertures 112 for respective cup electrodes 121 and 122, see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0051]).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potkins in view of Pandolfi (US PGPub 2011/0073777, hereinafter Pandolfi).
Regarding claim 2, Potkins discloses a cup electrode array 120 with a plurality of cup electrodes 121 and 122 (see Fig. 4). Potkins fails to explicitly disclose a distance between the first ion beam entrance slit and the second ion beam entrance slit is equal to or less than 5 cm.
Pandolfi discloses a detector assembly 116 having an array 220 of Faradays arranged about the ion beam (see Fig. 2 and paragraph [0021]). Pandolfi discloses an exemplified embodiment where the Faradays are positioned closer than a width of the ion beam 105 (see Fig. 2). Pandolfi teaches pairs of Faradays are used to provide a two dimensional array to adjust the lenses and magnets to obtain a desired beam angle incident on a work piece (see paragraph [0021]).
Pandolfi modifies Potkins by suggesting an array of closely positioned Faradays.
Since both inventions are drawn to ion implantation devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Potkins by providing an array of closely positioned Faradays for the purpose of obtaining a desired beam angle incident on a work piece as taught by Pandolfi.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANWAY CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at (571) 272-2328. 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.
Hanway Chang
/HC/ Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878