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/Restriction
Applicant's election without traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 3/2/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 9-15, previously belong to a nonelected group II, contain same/similar subject matter as elected group I after amendments, and thus are examined in this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-6, 9-10, 14-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0072402 A1 [hereinafter Satoh] in view of US 6,761,085 B1 [hereinafter Tan].
Regarding Claim 1:
Satoh teaches an extraction electrode assembly (Abstract: “An extraction electrode manipulator system”), comprising:
a suppression electrode (Fig. 2- 210/Fig.3-310);
a ground electrode (Fig. 2- 212/Fig.3-312); and
electrode mounting hardware (Fig. 2- support tubes 246&248/ Fig. 3- support tubes 346&348), in physical and electrical contact with the suppression electrode and the ground electrode in a cantilever configuration (Figs. 2 and 3, paras. [0011,0024-0027]: the suppression and ground electrodes are supported by two coaxially mounted water-cooled support tubes at one end, i.e., physical contact “in a cantilever configuration”. The source aperture, suppression electrode, and ground electrode are electrically insulated from each other and each is connected to separate voltage sources 232, 234, and 236, i.e., electrically contact).
However, Satoh does not specifically note that wherein at least one of the suppression electrode or the ground electrode includes one or more attachment points to which a mass may be affixed so as to adjust natural frequency of the extraction electrode assembly.
Tan teaches a “a mass spring system that vibrates at a frequency determined by the characteristics of the spring and the mass.” The system includes a cantilever beam spring 20 having a slot 30 at one end, an end mass 22 is slidably mounted along the slot, and an attachment screw extends through the mass and is threaded into a nut plate. Tan further teaches that moving the end mass changes the resonant frequency of the mass-spring system (See Fig. 2 and 4:1-31).
As such, Satoh in view of Tan teaches that wherein at least one of the suppression electrode or the ground electrode includes one or more attachment points to which a mass may be affixed so as to adjust natural frequency of the extraction electrode assembly, because modifying Satoh’s cantilevered suppression electrode and/or ground electrode to include Tan’s slot/attachment-point arrangement would result in at least one of Satoh’s electrodes including an attachment point to which a mass may be affixed. It would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Satoh’s extraction electrode assembly to include one or more attachment points on at least one of the suppression electrode or the ground electrode for affixing a mass, as taught by Tan. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Tan’s adjustable mass/attachment-point structure to Satoh’s cantilevered extraction electrodes to adjust the natural frequency of the extraction electrode assembly away from undesired vibration frequencies, reduce resonance/vibration, and improve stable ion beam extraction. The modification would have been the predictable use of a known vibration-tuning technique on a similar cantilevered structure.
Regarding Claim 20:
Satoh in view of Tan teaches the extraction electrode assembly of claim 1.
Satoh further teaches:
wherein the suppression electrode comprises a rounded end (as shown in Fig. 3, the suppression electrode 310 is in round shape); and a suppression aperture (Fig. 2-aperture 213) disposed in the rounded end; and
wherein the ground electrode comprises: a rounded end (as shown in Fig. 3, the ground electrode 312 is in round shape); and a ground aperture (Fig. 2- aperture 212) disposed in the rounded end, aligned with the suppression aperture (para. [0022]: “Both the suppression electrode 210 and the ground electrode 212 can be adjusted by a mechanical motion manipulator 228 so that the apertures 213 and 215 can be aligned to the source aperture 206 in the y-direction 230)”.
Tan further teaches an elongated cantilever beam having a slot/attachment points and adjustable mass for vibration tuning.
As such, Satoh in view of Tan teaches a suppression handle attached to the electrode mounting hardware at a proximal end; a ground handle attached to the electrode mounting hardware at a proximal end; and wherein the one or more attachment points are disposed in the suppression handle and the ground handle. In the modified structure, Satoh’s rounded suppression and ground electrode aperture portions would remain in the ion beam path, while Tan’s elongated beam/slot/mass structure would provide handle portions extending from the rounded aperture portion to the mounting hardware.
Regarding Claims 2 and 14:
Satoh in view of Tan teaches the extraction electrode assembly of claim 1 and claim 20, respectively. Tan further teaches the mass affixed to one of the one or more attachment points (Fig. 2 and 4:12-19: “The opposite end 28 of the cantilever spring is provided with slot 30. An attachment screw 32 extends through opening 34 in the end mass 22 and is threaded into nut plate 36”).
Regarding Claims 3 and 15:
Satoh in view of Tan teaches the extraction electrode assembly of claim 2 and claim 14, respectively. Tan further teaches the mass is adapted to be disposed in one of a plurality of different locations (2:7-8: “the mass is slidably mounted on an end of the cantilever beam spring”).
Regarding Claim 4:
Satoh in view of Tan teaches the extraction electrode assembly of claim 1. The combined references further teach wherein the suppression electrode and the ground electrode both include one or more attachment points to which the mass may be affixed. Since in the modified structure, both the suppression electrode and ground electrode are supported at one end in a cantilever configuration, it would have been obvious to provide such attachment points on both the suppression electrode and ground electrode because both electrodes are cantilevered members subject to vibration.
Regarding Claim 5:
Satoh in view of Tan teaches the extraction electrode assembly of claim 4. The combined references further teach the mass affixed to at least one of the one or more attachment points. It would further have been obvious to affix the mass to at least one of the attachment points because Tan teaches that the mass is secured to the cantilevered member to provide the vibration-tuning effect. Without affixing the mass, the attachment points would not perform the intended tuning function.
Regarding Claim 6:
Satoh in view of Tan teaches the extraction electrode assembly of claim 2. Tan further teaches wherein the one or more attachment points comprise an elongated slot, wherein a fastener passes through the elongated slot and secures the mass to a respective electrode, and wherein the mass is operable to be moved along the elongated slot to different positions (2:7-8 &11-13; 4: 16-19: “Adjustment is provided through a slot in the cantilever beam spring. The mass slides along the slot to permit adjustment of the vibration frequency for the damper.” “An attachment screw 32 extends through opening 34 in the end mass 22 and is threaded into nut plate 36”, and “the mass is slidably mounted on an end of the cantilever beam spring”).
Regarding Claim 9:
Satoh an ion implantation system (para. [0001]: “ion implantation systems… for utilizing an extraction electrode manipulator”) comprising:
an ion source having an extraction aperture to generate ions (paras. [0020-0021]: an ion source 202 with source aperture 206);
a mass analyzer (para. [0029]: mass analyzer that receives the extracted ion beam); and
one or more beamline components to direct the ions toward a workpiece (paras. 0028-0029: the beamline assembly, comprising a beamguide, directing the ion beams to a workpiece location).
Satoh in view of Tan teaches the extraction electrode assembly of claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify the extraction electrode assembly in Satoh’s ion implantation system, to include one or more attachment points on at least one of the suppression electrode or the ground electrode for affixing a mass, as taught by Tan. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Tan’s adjustable mass/attachment-point structure to Satoh’s cantilevered extraction electrodes to adjust the natural frequency of the extraction electrode assembly away from undesired vibration frequencies, reduce resonance/vibration, and improve stable ion beam extraction. The modification would have been the predictable use of a known vibration-tuning technique on a similar cantilevered structure.
Regarding Claim 10:
Satoh in view of Tan teaches the extraction electrode assembly of claim 20. The combined references further teach wherein the one or more attachment points comprise an elongated slot, wherein a fastener passes through the elongated slot and secures the mass to a respective electrode, and wherein the mass is operable to be moved along the elongated slot from a first position closest to the rounded end to a second position closest to the electrode mounting hardware. In the modified structure, as the the mass can be slidably affixed to the elongated slot by a screw and a nut plate, the mass can be affixed to the round electrode end and the handle end, i.e., hardware mounting end.
Claims 7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh in view of Tan, and further in view of CN114481416A [hereinafter Tongdao].
Regarding Claims 7 and 11:
Satoh in view of Tan teaches the extraction electrode assembly of claim 2 and claim 20, respectively. However, the combined references do not specifically note that the one or more attachment points comprises a plurality of holes, wherein a fastener passes through one of the plurality of holes to secure the mass to a respective electrode. Tongdao teaches wherein the one or more attachment points comprises a plurality of holes, wherein a fastener passes through one of the plurality of holes to secure the mass to a respective electrode (Figs. 2 and 3; para. [0026]: “The main body 1 is also provided with a plurality of counterweight holes 13, and the counterweight block 5 is assembled in the counterweight hole 13. Specifically, the counterweight block 5 is screwed to the counterweight hole 13”).
Tan teaches affixing a mass to an elongated member to adjust vibration/natural frequency using a slot. Tongdao teaches arranging a plurality of holes in an elongated bar/body and screwing a counterweight block into a selected hole. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to replace Tan’s elongated slot with Tongdao’s plurality of counterweight holes because both arrangements provide attachment points for securing a mass/weight to an elongated member, therefore implementing attachment points as holes instead of slots is just a known and predictable alternative that would yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 12:
Satoh in view of Tan, and further in view Tongdao teaches the extraction electrode assembly of claim 11. The combined references further teach wherein the plurality of holes comprises at least a first hole closest to the rounded end and a second hole closest to the electrode mounting hardware. As shown in annotated Fig. 2 below, Tongdao teaches the first pair of holes are located at an opposite end from the second pair of holes. Therefore, in the modified system, the first and second holes can be placed at two opposite ends of the electrode assembly, i.e., the round electrode end and the handle end (hardware mounting end).
PNG
media_image1.png
286
793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh in view of Tan, and further in view of US 2010/0308592A1 [hereinafter Frayne].
Regarding Claim 8:
Satoh in view of Tan teaches the extraction electrode assembly of claim 2. However, the combined references do not specifically note that the extraction electrode assembly further comprising a second mass, wherein the mass and the second mass are magnetic and are disposed on opposite sides of a respective electrode at one of the one or more attachment points. Frayne teaches a second mass, wherein the mass and the second mass are magnetic (paras. [0022, 0025, 0046]: the membrane 8 is elongated, “One or more membrane masses 4 may also be affixed to one or more main surfaces of the membrane 8. The membrane mass 4…often helps to encourage vigorous and self-starting oscillation of the membrane 8”, and “the membrane mass 4 may be implemented using a magnetic material, such as an NdFeB magnet”).
As such, the combined references teach a second mass, wherein the mass and the second mass are magnetic and are disposed on opposite sides of a respective electrode at one of the one or more attachment points. In the modified structure, the first and second magnetic mass, as taught in Frayne, can be disposed on the attachment points of each electrode of the Satoh-Tan electrode assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to dispose the magnetic masses taught in Frayne to the elongated handle/member in Satoh-Tan, as an alternative approach to attach mass to the elongated handle/member, providing more balanced mass distribution about the handle while still allowing the amount and position of added mass to adjust the natural frequency of the cantilevered extraction electrode assembly.
Regarding Claim 13:
Satoh in view of Tan teaches the extraction electrode assembly of claim 2. However, the combined references do not specifically note two magnetic masses disposed on opposite sides of a respective handle at one of the one or more attachment points, wherein attractive forces secure the two magnetic masses to the respective handle. Satoh in view of Tan, further in view of Frayne teaches two magnetic masses disposed on opposite sides of a respective handle at one of the one or more attachment points, as discussed in claim 8, and magnets are known to create attractive forces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to dispose the magnetic masses taught in Frayne to the opposite sides of the elongated handle/member in Satoh-Tan, as an alternative approach to attach mass to the elongated handle/member, providing more balanced mass distribution about the handle while still allowing the amount and position of added mass to adjust the natural frequency of the cantilevered extraction electrode assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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 571-272-2293.
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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights