DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/24/2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the implemented substrate” multiple times, when the first recitation is a determined substrate. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “an energy filter” when it is not the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding claims 1-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-15 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-15 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of simulating a ion implantation on a substrate by defining a simulation volume, constituting an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "determining at least one part of an energy filter; determining a simulation area in a substrate” covers mental processes including making a judgement about what an energy filter and simulation area should be. Additionally, the limitation of “defining an ion tunnel for receiving ions directed from an ion beam source” covers mental processes including making a judgement about what an ion tunnel should be. Additionally, the limitation of “implementing the determined at least one part of the energy filter, the ion beam source, the determined simulation area in the substrate, and the defined ion tunnel in a simulation environment;”, covers mental processes including making a judgement about how to implement the determined and defined pieces in a simulation environment, including with pencil and paper. Additionally, the limitation of “determining a minimum distance between the implemented at least one part of the energy filter and the implemented substrate for enabling a desired degree of lateral homogenization of the energy distribution in a doping depth profile of the implemented substrate; and” covers mental processes including evaluating a dataset to determine a minimum distance. Additionally, the limitation of “defining a total simulation volume” covers mental processes including making a judgement about what a total simulation volume should be. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-15 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 does not contain any additional elements, and neither do the dependent claims. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-15 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 does not contain any additional elements, and neither do the dependent claims. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 is directed to further defining the energy filter, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 3 is directed to further defining the simulation environment as a Monte Carlo simulation environment, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 4 is directed to further defining the ion tunnel, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 5 is directed to further defining the ion tunnel, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 6 is directed to further defining the energy filter, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 7 is directed to further defining the ion tunnel, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 8 is directed to further defining the ion tunnel, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 9 is directed to further defining the required dimension of the simulation environment, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 10 is directed to further defining the required dimension of the simulation environment, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 11 is directed to further defining approximated geometrical dimensions, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 12 is directed to further defining approximated geometrical dimensions, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 13 is directed to further defining the tilting of the energy filter, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 14 is directed to further defining the mirroring of the ion beam, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 15 is directed to further defining the superposition of several simulations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
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 1-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Csato et al. “Energy filter for tailoring depth profiles in semiconductor doping application” in view of Borschel et al. “Ion beam irradiation of nanostructures – A 3D Monte Carlo simulation code”.
Regarding claim 1, Csato teaches determining at least one part of an energy filter; (Figure 1, an energy filter is used)
determining a simulation area in a substrate; (Figures 4 and 5, Sections 1, 3 and 5, the simulation area is set for the 26mX26mm substrate)
defining an ion tunnel for receiving ions directed from an ion beam source (Figure 1, an ion tunnel is used)
implementing the determined at least one part of the energy filter, the ion beam source, the determined simulation area in the substrate, and the defined ion tunnel in a simulation environment; (Figures 1-5 and 7-9, the simulation is run to calculate the resulting implantation dept in the substrate)
determining a minimum distance between the implemented at least one part of the energy filter and the implemented substrate for enabling a desired degree of lateral homogenization of the energy distribution in a doping depth profile of the implemented substrate; and (Figures 3, 5 and 7, Section 2, 4-4.1 and 6, a distance for the desired lateral Homogeneity and depth profile is determined)
Csato does not explicitly recite defining a total simulation volume
Borschel teaches defining a total simulation volume (Section 2, Figure 3, a simulation volume is defined)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Csato with Borschel as the references deal with simulated ion implantation, in order to implement a system that defines a total simulation volume using Monte Carlo simulation that is divided into a set of cells where ions are introduced on each edge of the simulation volume with different primary energies. Borschel would modify Csato by defining a total simulation volume using Monte Carlo simulation that is divided into a set of cells where ions are introduced on each edge of the simulation volume with different primary energies. The benefit of doing so is more accurate 3D distributions of implanted ions and implantation damage for nanostructures, which cannot be described by a stack of layers can be achieved. (Menasce Section 7)
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Csato and Borschel teaches the limitations of claim 1. Csato teaches wherein at least one filter unit cell of the energy filter is defined as the least one part of an energy filter. (Figures 1 and 3-5, the opening is made up of at least one filter unit cell)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Csato and Borschel teaches the limitations of claim 1. Csato does not explicitly recite wherein the simulation environment is a Monte Carlo simulation environment.
Borschel teaches wherein the simulation environment is a Monte Carlo simulation environment. (Abstract, Sections 1 and 2, a Monte Carlo simulation is used)
See motivation of claim 1
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Csato and Borschel teaches the limitations of claim 1. Csato does not explicitly recite wherein the ion tunnel is defined such that the ions which reach a first edge of the determined total simulation volume are reintroduced on the other edge of the defined total simulation volume.
Borschel teaches wherein the ion tunnel is defined such that the ions which reach a first edge of the determined total simulation volume are reintroduced on the other edge of the defined total simulation volume. (Figure 3, Ions are introduce at each edge of the simulation volume)
See motivation of claim 1
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Csato and Borschel teaches the limitations of claim 1. Csato teaches wherein the ion tunnel is defined such the ions from the first edge of the defined total simulation volume are shifted within the y-z plane to the opposite edge of the determined simulation total simulation volume, wherein the y-z plane is parallel to a surface of the substrate. (Figures 1 and 3, the ions are applied at each edge of the y-z plane that is parallel to the surface of the substrate)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Csato and Borschel teaches the limitations of claim 2. Csato teaches wherein the at least one part of the energy filter is defined such that the at least one part of the energy filter is at least half a width of the filter unit cell, wherein the width of the filter unit cell is measured in a direction parallel to a y-z plane, and wherein the y-z plane is parallel to a surface of the substrate. (Section 4.1, Figures 1 and 3-5, as the energy filter has dimensions including 8 micro meters, it is at least half of the filter unit cell; Figures 1 and 3, the ions are applied at each edge of the y-z plane that is parallel to the surface of the substrate)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Csato and Borschel teaches the limitations of claim 1. Csato does not explicitly recite wherein the ion tunnel is defined such that the ion tunnel has at least the same dimensions as the determined simulation area.
Borschel teaches wherein the ion tunnel is defined such that the ion tunnel has at least the same dimensions as the determined simulation area. (Figure3, the ion tunnel has the same dimensions as the simulation area)
See motivation of claim 1
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Csato and Borschel teaches the limitations of claim 2. Csato does not explicitly recite wherein the ion tunnel is defined such that the tunnel must have at least the same dimensions as the filter unit cell or multiples of the filter unit cell.
Borschel teaches wherein the ion tunnel is defined such that the tunnel must have at least the same dimensions as the filter unit cell or multiples of the filter unit cell. Figure3, the ion tunnel has the same dimensions as the simulation area)
See motivation of claim 1
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Csato and Borschel teaches the limitations of claim 1. Csato teaches wherein a required dimension of the simulation area in the substrate is determined by a simulation task. (Figures 4 and 5, Sections 1, 3 and 5, the simulation area is set for the 26mX26mm substrate)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Csato and Borschel teaches the limitations of claim 9. Csato teaches wherein the required dimension of the simulation area in the substrate is determined by the dimension of a masking structure on the substrate. (Figures 4 and 5, Sections 1, 3 and 5, the simulation area is set for the 26mX26mm substrate which is covered by a masking structure over the entire substrate and then etched during the simulation)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Csato and Borschel teaches the limitations of claim 1. Csato teaches further comprising implementing approximated geometrical dimensions of triangular-shaped, pyramid-shaped, inverted pyramid-shaped, or free-form shaped energy filter. (Figures 1, 3 and 5, a pyramid shape is used)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Csato and Borschel teaches the limitations of claim 1. Csato teaches further comprising implementing approximated geometrical dimensions of filter unit cells composed of several base elements of different geometry, different material composition or different layer structure. (Figures 1, 3-5, different geometries and different layer structures are used)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Csato and Borschel teaches the limitations of claim 1. Csato does not explicitly recite further comprising superposition of several simulations with different primary energies, ion types or angles of incidence of the primary ions.
Borschel teaches further comprising superposition of several simulations with different primary energies, ion types or angles of incidence of the primary ions. (Figure 3, different primary energies from 20-450 keV are used)
See motivation of claim 1
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Csato in view of Borschel, and in further view of KRIPPENDORF et al. USPPN 2019/0122850.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Csato and Borschel teaches the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Csato and Borschel does not explicitly recite further comprising tilting of the energy filter.
KRIPPENDORF teaches further comprising tilting of the energy filter. ([0004], [0036], [0159], [0161], the energy filter is tilted)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Csato and Borschel with KRIPPENDORF as the references deal with ion implantation, in order to implement a system that tilts the energy filter. KRIPPENDORF would modify Csato and Borschel by tilting the energy filter. The benefit of doing so is tilting the filter and the substrate can prevent channeling. (KRIPPENDORF [0161])
Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art references of record are Csato, Borschel and KRIPPENDORF. These references alone or in combination do not disclose the limitations including mirroring the ion beam about an axis perpendicular to the ion beam by a mirror in the ion tunnel, in combination with the remaining limitations. Therefore, claim 14 as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. The claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 101 and 103 rejections of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Steinbach et al. “Large area Silicon-energy filters for ion implantation”: Also teaches the use of an energy filter for ion implantation with a mask over the substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights