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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 6-9 and 15-18 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.
Claims 6-9 and 15-19 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 6 and 15 recite “a plurality of quadrupole magnets coupled to the beam tube via a pump chase” wherein “the pump chase is coupled to a third of the six adjoining sidewalls” and “the plurality of quadrupole magnets is coupled to a sixth of the six adjoining sidewalls” . It is not clear from the disclosure how the quadrupole magnets are coupled to the beam tube using a pump chase on the opposite side of the tube. This arrangement would require structural connections which are not described or illustrated in the current disclosure, such as a part of the quadrupole magnet structure passing through the beam tube, which may have a functional effect on the beam.
Claims 7-9 and 16-18 are rejected for their dependence on claims 6 and 15.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10-11, 13-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20220285127 A1) in view of Dollinger (US 20230300969 A1) and in further view of Sasaki 2018 (US 20180330920 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki teaches an ion implantation system (ion implanter 100, fig. 1) comprising:
An ion source (10) for generating an ion beam;
An end station (substrate transferring/processing unit 20) for holding a substrate (wafer W) to be implanted by the ion beam;
A linear accelerator (beam acceleration unit 14 with linear acceleration units 22a-22c) disposed between the ion source and the end station and adapted to accelerate the ion beam, the linear accelerator comprising:
A beam tube (vacuum chamber 140, fig. 6) for transmitting the ion beam, the beam tube having adjoining sidewalls;
At least one resonator (74a-74c, [0070]) coupled to the beam tube; and
At least one pump (vacuum pump 148) coupled to the beam tube;
Wherein at least one of the adjoining sidewalls of the beam tube has an opening formed therein (opening formed in wall 140d, fig. 6) for providing access to an interior of the beam tube.
Sasaki does not teach that the beam tube has at least five adjoining sidewalls, or that the pump is a turbomolecular pump.
Dollinger teaches a linear accelerator having an octagonal beam tube (fig. 4a) or a hexagonal beam tube (fig. 5a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to make the beam tube of Sasaki hexagonal or octagonal (i.e. having at least five adjoining sidewalls), as Dollinger teaches that beam tubes of this shape are known in the art and selecting a different beam tube shape would be a matter of simple design choice for one skilled in the art with no functional effect on the beam.
Sasaki and Dollinger do not teach a turbomolecular pump.
Sasaki 2018 teaches a linear accelerator with a turbomolecular pump (108a-c, [0120-0121].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to select the vacuum pump of Sasaki to be a turbomolecular pump, which is a known type of vacuum pump effective at producing vacuum in a linear accelerator as described by Sasaki 2018.
Regarding claim 3, Sasaki teaches at least one buncher (first linear accelerator 22a which performs bunching, [0030]) coupled to the beam tube.
Regarding claim 4, Sasaki teaches that the at least one pump is coupled to a beam tube via a pump chase (connected area of vacuum chamber 140 below mounting bar 142, fig. 5), coupled to one of the sidewalls (140d) of the beam tube (at least five sidewalls in the combination with Dollinger, above).
Sasaki does not teach a plurality of turbomolecular pumps.
Sasaki 2018 teaches a linear accelerator having a plurality of turbomolecular pumps (108a-c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Sasaki to have multiple turbomolecular pumps connected to the pump chase area, in order to increase the speed of evacuation of the vacuum tube.
Regarding claim 5, Dollinger teaches that the at least five adjoining sidewalls comprises six adjoining sidewalls defining a hexagon when the beam tube is viewed end-on (fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 10, Sasaki teaches that the at least one resonator is smaller at a juncture of the at least one resonator with the tube relative to portions of the at least one resonator more distal than the beam tube (fig. 6, resonator has narrow neck portion closer to beam tube).
Regarding claim 11, Sasaki teaches an ion implantation system (ion implanter 100, fig. 1) comprising:
An ion source (10) for generating an ion beam;
An end station (substrate transferring/processing unit 20) for holding a substrate (wafer W) to be implanted by the ion beam;
A linear accelerator (beam acceleration unit 14 with linear acceleration units 22a-22c) disposed between the ion source and the end station and adapted to accelerate the ion beam, the linear accelerator comprising:
A beam tube (vacuum chamber 140, fig. 6) for transmitting the ion beam, the beam tube having adjoining sidewalls;
At least one resonator (74a-74c, [0070]) coupled to the beam tube; and
At least one pump (vacuum pump 148) coupled to the beam tube;
Wherein at least one of the adjoining sidewalls of the beam tube has an opening formed therein (opening formed in wall 140d, fig. 6) for providing access to an interior of the beam tube.
Sasaki does not teach that the beam tube has six adjoining sidewalls defining a hexagon when the beam tube is viewed end-on, or that the pump is a turbomolecular pump.
Dollinger teaches a linear accelerator having a hexagonal beam tube (fig. 5a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to make the beam tube of Sasaki hexagonal, as Dollinger teaches that beam tubes of this shape are known in the art and selecting a different beam tube shape would be a matter of simple design choice for one skilled in the art with no functional effect on the beam.
Sasaki and Dollinger do not teach a turbomolecular pump.
Sasaki 2018 teaches a linear accelerator with a turbomolecular pump (108a-c, [0120-0121].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to select the vacuum pump of Sasaki to be a turbomolecular pump, which is a known type of vacuum pump effective at producing vacuum in a linear accelerator as described by Sasaki 2018.
Regarding claim 13, Sasaki teaches at least one buncher (first linear accelerator 22a which performs bunching, [0030]) coupled to the beam tube.
Regarding claim 14, Sasaki teaches that the at least one pump is coupled to a beam tube via a pump chase (connected area of vacuum chamber 140 below mounting bar 142, fig. 5), coupled to one of the sidewalls (140d) of the beam tube (one of six adjoining sidewalls in the combination with Dollinger, above).
Sasaki does not teach a plurality of turbomolecular pumps.
Sasaki 2018 teaches a linear accelerator having a plurality of turbomolecular pumps (108a-c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Sasaki to have multiple turbomolecular pumps connected to the pump chase area, in order to increase the speed of evacuation of the vacuum tube.
Regarding claim 19, Sasaki teaches that the at least one resonator is smaller at a juncture of the at least one resonator with the tube relative to portions of the at least one resonator more distal than the beam tube (fig. 6, resonator has narrow neck portion closer to beam tube).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki in view of Dollinger and Sasaki 2018 and in further view of Sinclair (US 20220037116 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Sasaki, Dollinger and Sasaki 2018 teach all the limitations of claims 2 and 12 as described above. Sasaki, Dollinger and Sasaki 2018 do not teach at least one quadrupole magnet coupled to the beam tube.
Sinclair teaches a linear accelerator having magnetic quadrupoles coupled to the beam tube ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Sasaki et al to have the quadrupole magnets as part of the linear accelerator beam tube, in order to prevent unwanted beam spread as described by Sinclair.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki in view of Dollinger.
Regarding claim 20, Sasaki teaches a beam tube for a linear accelerator of an ion implantation system (tube formed by walls 140, fig. 6).
Sasaki does not teach that the beam tube comprises at least five adjoining sidewalls.
Dollinger teaches a linear accelerator having an octagonal beam tube (fig. 4a) or a hexagonal beam tube (fig. 5a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to make the beam tube of Sasaki hexagonal (i.e. having at least five adjoining sidewalls), as Dollinger teaches that beam tubes of this shape are known in the art and selecting a different beam tube shape would be a matter of simple design choice for one skilled in the art with no unexpected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights