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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/20/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 3 is 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 3 is rejected under this heading because the Examiner cannot identify a further positively recited method step within the claim. Claim 3 recites, “The ion beam irradiation method according to claim 1, wherein, when a value obtained by multiplying a mass of an ion species included in the ion beam by an irradiation energy of the ion beam is set as an irradiation index value of the ion beam, an irradiation index value of the ion beam that irradiates the rear member is equal to or larger than an irradiation index value of the ion beam that is used to irradiate the target.”
Claim 3 depends upon claim 1 and is drawn to a method. Claim 3, following the statement of dependency begins with a conditional “when…” and then proceeds to recite a produced mathematical operation result. In this case, claim 3 as written does not require a further method step since there is no prerequisite step for carrying out a mathematical operation on a beam characteristic in claim1. The condition not being met, it is not clear how claim 3 recites an additional step or modification to the claimed method upon which it depends. Contrast this with claim 2 for example, which clearly differentiates ion energies striking various elements.
As a result, claim 3 is rendered indefinite since it is not clear that the claim recites an additional step limiting the method of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not teach or suggest an ion beam irradiation method comprising: before irradiating a target at an irradiation position with an ion beam: irradiating a rear member located behind the irradiation position with the ion beam in a state in which the target is retracted from the irradiation position; and collecting particles generated by irradiating the rear member with the ion beam by conveying a collection member in a transport direction in front of the rear member as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 9 and 11. Claims 2, 4-8, 10, and 12-20 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Note the attached form PTO-892. The prior art conventionally employs a displaced member, such a Faraday cup to be inserted at various points in an ion beam to determine beam current in an ion implantation process. The instantly claimed invention, however, utilizes a collection member, disclosed as being a similar object to the target itself, to collect particulate deposits released from a chamber wall. The collection member in the instant application is displaced into the emitted “cloud” of deposit particles so they do not contaminate the target. This approach is not contained in the prior art. Therefore, given the particular definition of rear member and collection member in the disclosure, and the general principle of the invention, it appears that the claimed invention is allowable over the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A VANORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 6 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, 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.
DAVID A. VANORE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID A VANORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights