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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A: claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-20, in the reply filed on 04/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 8, 10-11, 14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tu et al. (US 20230185180 A1).
As to claim 1, Tu discloses a device [Abstract; Fig. 1; claim 17; Fig. ], comprising:
an ion beam emitter 110 that is configured to perform milling of a cutface of a specimen [para. 0008-9, para. 0026] via an ion beam [para. 0014, “particle beam may comprise, for example, photons, ions, protons, neutrons or else electrons”]; and
a gas injector GK2 that is configured to deliver a decomposed precursor to the cutface [para. 0028, “a molecule of the second gaseous component, adsorbed on the surface, is activated, as may take place, for example, by a secondary electron, then the molecule may decompose, in which case, for example, a molecule with silicon and oxygen, such as SiO or SiO.sub.2, attaches on the surface”;
[para. 0102, “second gaseous component GK2 is tetraethyl orthosilicate (Si(OC.sub.2H.sub.5).sub.4, also referred to as tetraethoxysilane, hereinafter TEOS for short).”],
wherein the ion beam polymerizes the decomposed precursor [para. 0102] , thereby growing a polymer shield layer on the cutface during the milling [para. 0028-29, para. 0038-39, para. 0102].
As to claim 2. Tu discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the decomposed precursor comprises reactive ions or reactive neutrals that are produced via excitation of a reactive gas [para. 0028, “a molecule of the second gaseous component, adsorbed on the surface, is activated, as may take place, for example, by a secondary electron, then the molecule may decompose, in which case, for example, a molecule with silicon and oxygen, such as SiO or SiO.sub.2, attaches on the surface”].
As to claim 5, Tu discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the gas injector discharges the reactive gas to the cutface [para. 0028-29, para. 0102], wherein the ion beam excites the reactive gas, thereby breaking the reactive gas into the reactive ions and the reactive neutrals, and wherein the ion beam polymerizes the reactive ions and the reactive neutrals para. [0028-29, para. 0102], thereby growing the polymer shield layer on the cutface during the milling [para. 0038-39.
As to claim 7, Tu discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the reactive gas comprises: tetraethylorthosilicate [para. 0102]; tetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane; any other cyclosiloxane [para. 0034]; or any other siloxane.
As to claim 8, Tu discloses the device of claim 1, further comprising an etcher that is configured to bathe the cutface in a dry or wet etchant, thereby removing the polymer shield layer, in response to cessation of the milling [para. 0038].
As to claim 10, Tu discloses a method [Abstract], comprising:
milling, by an ion beam emitter 110 [para. 0008-9, para. 0026], a cutface of a specimen via an ion beam [para. 0014, “particle beam may comprise, for example, photons, ions, protons, neutrons or else electrons”]; and
delivering, by a gas injector GK2, a decomposed precursor to the cutface [para. 0028, “a molecule of the second gaseous component, adsorbed on the surface, is activated, as may take place, for example, by a secondary electron, then the molecule may decompose, in which case, for example, a molecule with silicon and oxygen, such as SiO or SiO.sub.2, attaches on the surface”;
[para. 0102, “second gaseous component GK2 is tetraethyl orthosilicate (Si(OC.sub.2H.sub.5).sub.4, also referred to as tetraethoxysilane, hereinafter TEOS for short).”],
wherein the ion beam polymerizes the decomposed precursor [para. 0102], thereby growing a polymer shield layer on the cutface during the milling [para. 0028-29, para. 0038-39, para. 0102].
As to claim 11, Tu discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the decomposed precursor comprises reactive ions or reactive neutrals that are produced via excitation of a reactive gas [para. 0102].
As to claim 14, Tu discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the gas injector discharges the reactive gas to the cutface [para. 0028-29, para. 0102], wherein the ion beam excites the reactive gas, thereby breaking the reactive gas into the reactive ions and the reactive neutrals, and wherein the ion beam polymerizes the reactive ions and the reactive neutrals para. [0028-29, para. 0102], thereby growing the polymer shield layer on the cutface during the milling [para. 0038-39].
As to claim 16, Tu discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising: bathing, by an etcher, the cutface in a dry or wet etchant, thereby removing the polymer shield layer, in response to cessation of the milling [para. 0038].
As to claim 18, Tu discloses a scientific instrument [Fig. 2, claim 17], comprising:
a focused ion beam (FIB) system [Fig. 2, para. 0014, “particle beam may comprise, for example, photons, ions, protons, neutrons or else electrons”] that is configured to mill a lamella [para. 0008-9, para. 0026]; and
a gas injector system GK2 that is configured to grow a polymer passivation layer on the lamella simultaneously as the FIB system mills the lamella, wherein the polymer passivation layer protects vertical sidewalls of the lamella from milling [para. 0028-29, para. 0038-39, para. 0102].
As to claim 19, Tu discloses scientific instrument of claim 18, wherein the FIB system is configured to mill the lamella by bombarding the lamella with an ion beam [para. 0008-9, para. 0014, para. 0026], wherein the gas injector system is configured to transport a decomposed precursor to the lamella as the FIB system mills the lamella para. 0028, “a molecule of the second gaseous component, adsorbed on the surface, is activated, as may take place, for example, by a secondary electron, then the molecule may decompose, in which case, for example, a molecule with silicon and oxygen, such as SiO or SiO.sub.2, attaches on the surface”;
[para. 0102, “second gaseous component GK2 is tetraethyl orthosilicate (Si(OC.sub.2H.sub.5).sub.4, also referred to as tetraethoxysilane, hereinafter TEOS for short).”],
and wherein the ion beam polymerizes the decomposed precursor, thereby growing the polymer passivation layer as the FIB system mills the lamella [para. 0102].
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 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu et al. (US 20230185180 A1), as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 7, 8, 10-11, 14, 16, and 18-19 above, and further in view of Budach et al. (US 20200249564 A1).
As to claim 9, Tu discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the device further comprises:
an electron beam emitter that is configured to emit an electron beam onto the cutface simultaneously with the ion beam, wherein the electron beam assists the ion beam in polymerizing the decomposed precursor.
However, Budach is directed to an apparatus for etching and/or depositing on a substrate using a particle beam [Abstract], and broadly teaches that the apparatus and method may employ at least one of: an electron beam, an ion beam, an atomic beam, a molecule beam and a photon beam [para. 0048; claims 1 and 15].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus/method for providing an ion beam to a substrate surface to etch and passivate the surface, of Tu, to include providing a first and second particle beam, the second beam comprising an electron beam, of Budach, in order to effectively etch and/or deposit on a substrate, as taught by Budach [para. 0048; claims 1 and 15].
As to claim 17, Tu discloses the method of claim 10, but fails to explicitly disclose the method further comprising:
emitting, by an electron beam emitter, an electron beam onto the cutface simultaneously with the ion beam, wherein the electron beam assists the ion beam in polymerizing the decomposed precursor.
However, Budach is directed to an apparatus for etching and/or depositing on a substrate using a particle beam [Abstract], and broadly teaches that the apparatus and method may employ at least one of: an electron beam, an ion beam, an atomic beam, a molecule beam and a photon beam [para. 0048; claims 1 and 15].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus/method for providing an ion beam to a substrate surface to etch and passivate the surface, of Tu, to include providing a first and second particle beam, the second beam comprising an electron beam, of Budach, in order to effectively etch and/or deposit on a substrate, as taught by Budach [para. 0048; claims 1 and 15].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 12, 15, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claims 3 and 12, the closest prior art of record to Tu et al. (US 20230185180 A1), either alone or in combination with other prior art, fails to teach or suggest the features of:
“wherein the gas injector comprises:
a reservoir for the reactive gas;
a plasma reactor that is configured to:
receive from the reservoir the reactive gas; and
excite the reactive gas via an electromagnetic field, thereby breaking the reactive gas into the reactive ions and the reactive neutrals; and
a gas nozzle that is configured to discharge the reactive neutrals to the cutface, wherein the ion beam polymerizes the reactive neutrals, thereby growing the polymer shield layer on the cutface during the milling.”
As to claims 6, 15, and 20, the closest prior art of record to Tu et al. (US 20230185180 A1), either alone or in combination with other prior art, fails to teach or suggest the features of: “wherein the reactive gas comprises an organic fluoride gas.” (of claims 6 and 15) and “wherein the decomposed precursor comprises reactive neutrals or reactive ions produced by breaking down an organic fluoride gas.” (of claim 20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: The additionally cited references are cited to show methods and apparatus for ion beam treatment of substrates in conjunction with etching and/or deposition gases [Abstracts].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M REMAVEGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 AM - 3:30 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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER REMAVEGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights