DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Double patenting:
The remarks take the position that the amended subject matter overcomes the double patenting rejection. This has not been found persuasive. The amended subject matter is required by the patented claims as discussed herein below.
Rejections under 35 USC § 112(b)
The remarks take the position that the amendment clarifies the claim. This is not persuasive. Specifically, the claim requires an ion source head comprising: an extraction electrode; an extraction voltage conductor…an insulator, disposed between the extraction voltage conductor and one or more components of the ions source head.
That is, the claim requires the ion source to comprise an insulator and to be positioned between an extraction voltage conductor and one or more components of the ions source head. Fig. 2 of the instant drawings shows the insulator between the outer wall 204 of the ion source head and the extraction voltage conductor 214. Paragraph [0020] of the published application provides various components of the source head “such as a supply chamber 202 having an outer wall 204, an arc chamber 206, an extraction electrode 208, one or more filaments 210, a bias electrode 212, an extraction voltage conductor 214, a gas supply line 216, one or more insulators 218, and an arc voltage conductor 220.”
Moreover, paragraph [0024] suggests, as claimed, “the insulator(s) 218 may be disposed between the extraction voltage conductor 214 and one or more components of the ion source head 106 that are at the electrical potential of the arc voltage”
Initially, the broadest reasonable interpretation covers the insulator being between itself and the extraction voltage conductor, however it is not clear how the insulator can be between itself.
Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim covers the positional relationship between the insulator and the extraction voltage conductor between multiple non-limited elements including between the extraction voltage conductor itself ([0020], which defines the components and paragraph [0024] which broadly covers any of the non-limited components discussed in paragraph [0020]). Since the insulator has two or more plausible constructions (for instance between the extraction conductor and itself or any of the non-limited components of paragraph [0020]), the claim is rendered indefinite.
MPEP 2173.05(b) recites “A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. That is, where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite. See, e.g., Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) ”
Here, the specification provides numerous non-limiting elements of the source head upon which the insulator can be provided between any one or more of them and the extraction voltage conductor, however since the components are widely claimed, it is not clear as to which one or more components the insulator is positioned between with respect to the extraction voltage conductor. For instance, in light of the specification, the claim could require the insulator to be between the extraction electrode itself, or between the extraction electrode and the outer wall and the gas supply line and the voltage conductors, filaments, however the specification does not appear to support the insulator construction to facilitate a single insulator to be between each of these elements and the extraction voltage conductor. Indeed, there is no suggestion of how the insulator could be between itself (i.e. a component of the ion source). Therefore, the claims as amended have additionally raised a lack of written description as discussed herein below.
Rejections under 35 USC § 103
By amendment, the 103 rejection has been overcome. Specifically, Sato fails to expressly suggest “wherein a concentric channel, of the plurality of concentric channels, is formed between a first concentric guide wall and a second concentric guide wall of the plurality of concentric guide walls”. However, upon further consideration, this limitation has been found to be obvious as discussed herein below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,020,896 in view of Ikeda (JPH0922675). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent are narrower in scope requiring all the limitations of the application (see chart below).
Claims to instant application
Claims to patent
1. An ion source head, comprising: an extraction electrode; an extraction voltage conductor configured to supply an extraction voltage to the extraction electrode; and an insulator, disposed between the extraction voltage conductor and one or more components of the ion source head that is at an electric potential of an arc voltage of the ion source head, configured to provide electrical isolation between the extraction voltage conductor and the one or more components of the ion source head, wherein the insulator comprises a first portion, a second portion, and an internal cavity formed when the first portion and the second portion are combined, wherein the first portion comprises a flange, and one or more openings positioned about a perimeter of the flange, wherein the one or more openings are configured to secure the insulator to the portion of the ion source head.
2. The ion source head of claim 1, wherein the internal cavity comprises a channel with a back and forth pattern.
3. The ion source head of claim 1, wherein the first portion further comprises a core member, and wherein the second portion comprises a recess.
4. The ion source head of claim 3, wherein the core member is at least partially inserted into the recess when the first portion and the second portion are combined.
5. The ion source head of claim 3, wherein the core member comprises an opening configured to secure the insulator to the extraction voltage conductor.
6. The ion source head of claim 1, wherein the first portion further comprises a first plurality of guidewalls, and wherein the second portion comprises a second plurality of guidewalls.
7. The ion source head of claim 1, wherein the one or more openings are one or more first openings, and wherein the first portion comprises: a plurality of guidewalls extending from a first surface of the flange, and a second opening at a center of a second surface of the flange.
8. An ion implantation system, comprising: an ion source head, comprising: an extraction electrode; an extraction voltage conductor configured to supply an extraction voltage to the extraction electrode; an insulator, disposed between the extraction voltage conductor and a portion of the ion source head that is at an electric potential of an arc voltage of the ion source head, configured to provide electrical isolation between the extraction voltage conductor and the portion of the ion source head, wherein the insulator comprises a first portion, a second portion, and an internal cavity formed when the first portion and the second portion are combined, wherein the first portion further comprises a flange, and one or more openings positioned about a perimeter of the flange, wherein the one or more openings are configured to secure the insulator to the portion of the ion source head; and a gas source configured to provide a supply gas to the ion source head.
9. The ion implantation system of claim 8, further comprising: a power supply configured to provide an extraction electrode voltage to the ion source head.
10. The ion implantation system of claim 8, further comprising: a power supply configured to provide the arc voltage to the ion source head.
11. The ion implantation system of claim 8, wherein the ion source head is configured to generate ions from the supply gas.
12. The ion implantation system of claim 11, further comprising: an analyzer configured to: receive an ion beam comprising the ions, and filter the ion beam, wherein ions having a particular property are passed through the analyzer.
13. The ion implantation system of claim 12, further comprising: a wafer configured to receive the ions having the particular property.
14. The ion implantation system of claim 13, further comprising: a wafer handler configured to hold the wafer.
15. An ion source head, comprising: an extraction electrode; an extraction voltage conductor configured to supply an extraction voltage to the extraction electrode; and an insulator, disposed between the extraction voltage conductor and a portion of the ion source head that is at an electric potential of an arc voltage of the ion source head, configured to provide electrical isolation between the extraction voltage conductor and the portion of the ion source head, wherein the insulator comprises a first portion, a second portion, and an internal cavity formed when the first portion and the second portion are combined, wherein the first portion comprises a flange, one or more first openings positioned about a perimeter of the flange, a plurality of guidewalls extending from a first surface of the flange, and a second opening at a center of a second surface of the flange, wherein the one or more first openings and the second opening are configured to secure the insulator to the portion of the ion source head.
16. The ion source head of claim 15, wherein the first portion comprises a core member comprising a third opening configured to secure the insulator to the extraction voltage conductor.
17. The ion source head of claim 16, wherein the second portion comprises a recess, and wherein the core member is at least partially inserted into the recess when the first portion and the second portion are combined.
18. The ion source head of claim 15, wherein the plurality of guidewalls is a first plurality of guidewalls; and wherein the second portion comprises a second plurality of guidewalls.
19. The ion source head of claim 18, wherein the first plurality of guidewalls and the second plurality of guidewalls form a channel in the internal cavity when the first portion and the second portion are combined.
20. The ion source head of claim 19, wherein the channel has a back and forth pattern from a core member of the first portion to an outermost guidewall of the first plurality of guidewalls and the second plurality of guidewalls.
14. An ion source head, comprising: an extraction electrode; an extraction voltage conductor to supply an extraction voltage to the extraction electrode; and an insulator, disposed between the extraction voltage conductor and a portion of the ion source head (a portion of the ion source is one or more components thereof) that is at an electric potential of an arc voltage of the ion source head, to provide electrical isolation between the extraction voltage conductor and the portion of the ion source head, wherein the insulator comprises a first portion, a second portion, and an internal cavity formed when the first portion and the second portion are combined, … wherein the first portion further comprises a flange, …, one or more first openings positioned about a perimeter of the flange, … wherein the one or more first openings are configured to secure the insulator to the portion of the ion source head
(claim 14) wherein the internal cavity comprises the third channel with a back and forth pattern
(claim 14) wherein a core member of the first portion is at least partially inserted into a recess of the second portion when the first portion and the second portion are combined
(claim 14) wherein a core member of the first portion is at least partially inserted into a recess of the second portion when the first portion and the second portion are combined
(claim 14) wherein the core member comprises a third opening at a second end of the first portion opposing the first end, wherein the third opening is configured to secure the insulator to the extraction voltage conductor at the second end
(claim 14) wherein the first portion further comprises a flange, a first plurality of guide walls… the second portion further comprises a stepped section… a second plurality of guide walls extending from the stepped section.
(claim 14) the first portion further comprises a flange, a first plurality of guide walls extending from a first surface of the flange… one or more first openings positioned about a perimeter of the flange, and a second opening at a center of a second surface of the flange and at a first end of the first portion.
18. An ion implantation system, comprising: … an extraction electrode voltage to an ion source head (requiring an extraction electrode and conductor). The remaining language is required by the claim with the exception of the disposition of the insulator between the extraction voltage conductor and a portion of the head that is at an electrical potential of an arc voltage of the ion source. However, this was known to Huang as discussed herein below. Wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the insulator between the ion source head and extraction voltage conductor so as to prevent a leakage path from the source head and the conductor and extend the source head life with no additional costs (see paragraph [0025]) of Huang.
(claim 18) a first power supply to provide an extraction electrode voltage to an ion source head
(claim 18) a second power supply to provide an arc voltage to the ion source head
(claim 18) a gas source to provide a supply gas to the ion source head, wherein generating ions from a gas supply is inherent to supplying gas to the ion source head
(claim 18) while ‘896 does not explicitly claim an analyzer. These limitations were known to at least Huang (see discussion below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a mass analyzer in the ion implanter of ‘896 because it would allow selection of the ion mass to be implanted therefore removing impurities from the wafer processing.
(claim 18) ion implantation system inherently requires a wafer, that is ion implantation is used to process semiconductor wafers
(claim 18) an ion implantation system inherently requires a wafer holder to support the wafer.
(See discussion in claim 14 above) Additionally as discussed in instant application claim 7 above, claim 14 additionally requires the second opening at a center of a second surface of the flange.
(claim 14) a core member of the first portion…the core member comprises a third opening at a second end of the first portion opposing the first end, wherein the third opening is configured to secure the insulator to the extraction voltage conductor at the second end
(claim 14) wherein a core member of the first portion is at least partially inserted into a recess of the second portion when the first portion and the second portion are combined
(claim 14) wherein the first portion further comprises a flange, a first plurality of guide walls… the second portion further comprises a stepped section… a second plurality of guide walls extending from the stepped section.
(claim 14) an internal cavity formed when the first portion and the second portion are combined…the first plurality of guide walls, the first plurality of channels, the second plurality of guide walls, and the second plurality of channels form a third channel to the core member…wherein the internal cavity comprises the third channel with a back and forth pattern from the core member to an outermost guide wall of the first plurality of guide walls and the second plurality of guide walls
(claim 14) see citation in claim 19 above
While the patent does not teach all of the claim limitations, the remainder would have been obvious in view of Ikeda as discussed herein below.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 lacks written description for requiring “an ion source head comprising: an extraction electrode; an extraction voltage conductor…an insulator, disposed between the extraction voltage conductor and one or more components of the ions source head”. Specifically, the instant specification broadly covers components of the ion source head as “a supply chamber 202 having an outer wall 204, an arc chamber 206, an extraction electrode 208, one or more filaments 210, a bias electrode 212, an extraction voltage conductor 214, a gas supply line 216, one or more insulators 218, and an arc voltage conductor 220”. Therefore, the claim covers any ion component or components either disclosed or otherwise. There is no suggestion for instance as to the insulator 218 between itself and the extractor, nor between the extractor itself. However, the disclosure supports any of those such combinations. Moreover, there is no suggestion as to how the insulator would be between the extractor electrode and two or more of those components.
MPEP 2163.05 (I)(B) recites “The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species. A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014)”
Here, the disclosure suggests the ion component may be any component of the ion source head such as those listed in paragraph [0020] of the published application, however the instant specification does not teach a single species (aside from the apparent showing of insulator 218 between outer wall 204 and extraction voltage conductor 214). As there would be a substantial variation to the variety of species (i.e. placement of the insulator between “one or more components of the ion source head”), there is insufficient disclosure to suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art the specification fully supports the entire genus. For instance, the size and geometry of insulators 218 and the locations of the various components of paragraph [0020], would prevent the single claimed insulator from being between the extractor and all of the components of paragraph [0020]. Figure 2 presents clear evidence that one of the insulators 218 could not be between extraction voltage conductor 214 and the filament 210 and the outer wall 204. Specifically, the insulator is only apparently between the outer wall and the extraction voltage conductor (204/214) and is not of sufficient size or shape to additionally between any of the other components and the extraction voltage conductor. However, the instant claim covers such a species by the suggestion of the insulator being between the extraction voltage conductor one or more of components of the ion source head.
MPEP 2163 II(A)(3)(a)(ii) recites:
“T]he purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor's contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.' (internal quotation marks omitted).")
Here, there is no disclosure of the insulator being between the extraction voltage conductor and all ion source components or indeed even more than one ion source component. At best figure 2 appears to suggest the insulator is between the extraction voltage conductor and the outer wall of the ion source.
Therefore, claim 1 fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 USC 112(a).
Claims 8 and 15 require identical limitations, therefore fail to meet the written description requirement for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-19 are vague and indefinite by virtue of their respective dependencies on rejected claims 1, 8 and 15.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 1 is vague and indefinite for requiring “An ion source head comprising…an extraction voltage conductor…an insulator, disposed between the extraction voltage conductor and one or more components of the ion source head”. Specifically, the claim requires an ion source head comprising: an extraction electrode; an extraction voltage conductor…an insulator, disposed between the extraction voltage conductor and one or more components of the ions source head.
That is, the claim requires the ion source to comprise an insulator and to be positioned between an extraction voltage conductor and one or more components of the ions source head. Fig. 2 of the instant drawings shows the insulator between the outer wall 204 of the ion source head and the extraction voltage conductor 214. Paragraph [0020] of the published application provides various components of the source head “such as a supply chamber 202 having an outer wall 204, an arc chamber 206, an extraction electrode 208, one or more filaments 210, a bias electrode 212, an extraction voltage conductor 214, a gas supply line 216, one or more insulators 218, and an arc voltage conductor 220.”
Moreover, paragraph [0024] suggests, as claimed, “the insulator(s) 218 may be disposed between the extraction voltage conductor 214 and one or more components of the ion source head 106 that are at the electrical potential of the arc voltage”.
Initially, the broadest reasonable interpretation covers the insulator being between itself and the extraction voltage conductor, however it is not clear how the insulator can be between itself and a conductor.
Moreover, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim covers the positional relationship between the insulator and the extraction voltage conductor between multiple non-limited elements including between the extraction voltage conductor itself ([0020], which defines the components and paragraph [0024] which broadly covers any of the non-limited components discussed in paragraph [0020]). Since the insulator has two or more plausible constructions (for instance between the extraction conductor and itself or any of the non-limited components of paragraph [0020]), the claim is rendered indefinite.
MPEP 2173.05(b) recites “A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. That is, where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite. See, e.g., Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) ”
Here, the specification provides numerous non-limiting elements of the source head upon which the insulator can be provided between any one or more of them and the extraction voltage conductor, however since the components are widely claimed, it is not clear as to which one or more components the insulator is positioned between with respect to the extraction voltage conductor. For instance, in light of the specification, the claim could require the insulator to be between the extraction electrode itself or between the insulator itself, or between the extraction electrode and the outer wall and the gas supply line and the voltage conductors, filaments, however the specification does not appear to support the insulator construction to facilitate a single insulator to be between each of these elements and the extraction voltage conductor. Indeed, there is no suggestion of how the insulator could be between itself (i.e. a component of the ion source). It appears that the ion source head comprises one or more components ([0024] of the originally filed specification), an extraction voltage conductor and an insulator, where the insulator is between the extraction voltage conductor and the one or more components of the ion source head. For the purposes of examination, this will be the interpretation of “a portion of the ion source head”.
Claims 8 and 15 require identical indefinite limitations, therefore are vague and indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-19 are vague and indefinite by virtue of their respective dependencies on rejected claims 1, 8 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US pgPub 2007/0262270) (submitted with IDS) in view of Sato (US pgPub 2014/0353518) and further in view of Ikeda (JP-H0922675) (copy of publication and machine translation submitted in the parent application 16/947430 with the office action of 10 December 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Huang et al. teach an ion source head (fig. 6, 132), comprising:
an extraction electrode (136 disclosed to extract plasma generated by arc chamber 142 ([0025]), thus extraction electrode);
an extraction voltage conductor (electrode bar 138) configured to supply an extraction voltage to the extraction electrode ([0025] “high voltage 134 is supplied to G2 graphite electrode 136 by means of electrode bar 138”);
and an insulator (100), disposed between the extraction voltage conductor and one or more components of the ion source head that are at an electric potential of an arc voltage of the ion source head, configured to provide electrical isolation between the extraction voltage conductor and the portion of the ion source head ([0025] note: “Insulator 100 is disposed between high potential electrode bar 138 and any location in the source head held at the G1 potential, providing insulation therebetween”).
wherein the insulator comprises a first portion (outer cylinder 108, see figures 3-4), a second portion (inner cylinder 106), and an internal cavity formed when the first portion and the second portion are combined ([0021] teaches the inner and outer cylinder are radially joined by a flange such that a cavity is formed within the gap 110 at the open end 113),
While Huang teaches [0021] flange extends from 108 to 106 thus comprised by both, Huang fails to suggest any openings about the parameter, nor how the insulator is attached between the extraction electrode conductor and the portion of the source head. Therefore, Huang fails to disclose wherein the first portion comprises a flange, and one or more openings positioned about a perimeter of the flange, wherein the one or more openings are configured to secure the insulator to the one or more components of the ion source head.
However, Sato teaches wherein the first portion comprises a flange (bracket 46 comprised by first portion of insulator 54/72/46 in figure 3. When bracket 46 is attached to 72/54 it forms a flange extending from 72/54), and one or more openings positioned about a perimeter of the flange (opening received by 50), wherein the one or more openings are configured to secure the insulator to the one or more components of the ion source head ([0038]-[0039] 46 is provided to secure electrode carrier 44 to bracket 46, where bracket 46 is attached to insulator 54. That is flange (i.e. bracket 46) has an opening to accept fastener 50 to secure the insulator 32/70/72 to a portion of the source head (i.e. ground electrode 42) which is part of the ion source unit 102 in figure 1).
Sato modifies Huang by suggesting a first portion of the insulator to include a bracket so as to provide a means to secure the insulator between the electrodes.
Since both inventions are directed towards providing insulation between an extraction electrode and another portion of the ion source, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the outer cylinder 108 with a bracket as suggested by Sato because it would facilitate the attachment of the insulator in a replaceable manner. That is, while the device of Huang is resistant to being coated to mitigate the necessity to replace the ion source components (abstract and [0006]). Sato is evidence that overtime contamination particles can be deposited on surfaces of the components of the apparatus, therefore leading to a conductive path where insulation is insufficient ([0067]). Even with the lengthened path for contaminated particles via the covers 70/80 suggested by Sato, the limit value is reached in about 100 hours (Sato, [0078]). That is, in either case replacement or maintenance of the insulator is required. Therefore by adopting the first portion having a bracket (i.e. flange) of Sato attached to the first portion of Huang would facilitate a means to easily attach and detach the insulator when necessary for maintenance, therefore shortening the downtime during maintenance of the ion source.
While Sato suggests the first portion interpreted to be 72/46/32/82, wherein 32 forms a first channel with 82 and a second channel with 80, wherein the channel by guide walls 82/52 is concentric with the channel formed between 80/54 (i.e. they share a common center). The guide walls are interpreted as the side wall of 82 and the sidewall of 80. Sato fails to specifically suggest wherein the first portion comprises a concentric channel, of the plurality of concentric channels, is formed between a first concentric guide wall and a second concentric guide wall of the plurality of concentric guide walls.
However, Ikeda teaches wherein the first portion comprises a plurality of concentric guide walls (fig. 2, 20a and 20b), a plurality of concentric channels formed by the plurality of concentric guide walls (channel between 20 and 20b and channel between 20b and 22), wherein a concentric channel, of the plurality of concentric channels, is formed between a first concentric guide wall and a second concentric guide wall of the plurality of concentric guide walls (channel formed between 20a and 20b).
Ikeda modifies the combined device by suggesting a plurality of guide walls for the first portion.
Since both inventions are directed towards insulators and concentric covers generating longer paths, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concentric guide walls of Ikeda in the combined device because it would increase the distance of contaminants travel to the insulator therefore prolonging the cleaning and securing insulating performance (see abstract of Ikeda)
Regarding claim 2, Huang fails to disclose wherein the cavity comprises a channel with a back and forth pattern.
However, Sato teaches wherein the cavity comprises a channel with a back and forth pattern (back and forth pattern between 84 and 71 seen in figure 3 formed by first and second covers 70/72 which may be formed of ceramic [0049]).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
925
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sato modifies Huang by suggesting an elongated back and forth pattern over the simple channel.
Since both inventions are directed towards insulators for ion sources, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the first and second portion (70/80) and core 32 instead of the insulator of Huang because it would increase the surface area of adsorption surfaces for contamination particles thus increasing the lifetime of the insulator ([0047]).
Regarding claim 3, Huang in view of Sato teach wherein the first portion (Sato 80) further comprises a core member (32 when attached by 53), and wherein the second (Sato, 70) portion comprises a recess (recess to receive insulator 32 via sidewall 76 and contact portion 74).
Regarding claim 4, Huang in view of Sato teach the core member is at least partially inserted into the recess when the first portion and the second portion are combined (Sato, 32 is partially inserted into recess formed by 70 when the first portion 72 and second portion 70are combined as seen in figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, Huang in view of Sato teach wherein the core member comprises an opening configured to secure the insulator to the extraction voltage conductor (Sato, opening in 32 to receive fastener 51 to extraction conductor 38 (i.e. extraction electrode carrier)).
Regarding claim 6, Huang in view of Sato and further in view of Ikeda teach wherein the plurality of concentric guide walls is a first plurality of concentric guide walls and (Ikeda 20a/20b ).
The combined device fails to disclose wherein the second portion comprises a second plurality of concentric guide walls.
However, Ikeda teaches "one of the two pollution prevention shield cups has a double side wall in order to reduce the deterioration of the insulation due to the contamination of the insulator support of the ion extraction electrode system" ([0012]). Paragraph [0025] teaches lengthening the cycle of periodic cleaning of the insulator support.
Therefore, since it was known that doubling the side walls of 20 results in reduced contamination, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to double the side walls of the first portion (i.e. to create a plurality of channels similarly to portion 20) because it would further reduce contamination and therefore further prolong the periodical cleaning than with just one double side wall as discussed in abstract. Doubling the first portion 21 in the same manner as the second portion 20 would result a fourth straight line portion parallel to the core because the sidewall portions are offset such that the side wall of 19 may be inserted into the channel formed by sidewalls 20 (as seen in figure 1b).
Regarding claim 7, Huang in view of Sato teach wherein the one or more openings are one or more first openings (Sato, opening for 50), and wherein the first portion comprises: a plurality of concentric guide walls extending from a first surface of the flange (see annotated figure below, note first surface interpreted to be continuous inner surface of bracket 46. Note Ikeda also shows channels 20a/20b extending from a surface (interpreted as flange in Sato)),
PNG
media_image2.png
647
1092
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and a second opening at a center of a second surface of the flange (interpreted second surface arbitrarily to place 53 at center. That is, the claim does not require any boundaries of a second surface, therefore the second surface is interpreted to be the portion of the bottom of bracket 46 with opening for 53).
PNG
media_image3.png
621
1058
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Huang in view of Sato and further in view of Ikeda teach all the overlapping limitations required by independent claim 1 as discussed above. Moreover, Huang further teaches an ion implantation system ([0017] teaches insulator in an ion implantation system), comprising an ion source head (132) and a gas source configured to provide a supply gas to the ion source head ([0025] note gas supply piping 146 gas flow within source head 132).
Regarding claim 9, Huang teaches a power supply configured to provide an extraction electrode voltage to the ion source head (inherent to provide potential to extraction electrode).
Regarding claim 10, Huang teaches further comprising: a power supply configured to provide the arc voltage to the ion source head ([0025] “Insulator 100 is disposed between high potential electrode bar 138 and any location in the source head held at the G1 potential”, in order to hole source head at potential G1 a power supply is inherently required).
Regarding claim 11, Huang teaches wherein the ion source head is configured to generate ions from the supply gas ([0025] teaches arc chamber 142 generates plasma later focused into an ion beam, gas is supplied to source head. Plasma is an ionized gas, therefore the plasma is generated from the supply gas).
Regarding claim 12, Huang teaches an analyzer configured to: receive an ion beam comprising the ions, and filter the ion beam, wherein ions having a particular property are passed through the analyzer ([0002]-[0003] teaches an analyzer as in US 6777882 incorporated by reference, which teaches an ion mass selector 13 comprising a magnetic sector mass analyzer 33 with a mass selecting slit, thus receiving ions and only passing ions of selected mass, see col. 4, lines 28-31.).
Regarding claim 13, Huang teaches a wafer configured to receive the ions having the particular property (inherent to an ion implanter having the mass analyzer as disclosed in paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 14, Huang teaches a wafer handler configured to hold the wafer ([0002], wherein a wafer inherently has a support or holder. Paragraph [0003] incorporates by reference 6777882 which teaches a wafer holder 14a in figure 1).
Claim 15 is a combination of claims 1 and 7 and obvious as discussed herein above. Note additionally, the second opening of Sato secures the insulator via fastener 53.
Regarding claim 16, Huang in view of Sato teach wherein the first portion comprises a core member (first portion 72 of Sato having core member 32 when fixed via 53) comprising a third opening configured to secure the insulator to the extraction voltage conductor (third opening in 52 fixing to extractor 36 via opening to accept 51).
Regarding claim 17, Huang in view of Sato teach wherein the second portion comprises a recess (Sato, recess formed by 76/74 of 70), and wherein the core member is at least partially inserted into the recess when the first portion and the second portion are combined (as seen in figure 3).
Regarding claim 18, Huang in view of Sato teach wherein the plurality of guide walls is a first plurality of guide walls; and wherein the second portion comprises a second plurality of guide walls (see discussion in claim 6 above).
Regarding claim 19, Huang in view of Sato wherein the first plurality of guide walls and the second plurality of guide walls form a channel in the internal cavity when the first portion and the second portion are combined (see annotated figure in claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 20, Huang in view of Sato wherein the channel has a back and forth pattern from a core member of the first portion to an outermost guide wall of the first plurality of guide walls and the second plurality of guidewalls (see annotated figure in claim 2 above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights