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 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 8, 10, and 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.
Claims 8, 10, and 20 recite “a resistance of the liner film is equal to a resistance of carbon.” It is unclear what resistance is being claimed since carbon can have a wide variety of resistance values depending on the form. The resistance of graphite and diamond, for example, differ by many orders of magnitude.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,053,907 (Chang et al.) in view of US 2007/0102652 (Ring et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Chang et al. discloses an ion implantation apparatus comprising:
a process chamber into which a substrate is loaded, and in which an ion implantation process is performed on the substrate (“These arc chambers release electrons into ion beam 102 in a respective zone adjacent to semiconductor wafer 104.”);
an ion generation chamber adjacent to the process chamber in a first direction, wherein the ion generation chamber is configured to generate ions and supply the ions to the process chamber in the first direction (“The system 100 comprises an ion source providing an ion beam 102,”);
a plasma flood gun (PFG) adjacent to the process chamber in a second direction, wherein the PFG is configured to generate electrons and supply the electrons to the process chamber in the second direction (“and a plasma flood gun 106,”);
a PFG cage between the PFG and the process chamber and through which the electrons migrate to the process chamber (“Plasma flood gun 106 is also connected with a cage 108,”); and
wherein the first direction and the second direction intersect each other (multiple figures).
Chang et al. does not disclose a liner film covering at least a portion of an inner sidewall of the process chamber, wherein the liner film comprises a conductive material. Ring et al. discloses an ion implantation apparatus with a liner film covering at least a portion of an inner sidewall of the process chamber (“liners can be used on any surface experiencing ion beam collisions including but not limited to … process chambers and the like.”), wherein the liner film comprises a conductive material (“graphite liner 150”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include such a liner to capture contaminants, as discussed in Ring et al. (“A liner has an interior facing surface that bounds at least a portion of the evacuated interior region and that comprises grooves spaced across the surface of the liner to capture contaminants generated within the interior region during operation of the ion implanter.”).
Regarding claim 2, Chang et al. in view of Ring et al. discloses the ion implantation apparatus of claim 1, wherein the liner film comprises a graphite material (“graphite liner”).
Regarding claim 3, Chang et al. in view of Ring et al. discloses the claimed invention except they are silent as to whether the liner film comprises: a first portion extending in the first direction and a third direction; and a second portion connected to the first portion and extending in the second direction, and wherein the third direction intersects the first and second directions. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form the liner in such locations because such locations are subject to ion collisions, and Ring et al. discloses that “liners can be used on any surface experiencing ion beam collisions”.
Regarding claim 4, Chang et al. in view of Ring et al. discloses the claimed invention except they are silent as to whether the second portion is between the PFG cage and the process chamber. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form the liner in such a location because that area would be subject to ion collisions, and Ring et al. discloses that “liners can be used on any surface experiencing ion beam collisions”.
Regarding claim 5, Chang et al. in view of Ring et al. discloses the claimed invention except they are silent as to whether the second portion is in the PFG cage, and wherein the PFG cage and the process chamber are in contact with each other. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to place the cage and process chamber in contact with each other as a matter of design choice, as there is no particular advantage to this contact and it appears the apparatus would just as well without contact. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form the second portion of the liner in the PFG cage because because that area would be subject to ion collisions, and Ring et al. discloses that “liners can be used on any surface experiencing ion beam collisions”.
Regarding claim 6, Chang et al. in view of Ring et al. discloses the claimed invention except they are silent as to whether at least a portion of the second portion protrudes from an outer sidewall of the process chamber. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form the second portion such that it protrudes from an outer sidewall of the process chamber a matter of design choice, as there is no particular advantage to such a protrusion and it appears the apparatus would just as well without such a protrusion from the outer sidewall.
Regarding claim 8, Chang et al. in view of Ring et al. discloses the ion implantation apparatus of claim 1, wherein a resistance of the liner film is equal to a resistance of carbon (“graphite liner”).
Regarding claim 16, Chang et al. discloses a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising:
loading a substrate into an ion implantation apparatus (“Semiconductor wafer 104 is fixed on a holder in a semiconductor processing chamber.”); and
performing an ion implantation process on the substrate (fig. 3, step 302),
wherein the ion implantation apparatus comprises: a process chamber into which a substrate is loaded, and in which the ion implantation process is performed on the substrate; an ion generation chamber adjacent to the process chamber in a first direction, wherein the ion generation chamber is configured to generate ions and supply the ions to the process chamber in the first direction; a plasma flood gun (PFG) adjacent to the process chamber in a second direction, wherein the PFG is configured to generate electrons and supply the electrons to the process chamber in the second direction; a PFG cage between the PFG and the process chamber and through which the electrons migrate to the process chamber; wherein the first direction and the second direction is perpendicular to each other (multiple figures).
Chang et al. does not disclose a liner film covering at least a portion of an inner sidewall of the process chamber, wherein the liner film comprises a conductive material. Ring et al. discloses an ion implantation apparatus with a liner film covering at least a portion of an inner sidewall of the process chamber (“liners can be used on any surface experiencing ion beam collisions including but not limited to … process chambers and the like.”), wherein the liner film comprises a conductive material (“graphite liner 150”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include such a liner to capture contaminants, as discussed in Ring et al. (“A liner has an interior facing surface that bounds at least a portion of the evacuated interior region and that comprises grooves spaced across the surface of the liner to capture contaminants generated within the interior region during operation of the ion implanter.”).
Regarding claim 17, Chang et al. in view of Ring et al. disclose the claimed invention except they are silent as to whether the liner film comprises: a first portion extending in the first direction and a third direction; and a second portion connected to the first portion and extending in the second direction, and wherein the third direction intersects the first and second directions. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form the liner in such locations because such locations are subject to ion collisions, and Ring et al. discloses that “liners can be used on any surface experiencing ion beam collisions”.
Regarding claim 18, Chang et al. in view of Ring et al. discloses the claimed invention except they are silent as to whether the second portion is between the PFG cage and the process chamber. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form the liner in such a location because that area would be subject to ion collisions, and Ring et al. discloses that “liners can be used on any surface experiencing ion beam collisions”.
Regarding claim 20, Chang et al. in view of Ring et al. disclose the method of claim 16, wherein a resistance of the liner film is equal to a resistance of carbon (“graphite liner”).
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Claim(s) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0095916 (Ryding et al.).
Regarding claim 9, Ryding et al. discloses an ion implantation apparatus comprising:
a process chamber wherein an ion implantation process of irradiating ions in a first direction toward an upper surface of the substrate is performed in the process chamber (element 16),
wherein the process chamber comprises: a first inner sidewall in the first direction and second direction, a second inner sidewall extending in the first direction and the second direction and facing the first inner sidewall, a third inner sidewall extending in the first direction and a third direction, and a fourth inner sidewall extending in the first direction and the third direction and facing the third inner sidewall (elements 50, 52, 54, and 56);
an ion generation chamber wherein the ion generation chamber is configured to generate ions and supply the ions to the process chamber in a first direction (element 14)
a plasma flood gun (PFG) spaced apart from the third inner sidewall of the process chamber in the second direction, and configured to generate electrons and supply the electrons to the process chamber in the second direction (element 15);
a PFG cage between the third inner sidewall of the process chamber and the PFG, and through which the electrons migrate to the process chamber (element 40); and
a pair of liner films covering at least a portion of at least one of the first inner sidewall, the second inner sidewall, and the third inner sidewall of the process chamber (element 62),
wherein the pair of liner films are spaced apart from each other in the third direction and face each other in the third direction (fig. 7-8), and
wherein a surface of the pair of liner films has at least one of a hatched pattern, a checkered pattern, and a dot pattern (“In FIG. 7, the roughening is shown to be a series of intersecting grooves that form an array of tetrahedra.”).
Ryding does not disclose ion generation chamber being adjacent to the process chamber, because an additional chamber for the beam optics is included in between. Ryding also differs in that the substrate is not loaded into the process chamber, as defined by the walls above, but such a substrate is loaded into the larger chamber including the beam optics and the relationships are otherwise the same.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to remove the beam optics and associated chamber if beam mass analyzing, mass selection, and energy deceleration were not desired. See MPEP 2144.04, elimination of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired.
Regarding claim 10, Ryding discloses the ion implantation apparatus of claim 9, wherein a resistance of one of the pair of liner films is equal to a resistance of carbon (“In common with prior art designs, the walls 50-56 are either made from graphite or are fitted with graphite liners.”).
Regarding claim 11, Ryding discloses the ion implantation apparatus of claim 9, wherein one of the pair of liner films comprises a conductive material (“In common with prior art designs, the walls 50-56 are either made from graphite or are fitted with graphite liners.”).
Regarding claim 12, Ryding discloses the ion implantation apparatus of claim 9, wherein one of the pair of liner films comprises: a first portion extending in the first direction and the third direction; and a second portion connected to the first portion and extending in the second direction (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13, Ryding discloses the ion implantation apparatus of claim 12, wherein the second portion is between the PFG cage and the process chamber (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 14, Ryding discloses the ion implantation apparatus of claim 12, wherein the PFG cage and the process chamber are in contact with each other (multiple figures). Ryding does not disclose wherein the second portion is in the PFG cage. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the liner to protrude into the PFG cage to prevent deposition on the inner wall of the plasma cage.
*******************************************************************************
Claim(s) 7 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. as applied to claims 1 & 16 above, and further in view of US 2002/0117637 (Donaldson et al.).
Regarding claim 7, Chang et al. in view of Ring et al. discloses the ion implantation apparatus of claim 1 and method of claim 16, wherein a surface of the liner film is exposed to the ions, and wherein the surface of the liner film has a patterned surface (“The texture of a surface on which sputtered contaminant material adheres has an effect on how much of a deposit forms and how stable, i.e. resistant to flaking the deposit is. In accordance with the invention the three panels 152, 154, 156 are constructed of graphite and channels are grooved into the outer (exposed) surface of these panels.”).
Chang et al. in view of Ring et al. do not disclose at least one of a hatched pattern, a checkered pattern, and a dot pattern. Donaldson et al. discloses an ion implantation apparatus with a textured pattern comprising a checkered pattern (fig. 4-7. also fig. 10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute the checkered pattern of Donaldson et al. for the grooved and circular patterns of Ring et al. because the checkered pattern provides smaller sections than simple grooves and more consistent spacing than the circular pattern.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 8,698,108 (Dzengeleski et al.) discloses an ion implantation apparatus with a process chamber with liner and a plasma flood gun emitting a beam intersecting an ion beam.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights