DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 7/17/2026.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 9-17 are withdrawn.
Claims 18-20 are new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xie (US Pub. 2021/0082724).
Regarding claim 1, Xie teaches an apparatus ([0057] and Fig. 1, apparatus #100) for ion beam etching ([0057]: etching), comprising: a plasma source chamber ([0052] and Fig. 1, plasma chamber #120); a process chamber ([0050] and Fig. 1, processing chamber #110); an ion extractor separating the plasma source chamber from the process chamber ([0053] and Fig. 1, separation grid #200 comprising #210 and #220); a gas inlet for providing gas to the plasma source chamber ([0052] and Fig. 1, inlet providing gas to channel #151); an RF power system for providing RF power to the plasma source chamber ([0052] and Fig. 1, RF generator #134, matching network #132, coil #130); a process gas source connected to the gas inlet; and a cleaning gas mixture source connected to the gas inlet ([0057] and Fig. 1, plurality of gas sources feeding lines #159, comprises various process gases and inert gases).
Regarding claim 7, Xie teaches wherein the cleaning gas mixture source comprises at least one of a krypton gas source or a xenon gas source and wherein the process gas source comprises an argon gas source (Fig. 1, Ar, Kr, and Xe listed).
Regarding claim 8, Xie teaches wherein the cleaning gas mixture source further comprises a nitrogen gas source ([0196], [0340]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (US Pub. 2021/0082724), as applied to claims 1 and 7-8 above, further in view of Tanaka (US Pub. 2006/0188240).
The limitations of claims 1 and 7-8 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, Xie does not explicitly teach a controller controllably connected to the process gas source and the cleaning gas mixture source. (Examiner’s note: a unified process controller is essentially required for most plasma apparatuses and are so ubiquitous that a PHOSITA would know that at least a general purpose computer is provided to control the Xie apparatus. Despite this, the Examiner submits the following reference in combination for completeness).
However, Tanaka teaches a controller controllably connected to a gas source (Tanaka – [0058], [0043]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Xie apparatus to include the controller of Tanaka in order to control each and every part of the processing apparatus (Tanaka – [0058]).
Claims 3-4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (US Pub. 2021/0082724) and Tanaka (US Pub. 2006/0188240), as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Yeom (US Pub. 2009/0203226) and Hanawa (US Pub. 2005/0211170).
The limitations of claim 2 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 3, Xie does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Tanaka teaches wherein the controller comprises: at least one processor (Tanaka – [0058]: CPU 200); and computer readable media (Tanaka – [0058]: memory 202), comprising: computer readable code for processing at least one wafer (Tanaka – [0063]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Xie apparatus to include the controller of Tanaka in order to control each and every part of the processing apparatus (Tanaka – [0058]).
Modified Xie does not teach computer readable code for loading at least one wafer into the process chamber; providing a process gas at a process gas flow rate from the process gas source into the plasma source chamber; providing at least one process bias to the ion extractor; energizing the process gas to form a process plasma in the plasma source chamber, wherein the ion extractor passes energetic neutrals from the plasma source chamber to the process chamber to process the at least one wafer in the process chamber; or removing the wafer from the process chamber.
However, Yeom teaches loading at least one wafer into the process chamber (Yeom – [0026]); providing a process gas at a process gas flow rate from the process gas source into the plasma source chamber (Yeom – [0026]); providing at least one process bias to the ion extractor (Yeom – [0026]); energizing the process gas to form a process plasma in the plasma source chamber (Yeom – [0056]), wherein the ion extractor passes energetic neutrals from the plasma source chamber to the process chamber to process the at least one wafer in the process chamber (Yeom – [0056]-[0058]); removing the wafer from the process chamber (implied step based upon completion of the aforementioned processing).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Xie apparatus to comprise the neutral beam processing of Yeom in order to avoid seams/voids during a gap-fill process and/or high aspect ratio etching (Yeom – [0016]-[0019],[0074]-[0076]).
Modified Xie does not teach cleaning the plasma source chamber and the ion extractor, comprising: providing a cleaning gas mixture from the cleaning gas mixture source into the plasma source chamber at a cleaning gas mixture flow rate; energizing the cleaning gas mixture to form a cleaning plasma in the plasma source chamber, wherein the cleaning plasma cleans the plasma source chamber and the ion extractor.
However, Hanawa teaches this limitation (Hanawa – [0133]: post-process chamber cleaning involving grids #108).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Xie apparatus to comprise the post-processing cleaning method of Hanawa in order to enhance reactor performance by removing chamber contaminants (Hanawa – [0133]).
Regarding claim 4, Xie modified by Tanaka and Yeom does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Hanawa teaches wherein the computer readable code for cleaning the plasma source chamber and the ion extractor, further comprises computer readable code for applying a cleaning bias through the ion extractor (Hanawa – [0133]: grids #108 are energized).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Xie apparatus to comprise the post-processing cleaning method of Hanawa in order to enhance reactor performance by removing chamber contaminants (Hanawa – [0133]).
Regarding claim 18, Xie modified by Tanaka and Yeom does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Hanawa teaches the energizing the cleaning gas mixture to form a cleaning plasma in the plasma source chamber (Hanawa – [0133]: post-process chamber cleaning involving grids #108).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Xie apparatus to comprise the post-processing cleaning method of Hanawa in order to enhance reactor performance by removing chamber contaminants (Hanawa – [0133]).
Regarding the limitation: “causes removal of redeposited metal containing material from the ion extractor”, this limitation is regarded as an intended result of a process step positively recited (energizing the cleaning gas). The courts have held that a “’whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). See MPEP 2111.04(I).
The Examiner respectfully submits that modified Xie teaches the claimed apparatus and the claimed procedure, where no additional programming would be required of the controller to clean “redeposited metal containing material from the ion extractor”. As such, this limitation is not structurally limiting of the claim and would happen automatically as a result of the Hanawa procedure if a metal-containing process gas were used in the modified Xie apparatus.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (US Pub. 2021/0082724), Tanaka (US Pub. 2006/0188240), Yeom (US Pub. 2009/0203226), and Hanawa (US Pub. 2005/0211170), as applied to claims 3-4 and 18 above, further in view of Dimeo (US Pub. 2010/0154835).
The limitations of claims 3-4 and 18 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, modified Xie does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
While Dimeo does not explicitly teach wherein computer readable code for providing the cleaning gas mixture provides the cleaning gas mixture at a flow rate that is at least 20 times the process gas flow rate, Dimeo teaches wherein cleaning gas flow rates are a result-effective variable (Dimeo – [0199]: flow rate for cleaning readily determined by a PHOSITA, can effect different plasma shapes/profiles for cleaning different areas of the chamber).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the cleaning gas flow rate through routine experimentation in order to effect different plasma shapes/profiles for cleaning different areas of the chamber (Dimeo – [0199]). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson (US Pub. 2020/0176214) in view of Xie (US Pub. 2021/0082724) and Hanawa (US Pub. 2005/0211170).
Regarding claim 19, Pearson teaches an apparatus for ion beam etching ([0001], Fig. 1, apparatus #1), comprising: a plasma source chamber ([0070] and Fig. 1, plasma chamber #21); a process chamber ([0069] and Fig. 1, processing chamber #5); an ion extractor separating the plasma source chamber from the process chamber ([0071] and Fig. 1, grid assembly #26; described as “extract[ing] charged particles from the plasma”); a gas inlet for providing gas to the plasma source chamber ([0070] and Fig. 1, conduit #22 for input gas); an RF power system for providing RF power to the plasma source chamber ([0070] and Fig. 1, plasma generation unit #25); a process gas source connected to the gas inlet ([0070], not depicted).
Pearson does not explicitly teach a cleaning gas mixture source connected to the gas inlet.
However, Xie teaches a plurality of gas sources connected to a gas inlet (Xie – [0057] and Fig. 1, plurality of gas sources feeding lines #159, comprises various process gases and inert gases- any of which could be interpreted as a “cleaning gas”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Pearson apparatus to comprise a plurality of gas sources similar to Xie in order to enable selective flow/mixture gas supply into a plasma chamber (Xie – [0057]).
Modified Pearson does not teach a neutralizer for neutralizing ions in the process chamber.
However, Hanawa teaches this feature (Hanawa – [0105] and Fig. 15, bottom grid #108d can be used as a neutralizer).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Pearson apparatus to comprise the neutralizer of Hanawa in order to create a beam of neutrals for processing as part of an alternate PVD mode of operation (Hanawa – [0105]).
Regarding claim 20, Pearson teaches wherein the ion extractor comprises a first electrode ([0071] and Fig. 1, grid #27a), a second electrode (grid #27b, Id.), and a third electrode (grid #27c, Id.), wherein a potential can be established between the first electrode and the second electrode to accelerate ions ([0008]), and wherein the third electrode is grounded ([0072] and Fig. 1, grid #27c grounded via #28c).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §102(a)(1) rejections over Xie have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-8 are maintained.
In regards to the “an apparatus for ion beam etching” argument (Remarks, pgs. 6-7), Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for ion beam etching” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
In regards to the “ion extractor” argument (Remarks, pg. 7), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., electrodes with applied voltages) are not recited in claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In regards to the “cleaning gas mixture source” argument (Remarks, pgs. 7-9), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., krypton or xenon, possibly with nitrogen) are not recited in claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
It is additionally noted that claim 1 merely recites a process gas source and cleaning gas mixture source. There is no recitation of any particular gases, therefore the “process gas” and “cleaning gas mixture” are merely labels on the source containers, and are not limiting of the claims in the way alleged by the Applicant.
In regards to the “controller controllably connected” argument (Remarks, pgs. 9-11), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Applicant disputes that Tanaka teaches any programming or control logic to gas handling (pg. 10, par. 2), but this reference is not relied upon to teach anything other than a general purpose controller in the context of the rejection of claim 2. This fact is explicitly acknowledged by Applicant in the very next paragraph (pg. 10, par. 3), thus it is unclear why Applicant looks to Tanaka for teachings of the particular gas control steps of claim 3.
Applicant alleges that “Yeom and Hanwa supply unrelated process steps and hardware without any teaching of controller-driven coordination of distinct gas sources”. This is false.
As an initial matter, the Examiner strongly disagrees that Yeom and Hanawa only teach “unrelated process steps and hardware”. These disclosed features of Yeom and Hanawa address the claimed process steps as recited in at least claim 3. Thus, the cited teachings are not “unrelated”.
The Examiner notes that Hanawa need not disclose an identical apparatus and operation (as alleged by Applicant- pg. 11 par. 2) for the combination of references to be obvious to a PHOSITA. Hanawa teaches, at worst, an extremely similar apparatus performing a slightly different process. The Examiner respectfully submits these differences are insufficient to negate the applicability of the teachings of Hanawa as would be understood by a PHOSITA
Further, the Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA would recognize that all CVD apparatuses encounter the problem of post-process cleaning, and would be motivated to look to any and all references that address this problem, not just the ones structurally similar to the apparatus being used.
Most importantly, the courts have held that implementing a known function on a computer has been deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the automation of the known function on a general purpose computer is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); see also MPEP § 2143, Exemplary Rationales D and F.
In regards to the analogous art argument (Remarks, pgs. 11-13), the Applicant has improperly narrowed the field of endeavor for the instant application in an attempt to exclude the prior art.
Particularly, Applicant alleges the field of the instant application is “an apparatus for ion beam etching – a physical sputtering process in which energetic ions extracted from a plasma are directed at a workpiece to remove material, including hard-to-etch magnetic materials used in MRAM fabrication”.
Then, Applicant contrasts this overly narrowed field with an overly narrowed field of Hanawa, which is “a plasma reactor for CVD processing, in which an ion shower grid having non-parallel orifice trajectories is used to direct ions onto a workpiece to promote deposition of a thin film, not to remove material”.
The Examiner first rebuts that par. [0003] of the as-filed instant Specification states:
PNG
media_image1.png
76
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner secondly rebuts that par. [0073] of Hanawa states:
PNG
media_image2.png
42
294
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, both the instant Application and Hanawa are part of the same field of endeavor in semiconductor processing via plasma etching.
In regards to the “cleaning gas” arguments (Remarks, pgs. 13-14) as they relate to Dimeo, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the teachings of Dimeo are insufficient from a technical standpoint as it would relate to a PHOSITA. The Examiner maintains that the reference reasonably teaches and/or demonstrates that it would be obvious to a PHOSITA to vary the flow rate of a cleaning gas in a semiconductor processing apparatus.
Applicant seeks a recitation in Xie of the “problem” of cleaning re-deposited material in order to allow for the teachings of Dimeo to be appropriately applied, but no such recitation is required. The courts have held that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). See MPEP 2144(IV).
Additionally, as discussed above in regards to the “cleaning gas mixture source” argument, the source need not include any actual cleaning gas and is not limited to any composition recited in the Specification. Thus the majority of Applicant’s arguments on this point are not commensurate in scope with the claims, and are not persuasive.
The arguments concerning new claims 18-20 have been carefully considered, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as presented herein.
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights