DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s election filed 2/11/2026.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 2/11/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Status
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 9-17 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-8 have been examined herein on the merits (claim 1 independent).
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 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 1 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]).
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 above, further in view of Dimeo (US Pub. 2010/0154835).
The limitations of claims 3-4 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nakagawa (US 2014/0206197) teaches an ion beam apparatus with horizontal beam and movable substrate support (Fig. 3), as does Hegde (US 2017/0140953, Fig. 2A) and Chen (US 2017/0352574, Fig. 1).
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