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 .
Double Patenting Rejection
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-3, 6-9 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 3, 12 and 16-17 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,125,665. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
The limitations “method of operating a plasma flood gun”; “supplying an inert gas into an arc plasma chamber”; “inducing, at a first time, a first filament current in a filament to heat the filament to a first temperature and emit first electrons” and “measuring a first filament resistance of the filament” as recited in claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,125,665 are considered to be inherent in the limitations “a plasma flood gun”; “a gas in an arc plasma chamber”; “a filament configured to emit electrons”; “a first plasma” and “a filament resistance meter” in claims 1 and 16 of the current application 18/782,095. Since, a plasma flood gun is operated to perform a method of operating a plasma flood gun; a gas in an arc plasma chamber into which a gas supplies to; a filament is heated to an efficient temperature to emit electrons; a first plasma is generated at a first time, a first filament current, a first temperature and first emitted electrons; and a filament resistance meter is used to measure a resistance of a filament.
The limitations “measuring a first filament voltage across the filament”; “measuring the first filament current”; and “calculating the first filament resistance based on the first filament voltage and the first filament current” as recited in claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,125,665 are considered to be inherent in the limitations “a filament current meter”; “a filament voltage meter”; and “determine the filament resistance is based on the filament voltage and the filament current” in claims 6-8 and 17 of the current application 18/782,095. Since, a filament current meter is used to measure a current of a filament; a filament voltage meter is used to measure a voltage across a filament; and determining the filament resistance based on the filament voltage and the filament current is calculated by using formula R = V/I to calculate the resistance of the filament, wherein R is resistance of an element, V is a voltage across the element, and I is a current of the element.
The limitation “applying a bias voltage between the filament and a chamber housing defining the arc plasma chamber to direct the first electrons into a confining chamber” as recited in claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,125,665 is considered to be inherent in the limitation “a bias power source configured to apply a bias voltage between the filament and a chamber housing defining the arc plasma chamber, wherein the chamber housing directs the electrons into a confining chamber based on the bias voltage” in claim 9 of the current application 18/782,095. Since, a bias power source provides a bias voltage.
The limitation “a filament current source electrically coupled in series with the filament to adjust, based on the first filament resistance, the first filament current induced in the filament at the first time to a second filament current induced in the filament at a second time to generate a second plasma in the arc plasma chamber at the second time” as recited in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,125,665 is considered to be inherent in the limitation “inducing a second filament current in the filament to emit second electrons from the filament for interaction with the gas to generate a second plasma in the arc plasma chamber, wherein the second filament current is selected based upon the filament resistance” in claim 16. Since, a plasma is generated based on electrons emitted from a filament, thus a different current induced to the filament would be produced a different plasma.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection
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 12-13 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,125,662. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to selectively use a filament voltage meter to measure a voltage across a filament during generation of a plasma and/or a filament resistance meter to determine a resistance of a filament during generation of a plasma based upon the filament voltage measured during generation of a plasma. Since, the filament resistance, the filament voltage, and the filament current are relatively calculated by using formula R = V/I, wherein R is a resistance of an element, V is a voltage across the element, and I is a current of the element.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horsky et al. (2016/0086759) in view of Ito et al. (5,399,871).
Horsky et al. (2016/0086759) discloses, in figs. 1-30, a plasma flood gun which includes
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
a filament 311, 1006, 1104, 1805, 1996, 2050, 2196, 1402 configured to emit electrons, wherein the electrons interact with a gas introduced by a gas source 1004, 1116, 1118, 1830, 1992, 1830, 1440 in an arc plasma chamber 1002, 1114, 1820, 1994, 1840, 1410, to generate a first plasma 1120, 1870, 1970 in the arc plasma chamber (see figs. 3, 4, 10, 11, 16-21, 24, 30);
a filament power supply 402, 1108, 1860, 1962 for inducing a first filament current in the filament to emit first electrons from the filament for interaction with the gas to generate a first plasma in an arc plasma chamber, and for inducing a second filament current in the filament to emit second electrons from the filament for interaction with the gas to generate a second plasma in the arc plasma chamber, wherein the loop controller 408 selectively controls the filament current based upon the filament resistance (see figs. 4, 11, 17, 18, 19b, 20, 24, 30, see thermionic emission current as a function of electron beam heating power for plasma electron flood in fig. 28, see a closed-loop controller 408 used to regulate current emission of a filament 311 for producing a first and/or a second plasma in fig. 4, [0059], [0070], [0079], [0080], [0081], [0082], [0095], [0118], [0133], [0136], [0154], [0156], [0162], [0166], [0168]).
Using a filament resistance meter electrically coupled to the filament and configured to measure a filament resistance of the filament during generation of the first plasma as recited in claims 1 and 16; and a filament voltage meter configured to measure a filament voltage across the filament during generation of the first plasma as recited in claim 12 are considered to be obvious variation in design, since it is well known in the art as Horsky et al. (2016/0086759) discloses a plasma flood gun using a current meter 440 for measuring a current passing through a filament 311, 1402 (see the current meter connected between the filament 311 and a loop controller 408 in fig. 3; the current meter 440 in figs. 24, 30), since the voltage V of an element, the resistance R of the element and the current I of the element are related by the formula as: V = I x R, thus would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to selectively use the resistance meter for measuring a resistance of the filament and/or the voltage meter for measuring a voltage across the filament in the Horsky et al. (2016/0086759) plasma flood gun for controlling a plasma.
Regarding claim 9, comprising a bias power source 1964 configured to apply a bias voltage between the filament 1996 and a chamber housing 1994 defining the arc plasma chamber, wherein the chamber housing 1994 directs the electrons 1940 into a confining chamber 1960 based on the bias voltage (see figs. 19a, 19b, 20, 21, 24, 30, [0138], [0141], [0160]).
Regarding claim 10, comprising an extraction power source 1962 configured to apply an extraction voltage between the chamber housing 1994 and an extraction plate (or a plasma electrode), coupled to the confining chamber 1960, wherein the extraction plate directs the electrons 1940 into the confining chamber 1960 based on the extraction voltage (see abstract, figs. 10, 11, 19a, 19b, 20, 21, 24, 30, [0010], [0018], [0021], [0023], [0026], [0133], [0138], [0139], [0140], [0141], [0147], [0149], [0151], [0152], [0161], [0171]).
Regarding claim 18, comprising releasing the first plasma from a confining chamber 1994 of the plasma flood gun into a flood box 1960 to combine with an ion beam 1970 directed through the flood box 1960 toward a semiconductor wafer 1963 (see figs. 18, 19b, 20, 21, 22).
Regarding claim 19, wherein releasing the first plasma into the flood box 1960 to neutralize at least some of a positive charge buildup on the semiconductor wafer 1963 during ion implantation using the ion beam 1970 (see figs. 18, 19b, 20, 21, 22, [0008], [0133], [0140], [0149], [0152], [0161], [0163]).
Regarding claims 11 and 20,
Using a conduit to circulate a coolant through a chamber housing at least partially surrounding the filament is considered to be obvious variation in design, since it is well known in the art as Ito et al. (5,399,871) discloses, in figs. 1-4, a plasma flood system for an ion implantation apparatus, which includes a filament 24 configured to emit electrons, wherein the electrons interact with a gas introduced by a gas supply line 34 in an arc plasma chamber 22 to generate a plasma in the arc plasma chamber 22; and a conduit 47 introducing a coolant through a chamber housing 44 to circulate the coolant through the chamber housing 44 at least partially surrounding the filament 24 for reducing heat generated by operating the filament 24 (see fig. 1), thus would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the conduit to introduce and to circulate a coolant through a chamber housing at least partially surrounding the filament in the Horsky et al. (2016/0086759) plasma flood gun for reducing the heat generated by operating the filament.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Wu et al. (4,595,837), Kikuchi et al. (5,089,710), Walther et al. (2007/0200075) and Chang et al. (2013/0264498) disclose a plasma flood apparatus for neutralizing a wafer in an ion implantation system, using a current measurement device for measuring a current of a filament.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIET TUAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2479. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert H. Kim can be reached on 571-272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KIET T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights