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 3-7 and 14-16 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 3 and 14 each recite “wherein the radiation forms…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5 and 16 each recite “wherein the detector is configured to determine a value of the offset angle to within 0.1 degrees.” However, the detector is also recited as a light detecting means in claims 1 and 12. Thus it is unclear whether the detector itself determines the offset angle, or whether the detector merely generates image/signal data that is then processed by another component.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the conoscopy system is disposed outside of the process chamber of the ion implanter…when the substrate stage is tilted at the offset angle.” Claim 2 defines the substrate stage as part of the conoscopy system, and since in the claim 6 context, the conoscopy is outside the process chamber where the implantation occurs, it is unclear whether the claimed tilting during ion beam impingement is performed by the outside-chamber substrate stage, the process-chamber substate holder, or the substrate itself. For the purposes of compact prosecution, they will be interpreted as best understood in light of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0121317A1 [hereinafter Cannon] in view of US 2007/0236686A1 [hereinafter Magnolia], and further in view of Kato, M., et al., (2023-06-22). Development of an angle detection system for channeling implantation to the c-axis of SiC using birefringence phenomenon. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 62(6), 068003 [hereinafter Kato].
Regarding Claim 1:
Claim 1 defines the “conoscopy system” structurally as an optical arrangement having an illumination source, first and second polarizer, lens, and detector, with light passing through the substrate position before being detected. Thus, under BRI, a polarized-light optical measurement system having these recited components may satisfy the claimed “colonoscopy system,” even if the prior art describes the system using other terms rather than the exact word “conoscopy”.
Cannon teaches an ion implanter (Fig. 2 - “ion implantation system”), comprising:
an ion source (Fig. 2 - ion source 21) to generate an ion beam;
a set of beamline components (Fig. 2- analyzer tube 23, accelerating tube 24 etc.) to direct the ion beam to a substrate (Fig. 2 - wafer 26) along a beam axis;
a process chamber (Fig. 2- end station 201) to house the substrate to receive the ion beam (para. [0029]: an “SiC substrate sample 26 is placed in the end station 201”); and
Magnolia teaches a conoscopy system (Fig. 2- polarization measuring system), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
809
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an illumination source (annotated Fig. 2 above- light source 211) to direct light to a substrate position (Fig. 2- measuring object 100);
a first polarizer (annotated Fig. 2 above - polarizer 214), having a first polarization axis, and being disposed between the illumination source and the substrate position;
a second polarizer (annotated Fig. 2 above - analyzer 221), the second polarizer being disposed to receive the light after passing through the substrate position;
a lens (annotated Fig. 2 above - optical system 222), disposed to receive the light after passing through the substrate position; and
a detector (annotated Fig. 2 above – CCD camera 223), to detect the light after passing through the lens.
As such, in the modified system, the measuring system taught by Magnolia can be disposed within the ion implanter taught in Cannon.
Cannon teaches an ion implantation apparatus for implanting ions into a substrate, including a substrate with 4H-SiC. Magnolia teaches an optical measurement system using polarized light for measuring an orientation-related angle of a measuring object. Kato teaches detecting a 4H-SiC wader angle/c-axis direction just prior to ion implantation so that the wafer and ion beam can be properly aligned. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Magnolia’s optical measurement system into Cannon’s ion implanter, to provide an efficient in-tool substrate orientation measurement before implantation. Because ion implantation, particularly channeling implantation, benefits from controlling the angular relationship between the wafer crystal direction and the ion beam, as indicated by Kato.
Regarding Claim 8:
Cannon in view of Magnolia teaches the ion implanter of claim 1. Cannon further teaches wherein the substrate is 4H- SiC (para. [0028]: “After a substrate with 4H SiC (0001) offset by 4”)
Regarding Claim 10:
Cannon in view of Magnolia teaches the ion implanter of claim 1. Magnolia further teaches wherein the detector is a solid state detector (Fig. 2- CCD camera 223).
Claims 2-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cannon in view of Magnolia, and further in view of Kato.
Regarding Claim 2:
Cannon in view of Magnolia teaches the ion implanter of claim 1. Magnolia further teaches wherein the conoscopy system further comprises a substrate stage, the substrate stage to hold the substrate at the substrate position (para. [0061]: “a stage 102 for holding a measuring object 100 rubbed at the surface for alignment of liquid crystals is provided on a stage moving mechanism”).
However, the combined references do not specifically note wherein a main plane of the substrate defines a reference plane, in an untilted configuration, and wherein the substrate stage includes at least a tilt component, to rotate the substrate wherein the main plane of the substrate defines a non-zero angle with respect to the reference plane
Kato teaches wherein a main plane of the substrate defines a reference plane, in an untilted configuration, and wherein the substrate stage includes at least a tilt component, to rotate the substrate wherein the main plane of the substrate defines a non-zero angle with respect to the reference plane (See annotated Fig. 2 below: Kato teaches a Gonio stage which is a tilt stage and is capable to tilt an object).
PNG
media_image2.png
578
605
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cannon teaches processing a 4H-SiC (0001) off-axis substrate in an ion implantation system. Kato teaches a compact c-axis angle detection system for channeling implantation into 4H-SiC, in which the 4H-SiC sample is placed on a glass plate fixed to a gonio stage, and the angle of the gonio stage is adjusted until the c-axis is parallel to the light transmission direction, producing a minimum detected signal. Kato further teaches that its compact system can be incorporated into ion implanters to detect wafer angle just prior to ion implantation. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify the Cannon/Magnolia ion-implanter/optical-metrology combination to include Kato’s angle-adjustable gonio stage as the substrate stage of the optical measurement system, so the optical system can detect the wafer/c-axis angle before implantation and improve the ion implantation accuracy and efficiency.
Regarding Claim 3:
Cannon in view of Magnolia and Kato teaches the ion implanter of claim 2. Kato further teaches wherein the radiation forms a symmetrical pattern at the detector when the non-zero angle defines an offset angle wherein a c-axis of the substrate is aligned along a normal to the reference plane (Kato teaches “When the c-axis of the sample is parallel to the direction of light transmission by adjusting the angle of the gonio stage, there will be no birefringence, resulting in no light detection by the photodiode” and Kato determine ɵ as the angle “at which the optical method produces the minimum signal,” i.e., where the c-axis of the 4H-SiC sample is parallel to the light transmission direction).
Regarding Claim 4:
Cannon in view of Magnolia and Kato teaches the ion implanter of claim 3. Kato further teaches wherein the substrate presents a channeling orientation to the ion beam when the substrate stage is tilted at the offset angle (Kato states that channeling implantation requires the ion beam to align with the crystal channeling axis, for example, “the ion beam should be parallel to the green line in Fig. 2 for the channeling implantation”).
Regarding Claim 5:
Cannon in view of Magnolia and Kato teaches the ion implanter of claim 3. Kato further teaches wherein the detector is configured to determine a value of the offset angle to within 0.1 degrees (“it is feasible to detect the angle with the minimum signal by observing the increase of signals from the minimum with a resolution of approximately 0.1°”).
Regarding Claim 6:
Cannon in view of Magnolia and Kato teaches the ion implanter of claim 3. Kato further teaches a conoscopy system which “is relatively simple and compact size (only 300 × 450 mm), which makes it possible to incorporate it into ion implanters to detect wafer angle just prior to ion implantation.” Cannon teaches an ion implanter in which “the wafer 26 may be rotated to improve uniformity” and such as tilting “a substrate with 4H-SiC (0001) offset by 4°”. Cannon also teaches a substrate is placed on a substrate support “silicon carbide (SiC) substrate 34 ...is placed on the upper side of a substrate support” (see paras. [0028-0029 and 0031] of Cannon).
As such, the combined system teaches claim 3. In the modified system, a compact conoscopy system of Magnolia/Kato could be incorporated into the ion implanter and be disposed outside the end station taught in Cannon. The substrate support of Cannon rotates the substrate based on the off-set signal determined by the conoscopy system of Magnolia/Kato, so that the ion beam impinges the substrate along the beam trajectory defining an angle as the determined offset angle.
Regarding Claim 7:
Cannon in view of Magnolia and Kato teaches the ion implanter of claim 3. The combined references further teach wherein the substrate stage of the conoscopy system is disposed within the process chamber of the ion implanter, wherein the ion beam impinges on the substrate along a beam trajectory defining an incidence angle with respect to a normal to the main plane of the substrate that is equivalent to the offset angle, when the substrate stage is tilted at the offset angle (in the modified system, the compact conoscopy system of Magnolia/Kato is disposed into the end station taught in Cannon and the substrate is tilted by the gonio stage as taught in Kato) .
Regarding Claim 9:
Cannon in view of Magnolia teaches the ion implanter of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specifically note wherein the light comprises radiation having a wavelength between 375 nm and 450 nm. Kato teaches wherein the light comprises radiation having a wavelength between 375 nm and 450 nm (“the developed system which has the 405 nm cw laser”).
Magnolia teaches its light source can be “a laser irradiation unit.” Kato teaches its system uses a cw laser at a wavelength of 405nm. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement the laser irradiation unit in Magnolia as a cw laser with 405nm, as using a known laser wavelength to produce a predictable result.
Claims 11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0083106 A1 [hereinafter Infineon] in view of Kato.
Regarding Claim 11:
Infineon teaches a method of implanting a substrate (para. [0001]: method for manufacturing silicon carbide (SiC) semiconductor devices) comprising:
generating an ion beam in an ion implanter (paras. [0004, 0034]: ion source 108A/B generating ion beams);
directing the ion beam to a substrate along a beam trajectory (para. [09004]: “orienting a silicon carbide layer to a first crystal channel direction relative to a first ion beam and implanting phosphorous into the silicon carbide layer using the first ion beam”);
tilting the substrate at the offset angle when the ion beam impinges upon the substrate (para. [0029]: “the <0001> crystal axis of the semiconductor body 102 (c-axis) is tilted by an off-axis angle α to a surface normal to the first surface”).
However, Infineon does not specially note that determining an offset angle for the substrate using a conoscopy system within the ion implanter
Kato teaches determining an offset angle for the substrate using a conoscopy system within the ion implanter (“we have developed a c-axis angle detection system for channeling ion implantation into 4H-SiC based on the birefringence phenomenon,” with a system “which has the 405 nm cw laser, polarizer, gonio stage, and analyzer).
Infineon teaches ion implantation of a 4H-SiC substrate in which the substrate is tilted based on a known off-axis cut angle so that the ion beam has the desired relationship with the crystal channel direction during implantation. Kato teaches incorporating a conoscopy system to an ion implanter to determine that actual wafer/c-axis angle before implantation, using a birefringence-based optical angel detection system that rotates the 4H-SiC sample and identifies the angle when the transmitted signal is minimized under crossed polarizers. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement Kato’s optical angle detection system in Infineon’s implantation process to determine the actual substrate offset angle used for Infineon’s substrate tilting and alignment, to improve the accuracy and efficiency of ion implanting in the system.
Regarding Claim 19:
Infineon in view of Kato teaches the method claim 11. Infineon further teaches wherein the substrate is 4H-SiC (para. [0029]: “the semiconductor body 102 comprises a hexagonal phase of silicon carbide, e.g., 4H-SiC”).
Regarding Claim 20:
Infineon in view of Kato teaches the method claim 11. Kato further teaches wherein the light comprises radiation having a wavelength between 375 nm and 450 nm (“the developed system which has the 405 nm cw laser”).
Claims 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Infineon in view of Kato, and further in view of Magnolia.
Regarding Claim 12:
Infineon in view of Kato teaches the method of claim 11. Kato further teaches the conoscopy system comprising: an illumination source to direct light to a substrate position; a first polarizer, having a first polarization axis, and being disposed between the illumination source and the substrate position; a second polarizer, the second polarizer being disposed to receive the light after passing through the substrate position; and a detector, to detect the light after passing through the lens (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
639
1216
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, the combined references do not specially note a lens, disposed to receive the light after passing through the substrate position.
Magnolia teaches a lens (Fig. 2- optical system 222), disposed to receive the light after passing through the substrate position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to include Magnolia’s focusing optical system/lens in Kato’s optical angle-detection system to better collect, focus, and direct the transmitted light onto Kato’s photodiode/detector, thereby improving signal collection and measurement stability in the c-axis angle detection system.
Regarding Claim 13:
Infineon in view of Kato and Magnolia teaches the method claim 12. Kato further teaches wherein the illumination passes through the substrate when the substrate is disposed at the substrate position (the laser passes through the sample while the “sample was placed on the glass plate which is fixed on the gonio stage”).
Regarding Claim 14:
Infineon in view of Kato and Magnolia teaches the method claim 12. Kato further teaches wherein the radiation forms a symmetrical pattern at the detector when the offset angle is such that a c-axis of the substrate is aligned along the beam trajectory (Kato teaches “When the c-axis of the sample is parallel to the direction of light transmission by adjusting the angle of the gonio stage, there will be no birefringence, resulting in no light detection by the photodiode” and Kato determine ϑ as the angle “at which the optical method produces the minimum signal,” i.e., where the c-axis of the 4H-SiC sample is parallel to the light transmission direction).
Regarding Claim 15:
Infineon in view of Kato and Magnolia teaches the method claim 14. Kato further teaches wherein the substrate presents a channeling orientation to the ion beam when the substrate stage is tilted at the offset angle (Kato states that channeling implantation requires the ion beam to align with the crystal channeling axis, for example, “the ion beam should be parallel to the green line in Fig. 2 for the channeling implantation”).
Regarding Claim 16:
Infineon in view of Kato and Magnolia teaches the method claim 14. Kato further teaches wherein the detector is configured to determine a value of the offset angle to within 0.1 degrees (“it is feasible to detect the angle with the minimum signal by observing the increase of signals from the minimum with a resolution of approximately 0.1°”).
Regarding Claim 17:
Infineon in view of Kato and Magnolia teaches the method claim 12.
Kato teaches a conoscopy system which “is relatively simple and compact size (only 300 × 450 mm), which makes it possible to incorporate it into ion implanters to detect wafer angle just prior to ion implantation.” Infineon teaches “the semiconductor arrangement 100 is placed onto a substrate holder” and the “crystal axis of the semiconductor body 102 (c-axis) is tilted by an off-axis angle α to a surface normal to the first surface” (see paras. [0029, 0035] of Infineon).
As such, the combined system teaches claim 17. In the modified system, a compact conoscopy system of Magnolia/Kato could be incorporated into the ion implanter and be disposed outside the ion impinging region of Infineon. The processing method further comprise transferring the substrate from the conoscopy system to the substrate holder inside ion impinging region of Infineon, tilting the substrate holder of Infineon based on the off-set signal determined by the conoscopy system of Magnolia/Kato, so that the ion beam impinges the substrate along the beam trajectory defining an angle as the determined offset angle.
Regarding Claim 18:
Infineon in view of Kato and Magnolia teaches the method claim 12. The combined references further teach wherein the substrate stage of the conoscopy system is disposed within the process chamber of the ion implanter, wherein the ion beam impinges on the substrate along a beam trajectory defining an incidence angle with respect to a normal to the main plane of the substrate that is equivalent to the offset angle, when the substrate is tilted at the offset angle. (in the modified system, the compact conoscopy system of Magnolia/Kato and disposed inside ion impinging region of Infineon, and the substrate is tilted by the gonio stage as taught in Kato).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights