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.
Claim 15-20 is 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "an outside face of the clear panel" in line 6. However, the clear panel is claimed as having “an outside face” in line 5 of the claim. It is unclear whether this is the same outside face or a secondary outside face. For purposes of examination below, the examiner is interpreting the outside face of line 6 to be the same outside face of line 5.
Claims 16-20 are rejected by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 10, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boenick (DE102006045916A1).
Regarding claim 10, Boenick teaches a deposition sensor device (Fig. 1) for a semiconductor manufacturing system, the sensor device comprising:
a photodetector (paragraph [0026] discloses the detector may be a photodiode, which is a type of photodetector), a light source (80, Fig. 1), and a clear panel (40, Fig. 1);
the clear panel comprising an outside face (42, Fig. 5) and an inside face (44, Fig. 5),
wherein the light source is configured to emit light toward the inside face of the clear panel, and the photodetector is configured to receive reflected light from deposits on the outside face of the clear panel (see Fig. 1, which depicts the light source 80 emitting light 82 which is reflected by the outside face of the clear panel to the detector 60).
Regarding claim 11, Boenick teaches the invention as described above in claim 10 and further teaches the photodetector and light source are coupled to a backing plate (paragraphs [0028] and [0029] discloses the light source 80 and detector 60 are in a housing of some sort. The examiner is interpreting this to mean they are in some way coupled to a backing plate of the housing of some sort) and the inside face of the clear panel is sealed against the outside face of the clear panel (the purpose of the light source taught in Boenick is to determine if there is debris on the clear panel so maintenance and cleaning can be performed (paragraph [0044]). It is the position of the examiner that the inside of the clear panel must be seal against the outside face of the clear panel, or else debris would enter between the inside and outside face, thus making the goal of maintenance and cleaning difficult. Further, Figs. 3 and 6 depict the debris (70 in Fig. 3 and 72 in Fig. 1) as being on the outside face, not between the inside and outside faces, thus further implying debris cannot enter between the faces).
Regarding claim 13, Boenick teaches the invention as explained above in claim 10 and further teaches the light source comprises an LED (paragraph [0023]) configured to transmit at an infrared wavelength (paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 14, Boenick teaches the invention as explained above in claim 10 and further teaches a processor that receives input signals from the photodetector, processes the input signals to a simplified signal, and transmits the simplified signal to a main processer for the semiconductor manufacturing system (paragraph [0045] discloses the detector sends an input signal to a downstream comparator (processor) to analyze the signal for the evaluation unit (main processor)).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boenick (DE102006045916A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Electronic Design (https://www.electronicdesign.com/markets/lighting/article/21784150/sensors-emit-and-detect-red-green-and-blue-light).
Regarding claim 12, Boenick teaches the invention as explained above in claim 10, but fails to teach the light source comprises LEDs configured to transmit at wavelengths corresponding to red, green, and blue light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical sensors, Electronic Design discloses a sensor with a light source that emits red light, green light, and blue light (page 1).
Electronic Design discloses an advantage of multiple wavelengths in one sensor is the reduced power needs (page two), with RGB light being the most common in the art. Boenick discloses the light source wavelength may change depending on the application (paragraph [0022]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the sensor of Berry as modified by Boenick with the light source emitting multiple wavelengths as taught in Electronic Design in order to have a wide range of applications while also keeping power usage low.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry (US20080128621A1) in view of Boenick (DE102006045916A1).
Regarding claim 1, Berry teaches an ion implantation system (Fig. 1), comprising:
an ion source that generates ions and produces an ion beam (120, Fig. 1) along a beamline (110, Fig. 1);
a mass analyzer positioned downstream of the ion source (134, Fig. 1) that generates a magnetic field according to a selected charge-to-mass ratio and an angle adjustment (paragraph [0026]);
a workpiece target associated with the beamline (105, Fig. 1; paragraph [0027] discloses this may be any type of workpiece);
a controller configured to move the ion beam in relation to a workpiece target; and
a sensor device coupled to a chamber of the ion implantation system, the sensor device comprising a photodetector.
Berry also discloses a second embodiment which teaches a controller configured to move the ion beam in relation to a workpiece target (paragraph [0028] discloses the beam is scanned across the workpiece; paragraph [0029] discloses the scanning is controlled by control electronics depicted by 218 in Fig. 2); and a sensor device coupled to a chamber (212, Fig. 2) of the ion implantation system (204, Fig. 2), the sensor device comprising a photodetector (210, Fig. 2).
Berry discloses the controller allows the speed of the ion beam scanning to be controlled (paragraph [0028]), thus allowing for a wide range of applications. Berry also discloses the addition of a photodetector receiving information from the workpiece allows for the ion implantation device to be varied and adjusted in real time (paragraph [0029]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of Barry with the second embodiment of Barry as it allows for the ion implantation device to have a wide range of applications and to be varied and adjusted in real time.
Berry fails to teach the sensor device comprising a light source, and a clear panel;
the clear panel comprising an outside face and an inside face, the outside face facing the chamber, the inside face facing opposite the chamber;
wherein the photodetector is configured to receive reflected light from deposits on the outside face of the clear panel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of sensor devices, Boenick discloses a sensor which has a light source (80, Fig. 1) and a clear panel (40, Fig. 1) with an outside face (right side of the panel as shown in Fig. 1; 42, Fig. 5) and an inside face (left side of the panel as shown in Fig. 1; 44, Fig. 5), which a detector (60, Fig. 1) receives light reflected from the outside face of the clear panel (as depicted by the black lines labeled 82 in Fig. 1).
The second embodiment of Berry utilizes a photodetector to receive illumination signals from the workpiece in order to monitor the ion beam (paragraph [0029]). Boenick discloses the use of a clear panel protects the sensor from any dust or debris in the sensor system (paragraph [0004]) which helps prevent the attenuation of any signal passing through (paragraph [0006]). Further, the light source and detector are used to determine if any dust or debris is on the clear panel (paragraph [0061]), which would block the signal coming from the object being worked on. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the ion implantation system of Berry which the light source and clear panel taught in Boenick in order to protect the photodetector from any dust or debris in the system and to check if the signal is being blocked by said dust and debris.
Regarding claim 4, Berry as modified by Boenick teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches a processor that receives input signals from the photodetector, processes the input signals to a simplified signal, and transmits the simplified signal to a main processer for the ion implantation system (Boenick: paragraph [0045] discloses the detector sends an input signal to a downstream comparator (processor) to analyze the signal for the evaluation unit (main processor)).
Boenick discloses the sub-processor (window comparator) allows for the degree of contamination to be obtained and compared to a threshold by the main processor (evaluation unit, paragraphs [0042]-[0046]), therefore optimizing the decontamination process. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of Berry as modified by Boenick with the signal system taught by Boenick in order to further optimize the system.
Regarding claim 5, Berry as modified by Boenick teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches a display screen that is configured to transmit an alert relating to a maintenance event based on signals from the photodetector (Berry: paragraph [0033] discloses a third embodiment which includes an image display; paragraph [0034] discloses the image displayed may relate to unfavorable conditions of the system that need to be adjusted).
Berry discloses the advantage of a display screen is that it allows any abnormalities in the system to be corrected, therefore leading to a desirable system setup (paragraph [0034]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of Barry as modified by Boenick with the third embodiment of Berry which discloses a display screen in order to achieve the most desirable system.
Regarding claim 7, Berry as modified by Boenick teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the light source comprises an LED (paragraph [0023]) configured to transmit at an infrared wavelength (Boenick: paragraph [0022]).
Boenick discloses the use of infrared light has the advantage of minimizing unwanted reflection (paragraph [0022]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the sensor of Berry as modified by Boenick with the infrared light source taught by Boenick as a way to minimize unwanted reflections.
Regarding claim 15, Berry discloses a method for detecting depositions in a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprising:
conducting ion implantation, etching, or deposition operations (805, Fig. 8);
the deposit resulting from ion implantation operations (the ion beam would inherently create a deposit of material);
transmitting an alert signal for maintenance to be performed (paragraph [0034] discloses an image which alerts to unfavorable conditions of the system that need to be adjusted).
Berry fails to teach emitting light towards an inside face of a clear panel, the clear panel having an inside face and an outside face;
detecting light reflected from a deposit on an outside face of the clear panel, and
processing the detected light reflected from the deposit.
However, Boenick discloses a method (paragraph [0005]) to detect deposits on a clear panel (deposits depicted in Figs. 3 and 6) which involves emitting light towards the clear panel (depicted by the black lines labeled 82 in Fig. 1), where the clear panel has an inside face (44, Fig. 5) and an outside face (42, Fig. 5). Boenick also discloses a step of processing the light reflected from the deposit (paragraphs [0042]-[0047]).
Berry utilizes a detector to receive illumination signals from the workpiece in order to monitor the ion beam and workpiece (paragraph [0029]). Boenick discloses the use of a clear panel protects the sensor from any dust or debris in the system (paragraph [0004]) which helps prevent the attenuation of any signal passing through (paragraph [0006]). Further, the light source and detector are used to determine if any dust or debris is on the clear panel (paragraph [0061]), which would block the signal coming from the object being worked on. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the method of ion implantation of Berry which the light source and clear panel taught in Boenick in order to protect the detector from any dust or debris in the system and to check if the signal is being blocked by said dust and debris.
Regarding claim 17, Berry as modified by Boenick teaches the invention as explained above in claim 15, and further teaches the light comprises wavelengths corresponding to infrared light (Boenick: paragraph [0022]).
Boenick discloses the use of infrared light has the advantage of minimizing unwanted reflection (paragraph [0022]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the light emission method of Berry as modified by Boenick with the infrared light source taught by Boenick as a way to minimize unwanted reflections.
Claims 2, 6, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry (US20080128621A1) in view of Boenick (DE102006045916A1) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Electronic Design (https://www.electronicdesign.com/markets/lighting/article/21784150/sensors-emit-and-detect-red-green-and-blue-light).
Regarding claim 2, Berry as modified by Boenick teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the light source emits multiple wavelengths of light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical sensors, Electronic Design discloses a sensor with a light source that emits multiple wavelengths (page 1 discloses the sensor emits red, green and blue colors, which correspond to three different wavelength ranges).
Electronic Design discloses an advantage of multiple wavelengths in one sensor is the reduced power needs (page 2). Boenick discloses the light source wavelength may change depending on the application (paragraph [0022]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the sensor of Berry as modified by Boenick with the light source emitting multiple wavelengths as taught in Electronic Design in order to have a wide range of applications while also keeping power usage low.
Regarding claim 6, Berry as modified by Boenick teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the light source comprises LEDs configured to transmit at wavelengths corresponding to red, green, and blue light.
However, Electronic Design discloses a sensor with a light source that emits red light, green light, and blue light (page 1).
Electronic Design discloses an advantage of multiple wavelengths in one sensor is the reduced power needs (page 2) with RGB light being the most common in the art. Boenick discloses the light source wavelength may change depending on the application (paragraph [0022]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the sensor of Berry as modified by Boenick with the light source emitting multiple wavelengths as taught in Electronic Design in order to have a wide range of applications while also keeping power usage low.
Regarding claim 16, Berry as modified by Boenick teaches the invention as explained above in claim 15, but fails to teach the light comprises wavelengths corresponding to red, green, and blue light.
However, Electronic Design discloses a sensor with a light source that emits red light, green light, and blue light (page 1).
Electronic Design discloses an advantage of multiple wavelengths in one sensor is the reduced power needs (page 2), with RGB light being the most common in the art. Boenick discloses the light source wavelength may change depending on the application (paragraph [0022]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the light emission step of Berry as modified by Boenick with the light source emitting multiple wavelengths as taught in Electronic Design in order to have a wide range of applications while also keeping power usage low.
Regarding claim 20, Berry as modified by Boenick teaches the invention as explained above in claim 15, and further teaches the detected light is detected by a photodiode (Boenick: paragraph [0026] discloses the detector may be a photodiode, which is a type of photodetector), and the multi-colored LED array and the photodiode are situated immediately adjacent each other and oriented in the same direction (Boenick: Fig. 1 shows detector 60 and light source 80 adjacent to each other; paragraphs [0028] and [0029] disclose the sensor and light source are in their own housing away from the other elements of the system).
Boenick discloses the LED and photodiode are situated immediately adjacent to each other in their own housing to reduce the contamination of the light emitter on other elements in the system (paragraph [0028]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Berry as modified by Boenick with the placement of the light source and detector taught in Boenick to reduce light contamination.
Berry as modified by Boenick fails to teach the emitted light is from a multi-colored LED array.
However, Electronic Design discloses a sensor with a light source that emits multiple wavelengths corresponding to different colors (page 1 discloses the sensor emits red, green and blue colors).
Electronic Design discloses an advantage of multiple wavelengths in one sensor is the reduced power needs (page 2). Boenick discloses the light source wavelength may change depending on the application (paragraph [0022]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the sensor of Berry as modified by Boenick with the light source emitting multiple wavelengths as taught in Electronic Design in order to have a wide range of applications while also keeping power usage low.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry (US20080128621A1) in view of Boenick (DE102006045916A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bomback (US4755049A).
Regarding claim 3, Berry as modified by Boenick teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach a processor that causes the light source to pulse light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of ion implantation systems, Bomback teaches a system with a pulsed light source (10, Fig. 1) used in the optical sensing of a workpiece (column 1, lines 51-58 explain this method; column 2, line 49-column 2, line 2 disclose the use of this method in the system).
Bomback discloses using a pulsed light source allows for a nondestructive (reduced risk of thermal damage) method of measuring the ion dose on the workpiece (column 1, lines 61-64), therefore monitoring quality and providing instantaneous feedback (column 2, lines 3-7). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the sensor of Berry as modified by Boenick with the pulsed light source taught in Bomback as a way to monitor for quality while remaining nondestructive.
Claims 8, 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry (US20080128621A1) in view of Boenick (DE102006045916A1) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Zani (US20120112323A1).
Regarding claim 8, Berry as modified by Boenick teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the chamber is selected from a load lock chamber, a dosimetry system chamber, ion source chamber, and a mass analyzer chamber.
However, in the same field of endeavor as ion implantation devices, Zani teaches the use of a load lock chamber (paragraphs [0050]-[0051]).
Load lock chambers are well-known and widely used in the art of ion implantation systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to do a simple substitution of the known load lock chambers for the general chamber taught in Berry to obtain predictable results of containing the workpiece. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the system of Berry as modified by Boenick with the load lock chamber taught in Zani and still achieve the predictable result of containing the workpiece.
Regarding claim 9, Berry as modified by Boenick teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the chamber is configured to be under vacuum during operation.
However, Zani teaches the chamber is configured to be under vacuum (paragraph [0051]).
Zani discloses an advantage of having a vacuum chamber is that workpieces may be inserted and removed without having to pump up or down the entire system (paragraph [0051]), therefore making the operation easier and more streamlined. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the system of Berry as modified by Boenick with the vacuum chamber taught in Zani in order to achieve an easy and streamlined operation.
Regarding claim 19, Berry as modified by Boenick teaches the invention as explained above in claim 15, but fails to teach in operation a vacuum is applied to a chamber immediately adjacent the outside face of the clear panel.
However, Zani discloses a vacuum chamber which houses the object being worked on (paragraph [0051]). Berry as modified by Boenick discloses the outside of the clear panel is facing the object being worked on (Boenick: Fig. 1 depicts the object 20 on the outer side of the clear panel 40). Therefore, combining the vacuum chamber of Zani with the clear panel taught by Berry as modified by Boenick would result in the vacuum chamber being adjacent to the outside of the clear panel.
Zani discloses an advantage of having the object being worked on in a vacuum chamber is that workpiece may be inserted and removed without having to pump up or down the entire system (paragraph [0051]), therefore making the operation easier and more streamlined. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the system of Berry as modified by Boenick with the vacuum chamber taught in Zani in order to achieve an easy and streamlined operation.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry (US20080128621A1) in view of Boenick (DE102006045916A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Jeong (US20200303266A1).
Regarding claim 18, Berry as modified by Boenick teaches the invention as explained above in claim 15, and further teaches comparing the detected light to light detection data previously gathered (Boenick: paragraph [0042]) to determine that maintenance of the ion implantation (Berry: 805, Fig. 8) system is due (Boenick: paragraphs [0043], [0044]).
Boenick discloses detecting debris and comparing it to data previously gathered of a clean clear panel allows for a critical level to be identified which signals maintenance is needed (paragraphs [0043]-[0044]), therefore optimizing the maintenance process. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Berry as modified by Boenick with the signal system taught by Boenick in order to further optimize the system.
Berry as modified by Boenick fails tot each the data is compiled through machine learning.
However, in the same field of endeavor of ion implantation processes, Jeong teaches monitoring a condition of the ion implantation process using reinforcement learning (paragraph [0029] discloses the reinforcement learning is a type of machine learning; S130, Fig. 1; paragraph [0005]).
Machine learning is well-known in the art to optimize iterative tasks. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply the known technique of machine learning as taught in Jeong to improve the data gathering and detection taught in Berry as modified by Boenick to yield predictable results of determining when maintenance of the system is needed. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the method of Berry as modified by Boenick with the machine learning taught in Jeong and be able to achieve the predictable result of optimizing the maintenance operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877