DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b):
The amendment to claim 1 has clarified that each uniformity is determined based upon all parameters. However, this amendment raises new issues under 35 USC § 112(a) discussed herein below.
Rejections under 35 USC 103
The remarks take the position that the combination fails to disclose “controller being configured to determine each of a first uniformity of the ion beam defined along the first axis, a second uniformity of the ion beam defined along the second axis, and an angle of incidence of the ion beam with respect to the first axis based, at least in part, on all of the first current, the second current, the rotational position of the circumferential slit, and the linear position of the defining aperture slit concurrent with the rotation of the hollow cylinder”.
This has been found unpersuasive. Berrian teaches determining a first uniformity based on all parameters (see pages 5-6 of the Final Rejection of 29 December 2025). Berrian only suggests one sensor. However, Benveniste teaches two or more sensors to measure first and second uniformity, wherein Beneviste modifies Berrian by suggesting using two layer sensors to detect uniformity and angle of incidence instead of a single faraday detector as used in Berrian.
That is, in the combination the single sensor inside of the tube of Berrian (i.e. behind a slit) would be substituted for the two or more sensors of Beneviste. As discussed in the Final Rejection on page 6, since the conduit 108 is rotating and the faraday cup is configured to translate, the measured current depends upon the translation and rotational positions of elements in Berrian. Therefore substituting the single current detector of Berrian for the multiple detectors of Beneviste would naturally result in the first and second uniformity measurements and an angle of incidence determinations to be based on all of the rotational position of the circumferential slit and the linear position of the defining aperture slit in addition to the measured currents from sensors taught in Beneviste.
MPEP 2112 (VI) recites “"[I]n order to rely on inherency to establish the existence of a claim limitation in the prior art in an obviousness analysis – the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art." Id. at 1195-96, 112 USPQ2d at 1952. But see, Persion Pharms. LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations LTD., 945 F.3d 1184, 1191, 2019 USPQ2d 494084 (Fed. Cir. 2019), where the court stated that a proper finding of inherency does not require that all limitations are taught in a single reference, and that inherency may meet a missing claim limitation when the limitation is "the natural result of the combination of prior art elements." (emphasis in original).”
As discussed above, since the modification is merely to substitute the single sensor with multiple sensors, each respective uniformity is based on the currents measured, the rotational and translational positions of the slit of Berriran.
Therefore the remarks have been found unpersuasive and the rejection stands as discussed herein below.
It is noted that a new interpretation is taken with respect to figure 3 of Beneviste to demonstrate that both a first and second uniformity are determined based on the first and second currents. See discussion herein below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 lacks written description for “a controller configured to determine each of a first uniformity of the ion beam defined along the first axis, a second uniformity of the ion beam defined along the second axis, and an angle of incidence of the ion beam with respect to the first axis based on all of the first current, the second current ,the rotational position of the circumferential slit, and the linear position of the defining aperture slit concurrent with the rotation of the hollow cylinder.”
Specifically, the angle of incidence is defined in paragraph [0069] of the published application to be dependent on the first and second current, however there is no disclosure of the angle of incidence to be dependent upon the rotational position or linear position of the defining slit.
Moreover, the specification is devoid of any disclosure as to the first uniformity is determined based on the rotational position or the linear position of the defining slit. Specifically, paragraph [0066] defines the first uniformity Ux as the measured current from first and second current detectors. Similarly paragraph [0067] teaches the second uniformity is merely the sum of the first and second current measured by the detectors 228a and 228b.
That is, aside from the suggestion that the first and second sensors allow for simultaneous uniformity determination in a first and second direction and a angular distribution ([0070]), there is no disclosure as to:
1) using all of the claimed parameters to determine each uniformity and angle of incidence and
2) any difference between the first uniformity and the second uniformity (i.e. the first and second uniformity measurements are both taken from 228a and 228b, therefore there is no suggestion as to how a first measurement results in an x direction uniformity measurement and a second measurement results in a y direction uniformity measurement, when they are the same sensors detecting at different times.
Therefore claim 1 fails to meet the written description requirement.
All dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
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.
Claim 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berrian (WO0/151183) (submitted with IDS of 27 March 2025). in view of Benveniste (USPN 6,677,598) (submitted with IDS of 10/18/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Berrian et al. teach a profiler apparatus (fig. 4) for determining a profile of an ion beam along a beam path (abstract teaches profiling the ion beam, figure 4 shows the beam path indicated as “ion beam”), the profiler apparatus comprising:
a hollow cylinder (ion beam conduit 108’) comprising a cylinder wall (best seen in figure 3) having a circumferential slit (helically shaped slot 120) defined therethrough (120 formed through cylindrical wall as seen in figure 3);
a rotation apparatus (108 is rotated by mechanical means see page 8, line 28) operably coupled to the hollow cylinder (inherent in order for mechanical means to rotate 108) and configured to selectively rotate the hollow cylinder about a first axis (page 9, lines 3-5 teach rotation of 1200-1800 RPM, thus selectively rotated and page 8, lines 21-23 teach 108 is centered such that the rotation for conduit 108 is the midline of the faraday cup. The axis of rotation is interpreted to be the first axis), thereby defining a rotational position of the circumferential slit (as 108 rotates by mechanical means, the position of 120 is defined);
an aperture plate (fig. 4, housing 102 having aperture 112’, note that the housing could alternatively be rectangular forming a plate 104 having aperture 112 as seen in figure 1) having a defining aperture slit defined therethrough (112), wherein the aperture plate is fixed relative to the rotation apparatus(the rotational means rotates the conduit 108, while the housing 102 remains fixed relative thereto), and wherein the defining aperture slit is positioned a predetermined distance from the hollow cylinder along the beam path (as seen in figure 4 112 is positioned at a distance from the hollow cylinder 108);
a translation apparatus (page 4, lines 17-20 teaches translation of the faraday cup, therefore requiring some sort of translation apparatus connected to the faraday cup 100 of figure 4) operably coupled to the hollow cylinder and the aperture plate (since faraday cup 100 comprises the conduit 108 and the housing 102, any translation of the cup would move both, thus means for translating is inherently operably coupled to both 102 and 108), wherein the translation apparatus is configured to translate the hollow cylinder and the aperture plate along a second axis, thereby defining a linear position of the defining aperture slit (translation through ribbon beam is a linear direction defining a linear position of the slit as discussed on page 4, lines 17-20); and
a current detection apparatus comprising a first current detector (114’, page 10, lines 2-5 teaches current flows from cup structure when ion beam impacts electrode 114), wherein the first current detector is positioned within the hollow cylinder (114 is positioned in 108) and extends parallel to the first axis (as seen in figures 3-4, 114 extends along axis of cylinder) configured to respectively detect a first current of the ion beam passing through the defining aperture slit and circumferential slit and impacting thereon concurrent with the selective rotation of the hollow cylinder (inherent via rotation, the ion beam would need to pass through 112 in 102 and 120 in 106 in order to reach electrodes 114 (charge collecting zones)); and
a controller (processing circuit see page 9, lines 16-17) configured to determine a first uniformity of the ion beam defined along the first axis (page 9, lines 16-19 teaches determining current distribution from measured current flow (i.e. first uniformity), thus along each of the rotational axis (causing ions to be blocked or passed therethrough) and the translation axis, see page 6, lines 8-13 teach displacing the substrate relative to the ion beam to allow different regions of the ion beam to impinge upon the at least one charge collecting conductive zones and determining a vertical ion beam distribution and the horizontal ion beam distribution. That is, the vertical distribution is the first beam uniformity (as a result of rotation)), based on the first current (page 10, lines 2-5 teaches current flows from the cup structure when ion impacts 114 and page 9, lines 16-19 teaches determining distribution from current flow), the rotational position of the circumferential slit, and the linear position of the defining aperture slit concurrent with the rotation of the hollow cylinder (inherent since the conduit 108 is rotating and the faraday cup is configured to translate, thus the measured current depends upon the translation and rotational position of the elements. Note: page 9, lines 8-10 teaches displacing the cup so that the ion beam scans inlet 112 and the ion beam impacts the revolving conduit 108 thus translation concurrent with rotation (revolving)).
Berrian differs from the claimed invention by only teaching a single cylindrical detector 114’ in figure 4. Therefore, Berrian fails to disclose the current detection apparatus comprises a second current detector, wherein the first current detector and the second current detector are positioned within the hollow cylinder and define a detector plane, wherein the first current detector and the second current detector are configured to respectively detect a first current and a second current of the ion beam; and the controller configured to determining a second uniformity of the ion beam defined along the second axis, and an angle of incidence of the ion beam with respect to the first axis based, at least in part, on the first current, the second current.
However, Benveniste the current detection apparatus comprises a first current sensor (fig. 3, 302 or fig. 2 s1) and a second current detector (304 or figure 2, s2), wherein the first current detector and the second current detector are positioned behind a slit (302/304 behind 306) and extend parallel to the first axis to define a detector plane (302/304 extend in parallel as evident by perpendicular arrangement of second layer sensor pairs 310), wherein the first current detector and the second current detector are configured to respectively detect a first current and a second current of the ion beam (inherent to sensors); and
the controller configured to determining each of a first uniformity of the ion beam defined along the first axis (col. 6, lines 21-24 teaches elements of both layers are operable to provide beam current measurements to indicate beam current uniformity throughout the ion beam (i.e. 302/304 measure uniformity in both first direction and second direction discussed in col. 6, lines 17-21)) a second uniformity of the ion beam defined along the second axis (col. 6, lines 17-18 teaches first layer 350 (i.e. 302/304) indicates angular uniformity through ion beam 312 in first direction. Alternatively, note as understood from the instant specification the first uniformity and the second uniformity are determined from the first and second sensors (see paragraphs [0066]-[0067] of the instant published application). Therefore, interpreting two measurements from the first layer sensor pair to be the first and second uniformity measurement (col. 5, lines 22-25 teach the same equation to calculate summed current as the second uniformity measurement disclosed in paragraph [0067] of the published application)), and an angle of incidence of the ion beam with respect to the first axis (col. 5, lines 36-40) based on the first current, the second current (col. 5, lines 36-40, wherein current from first layer including sensors 302/304 are used in the uniformity/angle of incidence of both the uniformity measurement of the entire beam (col. 6, lines 21-27) and in angular uniformity measurements in the first direction (col. 6, lines 17-19)).
Beneviste modifies Berrian by suggesting using sensor pairs to detect uniformity and angle of incidence instead of a single faraday detector as used in Berrian.
Since both inventions are directed towards uniformity detectors in an ion implanter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the since faraday sensor 114’ for the two layer sensor suggested in Beneviste because it would allow for uniformity measurements at various portions of the ion beam in both the x and y direction, therefore improving the ability to determine accurate uniformity by measuring over two dimensions of the ion beam.
Note: Berrian teaches determining a first uniformity based on all parameters (see pages 5-6 of the Final Rejection of 29 December 2025). Berrian only suggests one sensor. However, Benveniste teaches two or more sensors to measure first and second uniformity, wherein Beneviste modifies Berrian by suggesting using two layer sensors to detect uniformity and angle of incidence instead of a single faraday detector as used in Berrian. In the combination the single sensor inside of the tube of Berrian (i.e. behind a slit) is substituted for the two or more sensors of Beneviste. As discussed in the Final Rejection on page 6, since the conduit 108 is rotating and the faraday cup is configured to translate, the measured current and angle of incidence depends upon the translation and rotational positions of elements in Berrian. Therefore substituting the single current detector of Berrian for the multiple detectors of Beneviste would naturally result in the first and second uniformity measurements and an angle of incidence determinations to be based on all of the currents from respective sensors (as disclosed by Beneviste), the rotational position of the circumferential slit and the linear position of the defining aperture slit (as disclosed by Berrian) because placing the sensor pairs of Beneviste inside the rotating and displaceable tube of Berrian would in addition to detection of current on the sensors result in the measurements being based on the position of the tube (i.e. rotational position and translation or displaceable position taught by Berrian).
Regarding claim 2, Berrian et al. teach one or more feedback apparatuses (page 9, , lines 16-21 teach upon determining the current density and distribution, the dosage is varied in order to maintain desired values, thus requiring a feedback apparatus), wherein the one or more feedback apparatuses are configured to provide one or more of the rotational position of the circumferential slit and the linear position of the defining aperture slit to the controller (col. 9, lines 4-5 teach an optical encoder may be used to provide an indication of the orientation of the conduit. That is, in order to vary the dosage (i.e. profile) in accordance with the determined current density and distribution and beam width, the orientation of the device detecting must be known as evidenced by Pollock et al. (US pgPub 2007/0069156)—paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 3, Berrian in view of Beneviste teaches wherein the second uniformity of the ion beam is based on a sum of the first current and the second current at the rotational position of the circumferential slit and the linear position of the defining aperture slit (Berrian teaches rotational position and the linear position of the respective slits (see discussion above), as modified by Beneviste the second uniformity would be the sum of the sensor pairs behind the aperture).
Regarding claim 4, Berrian teaches wherein the ion beam comprises a scanned ion beam, wherein the scanned ion beam is scanned along the second axis (directional translation see page 4, lines 14-22 and scanning the inlet 112 (i.e. along the y-direction) see page 9, lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 5, Berrian teaches wherein the circumferential slit extends from a first radial position to a second radial position with respect to the first axis, thereby defining an angular span of the circumferential slit (see figure 3 slit 120 has an angular span with respect to the rotational axis of 108).
Regarding claim 6, Berrian teaches wherein the angular span is less than 360 degrees (fig. 3, slit 120 is less than 360 degrees).
Regarding claim 7, Berrian teaches wherein the circumferential slit and the defining aperture slit have respective widths (as seen in figure 4).
Barrian fails to disclose slits that are smaller than a width of the ion beam.
However, Benveniste teaches slits that are smaller than a width of the ion beam (figure 3 shows slit 314 in 306 and slits in 304 that form beamlets thus smaller than a width of the ion beam).
Beneveniste modifies Berrian by suggesting an array of small slits to detect beam uniformity.
Since both inventions are directed towards profilers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify each of the slits to be smaller than the width of the ion beam because it would facilitate the ability to have multiple sensors to facilitate multiple data points to determine uniformity and angle of incidence, therefore improving the accuracy of the determined beam profile.
Regarding claim 10, Berrian teaches wherein the defining aperture slit is positioned the predetermined distance upstream of the hollow cylinder along the beam path (as seen in figure 4 112 is positioned at a distance upstream from the hollow cylinder 108).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berrian in view of Beneviste and further in view of Vanderberg et al. (USPN 7,064,340) (submitted with IDS of 10/18/2024)
Regarding claim 8, Berrian fails to disclose wherein the translation apparatus is further configured to selectively translate the hollow cylinder and the aperture plate to a retracted position, whereby the hollow cylinder and the aperture plate are not impacted by the ion beam in the retracted position.
However, Vanderberg teaches wherein the translation apparatus (78) is further configured to selectively translate the hollow cylinder and the aperture plate to a retracted position, whereby the hollow cylinder and the aperture plate are not impacted by the ion beam in the retracted position (col. 4, lines 36-45, fig. 3 shows profiler in beam path and fig. 7 shows profiler out of beam path in parked position. Note profiler includes an aperture plate 70 and a rotating hollow cylinder 81 similar to the Berrian as seen in figure 5).
Vanderberg modifies Berrian by suggesting the translation apparatus to remove the profiler from the beam path in a parked position when not in use.
Since both inventions are directed towards beam profilers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the translation apparatus translate the profiler from the beam path to a parked position as suggested in Vanderberg because by having the profiler only in the beam path intermittently, the wear of the profiler components is reduced (col. 4, lines 50-52).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berrian in view of Beneviste and further in view of Smick et al. (US pgPub 2003/0192474)
Regarding claim 9, Berrian teaches wherein the circumferential slit in the cylinder wall (as seen in figure 3).
Berrian fails to disclose the slit has a bevel, whereby the bevel is configured to provide a maximum acceptance of the ion beam therethrough.
However, Smick teaches Berrian fails to disclose the slit has a bevel, whereby the bevel is configured to provide a maximum acceptance of the ion beam therethrough (fig. 9 aperture 460 is formed as a knife edge 520 (0093)).
Smick modifies Berrian by suggesting the opening prior to the faraday sensor or charge collector is a knife edge (i.e. beveled shape).
Since both inventions are directed towards ion beam profiles, it would have been obvious to modify the circumferential slit of Berrian to have the knife edge of Smick et al. because the knife edge accommodates high implant angles ([0095]) therefore ensuring maximum collection of the ion beam at higher angles such that the beam profile may be accurately measured and adjusted as necessary.
Relevant art of interest to the applicant
US8097866 teaches a body containing detectors 312, wherein the body is both rotatable and translatable to allow for determination of angle of incidence and uniformity over different locations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, 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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights