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 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 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for an “ion beam” (see, at least, paragraph [0003] of the specification of the immediate application), does not reasonably provide enablement for all beams of radiation (for example, electron beams, neutral atom beams, optical beams, laser beams, etc.). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Although claim 1 recites that “a beam” is extracted “from the ionizing chamber”, the claim does not recite that this beam is an ion beam.
Claims 2 and 3 inherit the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “a plurality of ion beams” but does not identify that this corresponds to the same beam as that recited in claim 1.
Claims 5 and 6 inherit the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “the ion beam” but does not identify that this corresponds to the same beam as that recited in claim 1.
Claims 8, 9, and 10 inherit the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “…measurement of ion beam” but does not identify that this corresponds to the same beam as that recited in claim 1.
Claim 12 recites “the ion beam” but does not identify that this corresponds to the same beam as that recited in claim 1.
Claim 13 is not included in this rejection because claim 13 properly identifies that the beam (of claim 1) comprises “an ion beam, or a gas cluster ion beam” (both examples are provided with sufficient support in the specification, as discussed above.
Although claim 14 recites “directing a beam from an ionizing chamber”, the claim does not recite that this beam is an ion beam.
Claims 15, 16, and 16 inherit the limitations of claim 14.
Claim 18 recites “the ion beam” but odes not identify that this corresponds to the same beam as that recited in claim 14.
Claim 19 recites “a beam” and does not identify that this beam is an ion beam or that it is derived from an ionizing chamber.
Claim 20 inherits the limitations of claim 8.
This rejection may be overcome by specifying that the “beam” recited in the independent claims is an ion beam, or similarly, by rewriting the independent claims to include similar language to that of claim 13 (which is not included in this rejection).
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 1-13, 16, 17, 18, and 20 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.
Claim 1 recites “an in-situ beam metrology system”, but does not provide a frame of reference – the claim does not specify to what component/element the beam metrology system is “in-situ” (for example, whether it is within the processing system generally, the ionizing chamber, or within a path of travel of the beam). Paragraph [0042] of the specification of the immediate application provides that “The image detector mounting direction is thus parallel to an axis along the length of the ion beam extraction optics centerline, parallel to the Y-Z plane of the ion beam 114, but perpendicular to the extraction direction of the ion beam 114”, however, limitations from the specification are not read into the claim, and the specification does not specifically define that such an arrangement is what is meant by “in-situ”, as claimed. Therefore, the term “in-situ” in the claim cannot be interpreted as limited merely to this understanding from the specification, and the term is indefinite because the exact meaning (relative to another component in the claimed invention) cannot be ascertained from the language of the claim.
Claims 2, 3, 4, and 5 inherit the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “the two-dimensional image” in claim 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although claim 2 (upon which claim 5 depends) recites “a two-dimensional array of pixels”, there is no recitation of a two-dimensional image.
Claim 7 recites “the ion beam”, in claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no ion beam is recited in claim 2 (or claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends). Although claim 1 describes that the beam is extracted “from the ionizing chamber”, it is not clear that the beam is an ion beam.
Claim 8 recites “the two-dimensional imaging component” in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9 and 10 inherit the limitations of claim 8.
Claim 11 recites “the measurement of ion beam”, in claim 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 (upon which claim 10 depends) recites “a measurement of the beam” but does not include measurement of an ion beam, and no ion beam is recited.
Claims 12 inherits the limitations of claim 10.
Claim 13 inherits the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 16 recites a method including a step of “using the metrology system”. Although claim 16 recites other method steps (and is therefore not rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101), it does not define the use recited in the step of “using the metrology system”, and is therefore indefinite.
Claim 17 inherits the limitations of claim 16.
Claim 18 recites “the ion beam” in claim 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although claim 14 describes that the beam is directed “from an ionizing chamber”, it is not clear that the beam is an ion beam.
Claim 19 is not included in this rejection. Although claim 19 recites “an in-situ metrology system” (similar to claim 1, which is rejected), the recitation of an in-situ metrology system is in the preamble of claim 19 and is therefore not interpreted as limiting a location of the metrology system, but is merely definitional that the limitations of the claim define a metrology system that may be considered “in-situ”.
Claim 20 inherits the limitations of claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1; Todorov et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2014/0326179 discloses a processing system, comprising: an ion source 106; an ion optical system 110, to deliver a beam to a substrate 116, the substrate positioned external to the ion source 106 (as illustrated in figure 1A); and an in-situ beam metrology system 120, having at least one detector 120 to detect the beam in the processing system (“To ensure uniform implantation dose within a substrate the detector 500 is configured to measure parameters of the ion beam 502, including beam height (represented by H3 in FIG. 5A) and beam current density gradients” [0033]). However, Todorov does not disclose that the ion source is an ionizing chamber to ionize a gaseous species, and therefore does not disclose an extraction system, to extract a beam from the ionizing chamber. Additionally, although Todorov detects beam height and beam current density gradients ([0033]), there is no disclosure that an image is formed of the beam.
Chen et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2020/0118790 discloses a processing system, comprising: an ionizing chamber 100 to ionize a gaseous species (“In an ion source, a feed gas is energized to form ions” [0002]); an extraction system, to extract a beam from the ionizing chamber (“Those ions are then extracted from the ion source through an extraction aperture disposed on an extraction plate” [0002]) and deliver the beam to a substrate (“These ions may be used to implant a dopant in the workpiece, etch the workpiece, deposit a coating on the workpiece or amorphize the workpiece” [0002]), the substrate 10 positioned external to the ionizing chamber 100 (as illustrated in figure 1); and a beam metrology system, having at least one detector 190 to detect the beam in the processing system (“the ions in the plasma 140 may emit a unique emission spectrum specific to each element. The OES system 190 may determine the elements contained within the plasma 140 based on this emission spectrum” [0033]). However, although the detector of Chen may be broadly considered to be “in-situ” (since it generally included within the system illustrated in figure 1), there is no explicit disclosure of imaging the beam in the processing system.
Haraichi et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,055,696 discloses a detector 38 which is located “in-situ” (since it is within the vacuum chamber 45 of the device) and the detector 38 generates an image of an ion beam (“Secondary particles (secondary electrons, secondary ions, etc.) generated from sample 39 by ion beam irradiation are detected by secondary particle detector 38” [col. 5; lines 8-10]). However, the imaged beam is a beam of secondary particles (particles generated from an interaction between a primary beam and a sample) and is not a beam extracted from an ionizing chamber and delivered to a substrate.
The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, a processing system, comprising: at least one detector to image a beam extracted from an ionizing chamber and delivered to a substrate.
Regarding independent claim 14; claim 14 includes similar limitations to those of independent claim 1. The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, a method of substrate processing, comprising: measuring a beam characteristic of a beam directed from an ionizing chamber to a substrate using a metrology system that includes a 2-dimensional imaging component.
Regarding independent claim 19; claim 19 includes substantially similar limitations to those of independent claim 1. The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, an in-situ metrology system to measure a beam, comprising: a two-dimensional detector to generate a two-dimensional image of the beam, wherein the detector is arranged to intercept radiation from the beam over an imaging region that is disposed between an ionizing chamber and a substrate position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-1489. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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.
/JASON L MCCORMACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights