DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 07/13/2026.
4. Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1, 3, 12, and 14 have been amended.
6. Claims 2 and 13 have been cancelled.
Drawings
7. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “power supply coupled to the extraction plate” (claims 1 and 12) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 11-12, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2019/0074189) in view of Vaniapura et al (US 2018/0053628).
Regarding claim 1:
Park teaches a workpiece processing apparatus (ion beam etching apparatus, 1000) [fig 1-2 & 0018-0020], comprising: a plasma source (source part, 20) operable to generate a plasma (generating plasma) within a plasma chamber (interior of 20) enclosed by a chamber housing (walls of 20) [fig 1 & 0018]; and an extraction plate (middle electrode plate 40) coupled to the chamber housing (walls of 20), wherein the extraction plate (middle electrode plate 40) comprises a recombination array (body of middle electrode plate 40) including a plurality of channels (holes, 40H) operable to direct one or more radical beams (ion beam, IB) to a workpiece (100), and wherein the extraction plate (middle electrode plate, 40) is oriented at a non-zero angle (tilt angle, ɵt) relative to a perpendicular extending from a main surface of the workpiece (upper surface of 100) [fig 1-2 & 0018-0020].
Park does not specifically disclose a power supply coupled to the extraction plate.
Vaniapura teaches a power supply (power source) coupled to the extraction plate (one or more heating elements embedded in the separation grid) [fig 2 & 0038, 0085].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Park to include a power supply coupled to the extraction plate, as in Vaniapura, to further control the neutral species that can go through the grid, providing another control parameter for the process performance such as uniformity, surface oxidation and ash rate [Vaniapura – 0036].
The claim limitations “wherein the power supply is operable to heat the recombination array to a temperature greater than a temperature of the chamber housing” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 3 and 14:
The claim limitations “wherein the temperature of the recombination array is greater than 200° C” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 15-16:
Park teaches a first radiation shield (lower electrode plate 40) positioned between the recombination array (body of middle electrode plate 40) and the workpiece (substrate, 100) [fig 1-2 & 0018-0019]; and a second radiation shield (upper electrode plate 40) within the plasma chamber (interior of 20) [fig 1-2 & 0018-0019].
Regarding claims 6 and 17:
Park teaches the recombination array (body of middle electrode plate 40) is oriented at the non-zero angle (tilt angle, ɵt) relative to the perpendicular extending from the main surface of the workpiece (upper surface of 100) [fig 1-2 & 0020].
Regarding claims 7 and 18:
Park teaches the non-zero angle is approximately 45° (may be greater than about 0 degree and less than about 45 degrees) [0035-0036].
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2144.05(I)].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the non-zero angle to be approximately 45° to achieve the desired etching amount [Park – 0035].
Regarding claim 11:
The claim limitations “wherein the one or more radical beams include oxygen radicals” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 12:
Park teaches a workpiece processing apparatus (ion beam etching apparatus, 1000) [fig 1-2 & 0018-0020], comprising: a plasma source (source part, 20) operable to generate a plasma (generating plasma) within a plasma chamber (interior of 20) enclosed by a chamber housing (walls of 20) [fig 1 & 0018]; and an extraction plate (middle electrode plate 40) forming a portion of the chamber housing (bottom wall of 20), wherein the extraction plate (middle electrode plate 40) comprises a recombination array (body of middle electrode plate 40) including a plurality of channels (holes, 40H) operable to direct one or more radical beams (ion beam, IB) to a workpiece (100), and wherein the extraction plate (middle electrode plate, 40) is oriented at a non-zero angle (tilt angle, ɵt) relative to a perpendicular extending from a main surface of the workpiece (upper surface of 100) [fig 1-2 & 0018-0020].
Park does not specifically disclose a power supply coupled to the extraction plate.
Vaniapura teaches a power supply (power source) coupled to the extraction plate (one or more heating elements embedded in the separation grid) [fig 2 & 0038, 0085].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Park to include a power supply coupled to the extraction plate, as in Vaniapura, to further control the neutral species that can go through the grid, providing another control parameter for the process performance such as uniformity, surface oxidation and ash rate [Vaniapura – 0036].
The claim limitations “wherein the power supply is operable to heat the recombination array to a temperature greater than a temperature of the chamber housing” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
10. Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2019/0074189) in view of Vaniapura et al (US 2018/0053628) as applied to claims 1, 3-7, 11-12, and 14-18 above, and further in view of Berry III et al (US 9,406,535).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-7, 11-12, and 14-18 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 8 and 19:
Modified Park does not specifically teach each channel of the plurality of channels has a length and a diameter, and wherein the length is at least five times greater than the diameter.
Berry III teaches each channel of a plurality of channels (210) has a length and a diameter, and wherein the length is at least five times greater than the diameter (thickness may be between 0.5 mm up to 10 cm and diameter may be between 0.5-1 cm) [fig 1-2 & col 6, lines 41-48].
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946) [MPEP 2144.05(I)].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify each channel of the plurality of channels of the recombination array of modified Park with the dimensions of Berry III to affect the degree of etching as desired [Berry III – col 16-17, lines 56-3].
11. Claim(s) 9-10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2019/0074189) in view of Vaniapura et al (US 2018/0053628) as applied to claims 1, 3-7, 11-12, and 14-18 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 2023/0130162).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-7, 11-12, and 14-18 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Park does not specifically disclose wherein each channel of the plurality of channels is defined by an inner surface, and wherein quartz is provided along the inner surface.
Lee teaches each channel of the plurality of channels is defined by an inner surface, and wherein quartz is provided along the inner surface (quartz can be coated on a metal grid) [provisional, page 5].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the inner surface of each channel of the plurality of channels of the recombination array of modified Park to include quartz provided along the inner surface, as in Lee, to enhance the strength or corrosion resistance [Lee – provisional, page 5].
Regarding claims 10 and 20:
Modified Park does not specifically disclose the recombination array is made from quartz, stainless steel, or aluminum.
Lee teaches a recombination array (grid) is made from quartz, stainless steel, or aluminum (stainless steel, aluminum alloy, or quartz) [provisional, page 5].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the recombination array of modified Park to be made from made from quartz, stainless steel, or aluminum, as in Lee, because such are suitable materials for a recombination array [Lee – provisional, page 5]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/13/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-6 and 11-17 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claim(s) 7-10 and 18-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
13. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights