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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 3 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 3 recites the limitation "the radiation shield" in in line3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 is an apparatus claim from which claim 18 is dependent from but claim 18 failed to further limit the apparatus of the claim 9
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchel et al. (Pub. No.: US 20200111686 A1), hereafter Mitchell in view of McKim et al. (Pub. No. US 20100202591 A1), hereafter McKim.
Regarding claim 1, Mitchell teaches an apparatus (FIG. 1, a workpiece processing system 100) comprising:
a plasma source (paragraph [0019], “a source of RF energy”) a process chamber operable to generate a plasma within a plasma chamber (FIG. 1, a process chamber 102) enclosed by a chamber housing (FIG. 1, housing 157); and a cryogenically cooled collimator (paragraph [0019], “a collimator disposed between the ion source and the process chamber 102”).
a beam (FIG. 1, and paragraph [0019], beam-line ion implantation) comprising radicals generated by the plasma to a workpiece (FIG. 1, wafer 106) external to the plasma chamber through the linear channels (paragraph [0020], “an internal channel 118 operable to deliver a cryogenic fluid to the platen 104”) and, wherein the cryogenically cooled collimator is configured to operate at a temperature for capturing and condensing any radicals impacting surfaces thereof (paragraph [0017], “The gas manifold provides a path for cryogenically cooled fluid to enter and leave the rotary union. Also attached to the gas manifold is a housing supporting a bearing”).
Mitchell does not explicitly disclose a planar body having a first planar side and a second planar side comprising a plurality of linear channels perpendicularly extending from the first planar side to the second planar side coupled to the chamber housing.
McKim teaches a planar body (FIG. 6, collimator 104 includes members (e.g., plates) 120, 122) having a first planar side (FIG. 1, FIG. 6, 158) and a second planar side (FIG. 6, 160) comprising a plurality of linear channels (FIG. 6, longitudinal channel 188) perpendicularly extending from the first planar side to the second planar side coupled to the chamber housing (paragraph [0000], “The mid section 152 of the first member 122 includes a longitudinal channel 188 that extends (e.g., substantially perpendicularly to the radially outward direction of the protrusions 178) between the sides 158 and 160 of the collimator 104”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell in view of McKim to incorporate feature of collimator, a planar body having a first planar side and a second planar side comprising a plurality of linear channels perpendicularly extending for each collimator aperture is respectively defined in a first direction between the first and the second surfaces of a respective one of the passages in the first collimator section and each collimator aperture is respectively defined in a second direction between the first and the second surfaces of the passage in the second collimator section (McKim, paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 11, Mitchell teaches method of operating an apparatus (FIG. 1, a workpiece processing system 100), the method comprising:
generating a plasma within a plasma chamber (FIG. 1, a process chamber 102), wherein the plasma chamber comprises a cryogenically cooled collimator (paragraph [0019], “a collimator disposed between the ion source and the process chamber 102”);
cooling the cryogenically cooled collimator to a temperature effective to capture and condense neutral atoms, radicals, and molecules generated in the plasma that contact surfaces thereof (paragraph [0017], “The gas manifold provides a path for cryogenically cooled fluid to enter and leave the rotary union. Also attached to the gas manifold is a housing supporting a bearing”); and transmitting the radicals that do not contact the surfaces of the cryogenically cooled collimator and flow through the plurality of linear channels (Abstract, “a rotary union including an inner shaft, wherein the inner shaft is rotatable and includes an internal channel operable to deliver a cryogenic fluid to a platen”) to a workpiece FIG. 1, wafer 106).
Mitchell does not disclose having a first planar side and a second planar side comprising a plurality of linear channels perpendicularly extending from the first planar side to the second planar side coupled to the plasma chamber.
McKim teaches having a first planar side (FIG. 1, FIG. 6, 158) and a second planar side (FIG. 6, 160) comprising a plurality of linear channels (FIG. 6, longitudinal channel 188) perpendicularly extending from the first planar side to the second planar side coupled to the plasma chamber (paragraph [0000], “The mid section 152 of the first member 122 includes a longitudinal channel 188 that extends (e.g., substantially perpendicularly to the radially outward direction of the protrusions 178) between the sides 158 and 160 of the collimator 104”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell in view of McKim to incorporate feature of collimator, a planar body having a first planar side and a second planar side comprising a plurality of linear channels perpendicularly extending for each collimator aperture is respectively defined in a first direction between the first and the second surfaces of a respective one of the passages in the first collimator section and each collimator aperture is respectively defined in a second direction between the first and the second surfaces of the passage in the second collimator section (McKim, paragraph [0011]).
having a first planar side and a second planar side comprising a plurality of linear channels perpendicularly extending from the first planar side to the second planar side coupled to the plasma chamber
Claims 2-3, 10, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell and McKim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kueckendahl (Pub. No.: WO 2019101886 A2).
Regarding claim 2, combination of Mitchell and McKim teaches limitation of claim 1 but does not disclose a radiation shield within the plasma chamber and positioned in proximity to the cryogenically cooled collimator to prevent direct impingement of the beam onto the surfaces of the cryogenically cooled collimator.
Kueckendahl teaches a radiation shield (paragraph [00075], “a radiation shield configured to protect a user of the laser marking system from stray radiation”) within the plasma chamber and positioned in proximity to the cryogenically cooled collimator to prevent direct impingement of the beam onto the surfaces of the cryogenically cooled collimator (paragraph [00075]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell and McKim in view of Kueckendahl to incorporate radiation shield for protecting a user of the laser marking system from stray radiation (Kueckendahl, paragraph [00011]).
Regarding claim 3, Mitchell and McKim as modified above also teaches the radiation shield is configured to be cooled during use (Kueckendahl, paragraph [00038], “The cooling system may be configured to use the suppression fluid of the radiation shield to cool the component of the marking head”).
Regarding claim 10, Mitchell and McKim as modified above also teaches the radiation shield is thermally connected to the cryogenically cooled collimator by a resistive link such that more cooling power is delivered to the collimator than to the radiation shield ((Kueckendahl, paragraph [00038], “The cooling system may, for example, provide cooling to motors or actuators (e.g. galvanometers) of components of the marking head (e.g. the electromagnetic radiation steering mechanism). The cooling system may be configured to use the suppression fluid of the radiation shield to cool the component of the marking head”).
Regarding claim 16, combination of Mitchell and McKim teaches limitation of claim 1 but does not disclose coupling a radiation shield to the plasma chamber and positioned in proximity to the cryogenically cooled collimator to prevent direct impingement of the beam onto the surfaces of the cryogenically cooled collimator.
Kueckendahl teaches coupling a radiation shield (paragraph [00075], “a radiation shield configured to protect a user of the laser marking system from stray radiation”) to the plasma chamber and positioned in proximity to the cryogenically cooled collimator to prevent direct impingement of the beam onto the surfaces of the cryogenically cooled collimator (paragraph [00075]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell and McKim in view of Kueckendahl to incorporate radiation shield for protecting a user of the laser marking system from stray radiation (Kueckendahl, paragraph [00011]).
Regarding claim 17, Mitchell and McKim as modified above further teaches comprising cooling the radiation shield during use (Kueckendahl, paragraph [00038], “The cooling system may be configured to use the suppression fluid of the radiation shield to cool the component of the marking head”).
Claims 4-6, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell and McKim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matteo et al.(Pub. No.: US 20220401759 A1), hereafter Matteo.
Regarding claim 4, combination of Mitchell and McKim teaches limitation of claim 1 but does not disclose the cryogenically cooled collimator is configured to be cooled to the temperature of less than 300K.
Matteo teaches the cryogenically cooled collimator is configured to be cooled to the temperature of less than 300K (paragraph [0024], “the collimator so as to cool the collimator to a working temperature of approximately 50 degrees Kelvin”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell and McKim in view of Matteo to incorporate cooling of collimator to increase accuracy of the beamline (Matteo, paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 5, combination of Mitchell and McKim as modified above also teaches the cryogenically cooled collimator is configured to be cooled to the temperature of less than 200K (Matteo, paragraph [0024], “the collimator so as to cool the collimator to a working temperature of approximately 50 degrees Kelvin”).
Regarding claim 6, combination of Mitchell and McKim as modified above also teaches the cryogenically cooled collimator is configured to be cooled to the temperature of less than 100K (Matteo, paragraph [0024], “the collimator so as to cool the collimator to a working temperature of approximately 50 degrees Kelvin”).
Regarding claim 12, combination of Mitchell and McKim teaches limitation of claim 1 but does not disclose the cryogenically cooled collimator is configured to be cooled to the temperature of less than 300K.
Matteo teaches the cryogenically cooled collimator is configured to be cooled to the temperature of less than 300K (paragraph [0024], “the collimator so as to cool the collimator to a working temperature of approximately 50 degrees Kelvin”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell and McKim in view of Matteo to incorporate cooling of collimator to increase accuracy of the beamline (Matteo, paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 13, combination of Mitchell and McKim as modified above also teaches the cryogenically cooled collimator is configured to be cooled to the temperature of less than 200K (Matteo, paragraph [0024], “the collimator so as to cool the collimator to a working temperature of approximately 50 degrees Kelvin”).
Regarding claim 14, combination of Mitchell and McKim as modified above also teaches the cryogenically cooled collimator is configured to be cooled to the temperature of less than 100K (Matteo, paragraph [0024], “the collimator so as to cool the collimator to a working temperature of approximately 50 degrees Kelvin”).
Claims 7-9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell and McKim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiang et al. (Pub. No.: US 20200271942 A1), hereafter Chiang.
Regarding claim 7, combination of Mitchell and McKim teaches limitation of claim 1 but does not disclose each of the plurality of linear channels have an aspect ratio greater than 5.
Chiang teaches each of the plurality of linear channels have an aspect ratio greater than 5 (claim 6, “a channel having an aspect ratio ranging from about 7 to about 25”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell and McKim in view of Chiang to incorporate feature of channel aspect ratio to increase an aspect ratio without being restricted by any process limitation, thereby improving the collimation ability of the collimator (Chiang, paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 8, combination of Mitchell and McKim as modified above also teaches each of the plurality of linear channels have an aspect ratio greater than 10 (Chiang, claim 6, “a channel having an aspect ratio ranging from about 7 to about 25”)..
Regarding claim 9, combination of Mitchell and McKim as modified above also teaches the linear channels have widths or diameters that change based on position on the cryogenically cooled collimator planar body (Chiang, paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 19, combination of Mitchell and McKim as modified above also teaches (Chiang, paragraph [0018]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-22 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 20, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest an apparatus comprising “wherein the radiation shield is thermally coupled to the cryogenically cooled collimator to provide cooling; and an antenna disposed external to the plasma chamber proximate to a dielectric window in the plasma chamber, wherein the antenna is electrically connected to a RF power supply to provide an alternating voltage to the antenna to generate the plasma source”, as required in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Dependent claims 21-22 are allowed by virtue of its dependency.
Claims 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 15, prior arts whether stand alone or in combination fail to teach or reasonably suggest the method according to Claim 11, comprising “wherein the flow of the radicals through the linear channels to the workpiece is at a non-zero angle of 30 to 85 degrees”, as required in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED M KAISER whose telephone number is (571)272-9612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m.-6 p.m..
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 571-270-3119. 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.
/SYED M KAISER/Examiner, Art Unit 2831 /ABDULLAH A RIYAMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights