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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04 February 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, line 8, 04 February 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 9, 13-14, 16-22, and 24-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kravchenko et al. (2011), Optical Interference Lithography Using Azobenzene-Functionalized Polymers for Micro- and Nanopatterning of Silicon. Adv. Mater., 23: 4174-4177, hereinafter Kravchenko, and in view of Deng et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2016/0041466 A1), hereinafter Deng, and in view of Nishimaki et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2017/0227850 A1), hereinafter Nishimaki, and in view of Ober et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2014/0370442 A1), hereinafter Ober; have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kravchenko teaches away from claimed limitation of the use of EUV or e-beam sources to irradiate the photoresist of the present application. The highlighted sentence of Kravchenko is: “The proposed technique is fast and cost-effective in comparison with electron-beam lithography or even optical nanolithography, as the azopolymer-based surface patterning does not require UV light sources and mask aligners.” (pg. 4177, col. 1, ¶ 1). This does not meet the MPEP instruction as to what in the prior art constitutes a teaching away. This situation closely mirrors the example from the MPEP, i.e. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2144.05(III)(B) states:
Specifically, a patent to Zehender, which was relied upon to reject applicant’s claim, included a statement that the thickness of the protective layer “should be not less than about [100 Angstroms].” The court held that the patent did not teach away from the claimed invention. “Zehender suggests that there are benefits to be derived from keeping the protective layer as thin as possible, consistent with achieving adequate protection. A thinner coating reduces light absorption and minimizes manufacturing time and expense. Thus, while Zehender expresses a preference for a thicker protective layer of 200-300 Angstroms, at the same time it provides the motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to focus on thickness levels at the bottom of Zehender’s ‘suitable’ range- about 100 Angstroms- and to explore thickness levels below that range. The statement in Zehender that ‘[i]n general, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about [100 Angstroms]’ falls far short of the kind of teaching that would discourage one of skill in the art from fabricating a protective layer of 100 Angstroms or less.
Similarly, Kravchenko teaches that there are benefits to not utilizing EUV or e-beam lithography techniques, however, there are also benefits to using more traditional lithography techniques. Kravchenko states:
Even though well developed and widely used, the photoresist-based optical lithography has some limitations. . . . The exposure itself must be controlled[, such as with regards to temperature and humidity,] with high precision, especially when dealing with sub-micrometer scale patterns. . . . Moreover, azobenzene-containing polymers are not overly sensitive to temperature and humidity fluctuations, the gratings do not require wet development, and they tolerate overexposure without destructing the grating profile.
(pg. 4174, col. 2, ¶ 1). Thus, Kravchenko is teaching that while one might achieve better results using traditional lithography techniques, utilizing the techniques disclosed will achieve satisfactory results, wherein the features fabricated are not destroyed. Thus, Kravchenko does not teach away from the use of EUV or e-beam lithography techniques, but that one can achieve satisfactory, if not quite as good, results with the technique disclosed. Thus, said argument is not persuasive. Furthermore, Applicant argues that since both Deng and Ober teach more traditional lithography techniques and Applicant’s argument that Kravchenko teaches away from the use of traditional lithography techniques, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have had a motivation to combine said teachings in the prior art. Given that the Examiner has explained how this argument with regards to Kravchenko is not persuasive, this related argument is also not persuasive. Applicant also argues that Ober fails to teach the claimed limitation of the use of EUV or e-beam sources to irradiate the photoresist. However, as explained in the Prior Office Action (See Paragraphs #11 and #12), Ober is not relied upon to teach this limitation. Further, Applicant has not argued that Ober teaches away from the use of EUV or e-beam sources to irradiate the photoresist. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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:
4. 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.
5. Claims 9, 13-14, 16-22, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kravchenko et al. (2011), Optical Interference Lithography Using Azobenzene-Functionalized Polymers for Micro- and Nanopatterning of Silicon. Adv. Mater., 23: 4174-4177, hereinafter Kravchenko, and in view of Deng et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2016/0041466 A1), hereinafter Deng, and in view of Nishimaki et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2017/0227850 A1), hereinafter Nishimaki, and in view of Ober et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2014/0370442 A1), hereinafter Ober.
6. Regarding Claims 9, 13-14, 16-22, and 24-26, Kravchenko teaches (pg. 4177, col. 1, lines 20-40) covering the substrate with a mixture of 1 wt% of a photochromic compound dispersed in a solvent to form a photoresist. Kravchenko teaches (pg. 4177, col. 1, lines 20-40) the photoresist is substantially free from any additives selected from the group consisting of photoactive generators, cross-linking agents, quenchers, surfactants and sensitizers. Kravchenko teaches (pg. 4177, col. 1, lines 20-40) the photochromic compound comprises one or more photochromic moieties selected from azobenzene, stilbene, spiropyran, fulgide and diarylethene. Kravchenko teaches (pg. 4177, col. 1, lines 20-40) the photochromic compound is a polymer having pendant groups comprising an azobenzene or stilbene moiety. Kravchenko teaches (pg. 4177, col. 1, lines 20-40) the polymer is a poly(Disperse Red 1 methacrylate). Kravchenko teaches (pg. 4177, col. 1, lines 20-40) the mixture consists of 1 wt% of the photochromic compound dispersed in the solvent.
7. However, Kravchenko fails to explicitly teach exposing the photoresist with an electron beam or extreme ultraviolet light. Furthermore, Kravchenko fails to explicitly teach the lithographic pattern comprises a feature having a size of 50 nm or less. Furthermore, Kravchenko fails to explicitly teach defining an exposed portion and unexposed portion of the photoresist and thereby altering a solubility of the exposed portion towards a developing solvent. Furthermore, Kravchenko fails to explicitly teach developing a patterned photoresist by contacting the developing solvent with the photoresist. Furthermore, Kravchenko fails to explicitly teach dissolving the exposed portion of the photoresist or dissolving the unexposed portion of the photoresist. Furthermore, Kravchenko fails to explicitly teach dissolving the exposed portion of the photoresist or dissolving the unexposed portion of the photoresist. Furthermore, Kravchenko fails to explicitly teach the photochromic compound has a molecular mass ranging from 300 to 15000 Da.
8. Deng teaches (Paragraph [0068]) defining an exposed portion and unexposed portion of the photoresist and thereby altering a solubility of the exposed portion towards a developing solvent. Deng teaches (Paragraph [0068]) developing a patterned photoresist by contacting the developing solvent with the photoresist. Deng teaches (Paragraph [0068]) dissolving the exposed portion of the photoresist or dissolving the unexposed portion of the photoresist. Deng teaches (Paragraphs [0028-0034]) the photochromic compound has a molecular mass ranging from 300 to 15000 Da. Deng teaches (Paragraph [0021]) the invention therein allows the fabrication of a photoresist with reduced flooding.
9. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kravchenko to incorporate the teachings of Deng to defining an exposed portion and unexposed portion of the photoresist and thereby altering a solubility of the exposed portion towards a developing solvent; developing a patterned photoresist by contacting the developing solvent with the photoresist; dissolving the exposed portion of the photoresist or dissolving the unexposed portion of the photoresist; dissolving the exposed portion of the photoresist or dissolving the unexposed portion of the photoresist; and the photochromic compound has a molecular mass ranging from 300 to 15000 Da. Doing so would allow the fabrication of a photoresist with reduced flooding, as recognized by Deng.
10. Nishimaki teaches (Paragraphs [0095-0098]) the photochromic compound absorbs light by an electron beam or extreme ultraviolet light. Nishimaki teaches (Paragraph [0103]) the photochromic compound has large light absorption performance of irradiation by an electron beam or extreme ultraviolet light.
11. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kravchenko to incorporate the teachings of Nishimaki wherein the photochromic compound is irradiated by an electron beam or extreme ultraviolet light. Doing so would result in large light absorption performance of irradiation by an electron beam or extreme ultraviolet light, as recognized by Nishimaki.
12. Ober teaches (Paragraph [0026]) the lithographic pattern comprises a feature having a size of 50 nm or less. Ober teaches (Paragraph [0003]) the lithographic pattern comprises a feature having a size of 50 nm or less are needed for emerging fabricated devices.
13. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kravchenko to incorporate the teachings of Ober to comprise a lithographic pattern which comprises a feature having a size of 50 nm or less. Doing so would allow for the fabrication of emerging devices, as recognized by Ober.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to RICHARD D CHAMPION at telephone number (571) 272-0750. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Mon-Fri EST.
15. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MARK F HUFF can be reached at (571) 272-1385. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
16. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
17. 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.
/R.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/MARK F. HUFF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737