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 § 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(s) 1, 3, 7, 10-12, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayram et al, US Patent 9,245,747 (herein referred to as Bayram’747, as cited in previous Office Action) in view of Shibasaki et al, US Patent 5,430,310 and Lee et al, US Patent 8,030,108 (all as cited in previous Office Action)
Regarding claim 1, Bayram’747 teaches a device for manufacturing a semiconductor comprising:
a patterned lithography layer 10/12 (with 12 being patterned) capable of reducing faceting during controlled spalling (figure 3. Note: [0040] of Applicant’s originally-filed Specification states that facet suppressing occurs with a rectangular patterned lithographic layer. Since the reference of Bayram teaches a rectangular patterned lithographic layer 10/12, MPEP 2112.01 teaches here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, the reference of Bayram anticipates the limitation of “capable of reducing faceting during controlled spalling”.
wherein said patterned lithography layer comprises elongated structures,
wherein said elongated structures are oriented parallel to a [110] direction of a substrate of said semiconductor (figure 3 and column 5, lines 57-58. See also “Response to Arguments”), wherein a semiconductor comprises GaAs (column 6, lines 19-20).
Bayram’747 fails to recite that the patterned lithography layer is nanoimprinted, GaAs is (100), said elongated structures have a width selected from the range of 100 nm to 500 nm, and said elongated structures have a width selected from the range of 100 nm to 500 nm.
However, it is generally known in the art that (100) is commonly used in the art for substrates. Shibasaki teaches this in column 21, lines 47-48.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shibasaki with that of Bayram’747 because (100) GaAs substrates are commonly used in the art for substrates in a semiconductor device.
Bayram’747 and Shibasaki fail to teach the patterned lithography layer is nanoimprinted and said elongated structures have a width selected from the range of 100 nm to 500 nm.
However, as nanoimprint lithography is one of several lithographical means of forming an elongated structure on a semiconductor substrate, as taught in column 6, lines 53-60 of Lee.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee with that of Bayram’747 and Shibasaki because nanoimprint lithography is one of several generally-known lithographical means of forming an elongated structure on a semiconductor substrate.
Bayram’747, Shibasaki, and Lee fail to teach said elongated structures have a width selected from the range of 100 nm to 500 nm and said elongated structures have a height selected from the range of 50 nm to 250 nm
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 3, Bayram’747 teaches said patterned nanoimprint lithography layer 12 comprises SiO2 (column 5, line 21-22)
Regarding claims 7, 10 and 11, Bayram’747, Shibasaki, and Lee fail to teach said elongated structures have a width selected from the range of 200 nm to 300 nm and said elongated structures have an offset selected from the range of 100 nm to 500 nm, and said elongated structures have an offset selected from the range of 200 nm to 300 nm.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 12, Bayram’747 teaches said elongated structures have a substantially rectangular cross section (figure 3).
Regarding claim 14, Bayram’747teaches
providing a patterned lithography layer 10/12 (with 12 being patterned),
growing a semiconductor layer 20 on a surface of the patterned lithography layer (figures 4-5);
removing the patterned lithography layer, wherein the step of reducing does not generate spalling (figures 8B). Note: [0040] of Applicant’s originally-filed Specification states that facet suppressing occurs with a rectangular patterned lithographic layer. Since the reference of Bayram teaches a rectangular patterned lithographic layer 12/20, MPEP 2112.01 teaches here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, the reference of Bayram’747 anticipates the limitation of “the step of reducing does not generate spalling”.
In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.).
wherein said patterned nanoimprint lithography layer comprises elongated structures,
wherein said elongated structures are oriented parallel to a [110] direction of a substrate of said semiconductor (figure 3 and column 5, lines 57-58) wherein a semiconductor comprises GaAs (column 6, lines 19-20).
Bayram’747 fails the patterned lithography layer is nanoimprinted, GaAs is (100), said elongated structures have a width selected from the range of 100 nm to 500 nm, and said elongated structures have a width selected from the range of 100 nm to 500 nm.. However, it is generally known in the art that (100) is commonly used in the art for substrates. Shibasaki teaches this in column 21, lines 47-48.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shibasaki with that of Bayram’747 because (100) GaAs substrates are commonly used in the art for substrates in a semiconductor device
Bayram’747 and Shibasaki fail to teach the patterned lithography layer is nanoimprinted and said elongated structures have a width selected from the range of 100 nm to 500 nm and said elongated structures have a width selected from the range of 100 nm to 500 nm.
However, as nanoimprint lithography is one of several lithographical means of forming an elongated structure on a semiconductor substrate, as taught in column 6, lines 53-60 of Lee.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee with that of Bayram’747 and Shibasaki because nanoimprint lithography is one of several generally-known lithographical means of forming an elongated structure on a semiconductor substrate.
Bayram’747, Shibasaki, and Lee fail to teach said elongated structures have a width selected from the range of 100 nm to 500 nm and said elongated structures have a width selected from the range of 100 nm to 500 nm.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 18, Bayram’747 teaches said patterned nanoimprint lithography layer comprises elongated structures and said elongated structures are oriented parallel to a [110] direction of a substrate of said semiconductor said elongated structures have a substantially rectangular cross section (figure 3).
Claim(s) 13 and 19 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayram’747, Shibasaki, and Lee as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Kukizaki et al, US Patent 7,008,860 (as cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Bayram’747, Shibasaki, and Lee fail to teach said patterned nanoimprint lithography layer is reusable.
However, layer 12/20 and 10/12 Bayram’747 is a donor substrate. It is generally known in the art that donor substrate may be reused, thereby reducing semiconductor manufacturing costs. This is shown in the reference of Kukizaki, which teaches donor substrate 11 being reused in a semiconductor manufacturing process (see figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kukizaki with that of Bayram’747, Shibasaki, and Lee because it is generally known in the art that donor substrate may be reused, thereby reducing semiconductor manufacturing costs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument the height and width limitation is advantageous over the cited prior art of record, while Applicant has stated that this advantage is shown in [0040], it is noted that this paragraph explains that the perpendicular spall of pattern C of figure 2 has certain advantages such as moderate facet suppression, this paragraph, nor the rest of the Specification, does not indicate the criticality of the limitations of “wherein said elongated structures have a width selected from the range of 100 nm to 500 nm; wherein said elongated structures have a height selected from the range of 50 nm to 250 nm”.
In reviewing the Specification to determine criticality of these ranges, Examiner noted that the originally-filed Specification recites that the height of the elongated structure may be from a range of 25 nm to 1000 nm (see [0010]), while the width of the elongated structure is 100 nm to 1000 nm (see [0009]). Yet, the originally-filed Specification does not recite these specific heights and thicknesses are required in order for the device to function or operate. Criticality or unexpected results of a parameter is met when then the originally-filed Specification discloses the device as non-functioning or inoperable unless the specific value or range of values for the parameter is met or that the device does not have the claimed invention when it is outside of the claimed parameters. Therefore, these limitations are treated as preferred thicknesses that are not required for determine patentability.
Therefore, the rejection of the claims 1, 3, 7, 10-14, 18, and 19 under 35 USC 103 using the cited prior art of record is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-4PM.
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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
QVJ
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899