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 .
The response of the applicant has been read and given careful consideration. The response of the applicant has been read and given careful consideration. Rejection of the previous action not repeated blow are withdrawn based upon the arguments and amendment of the applicant. Response to the arguments are presented after the first rejection they are directed to. Claims 1-8,10-18 are under prosecution and claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn The statement of common ownership is sufficient to obviate the prior art rejections over Kagawa et al. 20220238303.
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 8 is 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 1 already recites that the substrate has a gradual transition (slope/incline) between the first height and the second height. Note hope these terms are used in describing figure 2A in the prepub of the instant application at [0036-0037]
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-8 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudo JP 07-094378, in view of Uema JP 55-080318 and Moon et al. KR 0146243.
Sudo JP 07-094378 (machine translation attached) describes the correction of the electron beam exposure including s design deletion technique. This problem is illustrated with respect to figure 3A-F, where a heavy metal (tungsten) patterned film (51) is formed on a substrate (50), overcoated with an upper film ()52) and a negative resist film. The desired pattern is illustrated in figure 3C, while the conventional proximity correction technique yields the widened pattern (52a) in the area over the heavy metal [0008-0012]. To understand the correction of the invention, it is described with respect to figure 1, where the pattern in the resist is based upon pattern data created in advance (D,E,F). These design exposures are then corrected for the proximity effect due to the underlying layers and then performing the corrected exposure [0013-00014]. In the example, a resist film is applied to the surface of the aluminum layer and exposed according to pattern (g) where the region (w) is affected by the back scattering. The original pattern data is d,e and f and the compensated exposure data is A,B, C. the size change is 15-20% [0020-0029].
PNG
media_image1.png
455
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Uema JP 55-080318 (machine translation attached) teaches in figure 1(a) a substrate (1) with a groove (2) with a depth of 1 microns coated with a resist (3) to a thickness of 2 microns, when exposed using an electron beam without compensation for the change in thisness illustrated in figure 1(b), a negative resist yields a bulged pattern as illustrated in figure 1(c). If a positive resist is used, the thicker resist is a narrower (necking) pattern. (page 1/left column to page 2/upper left column). Similarly, when a protrusion (4) with a height of 1 micron is present as in figure 2a, the resist is thinner on the protrusion (4) and a negative resist yields a narrower pattern. A positive resist yields a bulging pattern (page 2/upper left to page
PNG
media_image2.png
159
259
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
132
263
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The position of the examiner is that the change in the dosage changes the width of the feature printed and would do the same if the topography was not present and that a corrected exposure pattern is produced and used direct the electron beam which writes the pattern directly into the resist
Moon et al. KR 0146243 (machine translation attached) in figure 1C illustrates the exposure needed for the resist with the thicknesses T0 and T1 of figure 1d through a flat mask. The exposure results in the pattern illustrated in figure 1e after development. To form a mask with a stepped mask needs to be made. The formation of the step is illustrated in figures 3a-c using an electron beam resist and exposure, This is then coated with a chromium layer (8), which is then patterned (8’) (page 8-3)
PNG
media_image4.png
189
464
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
257
419
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
413
451
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
409
435
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify the process of Sudo JP 07-094378 of forming patterns for electronic devices using electron beams exposure which are compensated for the topography of the substrate based upon an original electron beam exposure pattern to compensate for heights differences when forming patterned photomasks with height differences (which are used to form electronic devices) using the process of figure 3 of Moon et al. KR 0146243 where an electron exposure is used to expose an electron beam resist coated on the chromium layer (8) of the stepped substrate(1) with a reasonable expectation of success noting that the use of electron beam compensated exposures to correct the exposure for topography is old and well known as evidenced by Uema JP 55-080318.
The applicant argues that Uema JP 55-080318 does not include a sloped substrate. The examiner points out that it does clearly illustrate the effect of the changes in the resist thickness, although it uses a step, rather than a sloped feature and uses this height information in the correction of the electron beam exposure of the resist. The upper surface of layer 12 in figure 3 of Sudo JP 07-094378 and figure 2e of Moon et al. KR 0146243 clearly show the difference in the thickness of a resist on a sloped substrate. While Sudo JP 07-094378 is also correcting for back scatter, the incorporation of this additional information in the correction is not precluded by the claims . The examiner notes that the claims use open “comprising” language and back scatter is described in the instant specification at [0021-0023,0093-0106], so it cannot reasonably be argued that the instant application doe not envision including this data in the exposure correction of the claims. The rejection stands.
Claims 1-12,14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudo JP 07-094378, in view of Uema JP 55-080318 and Suzuki et al. JP 2018-046223.
Suzuki et al. JP 2018-046223 teaches processes of forming imprint devices with multiple heights.
PNG
media_image8.png
139
271
media_image8.png
Greyscale
which include the use of the resist (104). Electron beam lithography at the time of manufacturing the (master) imprint mold [0040]
It would have been obvious to modify the process of Sudo JP 07-094378 of forming patterns for electronic devices using electron beams exposure which are compensated for the topography of the substrate based upon an original electron beam exposure pattern to compensate for heights differences when forming patterned imprint stampers with height differences using the processes disclosed in Suzuki et al. JP 2018-046223 where an electron exposure is used to expose an electron beam resist coated on the chromium layer (8) of the stepped substrate(1) with a reasonable expectation of success noting that the use of electron beam compensated exposures to correct the exposure for topography is old and well known as evidenced by Uema JP 55-080318 (06/1980)
The resulting relief image would be suitable for imprinting a pattern into a soft materials, such as a resist.
The rejection stands for the reasons above as no further arguments were advanced by the applicant. The upper surface of layer 12 in figure 3 of Sudo JP 07-094378 clearly show the difference in the thickness of a resist on a sloped substrate and Uema JP 55-080318 clearly illustrate the effect of the changes in the resist thickness, although it uses a step, rather than a sloped feature and uses this height information in the correction of the electron beam exposure of the resist.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of US patent 11742179 (which matured from copending Application No. 17/4747926 , PGPUB 20220238303).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the co-pending application recited correcting a drawing pattern on the basis of height and backscatter to calculate an energy distribution of the electron beam exposure on the basis of the inclination angle of the substrate, which is descriptive of a gradually sloped substrate (claims 1 and 9).
The applicant argues that the difference in height and the dimensional information related to the gradual slope is not recited. Claim 1,7 and 10 are reproduced with emphasis on the height, inclination and slope described as part of the correction process so that the applicant can more easily appreciate the position of the examiner. The rejection modified to account for the issuance of the previously cited application stands.
Claim 1:
A proximity effect correcting method comprising: calculating an energy distribution of a backscattered beam to be produced by backscattering of an electron beam in a substrate on a basis of drawing information input from outside and surface profile information of the substrate input from outside; and calculating a required energy amount of the electron beam on a basis of the calculated energy distribution, wherein the drawing information is information for forming a pattern in a resist film on the substrate with irradiation of the electron beam, the surface profile information is information related to heights of the substrate having different heights in an irradiation direction of the electron beam, the substrate comprises a first flat portion having a first height, and a second flat portion having a second height, the surface profile information comprises first arrangement information indicating respective arrangement states of the first flat portion and the second flat portion, and height information indicating respective heights of the first flat portion and the second flat portion, and the calculating of the energy distribution is based on the drawing information, the first arrangement information, the height information, an inclination angle of each of slope portions arranged on a surface of the substrate, and an inclination direction of each of the slope portions.
Claim 7:
A drawing method comprising: acquiring drawing information for forming a pattern in a resist film on a substrate with irradiation of an electron beam; acquiring surface profile information related to heights of the substrate having a plurality of surfaces with the heights different in an irradiation direction of the electron beam; calculating an energy distribution of a backscattered beam to be produced by backscattering of the electron beam in the substrate on a basis of the acquired drawing information and surface profile information; calculating a required energy amount of the electron beam on a basis of the calculated energy distribution; and performing drawing by irradiating the resist film with the electrode beam on a basis of the calculated required energy amount, wherein the substrate comprises a first flat portion having a first height, and a second flat portion having a second height, the surface profile information comprises first arrangement information indicating respective arrangement states of the first flat portion and the second flat portion, and height information indicating respective heights of the first flat portion and the second flat portion, and the calculating of the energy distribution is based on the drawing information, the first arrangement information, the height information, an inclination angle of each of slope portions arranged on a surface of the substrate, and an inclination direction of each of the slope portions.
Claim 10:
A drawing apparatus comprising: a stage on which a substrate is mounted; a drawing part configured to form a pattern in a resist film on the substrate; a controller configured to control an irradiation amount of an electron beam to be irradiated to the resist film; and a computer configured to calculate a required energy amount of the electron beam to control the irradiation amount of the electron beam, wherein the computer calculates the required energy amount on a basis of an energy distribution of a backscattered beam to be produced by backscattering of the electron beam in the substrate; and the energy distribution of the backscattered beam is based on drawing information for forming the pattern, and surface profile information related to heights of the substrate having a plurality of surfaces with the heights different in an irradiation direction of the electron beam, wherein the substrate comprises a first flat portion having a first height, and a second flat portion having a second height, the surface profile information comprises first arrangement information indicating respective arrangement states of the first flat portion and the second flat portion, and height information indicating respective heights of the first flat portion and the second flat portion, and the energy distribution is based on the drawing information, the first arrangement information, the height information, an inclination angle of each of slope portions arranged on a surface of the substrate, and an inclination direction of each of the slope portions.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsugawa JP 2000315646 (machine translation attached) teaches with respect to figures 1 and 2, a substrate (2) with an insulating (TEOSBPSG) layer (3), an aluminum wire (1) an insulating film (4), a second wiring layer (5) which has a sloped upper surface and a photoresist (6) on the sloped surface which has a flat top surface and is thinner over the sloped area/region. The exposure is corrected (increased) in the area over the wiring to yield a resist with a constant thickness (9). The use of a uniform exposure yields a resist with a depression (see figure 4) [0015-0026].
PNG
media_image9.png
449
218
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
474
227
media_image10.png
Greyscale
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 Martin J Angebranndt whose telephone number is (571)272-1378. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3:30 pm 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, 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.
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.
MARTIN J. ANGEBRANNDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/MARTIN J ANGEBRANNDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 January 16, 2026