DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 17911596 application filed September 14, 2022, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on March 18, 2026. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-20, 22, and 24-31 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 4, 7-9, 21 and 23 acknowledged. Claim 9 withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 18, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner is unable to find support for the limitation “the carbon containing pre-coat layer is silicon free” in the specification. Although the specification teaches “(i)n this embodiment, after the silicon containing layer over the substrate is etched, a carbon containing layer over the substrate would be etched or stripped. In this embodiment, the carbon containing layer is an amorphous carbon mask used to pattern the silicon containing layer during the silicon containing layer etch”, this does not applicable to a pre-coat layer. See MPEP, 2173.05i. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that there is support for the above limitation.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner is unable to find support for the limitation “wherein the carbon containing pre-coat layer is silicon free” in the specification. Although the specification teaches “(i)n this embodiment, after the silicon containing layer over the substrate is etched, a carbon containing layer over the substrate would be etched or stripped. In this embodiment, the carbon containing layer is an amorphous carbon mask used to pattern the silicon containing layer during the silicon containing layer etch”, this does not applicable to a pre-coat layer.. See MPEP, 2173.05i. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that there is support for the above limitation.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 10-19, 22, and 24-31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they are directly or indirectly dependent on claim 1 or 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 25, 2025 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the cited prior arts do not teach the amended feature “the carbon containing pre-coat layer is silicon free”, this argument is persuasive. However, it is noted that this feature is not supported by the specification, as explained above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights