DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18, and 21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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 or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended Claim 1, at line 2, and new claim 21, at line 2, recite “masking one or more portions of an outer surface of a structure”, and is not taught by the instant specification. The instant specification discloses that masking is on one or more portions of a surface. Nothing in the specification discloses the masking process is started on a formed structure or outer surface of a structure. Correction is required.
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 22 is 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 22, at line 3, recites “removing material from one or more unmasked portions of the surface”. Claim 22, at line 4, recites “removing material from one or more unmasked portions of the surface” and is not clear if the latter recitation of removing material from the one or more unmasked portions of the surface is the same as the initial recitation at line 3 or if the material removed at line 4 is different from the material removed at line 3 or not. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-18, 21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0062181 (hereinafter referred to as Berry) in view of U. S. Patent No. 6,617,098 (hereinafter referred to as Yu).
Berry, in the abstract, and [0013], discloses providing a substrate on a substrate holder (wafer table), and providing a mask layer over a semiconductor material on the substrate, wherein the patterned mask layer forms a plurality of masked portions i.e., the remaining portion of the underlying substrate surface are exposed (unmasked), and conducting a removing process via ion beam etching (dry etching) so as to etch the semiconductor material in the unmasked portions and forming peaks in the masked portions and holes or vias in the unmasked portions as illustrated in figure 3C. Berry discloses repeating the process of masking and etching through the mask layer, and Berry, in figure 1, [0030]-[0031], discloses the use of plural masks (ion beam figuring masks) positioned above the semiconductor layer to be etched, and in [0035], Berry discloses removing at least one of the electrodes (mask with apertures) to direct and focus the ions to the surface as desired, and thereby Berry teaches the same claimed repeated masking and etching process in cycles ([0009]) to make desired shapes (target characteristic, desired topography) in the channel ([0042]) i.e., the claimed skewness and is illustrated in figures 3C to 3E, and discloses the taper in the etched structures formed, and the top surface having etched surfaces that are coplanar as disclosed in reference 302 (figure 3D) (claims 1-3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13-14, 21). Berry, in [0004]-[0006], discloses that the etched portions that are repeatedly etched include trenches i.e., they possess dimensional separation, and discloses etching anisotropically to obtain the desired direction of ion impinging the substrate so as to form an array of channels (having height of a desired dimension), and discloses adjusting the trajectory of the ions impinging the substrate surface i.e., adjusting the angle or taper of the ions during the etching, and is the same as the claimed removing material (claims 4-5, 7). Berry, in [0043], discloses that the semiconductor material portions to be etched, prior to etching or masking, is substantially planar, and the upper surface of the patterned mask layer (301, figure 3B) that is positioned on the semiconductor material on the substrate has burls i.e., linear mask segments that have varying height between 5-500nm or even as low as 10-50nm such that each individual mask segment shadow the underlying semiconductor material and the dimensions of the mask segments (length or width) determines the eventual dimensions of the underlying semiconductor material after the repeated etchings, and thereby the target characteristics includes roughness of the surface, at least of about 10-50nm, and is in the claimed range of less than 100nm (claims 11-12, 15-17). Berry, in [0043], discloses the mask segment separation can be at least about 200nm and Berry, in [0047], discloses that the ion can be impinged at an angle to undercut the mask segments i.e., width of the etch portions that are formed (hole/trench) can be greater than 200nm i.e., greater than 0.2 micron and includes the claimed 1micron (claim 18).
The difference between the claims and Berry is that Berry does not disclose that one of the repeats or iterations of masking and removing includes removing a portion of the surface that was previously masked or masking a portion of the surface that was previously unmasked.
Yu, in col 108, and col 109, and in figures 91a through 91i, discloses the repeated masking (patterning) and etching on the substrate surface (9100), and in at least one repeat/iteration discloses in figure 91f-[Wingdings font/0xE0] figure 91g masking a portion that was previous exposed and etched, and in transitioning from figure 91k -[Wingdings font/0xE0] figure 91i discloses etching a portion of the surface that was previously masked.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Berry by employing the repeating of masking and etching at different locations on the substrate surface as taught by Yu because Berry does not prohibit the masking or unmasking of previously unmasked or masked portions for etching and Berry teaches in [0051] and in [0053], switching orientation of the substrate with respect to the etch direction resulting in forming of etched portions in the desired depth during the repeat of the cyclic process, and Yu, in col 1, lines 25-30, and lines 66-67, in col 3, lines 60-67, and in col 4, lines 1-10, in col 64, lines 65-67, discloses that a planar substrate upon being subjected to repeated iterations of patterning(masking) and etching enables the formation of three-dimensional structures in the substrate of desired etch depth variations wherein the patterning can be just a fraction of the thickness of the subsequently masking material and also enables the formation of an etched substrate with multiple etch depths.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0062181 (hereinafter referred to as Berry) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0263484 (hereinafter referred to as Park).
Berry, in the abstract, and [0013], discloses providing a substrate on a substrate holder (wafer table), and providing a mask layer over a semiconductor material on the substrate, wherein the patterned mask layer forms a plurality of masked portions i.e., the remaining portion of the underlying substrate surface are exposed (unmasked), and conducting a removing process via ion beam etching (dry etching) so as to etch the semiconductor material in the unmasked portions and forming peaks in the masked portions and holes or vias in the unmasked portions as illustrated in figure 3C. Berry discloses repeating the process of masking and etching through the mask layer, and Berry, in figure 1, [0030]-[0031], discloses the use of plural masks (ion beam figuring masks) positioned above the semiconductor layer to be etched, and in [0035], Berry discloses removing at least one of the electrodes (mask with apertures) to direct and focus the ions to the surface as desired, and thereby Berry teaches the same claimed repeated masking and etching process in cycles ([0009]) to make desired shapes (target characteristic, desired topography) in the channel ([0042]) i.e., the claimed skewness and is illustrated in figures 3C to 3E, and discloses the taper in the etched structures formed, and the top surface having etched surfaces that are coplanar as disclosed in reference 302 (figure 3D) (claim 22).
The difference between the claims and Berry is that Berry does not disclose moving the mask relative to the surface to remove material from the unmasked portions.
Park, in the abstract, and in [0069], discloses the moving of the shielding member (mask) relative to the wafer so as to expose unshielded (unmask) portions of the wafer surface to be etched.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Berry by moving the mask relative to the substrate so as to etch unmasked portions as taught by Park, because Berry teaches masking and etching in a repeated manner and does not limit the masked portions to be at only one portion of the substrate surface, and Park, in [0003], and [0015]-[0018], discloses the use of adjustable shielding plate as a mask that is moveable from one position (first) to another position (second) and thereby enable etching of desired unshielded portions and enables the etching of an edge portions of wafer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment and Remarks, filed , with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over pending claims 1-18, and 21-22, see paragraph nos. 3, 5, 7-8, above. With respect to applicant’s argument that Berry does not disclose the claimed invention or removing a portion of previous masked portions or the unmasking of previously masked portions for removing or the moving of the mask relative to the substrate to reveal the corresponding unmasked portions, Berry teaches the masking and etching of portions of the substrate repeatedly, however, Yu is dependent upon to disclose the repeated iteration of patterning (masking) and etching wherein at least some of the iterations include either etching previously masked portions or masking previously unmasked portions and Park is dependent upon to disclose the movement of the shielding plates (mask) relative to the substrate so as to shift from a first position to a second position on the substrate for unmasking i.e., exposing unshielded portions of the wafer surface to be etched.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Daborah Chacko-Davis whose telephone number is (571) 272-1380. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30AM-6:00PM EST Mon-Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. 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.
/DABORAH CHACKO-DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 June 3, 2026.
Prosecution Insights