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 § 112
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.
Claims 1-12 are 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.
In claim 1, lines 3-4, the term “nanoscale precision programmable profiling process” (“nP3 process”) renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. It is unclear which specific steps are included in the nP3 process. Applicant incorporates by reference PCT/US21/19732 as a discussion of the nP3 process, which discusses inkjet processing and a roll-based superstrate, curing and metrology. (paragraph [0027] of the instant specification, “Summary” section of the PCT application). The instant specification also provides some examples of the nP3 process.
In the instant specification, in one example, the nP3 process includes
Step 301: dispensing a drop pattern 401 on a flat substrate 402. [0046]. The substrate has existing nanoscale features that interact with electromagnetic radiation to cause diffraction effects. [0046].
Step 302: Provide a superstrate 404, which is a textured or patterned roll. [0047]. Position superstrate below ultraviolet chuck 405. [0047].
Step 303: Chuck 405 the superstrate. [0047].
Step 304: Increase air pressure to create a curvature in the superstrate, the superstrate contacts the drop pattern, and the drops merge to form a continuous film 407. [0047].
Step 305: UV cure the profiling material. [0047].
Step 306: Separate the substrate from the superstrate. [0047].
Step 307: Introduce the substrate into an optical metrology instrument. [0048].
Step 308: Scan substrate by optical metrology to obtain a desired thickness profile for the drop pattern (presumably for use in step 301). [0048].
In another example, the nP3 process includes:
Depositing a uniform profiling film on a substrate. [0049].
Heating differentially the film to obtain a customized profile by causing the film to flow [0049].
E.g., by spatial light modulators connects to lamps that emit radiation where the profiling material or the substrate absorbs
E.g., by an array of microheaters on the substrate chuck
Cross-linking to freeze the film. [0049].
This example does not require a superstrate. [0049].
In yet another example, the nP3 process includes:
Step 501: Dispense profiling material on a substrate 602 using inkjet 603. [0051].
Position the substrate below a superstrate 604.
Step 502: Position superstrate below an ultraviolet transparent chuck 605. [0052].
Step 505: Contact the substrate with the superstrate to form a film with a thickness profile. [0053]-[0055].
Step 506: Cure the film with ultraviolet light. [0055]-[0056].
Step 507: Separate the superstrate from the substrate. [0057].
Step 508: Perform optical metrology on the substrate. [0058].
In still yet another example, the nP3 process includes:
Steps 501, 505-508. [0059].
Tune the thickness profile with differential heating. [0059].
These examples do not include all the variations discussed through the specification.
Given all these steps described above, it is not clear which steps are encompassed by the term “nP3 process” as recited in claim 1. Does the nP3 process require a certain type of substrate, deposition by inkjet printing, uv curing, and optical metrology? Or, does the nP3 process require differential heating and curing? Does the nP3 process require a roll-based superstrate?
This rejection would be overcome by simply deleting “nanoscale precision programmable profiling process” and inserting, with particularity, the steps for which applicant desires to obtain patent protection. For the purposes of the rejection, the term, as recited in claim 1, is interpreted to be a deposition process because the wherein clause states “to deposit”.
Within the term “nanoscale precision programmable profiling substrate” – the individual terms are unclear. “Nanoscale” could mean less than 10 nm, less than 100 nm, or some indefinite value larger than 100 nm, but less than 1000 nm. What does applicant intend nanoscale to mean? “Precision” is a relative term – how is a process precise compared to not being precise? “Programmable” implies that an unclaimed program is used to produce the profile. However, this is not claimed, so it is unclear what is programmable.
Claim 1, line 8, the term “material” lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of the rejection, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting - - a material - - . Is the material a layer that is formed on the substrate, or is it part of the substrate?
In claim 6, it is unclear which steps of the nP3 process are conducted simultaneously with the etching.
In claim 7, it is unclear which steps of the nP3 process are conducted in multiple iterations.
Claims 2-5 and 8-12 fail to cure the indefiniteness of the base claim, and are therefore also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kleinman et al (US 2018/0052276 A1).
As to claim 1, Kleinman discloses a method for introducing a customized variation (two different heights according to resist layer 6312, 6322, [0542], [0544]) of a geometric parameter (height, D1, D2, Fig. 63D, Fig. 63F ) in a nanoscale pattern on a substrate (“regions characterized by differing diffraction efficiencies” [0542], the diffractive structures are the “nanoscale pattern”; the grating structure can be made from a different material than the substrate [0536], such as depicted in Fig. 63A), the method comprising:
conducting a nanoscale precision programmable profiling process (as broadly interpreted, depositing a film is an nP3 process) on one or more regions of said substrate with said nanoscale pattern, wherein said nanoscale precision programmable profiling process is used to deposit a profiling film 6212, 6322 with a thickness profile (as depicted in Fig. 63C, Fig. 63E) that is a function of said customized variation of said geometric parameter in said nanoscale pattern (the final diffractive structure has different etch depths corresponding to the thickness profiles of the profiling films); and
conducting an etch process of said profiling film and material of said nanoscale pattern that converts said thickness profile of said profiling film into said customized variation of said geometric parameter in said nanoscale pattern (Fig. 63G), wherein said customized variation is a function of said thickness profile of said profiling film (the height difference of the resist profile is transferred to the grating structure 6302, Fig. 63H).
Kleinman describes that “the present invention enable[s] the transfer of a predetermined profile using an initially uniform grating structure in order to form a grating profile that includes predetermined height variations, and diffraction efficiency as a result” [0546].
The etch process is a plasma etch process because Kleinman uses “proportional RIE” to transfer a resist profile into the substrate [0565]. Reactive ion etching is plasma etching.
As to claim 2, Kleinman discloses a waveguide having multi-level binary grating structure [0028].
As to claim 3, Kleinman discloses that the nanoscale pattern is a diffractive optical element (see rejection of claim 1), and therefore the substrate is a waveguide substrate and the method is conducted on a patterned side (see rejection of claim 1). Kleinman also discloses waveguides [0027], high index waveguide layer [0592], masking and patterns may be alternated and repeated to achieve variations in the pattern transfer profile from field to field over any wafer format [0824]; diffractive structures [0594], which encompasses that the waveguide is a diffractive optical element.
As to claim 4, Kleinman discloses that the variation parameter is a depth (D1, D2, see rejection of claim 1). However, Kleinman also discloses other variations of height [0541], width and length [0390]; grating heights varying from 10 to 200 nm [0397]; variation pattern varies in blaze or apex angle, pitches and/or widths of the grating [0397].
As to claim 5, Kleinman discloses different depths (D1, D2), which encompasses different properties in different regions based on depth. Klein also discloses discrete phase variation patterns [0392]; variations may be created by masking out portions of the wafer and etching the remaining portions [0397], which encompasses customization of variation.
As to claim 7, Kleinman discloses masking and patterns may be alternated and repeated (i.e. multiple iterations) to achieve variations in the pattern transfer profile from field to field over any wafer format [0824].
As to claim 11, Kleinman discloses variation pattern created by inkjet deposition [0397].
As to claim 12, Kleinman discloses variation patterns (nanoscale patterns) have refractive index varying from 1.5 to 4 [0397]; liquid resist material solution (i.e. profiling film) has a refractive index of n = 1.65 or higher (i.e. the two range overlaps considered substantially matched) [0620].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleinman et al (US 2018/0052276 A1).
As to claim 8, Kleinman fails to disclose the average surface roughness of the nanoscale pattern. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for substantially equivalent average surface roughness of regions with and without said customized variation in the method of Kleinman in order to provide for uniformity, which is expected to increase the yield of the final product.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleinman et al (US 2018/0052276 A1) in view of Colburn et al (US 2019/0324176 A1).
As to claim 9, Kleinman fails to disclose the relative etch rate ratios of the material of the nanoscale pattern and the profiling film. Colburn teaches a method in which the etch rates are substantially matched (Fig. 3B3C, steps 345, 350, 355, [0051]-[0052]). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide substantially matched ratio of etch rates as cited in the method of Kleinman because Colburn teaches that to do so is a useful technique for forming optical structures.
As to claim 10, Colburn fails to disclose varying a ratio of etch rates as cited. While the figures depict substantially matched etch rate ratios, in practice, matching the etch rates between different materials is expected to be difficult because different materials generally etch at different rates when using the same etchant. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the etch rate ratio as cited in the modified method of Kleinman in order to obtain the desired etch depth when optimized for the desired feature depth.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed December 16, 2025, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 3 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 3 under 35 USC 112 has been withdrawn.
The claims are rejected under 35 USC 102, 103, 112. The prior art applied is Kleinman et al (US 2018/0052276) and Colburn et al (US 2019/0324176 A1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 15, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, to the extent they still apply.
As an initial matter, the claims must be interpreted in order to apply prior art. In its broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 recites that a substrate has a nanoscale pattern, a film is deposited that has thickness profile, and both the nanoscale pattern and the film are plasma etched. The resulting nanoscale pattern has the desired “customized variation” of a geometric parameter.
The rejection has been rewritten to clarify these aspects of the invention. Applicant argues that Kleinman fails to deposit a profiling film with a thickness profile that is a function of the customized variation of the geometric parameter in the nanoscale pattern. In response, as best understood, and as explained in the rejection above, the resist film is a profiling film. The “customized variation” is two different heights for the diffraction grating nanoscale structure. This variation is produced in the profiling film/resist film, and then etching is conducted to transfer this “customized variation” into the substrate. Kleinman discloses several variations of this method and producing various structures. For example, the diffraction grating can be produced in material deposited on the substrate instead of in the substrate itself ([0536], Fig. 63A).
Applicant argues that “[t]he phrase ‘function of said customized variation’ demands a precise, pre-determined, and often proportional link between the thickness profile of the deposited profiling film (the cause) and the geometric parameter (the effect) that enables the profile-transfer mechanism.” (page 7 of arguments filed Dec. 16, 2025). In response, claims are interpreted broadly. Limitations from the specification cannot be imported into the claims. If applicant intends to claim a pre-determined link between the thickness profile and the geometric parameter, then that should be clearly recited in the claims. Kleinman uses “proportional RIE,” which fairly reads on a “function” as recited in the claims.
Applicant argues that “Kleinman controls the depth by managing critical etch timing and mask critical dimension to achieve the desired efficiency.” (page 9). In response, the claims are broadly written such that etch timing and critical dimensions of the masks are not in conflict with the claim language. Moreover, Kleinman discloses that “the present invention enable[s] the transfer of a predetermined profile using an initially uniform grating structure in order to form a grating profile that includes predetermined height variations, and diffraction efficiency as a result.” [0546]. This fairly encompasses converting the thickness profile of the profiling film (the resist film) into the customized (i.e., “predetermined”) variation of the geometric parameter in the nanoscale pattern (diffraction grating).
As to claim 7, applicant argues that Kleinman repeats the process to achieve variation from field to field over any wafer format. In response, broadly interpreted, the claim is not limited to having the multiple iterations be conducted on the same location on the wafer. Kleinman obtains a desired customized variation across the wafer surface, not just in one location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA K ALANKO whose telephone number is (571)270-0297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 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 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.
/ANITA K ALANKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713