CTNF 18/147,636 CTNF 76892 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA 2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 04/27/2026 is acknowledged. 08-06 AIA 3. Claim s 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/27/2026 . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 4. 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. 08-37 AIA 5. Claim s 1-3, 5-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/147,644 in view of Hautala (US 2011/0174770 A1). Claim 1 of the current application (18/147,636) differs from claims 1 and/or 12 and/or 18 by further disclosing that the ion beam modify a material characteristic of the resist layer or to perform milling of the top layer or other layers of the one or more layers of the wafer assembly. However, claims 1, 12 or 18 clearly discloses an ion beam targeted to at least one or more regions of the top layer. Hautala teaches applying an ion beam targeted to at least one or more regions of the top layer to modify a material characteristic of the resist layer or to perform milling of the top layer or other layers of the one or more layers of the wafer assembly (paragraph 0027-0044). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify copending application 18/147,644 in view of Hautala by modify a material characteristic of the resist layer or to perform milling of the top layer or other layers of the one or more layers of the wafer assembly using ion beam because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)). As to claim 2 , copending application 18/147,644 claims fail to disclose performing milling of the top layer or other layers of the one or more layers of the wafer assembly results in the removal of regions targeted by the ion beam. Hautala discloses performing milling of the top layer or other layers of the one or more layers of the wafer assembly results in the removal of regions targeted by the ion beam (paragraph 0044). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify copending application 18/147,644 in view of Hautala by performing milling of the top layer or other layers of the one or more layers of the wafer assembly results in the removal of regions targeted by the ion beam because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)). As to claim 3 , copending application 18/147,644 claims disclose the resist layer prevents ion permeability to the top layer (See 18/147,644 claims 3, 14, or 20). As to claim 5 , copending application 18/147,644 claims fail to disclose wherein performing milling results in direct patterning of at least one of the one or more layers of the wafer assembly based on a predetermined pattern. Hautala discloses wherein performing milling results in direct patterning of at least one of the one or more layers of the wafer assembly based on a predetermined pattern using ion beam (paragraph 0044; Hautala’s claim 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify copending application 18/147,644 in view of Hautala by performing milling results in direct patterning of at least one of the one or more layers of the wafer assembly based on a predetermined pattern because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)). As to claim 6 , copending application 18/147,644 claims fail to disclose the predetermined energy is tunable from 1 keV to 100 keV to achieve a desirable nanomachining, implantation and lithography. However, copending application 18/147,644 claims clearly disclose applying ion beam at a predetermined energy to achieve a desirable nanomachining, implantation and lithography. As to claim 6, Hautala discloses the predetermined energy range is tunable up from the range 1 keV to 70 keV or from 1 keV to 100 keV to achieve a desirable nanomachining, implantation, and lithography outcome (paragraph 0038, 0076; Hautala’s claim 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify copending application 18/147,644 in view of Hautala by having a predetermined energy between 1 to 100 keV because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)). As to claim 7 , copending application 18/147,644 discloses the material is a monolayer or a multilayer (See 18/147,644 claims 8, 11). As to claim 8 , copending application 18/147,644 discloses the ion beams comprises at least one of helium, neon, nitrogen, oxygen, argon or xenon (See 18/147,644 claim 10). As to claim 9 , copending application 18/147,644 discloses the top layer comprises at least one of transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD), Graphene, hBN, BCN, Fluorographene, Graphene Oxide, MoS2, WS2, MoSe2, WSe2, Semiconducting dichalcogenides, Metallic Dichalcogenides, Layered semiconductors, , Micas BSCCO, MoO3, W03, Layered Cu oxides, TiO2, MnO2, V205, TaO3, RuO2, Perovskite-type, or Hydroxides (See 18/147,644 claim 11). As to claim 10 , copending application 18/147,644 discloses the one or more layers comprises at least one of an oxide layer, a metal layer (See 18/147,644 claim 11) . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA 5. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2 of claim 9, the term “hBn” is objected because “hBn” appears to be a typo for “hBN”. For purpose of examination, the examiner assumes that the term “hBn” stand for Hexagonal Boron Nitride. However, Hexagonal Boron Nitride has an abbreviation “hBN” not “hBn” because nitrogen has “N” symbol. (Upper case letter “N”, not lower case “n”). In line 3 of claim 9, the term “Metalic” appears to be a typo for “Metal li c” or “metal l ic” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 6. 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. 07-34-01 7. Claim 8 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. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp. , 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “inert” in claim 8 is used by the claim to mean “at least one of helium, neon, nitrogen, oxygen , argon or xenon,” (emphasis added) while the accepted meaning is “deficient in active properties, especially lacking a usual or anticipated chemical or biological action.” (See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inert ). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. It is well known in the art that oxygen is NOT an inert gas since oxygen is capable to react with many other elements to create oxide (See evidence reference: LibreTexts Chemistry; “Reactions of Main Group Elements with Oxygen” via https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Inorganic_Chemistry/Supplemental_Modules_and_Websites_(Inorganic_Chemistry)/Descriptive_Chemistry/Main_Group_Reactions/Reactions_of_Main_Group_Elements_with_Oxygen ). Therefore, the phrase “wherein the ion beam comprises inert ion beams comprises at least one of helium, neon, nitrogen, oxygen , argon, or xenon” is indefinite because oxygen ion beam is not an inert ion beams. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 8. 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 9. 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA 10. Claim s 1-2, 5-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Kao (US 2017/0018435 A1) . As to claim 1 , Kao discloses a method for fabricating a semiconductor package comprising: overlaying a wafer (101) assembly of one or more layers (103) with a top layer comprised of a material having 2D material characteristics; and applying an ion beam targeted to at least one of one or more regions of the top layer (103) or a resist layer (105) placed on top of the top layer, wherein the ion beam is tuned using a predetermined energy range or a dosing level of ions to modify material characteristics of the resist layer or to perform milling of the top layer or other layers of the one or more layers of the wafer assembly (Fig 1, Fig 5, paragraph 0023-0029, 0035-0038). As to claim 2 , Kao discloses performing milling of the top layer or other layers of the one or more layers of the wafer assembly results in the removal of regions targeted by the ion beam (paragraph 0026; 0029, 031, 0037, 0039, 0054). As to claim 5 , Kao discloses wherein performing milling results in direct patterning of at least one of the one or more layers of the wafer assembly based on a predetermined pattern (paragraph 0026; 0029, 031, 0037, 0039, 0054; Fig 1-2, Fig 5-6). As to claim 6 , Kao discloses the predetermined energy range is tunable from 5 to 100 keV including 30 keV to achieve a desirable nanomachining, implantation, and lithography outcome (paragraph 0028, 0038). As to claim 7 , Kao discloses the material is a monolayer or a multi-layer material (paragraph 0021-0023). As to claim 8 , Kao discloses the ion beam comprises inert ion beams comprises at least one of neon (paragraph 0026, 0036). As to claim 10 , Kao discloses the one or more layers of the wafer assembly comprises at least one of an oxide layer, a metal layer (See paragraph 0021-0022) 07-15 AIA 11. Claim s 1-3, 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Hautala (US 2011/0174770 A1) . As to claim 1 , Hautala discloses a method for fabricating a semiconductor package comprising: overlaying a wafer (510 or 610) assembly of one or more layers (530 or 540 or 550) with a top layer comprised of a material having 2D material characteristics; (See Fig 2 step 21, Fig 3A; and applying an ion beam targeted to at least one of one or more regions of the top layer or a resist layer (560 or 580) placed on top of the top layer, wherein the ion beam is tuned using a predetermined energy range or a dosing level of ions to modify material characteristics of the resist layer or to perform milling of the top layer or other layers of the one or more layers of the wafer assembly (Fig 2 step 22; Fig 3C; paragraph 0033-0044). As to claim 2 , Hautala discloses performing milling of the top layer or other layers of the one or more layers of the wafer assembly results in the removal of regions targeted by the ion beam (paragraph 0044). As to claim 3 , Hautala discloses the resist layer prevent ion permeability to the top layer (See Fig 3C, no ion doping in 550; paragraph 0056). As to claim 5 , Hautala discloses wherein performing milling results in direct patterning of at least one of the one or more layers of the wafer assembly based on a predetermined pattern (paragraph 0044; Hautala’s claim 10). As to claim 6 , Hautala discloses the predetermined energy range is tunable up from the range 1 keV to 70 keV or from 1 keV to 100 keV to achieve a desirable nanomachining, implantation, and lithography outcome (paragraph 0038, 0076; Hautala’s claim 7). As to claim 7 , Hautala discloses the material is a monolayer or a multi-layer material (See Fig2, Fig 3A; paragraph 0052-0054). As to claim 8 , Hautala discloses the ion beam comprises inert ion beams comprises at least one of helium (He), neon (Ne), nitrogen (N), oxygen (O), argon (Ar) or xenon (Xe) (paragraph 0036, 0057). As to claim 9 , Hautala discloses the top layer comprises at least one of layered semiconductors, TiO 2 (See paragraph 0052-0054). As to claim 10 , Hautala discloses the one or more layers of the wafer assembly comprises at least one of an oxide layer, a metal layer or a silicon layer (See paragraph 0052-0054) 07-15 AIA 12. Claim s 1, 3, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Ma et al. (US 2020/0098589 A1) As to claim 1 , Ma discloses a method for fabricating a semiconductor package comprising: overlaying a wafer assembly of one or more layers (102) with a top layer comprised of a material having 2D material characteristics; (Fig 1, paragraph 0020); and applying an ion beam targeted to at least one of one or more regions of the top layer (102) or a resist layer (105) placed on top of the top layer, wherein the ion beam is tuned using a predetermined energy range or a dosing level of ions to modify material characteristics of the resist layer or (Fig 1, Fig 2, paragraph 0022-0025). As to claim 3 , Ma discloses the resist layer prevent ion permeability to the top layer (See Fig 1-Fig 2, no ion implant in layer 102). As to claim 6 , Ma discloses the predetermined energy range is tunable from several hundred volts to a few keV to achieve a desirable nanomachining, implantation, and lithography outcome (paragraph 0025; Note: a few keV is read on applicant’s range of 1 to 100 keV). As to claim 7 , Ma discloses the material is a monolayer or a multi-layer material 020, Fig 1). As to claim 8 , Ma discloses the ion beam comprises inert ion beams comprises at least one of Argon (Ar) or oxygen (O) (paragraph 0025) . 07-15 AIA 13. Claim s 1, 3, 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Mignot et al. (US 2020/0144061 A1) As to claim 1 , Mignot discloses a method for fabricating a semiconductor package comprising: overlaying a wafer assembly of one or more layers with a top layer (12) comprised of a material having 2D material characteristics; (Fig 1, paragraph 0029-0032); and applying an ion beam targeted to at least one of one or more regions of the top layer (12) or a resist layer (14) placed on top of the top layer, wherein the ion beam is tuned using a predetermined energy range or a dosing level of ions to modify material characteristics of the resist layer or (Fig 1-Fig3; paragraph 0038-0044). As to claim 3 , Mignot discloses the resist layer prevent ion permeability to the top layer (See paragraph 0040, i.e. the resist line 14 block implant ions leaving the hardmask layer 12 underneath undoped). As to claim 6 , Mignot discloses the predetermined energy range is tunable between 1 keV to 7 keV including example of 5 keV or 1.5 keV to achieve a desirable nanomachining, implantation, and lithography outcome (paragraph 0043, 0045-0046; Note: 1 keV to 7 keV read on applicant’s range of 1 to 100 keV). As to claim 7 , Mignot discloses the material (12) is a monolayer or a multi-layer material (paragraph 0030-0032, Fig 1). As to claim 8 , Mignot discloses the ion beam comprises inert ion beams comprises at least one of Neon, Argon (Ar), xenon, nitrogen, or oxygen (O) (paragraph 0041, 0044-0045). As to claim 9 , Mignot discloses the top layer comprises at least one of layered semiconductors, Titanium oxide (See paragraph 0032). As to claim 10 , Mignot discloses the one or more layers of the wafer assembly comprises at least one of an oxide, a metal layer or a silicon (See paragraph 0032) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 13. 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 14. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-22-aia AIA 15. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US 2022/0098589 A1) as applied to claim s 1, 3, 6-8 , above, and further in view of Mignot et al. (US 2020/0144061 A1) . As to claim 4 , Ma discloses performing dry etching when the resist layer is applied and after applying the ion beam targeted to the one or more regions of the resist layer (paragraph 0030). As to claim 4, Ma fails to disclose applying solvent to remove remaining regions of the resist layer. Mignot discloses applying solvent to remove remaining regions of the resist layer (paragraph 0051, i.e. wet stripping employing organic or inorganic solutions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ma in view of Mignot by applying solvent to remove remaining regions of the resist layer because it helps to remove undesired photoresist mask material. Conclusion 16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH X TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday. 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. BINH X. TRAN Examiner Art Unit 1713 /BINH X TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/147,636 Page 2 Art Unit: 1713
Prosecution Insights