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 .
Currently, claims 1-3 and 5-13 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
In response to applicant's arguments, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Here, Gao teaches the well-known nanoimprinting method that can be applied to Na’s method, and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to modify it in a way that can be applied to Na’s method.
Pressing a patterned mold or masking layer into a photoresist layer to form a patterned photoresist is a well-known lithographic technique. The patterned photoresist exposes selected portions of the underlying semiconductor layer while protecting other portions. The exposed portions of the semiconductor layer are then removed by a conventional etching process, thereby transferring the pattern defined by the photoresist into the semiconductor layer. Two non-patent literatures have been attached to this office action to provide support for this assertion.
Imprint lithography is a long-established technology that has been studied since the 1970s, and nanoimprint lithography (NIL) was established in the scientific literature in the mid-1990s. Since then, it has become a recognized patterning technique in semiconductor manufacturing and microfabrication.
The technique transfers pattern mechanically into the photoresist, rather than being generated by exposing the semiconductor itself. Because only the photoresist is mechanically deformed, the same imprinting process can be used over many different underlying materials, including silicon, silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, III-V semiconductors, metals and dielectric layers, with only the subsequent etch chemistry changing.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0103727 A1, herein Na) in view of Gao et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0087016 A1, herein Gao).
Regarding claim 1, Na discloses a method comprising: providing a sequence of semiconductor layers and processing the sequence of semiconductor layers to form an upper reflector 190/125 disposed over an active layer 133 (Na: Fig. 14 and paragraphs [0111]-[0118]), the active layer being disposed over a lower reflector 120 (Na: Fig. 14 and paragraphs [0113]), and the lower reflector layer being disposed over a substrate 110 (Na: Fig. 14 and paragraph [0070]), wherein the semiconductor layers in which the upper reflector is formed include one or more outer semiconductor layers; and forming an optical metastructure MR/NS in the one or more outer semiconductor layers (Na: Fig. 14 and paragraphs [0112]-[0118]).
Na is silent about the patterning details the MR/NS features.
However, Gao teaches providing a hardmask layer 206a on the one or more outer semiconductor layers 202-204; depositing a resist layer 350 on the hardmask layer; pressing a surface of a tool 410 into the resist layer, wherein the surface of the tool includes features that are imprinted into the resist layer; and releasing the tool from the resist layer (Gao: Figs. 4E-4J and paragraphs [0031]-[0034]) to enable both high resolution lithography and robust etch transfer.
Therefore, given the teachings of Na, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying Na in view of Gao by employing the resist layer over the hard mask layer and pressing the tool into the resist.
Regarding claim 2, Na in view of Gao teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the metastructure is operable to provide a beam shaping function (Na: Fig. 14 and paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0065]-[0067], [0102]-[0104]).
Regarding claim 3, Na in view of Gao teaches the method of claim 2 wherein the metastructure is further operable as a partially transmissive optical reflector (Na: Fig. 14 and paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0065]-[0067], [0102]-[0104]).
Regarding claim 5, Na in view of Gao teaches the method of claim 1 further including: after releasing the tool form the resist layer, removing portions of a residual resist layer that is on the hardmask layer, so as to expose first portions of the hardmask layer (Gao: Figs. 4E-4J and paragraphs [0031]-[0034]).
Regarding claim 6, Gao discloses fluorine-containing plasma as a removal method (Gao: paragraph [0030]). The use of a directional oxygen plasma absent any criticality, is only considered to be the use of a “preferred” or “optimum” material out of a plurality of well-known materials that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have find obvious to provide using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the intended use of Applicant’s apparatus, i.e., suitability for the intended use of Applicant’s apparatus. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 7, Na in view of Gao teaches the method of claim 1 further including: selectively etching the hardmask layer to expose first portions of the one or more outer semiconductor layers; and selectively etching the exposed first portions of the one or more outer semiconductor layers to form trenches therein (Na: Fig. 14 and paragraphs [0066]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 10, Na in view of Gao teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the hardmask material is composed of a material selected from a group consisting of one or more of: chrome, titanium, aluminum, silicon nitride and silicon dioxide (Gao: paragraphs [0027]-[0031]).
Regarding claim 11, Na in view of Gao teaches the method of claim 1 including etching portions of the sequence of semiconductor layers that form the lower reflector, the active layer, and the upper reflector to form a mesa structure (Na: Fig. 14 and paragraphs [0112]-[0118]).
Regarding claims 12-13, Na in view of Gao teaches the method of claim 11 wherein the metastructure is formed prior to forming the mesa structure, or the metastructure is formed after forming the mesa structure (Na: Fig. 14 and paragraphs [0066]-[0070]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 8, the prior art of record alone or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest, in combination with other elements of the claims, further including: after selectively etching the hardmask layer and selectively etching the exposed first portions of the one or more outer semiconductor layers, removing remaining portions of the resist layer and the hardmask layer so as to expose second portions of the one or more outer semiconductor layers, wherein the second portions of the one or more outer semiconductor layers define optical meta-atoms of the metastructure.
With respect to claim 9, the prior art of record alone or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest, in combination with other elements of the claims, wherein selectively etching the exposed first portions of the outer semiconductor film includes using an inductively coupled plasma, wherein remaining portions of the resist layer and the hardmask serve as a mask while etching the outer semiconductor film.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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 MALIHEH MALEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1874. The examiner can normally be reached M/T/W/R/F, 8:30-5.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on (571)270-0373. 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.
July 22, 2026
/MALIHEH MALEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights