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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 11-19 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 1 July 2026, with respect to the objection to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended Fig. 2B to change reference label II C to 2C and the specification has similarly been amended to refer to reference label 2C. Accordingly, the objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 1 July 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has not presented amendments to claims 1-10. Independent claim 1 was previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ogino in view of Chang. Applicant argues that Ogino and Chang fail to teach or suggest the claimed invention. Particularly, Applicant argues that Chang fails to teach the irradiation of the entirety of the patterned resist layer with an electron beam. The Applicant argues that in Chang’s process, only the surface of the patterned resist layer is irradiated, rather than the entire patterned resist layer. However, the Examiner disagrees with this analysis from the Applicant. Chang teaches a specific embodiment wherein only a small portion of the photoresist is hardened by the exposure via electron beam (Chang, paragraph 0026). However, the broader disclosure of Chang states that the “at least part of the photoresist is hardened” (Chang, paragraph 0025). Thus, per Chang’s broader disclosure, the entirety of the photoresist may be hardened or only some of the photoresist is hardened. Furthermore, instant claim 1 recites “irradiating an entirety of the patterned resist layer with an electron beam”, but does not specify that the entirety of the patterned resist layer undergo a hardening process (i.e. a further crosslinking reaction). As shown in Fig. 2B of Chang, the entire patterned resist is irradiated with the electron beam (Chang, paragraph 0025). The power of the electron beam is about 100 meV (Chang, paragraph 0025). From a physical standpoint, the entire resist layer cannot be directly irradiated by the electron beam. Instead, the electron beam irradiates the surface of the resist layer, and the electromagnetic radiation produced by the electron beam permeates to a depth of the resist layer determined by the exposure dosage, exposure power, and properties of the resist layer. The instant application is silent in regards to electron beam power or exposure dosage. It is well understood in the art that an exposure dose, in combination with the depth of penetration of the material being irradiated, determines the depth (or thickness) at which further photopolymerization occurs. The instant application is completely silent in regards to these features, as well as the physical changes that occur in the patterned resist layer due to exposure to the electron beam. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to easily distinguish the differences between the claimed method step of irradiating an entirety of the patterned resist layer with an electron beam and the process described by Chang. Further, it is apparent from paragraph 0025 of the instant application’s specification that the applicant’s meaning of the entirety of the patterned resist layer does not necessarily refer to the entire thickness of the resist layer, but the entire length and width of the resist layer (“the region irradiated with the electron beam preferable includes at least a boundary portion of the pattern of the patterned resist layer 3”). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive and the previous rejection is not withdrawn at this time.
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) 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120256346 A1 (hereby referred to as Ogino) in view of US 20020177075 A1 (hereby referred to as Chang).
Regarding Claims 1-2, Ogino teaches a method of transferring fine structures. Ogino teaches a method wherein a Si substrate is provided with a photoresist layer on the substrate (Ogino, paragraph 0055 and Fig. 2a-2b). The photoresist is OEBR1000 (manufactured by Tokyo Ohka Kogyo Co., Ltd.) (Ogino, paragraph 0055). An electron beam is used to pattern the resist (Ogino, paragraph 0055 and Fig. 2c). The photoresist is then developed to obtain a patterned resist (Ogino, paragraph 0055 and Fig. 2d). Notably, in Fig. 2d of Ogino it is shown that the exposed portions of the photoresist are removed following development, indicating that the photoresist is a positive-type photoresist. The Si substrate was then dry-etched such that the resist pattern was transferred to the Si substrate (Ogino, paragraph 0055 and Fig. 2e). This demonstrates that the developed photoresist pattern acts as an etching mask.
However, Ogino is silent in regards to the patterned resist layer being irradiated with an electron beam. Chang teaches a method of enhancing photoresist anti-etching ability. Particularly, Chang shows an embodiment wherein a substrate is provided with a photoresist pattern formed upon the substrate (Chang, paragraph 0024 and Fig. 2A). The patterned photoresist layer is then treated by an electron beam to let at least part of the photoresist be hardened (Chang, paragraph 0025 and Fig. 2B). Following the electron beam treatment of the photoresist, an etching process is performed using the patterned photoresist as an etching mask (Chang, paragraph 0028-0035 and Fig. 3A-3B). As shown in Fig. 2B of Chang, the electron beam applied to the patterned resist irradiates the entire patterned resist layer at once.
Ogino and Chang are analogous art because both references pertain to methods of patterning substrates. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to treat the patterned photoresist layer with an electron beam, as taught by Chang, in the method of patterning a substrate taught by Ogino because the electron beam processing of the photoresist pattern provides a hardened layer of the photoresist layer, which mitigates dimensional changes during the etching process (Chang, paragraph 0031). The mitigation of dimensional changes of the photoresist layer during the etching process would be expected to provide improved pattern accuracy in the substrate following etching.
Regarding Claim 4, Ogino teaches that the etching process is a dry-etching process (Ogino, paragraph 0055).
Regarding Claim 5, Ogino teaches that during the exposure of the photoresist layer, the electron beam exposes in a regular pattern and forms a plurality of regions (Ogino, paragraph 0055 and Fig. 2d).
Regarding Claims 6-7, Ogino teaches that the pitch of the patterns is 150 nm (0.150 μm) (Ogino, paragraph 0055). Ogino does not explicitly show the patterns in top view. However, Fig. 2d of Ogino shows patterns of uniform pitch that reflect a stripe shape. Furthermore, Ogino teaches that the patterned substrate is used to form a mold (Ogino, paragraph 0055 and Fig. 2g-2h). Fig. 3a of Ogino shows a three-dimensional view of the mold obtained from the patterned substrate (Ogino, paragraph 0056), which further shows striped shaped patterns. Furthermore, per Fig. 2d of Ogino, the unexposed region occupies a greater area than the exposed region of the photoresist layer.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120256346 A1 (hereby referred to as Ogino) in view of US 20020177075 A1 (hereby referred to as Chang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20170199456 A1 (hereby referred to as Park).
Regarding Claims 3, the combination of Ogino and Chang renders obvious the method of manufacturing a patterned base member according to instant claims 1 and 11, as discussed above. However, Ogino and Chang are both silent in regards to the formation of a mask layer over the substrate before forming the resist layer.
Park teaches a photoresist composition and a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device using the same. The method of manufacturing the semiconductor device is demonstrated in the flowchart of Fig. 1 (Park, paragraph 0051). The method includes forming a mask layer and a photoresist layer on a substrate, forming a photoresist pattern by patterning the photoresist layer, forming a mask pattern by patterning the mask layer through the patterned photoresist layer, and forming a pattern by etching the substrate through the mask pattern (Park, paragraph 0052). The mask layer may be a silicon oxide film (Park, paragraph 0055), which is analogous to the mask layer of the instant application’s invention (see paragraph 0031 of the instant application’s specification). As seen in Fig. 3 of Park, a substrate (10) is provided with a mask layer (11) and a photoresist layer (13) (Park, paragraph 0054-0057). Figs. 3-10 of Park show the assembly through the various processing steps, resulting in a patterned substrate (see Park, paragraphs 0061-0076). Patterning of the photoresist is performed with electron beams (Park, paragraph 0069) and the etching of the mask layer may be a dry etching or wet etching process (Park, paragraph 0075). Dry or wet etching may be used to etch the substrate through the patterned mask layer (Park, paragraph 0076).
Ogino, Chang, and Park are analogous art because each reference pertains to substrate patterning methods. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to apply a mask layer between the substrate and the photoresist layer and pattern the substrate by etching through the patterned mask layer, as taught by Park, in the method obtained by combining the teachings of Ogino and Chang because the mask layer may provide etching selectivity differences (Park, paragraph 0055) and the resulting patterning of the substrate has improved critical dimension (CD) uniformity and reduced line width roughness, thereby enhancing the reliability of the semiconductor device (Park, paragraph 0049 and 0077).
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120256346 A1 (hereby referred to as Ogino) in view of US 20020177075 A1 (hereby referred to as Chang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20130011947 A1 (hereby referred to as Yanagisawa).
Regarding Claims 8-9, the combination of Ogino and Chang renders obvious the method of manufacturing a patterned base member according to instant claims 1 and 11. Ogino further teaches a nanoimprinting method for transferring a pattern (Ogino, paragraph 0046). Notably, Ogino forms a mold from the patterned substrate (see Ogino, paragraph 0055 and Fig. 2f-2h) and uses the mold to transfer the pattern of the substrate (Ogino, paragraph 0056-0057 and Figs. 3-4).
However, neither Ogino nor Chang teach the use of the patterned substrate to transfer the pattern to a workpiece and etching the workpiece, or the manufacture of a laser element. Yanagisawa teaches a method of forming a grating and a method of producing a laser diode. Yanagisawa produces a mold for nano-imprinting, wherein the mold comprises a plurality of line-and-space patterns (Yanagisawa, paragraph 0053-0054). The mold taught by Yanagisawa is analogous to the mold manufactured by Ogino. Yanagisawa then provides a stacked semiconductor structure (Yanagisawa, paragraph 0063 and Fig. 6). The structure comprises a semiconductor substrate (11), a semiconductor stack (23), a transfer layer (25), a photoresist layer (27), and a resin portion (29) (Yanagisawa, paragraphs 0063 and 0066). As shown in Figs. 7 and 8 of Yanagisawa, the mold is disposed over the semiconductor structure and the grating pattern is transferred to the resin portion (Yanagisawa, paragraph 0069). Further processing is performed (Yanagisawa, paragraph 0070-0080), and then the semiconductor layer is etched to form a plurality of recesses in the semiconductor layer (Yanagisawa, paragraph 0081). The resulting structure has a diffraction grating in the semiconductor layer (Yanagisawa, paragraph 0082 and Fig. 18).
Ogino, Chang, and Yanagisawa are analogous art because each reference pertains to patterning methods. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to form a laser element by transferring a pattern to a semiconductor structure, as taught by Yanagisawa, utilizing the mold obtained by performing the method of Ogino (modified to include the teachings of Chang) because the mold obtained by combining Ogino and Chang has improved pattern accuracy (see Ogino, paragraph 0010; see Chang, paragraph 0031) and the method of forming a laser element taught by Yanagisawa allows for laser elements including gratings having various structures to be produced at low cost (Yanagisawa, paragraph 0093).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120256346 A1 (hereby referred to as Ogino) in view of US 20020177075 A1 (hereby referred to as Chang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20080002748 A1 (hereby referred to as Masui).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Ogino and Chang renders obvious the method of manufacturing a patterned base member according to instant claims 1 and 11. However, neither prior art reference suggests using a nitride semiconductor substrate as the patterned base member, nor do these references suggest providing a plurality of semiconductor layers on the patterned substrate.
Masui teaches a nitride semiconductor laser element. Masui teaches how the laser element is manufactured (Masui, paragraph 0091). A sapphire substrate is provided with multiple nitride semiconductor layers (such as AlGaN, InGaN, and GaN) (Masui, paragraph 0092-0099). A silicon oxide film is formed over the uppermost layer, along with a resist layer (Masui, paragraph 0100). Electron beam lithography is then performed to create a pattern corresponding to a diffraction grating in the resist layer (Masui, paragraph 0100). The resist pattern is used as a mask to transfer the pattern to the silicon oxide film, and then an etching process is performed to transfer the pattern into the underlying nitride semiconductor layer (Masui, paragraph 0100). Following the transfer of the pattern into the nitride semiconductor layer, additional semiconductor layers are formed over the patterned nitride semiconductor layer (Masui, paragraph 0101-0102).
Ogino, Chang, and Masui are analogous art because each reference pertains to patterning methods and/or pattern transferring processes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to manufacture a laser element by patterning a nitride semiconductor layer and layering semiconductor layers over the patterned nitride layer, as taught by Masui, using the method obtained by combining the teachings of Ogino and Chang because the method obtained by combining Ogino and Chang yields improved pattern accuracy (see Ogino, paragraph 0010; see Chang, paragraph 0031) and because the laser element obtained can provide a refractive index differential (due to the diffraction grating) and a single longitudinal mode emission can thus be obtained (Masui, paragraph 0114). Such a single longitudinal mode emission is said to be useful for optical communications and similar applications (Masui, paragraph 0006).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6319655 B1 (hereby referred to as Wong) teaches modification of photoresist materials by electron beam exposure. The process taught by Wong forms a patterned photoresist layer (Wong, Col. 7 Line 37-Col. 8 Line 36) and then exposed to sufficient electron beam radiation to render the patterned resist layer more resistant to an etchant (Wong, Col. 8 Line 37-Col. 9 Line 16). The electron beam source covers the entire substrate area (Wong, Col. 9 Line 6-10). This process appears to be analogous to the irradiating the entire patterned resist layer with an electron beam step according to instant claim 1.
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 JAYSON D COSGROVE whose telephone number is (571)272-2153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-18:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/JAYSON D COSGROVE/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights