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 Objections
Claims 1-20, are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, at lines 11-12, recites “patterning the hard mask layer using the second resist pattern as an etch mask to define a hard mask line pattern underneath the second resist pattern”, and is not clear that the second resist pattern is also not defined on the underlying partially masked first resist pattern, since the surface of the hard mask layer includes both the first resist pattern features and the second resist pattern features wherein a part/portion of the first resist pattern is overlapped by the second resist pattern, and its not clear if the unmasked portions of the first resist pattern is etched or not etched during the patterning of the hard mask layer using the second resist pattern as the mask and thereby it is not clear if the transferring of the second resist pattern via patterning is also not defining the underlying first resist pattern.
Claim 1, at lines 12-13, recites, “and subsequently the metal layer to define a metal line pattern underneath the hard mask line pattern”, and is not clear as to what process is performed on the metal layer, subsequently, and/or what mask is used as the etch mask to etch or define the underlying metal layer that is underlying both the first resist pattern, the second resist patterns.
Claim 1, at lines 15-16, recites “using the at least a portion of the first resist pattern as an etch mask to define a hard mask pillar pattern over the metal line pattern”, and is not clear because the first resist patterns (both overlapped and non-overlapped first resist patterns) are present on the underlying hard mask layer (patterned and masked portions), and a subsequent patterning/etching process would easily use all of the first resist patterns as the etch mask and the claim does not make clear if the patterning process is a selective patterning process that only uses the previously overlapped first resist pattern as the etch mask.
Claim 4, at line 3, recites “a resist line of the second resist pattern” and is not clear if the “resist line of the second resist pattern” recited in claim 4 is the same as or different from the “second resist pattern of resist lines” recited in line 9 of claim 1 or not.
Claim 5, at line 4, recites “resist lines of the second resist pattern”, and is not clear if the “resist lines of the second resist pattern” recited in claim 5, at line 4 is the same as or different from the “second resist pattern of resist lines” recited in line 9 of claim 1 or not.
Claim 9, at lines 5-6, recites, “a first resist line of the second resist pattern” and at line 7 of claim 9, recites “a second resist line of the second resist pattern” and is not clear if the “first resist line” and the “second resist line” is the same as or different from the “second resist pattern of resist lines” recited in line 9 of claim 1 or not.
Claim 10, at lines 1-2, recites “wherein the second sub-pattern is a pattern of resist pillars or a pattern of resist bars” and claim 9 recites “the second sub-pattern of second resist features” and is therefore not clear if the second sub-pattern of resist features are the same as or different from the second sub-pattern of resist pillars or resist bars or not. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 17 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 17, at lines 1-2, recites “wherein removing the hard mask pillar pattern and the at least a portion of the first resist pattern” and is not clear if the “removing the hard mask pillar pattern and the at least a portion of the first resist pattern” is the same as or different from the “removing both the hard mask pillar pattern and the at least a portion of the first resist pattern” recited at lines 3-4 of claim 8 or not, and if the “removing the hard mask pillar pattern” recited in line 1 of claim 17 is the same as or different from the “removing the hard mask pillar pattern” recited in line 20 of claim 1 or not. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment and Remarks, filed August 7, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) 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 claim 17. Also, see paragraph no. 2, above.
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 October 14, 2026.
