DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Applicant's election without traverse of claims 1-6, 9-12, and 16-18 in the reply filed on 6/8/2026 is acknowledged. However, claims 9-11 depend on nonelected claim 7; and claim 16 depends on the nonelected claims 13-15. Accordingly, claims 9-11 and 16 are not examined. Claims 1-6, 12, and 17-18 are examined.
3. Claims 7-11, 13-16, 19, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-5, 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2001/0055720) (hereafter Sato), in view of Bauch et al. (US 2005/0068515) (hereafter Bauch).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses a device comprising:
a substrate 1 (Fig. 7, paragraph 0038); and
an overlay target structure (101 and 102 in Fig. 8, paragraph 0006) provided on the substrate 1 (Fig. 7),
wherein the overlay target structure (101 and 102 in Fig. 8) comprises:
a first alignment key 102 (Fig. 8, paragraph 0006) having a first pattern (vertical 102 in Fig. 8) that comprises a plurality of first line masks (vertical 102 in Fig. 8) arranged at a first pitch (see Fig. 8 and paragraph 0006, wherein “28 .mu.m”) in a second direction (horizontal direction in Fig. 8), each first line mask of the plurality of first line masks (vertical 102 in Fig. 8) having a first width (horizontal length of vertical 102 in Fig. 8) in the second direction (horizontal direction in Fig. 8) and a first length (length of vertical 102 in stacking direction of Fig. 8) in a first direction (stacking direction in Fig. 8) perpendicular to the second direction (horizontal direction in Fig. 8);
a second alignment key 101 (Fig. 8, paragraph 0006) spaced apart from the first alignment key 102 (Fig. 8) in a third direction (vertical direction in Fig. 8) perpendicular to the first direction (stacking direction in Fig. 8) and the second direction (horizontal direction in Fig. 8) to face the first alignment key 102 (Fig. 8), and having a second pattern (vertical 101 in Fig. 8) that comprises a plurality of second line masks (vertical 101 in Fig. 8) arranged at a second pitch (pitch between 101 in horizontal direction of Fig. 8) in the second direction (horizontal direction in Fig. 8), each second line mask of the plurality of second line masks (vertical 101 in Fig. 8) having a second width (horizontal length of vertical 101 in Fig. 8) in the second direction (horizontal direction in Fig. 8) and a second length (length of vertical 101 in stacking direction of Fig. 8) in the first direction (stacking direction in Fig. 8); and
a nanostructure layer (see Fig. 9 and paragraph 0010, wherein “device pattern”) comprising each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures (see Fig. 9 and paragraph 0010, wherein “device pattern”) being arranged at a pitch (see paragraph 0010, wherein “0.35 .mu.m”) that is less than the first pitch (see paragraph 0006, wherein “28 .mu.m”).
Sato does not disclose a plurality of nanostructures between the first alignment key and the second alignment key; and
each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures having a width that is less than or equal to the first width and the second width and being arranged at a pitch that is less than the second pitch.
Bauch discloses a plurality of nanostructures 10 (Fig. 1A, paragraph 0043) between the first alignment key (portion of 12 and 14 close to 10 in Fig. 1A) and the second alignment key (portion of 12 and 14 away from 10 in Fig. 1A); and
each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures 10 (Fig. 1A) having a width (see paragraph 0043, wherein “line widths of 70, 90, or 110 nm”) that is less than or equal to the first width (see paragraph 0044, wherein “width of 0.5 m to 5 .mu.m”) and the second width (see paragraph 0044, wherein “width of 0.5 m to 5 .mu.m”) and being arranged at a pitch (pitch between 10 in Fig. 1A) that is less than the second pitch (pitch between 14 close to 10 in horizontal direction of Fig. 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sato to form a plurality of nanostructures between the first alignment key and the second alignment key; and each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures having a width that is less than or equal to the first width and the second width and being arranged at a pitch that is less than the second pitch, as taught by Bauch, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, Sato further discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of nanostructures (see Fig. 6E and paragraph 0103, wherein “aluminum wiring”) comprise a metal material or a dielectric material.
Regarding claim 3, Sato in view of Bauch discloses the device of claim 1, however Sato does not disclose each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures has a cylindrical shape or a polygonal pillar shape, and
wherein a cross-section diameter or one side of each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures is less than or equal to the first width and the second width.
Bauch discloses each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures 10 (Fig. 1A, paragraph 0043, wherein “square or rectangular structure”) has a cylindrical shape or a polygonal pillar shape, and wherein a cross-section diameter or one side (see paragraph 0043, wherein “line widths of 70, 90, or 110 nm”) of each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures 10 (Fig. 1A) is less than or equal to the first width (see paragraph 0044, wherein “width of 0.5 m to 5 .mu.m”) and the second width (see paragraph 0044, wherein “width of 0.5 m to 5 .mu.m”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sato to form each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures has a cylindrical shape or a polygonal pillar shape, and wherein a cross-section diameter or one side of each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures is less than or equal to the first width and the second width, as taught by Bauch, since such a modification would have involved a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In addition, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, Sato further discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of nanostructures (see Fig. 9 and paragraph 0010, wherein “device pattern”) are provided in at least two layers arranged in the third direction (vertical direction in Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Sato further discloses the device of claim 4, wherein an interval (see paragraph 0010, wherein “0.35 .mu.m”) between adjacent layers (see Fig. 9 and paragraph 0010, wherein “device pattern”) among the at least two layers is less than or equal to 100 nm.
Regarding claim 12, Sato further discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the first alignment key 102 (Fig. 8) further comprises a third pattern (horizonal 102 in Fig. 8) on a same layer as the first pattern (vertical 102 in Fig. 8), the third pattern (horizonal 102 in Fig. 8) comprising a plurality of third line masks (horizonal 102 in Fig. 8) arranged at a third pitch (pitch between top 102 and bottom 102 in Fig. 8) in the first direction (vertical direction in Fig. 8), each third line mask of the plurality of third line masks (horizonal 102 in Fig. 8) having a third length (horizontal length of horizonal 102 in Fig. 8) in the second direction (horizontal direction in Fig. 8) and a third width (vertical length of horizonal 102 in Fig. 8) in the first direction (vertical direction in Fig. 8), and
wherein the second alignment key 101 (Fig. 8) further comprises a fourth pattern (horizonal 101 in Fig. 8) on a same layer as the second pattern (vertical 101 in Fig. 8), the fourth pattern (horizonal 101 in Fig. 8) comprising a plurality of fourth line masks (horizonal 101 in Fig. 8) arranged at a fourth pitch (pitch between top 101 and bottom 101 in Fig. 8) in the first direction (vertical direction in Fig. 8), each fourth line mask of the plurality of fourth line masks (horizonal 101 in Fig. 8) having a fourth length (horizontal length of horizonal 101 in Fig. 8) in the second direction (horizontal direction in Fig. 8) and a fourth width (vertical length of horizonal 101 in Fig. 8) in the first direction (vertical direction in Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 17, Sato discloses a device comprising:
a substrate 1 (Fig. 7, paragraph 0038);
a first alignment key (101 and 102 in Fig. 8, paragraph 0006) having a first pattern 102 (Fig. 8) that comprises a plurality of first line masks 102 (Fig. 8) arranged at a first pitch (see Fig. 8 and paragraph 0006, wherein “28 .mu.m”) in a second direction (horizontal direction in Fig. 8), each first line mask 102 (Fig. 8) of the plurality of first line masks having a first width (horizontal length of 102 in Fig. 8) in the second direction (horizontal direction in Fig. 8) and a first length (vertical length of 102 in Fig. 8) in a first direction (vertical direction in Fig. 8) perpendicular to the second direction (horizontal direction in Fig. 8); and
a nanostructure layer (see Fig. 9 and paragraph 0010, wherein “device pattern”) comprising a plurality of nanostructures (see Fig. 9 and paragraph 0010, wherein “device pattern”) provided on the first alignment key (101 and 102 in Fig. 8), each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures (see Fig. 9 and paragraph 0010, wherein “device pattern”) arranged at a pitch (see paragraph 0010, wherein “0.35 .mu.m”) less than the first pitch (see paragraph 0006, wherein “28 .mu.m”).
Sato does not disclose each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures having a width that is less than the first width.
Bauch discloses each nanostructure 10 (Fig. 1A, paragraph 0043) of the plurality of nanostructures 10 (Fig. 1A) having a width (see paragraph 0043, wherein “line widths of 70, 90, or 110 nm”) that is less than the first width (see paragraph 0044, wherein “width of 0.5 m to 5 .mu.m”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sato to form each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures having a width that is less than the first width, as taught by Bauch, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 18, Sato further discloses the device of claim 17, wherein the first alignment key (101 and 102 in Fig. 8) further comprises a third pattern 101 (Fig. 8) on a same layer as the first pattern 102 (Fig. 8), and comprises a plurality of third line masks 101 (Fig. 8) arranged at a third pitch (pitch between top 101 and bottom 101 in Fig. 8) in the first direction (vertical direction in Fig. 8), each third line mask of the plurality of third line masks 101 (Fig. 8) having a third length (horizontal length of 101 in Fig. 8) in the second direction (horizontal direction in Fig. 8) and a third width (vertical length of 101 in Fig. 8) in the first direction (vertical direction in Fig. 8).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, in view of Bauch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yan et al. (US 2020/0159133) (hereafter Yan).
Regarding claim 6, Sato in view of Bauch discloses the device of claim 1, however Sato and Bauch do not disclose each first line mask of the plurality of first line masks and each second line mask of the plurality of second line masks comprises a metal material.
Yan discloses each first line mask of the plurality of first line masks (outer portion 428 in Fig. 5B, paragraph 0055) and each second line mask of the plurality of second line masks (inner portion 428 in Fig. 5B, paragraph 0055) comprises a metal material (see paragraph 0055, wherein “metals, such as Cu, W, Al, Co, etc”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sato in view of Bauch to form each first line mask of the plurality of first line masks and each second line mask of the plurality of second line masks comprises a metal material, as taught by Yan, since applicant has not disclosed that the claimed material is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, which are criteria that have been held to be necessary for material limitations to be prima facie unobvious. The claimed material is considered to be a "preferred" or "optimum" material out of a plurality of well known materials that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found obvious to provide to the invention of the cited prior art reference, using routine experimentation and optimization of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAMONT B KOO whose telephone number is (571)272-0984. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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 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.
/L.B.K/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights