DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11/18/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
(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.
Claims 1, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Varghese et al. (US 20220344171 A1).
As to claim 1, Varghese discloses a method of stress management in a substrate [Abstract; claims 1-3], comprising:
providing a substrate having a main surface [claim 1]; and
forming a patterned stress compensation layer on the main surface [claim 1],
wherein the patterned stress compensation layer is formed by exposing the main surface to a processing beam while a movement of the processing beam with respect to the main surface takes place [claims 2-3].
As to claim 5, Varghese discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the forming the stress compensation layer comprises:
depositing the stress compensation layer by condensing species derived from the processing beam [para. 0029, “ion beam deposition”], during movement of the processing beam with respect to the first main surface, wherein the stress compensation layer has a non-uniform thickness as a function of position across the main surface [para. 0027-29].
As to claim 7, Varghese discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the processing beam comprises a ribbon ion beam [claim 6], wherein the substrate is scanned along a scan direction while the ribbon ion beam remains stationary [para. 0043].
As to claim 8, Varghese discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the patterned stress compensation layer is determined based upon a surface map of the main surface of the substrate [claims 2-3].
As to claim 9, Varghese discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the forming the patterned stress compensation layer comprises:
providing a substrate having a stress compensation layer on the main surface [claim 1]; and
performing a selective area damage operation, wherein the stress compensation layer is selectively damaged as a function of position across the main surface by scanning the processing beam in a non-uniform manner [claims 2-3].
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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varghese et al. (US 20220344171 A1), as applied to claims 1, 5, and 7-9 above, in view of Schepis et al. (US 20230326814 A1).
As to claim 2, Varghese discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the forming the patterned stress compensation layer comprises:
providing a substrate having a stress compensation layer on the main surface; and
performing a selective area etching operation, wherein the stress compensation layer is selectively etched as a function of position across the main surface by scanning the processing beam in a non-uniform manner.
However, Schepis et al. (US 20230326814 A1) discloses a method of modifying stress in a wafer through selective etching of a stress compensation layer, as an alternative to ion implantation [para. 0083], comprising:
providing a substrate having a stress compensation layer on the main surface [para. 0090]; and
performing a selective area etching operation, wherein the stress compensation layer is selectively etched as a function of position across the main surface by scanning the processing beam in a non-uniform manner [para. 0092-96].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of selectively implanting ions in a stress compensation layer to form a stress relief pattern, of Varghese, to include a step of etching the stress compensation film by selective heat treatment to form a stress relief pattern within a photoresist layer, and performing a selective area etching operation using the patterned photoresist layer, of Schepis, because it is an effective alternative method to forming a stress relief pattern by implanting ions within the stress compensation film, as taught by Schepis [para. 0083].
As to claim 4, modified Varghese discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the processing beam is a ribbon beam [claim 6], the scanning the processing beam in a non-uniform manner comprises varying a scan speed of the substrate as a function of position of the processing beam on the main surface [para. 0043].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varghese et al. (US 20220344171 A1) in view of Schepis et al. (US 20230326814 A1), as applied to claims 2 and 4 above, and further in view of Reese et al. (US 20140065730 A1).
As to claim 3, modified Varghese discloses the method of claim 2, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the scanning the processing beam in a non-uniform manner comprises varying a duty cycle of an ion beam while scanning the main surface with respect to the ion beam.
However, Reese discloses a method of implant-induced damage control [Abstract], comprising:
wherein the scanning the processing beam in a non-uniform manner comprises varying a duty cycle of an ion beam while scanning the main surface with respect to the ion beam [Abstract].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method patterning a photoresist layer, of modified Varghese [i.e., selectively activated photoresist by heat treatment], to include a step of modulating the duty cycle of the ion beam, of Reese, in order to control the desired localized temperature, as taught by Reese [Abstract]
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varghese et al. (US 20220344171 A1), as applied to claims 1, 5, and 7-9 above, in view of McFadden et al. (US 20190185989 A1).
As to claim 6, Varghese discloses the method of claim 5, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the depositing the stress compensation layer comprises varying a duty cycle of an ion beam while scanning the main surface with respect to the ion beam.
However, McFadden discloses a method of controlling the stress of a film by modulating a duty cycle of an ion beam deposition process [para. 0025].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method depositing a stress compensation layer by ion beam deposition, of Varghese, to include a step of modulating the duty cycle of the ion beam, of McFadden, in order to control the desired stress of the deposited film, as taught by McFadden [para. 0025].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: The additionally cited references are cited to show methods of controlling stress patterns in stress compensation films and/or applying ion beams to films [Abstracts].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M REMAVEGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 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, 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.
/CHRISTOPHER REMAVEGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1713