DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the application received October 16, 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by KIM et al (2005/0100828 A1).
The claimed invention recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
346
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
396
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
KIM et al report a method for forming 3D microstructures having a high aspect ratio. The method meets the claimed processes as recited in claims 1 and 11 wherein the:
Claim 1 of KIM et al disclose the following steps which meet the steps as claimed, see below:
PNG
media_image3.png
292
372
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
304
388
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The method in KIM et al above is highlighted to meet each of the steps in claims 1 and 11. For a visual interpretation, figures 4 thru 10 disclose the claimed steps for the formation of a first trench in the over a substrate, filling a first material in the first trench (Figs. 4 and 5), forming a second photoresist layer being in contact with the first photoresist layer, wherein the second photoresist layer has a second thickness, filling a second material in the second trench (Figs. 7 -9) having a second trench over the first photoresist layer, the second photoresist layer has a second thickness, removing the first photoresist layer and the second photoresist layer. (Fig 14). Figs. 11-12 demonstrate that the process can be repeated to build up the 3D structure to the desired height.
Claim 2 wherein the second trench is aligned with the first trench is seen is met by Fig. 9, Sheet 3 of 14.
Claim 3 is met wherein the metal can be the same or different as implied in para. [0084].
Claim 4 is met by para. [0084] and claim 9 of KIM et al wherein the plating metal can be different.
Claims 5 and 7, and 8 to the leveling of the top surface of the first material and the first photoresist layer is met by the CMP grinding step F of claim 1.
Claim 6 for forming the first material overfilling the first trench can be seen in step E and Fig. 5 on Sheet 2 of 14 in the drawings.
Claim 9 for the removal of the first and second photoresist through as single removal is seen in Fig. 14, Sheet 5 of 14 by the removal of the layer through etching.
Claim 10 is met by the illustration in Fig. 8, Sheet 3 of 14 wherein the pattern is the same from the same mask pattern.
Claim 9
Claims 11 is the independent claim that is anticipated above by the copied image of claim 1 of KIM et al.
Claim 12 for the aligned opposite sidewalls of the first and second material is met by Fig. Fig. 8, Sheet 3 of 14.
Claim 13 for the first photoresist and the second photoresist being made of the same material and substantially the same thickness can be seen in Figs 7 and 8 on Sheets 2 and 3 of 14.
Claims 13 to the first and second photoresist being the same material and the same thickness, is me met by Figs. 7.
Claim 14 to the trench and the first photoresist having the same height is met by Fig. 6.
Claim 15 and 17 to the overfilling of the first material and second material then planarizing the layer is met Figs. 5 and 6 and Figs. 9 and 10, respectively.
Claim 16 to the second material and the second photoresist having substantially the same height is met by Fig. 9.
No claims are allowed as the method is anticipated.
Claim(s) s 1-20are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al as applied to claims 1-17 above, and further in view of LEE et al (2021/0026242 A1).
KIM et al fails to disclose the filling of the trenches by a process of epitaxial growth and the deposition of the material being a semiconductor material.
LEE et al (2021/0026242 A1) report that the deposition of material can be done by several method to include electroplating and epitaxial growth, see para. [0114] and that the material can include semiconductor material as reported in para. [0116], such as silicon oxynitride and other semiconductor materials.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pattern formation to filling trenches formed by a photolithographic process with an epitaxial growth process as suggested in LEE et al. LEE et al include several equivalent methods of filling substrates which include electroplating (taught by KIM et al) and epitaxial growth to form semiconductor devices thus, the skilled artisan would be directed to use any method for depositing a material such as by epitaxial growth or electroplating in a mass production method for producing three-dimensional micro structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-1329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, IFP-Flex.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/John S. Chu/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
J. Chu
July 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights