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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/17/23, 11/21/23 was filed in a timely manner; thus, the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims #1-8 in the reply filed on 12/26/25 is acknowledged.
Newly submitted claims #21-32 (hereinafter referred to as Group II, claims #21-26 and Group III, claims 27-32), are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions Group I and Group II are directed to related methods. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed by the method of Group II can be practice for it's intended purpose without requiring operational area to have a second sidewall non-parallel with the first sidewall, and a first corner connecting the first and second sidewalls and performing a first directional ion bombardment process to the first corner of the photoresist layer along a first direction, wherein the first direction is non-perpendicular to both the first and second sidewalls of the photoresist, which is required by the claimed method of Group I. Also, the invention as claimed in Group I can be practiced for it's intended purpose without requiring a method comprising performing a first directional ion bombardment process to the rounded sidewall at the first corner of the photoresist layer along a first direction and performing a first directional ion bombardment process to the rounded sidewall at the first corner of the photoresist layer along a first direction, as required by the invention of the Group II claim language. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions Group I and Group III are directed to related methods. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed by the method of Group III can be practice for it's intended purpose without requiring performing a first directional ion bombardment process to the first corner of the photoresist layer along a first direction, wherein the first direction is non-perpendicular to both the first and second sidewalls of the photoresist when viewed from top, which is required by the claimed method of Group I. Also, the invention as claimed in Group I can be practiced for it's intended purpose without requiring a method wherein the first directional ion bombardment process reduces, when viewed from above, a radius of curvature of the corner sidewall at the first corner relative to the radius of curvature of the corner sidewall at the first corner before the first directional ion bombardment process with an epitaxial structure on the substrate and between the first and second gate structures, as required by the invention of the Group III claim language. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims #21-32 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claims #1-8 will be examined.
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)(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(s) #1, 2, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Yin et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2015/0255577), hereinafter referred to as "Yin".
Yin shows, with respect to claim #1, method, comprising: coating a photoresist film over a target layer (fig. #5, item 203) (paragraph 0030); performing a lithography process to pattern the photoresist film into a photoresist layer (fig. #5, trench) (paragraph 0030-0032), wherein the photoresist layer has an opening (Below, fig. #Ex1, item Tr1), and the opening of the photoresist layer at least has a first sidewall (Below, fig. #Ex2, item TS1), a second sidewall (Below, fig. #Ex2, item STS1) non-parallel with the first sidewall, and a first corner connecting the first and second sidewalls (Below, fig. #Ex2, item TS1); performing a first directional ion bombardment process to the first corner of the photoresist layer along a first direction (fig. #7a, item 204-1), wherein the first direction is non-perpendicular to both the first and second sidewalls of the photoresist when viewed from top (paragraph 0032); and after the first directional ion bombardment process is complete, patterning the target layer using the photoresist layer as a patterning mask (fig. #8a )(paragraph 0033).
[AltContent: textbox (Mask on Surface; MS1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Trench; Tr1)]
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Ex1)]
PNG
media_image1.png
437
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Connect Corner; CC)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Trench; Tr)][AltContent: textbox (Ex2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First Side; TS1)][AltContent: textbox (Second Side; STS2)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
594
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yin shows, with respect to claim #2, a method further comprising: after the first directional ion bombardment process is complete, performing a second directional ion bombardment process to a second corner of the opening of the photoresist layer along a second direction, wherein the second direction is opposite to the first direction when viewed from top (fig. #8a, item 204-2) (paragraph 0033).
Yin shows, with respect to claim #6, a method wherein the lithography process comprises: exposing the photoresist film to a light pattern; developing the exposed photoresist film to form the photoresist layer; and post-baking the photoresist layer (paragraph 0030).
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.
Claim #3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2015/0255577), hereinafter referred to as "Yin" as shown in the rejection of claim #2 and in view of LEE et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0279950), hereinafter referred to as "Lee".
Yin substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #2 above.
Yin fails to show, with respect to claim #3, a method further comprising: after the second directional ion bombardment process is complete, performing a third directional ion bombardment process to a third corner of the opening of the photoresist layer along a third direction, wherein the third direction is orthogonal to the first direction when viewed from top.
Lee teaches, with respect to claim #3, a method further comprising: after the second directional ion bombardment process is complete, performing a third directional ion bombardment process to a third corner of the opening of the photoresist layer (paragraph 0057-0058) along a third direction, wherein the third direction is orthogonal to the first direction when viewed from top [fig. #4c(i), 4d(i) through 4d(iii)] (paragraph 0062-0063).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #3, to modified the invention of Yin as modified by the invention of Lee, which teaches, further comprising: after the second directional ion bombardment process is complete, performing a third directional ion bombardment process to a third corner of the opening of the photoresist layer along a third direction, wherein the third direction is orthogonal to the first direction when viewed from top, to incorporate a structural condition that would enhance the density of the implanted material through the area of the device, as taught by Lee.
Yin as modified by Lee substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #3 above.
Yin fails to show, with respect to claim #4, a method further comprising: after the third directional ion bombardment process is complete, performing a fourth directional ion bombardment process to a fourth corner of the opening of the photoresist layer along a fourth direction, wherein the fourth direction is opposite to the third direction when viewed from top.
Lee teaches, with respect to claim #4, a method further comprising: after the third directional ion bombardment process is complete, performing a fourth directional ion bombardment process to a fourth corner of the opening of the photoresist layer (paragraph 0057-0058) along a fourth direction, wherein the fourth direction is opposite to the third direction when viewed from top [fig. #4c(i), 4d(i) through 4d(iii)] (paragraph 0062-0063).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #4, to modified the invention of Yin as modified by the invention of Lee, which teaches, further comprising: after the third directional ion bombardment process is complete, performing a fourth directional ion bombardment process to a fourth corner of the opening of the photoresist layer along a fourth direction, wherein the fourth direction is opposite to the third direction when viewed from top, to incorporate a structural condition that would enhance the density of the implanted material through the area of the device, as taught by Lee.
//
Claim #5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2015/0255577), hereinafter referred to as "Yin" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 and in view of HIRATA et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0090943), hereinafter referred to as "Hirata".
Yin substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Yin fails to show, with respect to claim #5, a method wherein the first directional ion bombardment process sharpens the first corner of the photoresist layer.
Hirata teaches, with respect to claim #5, a method wherein the first directional ion bombardment process sharpens the first corner of the photoresist layer (paragraph 0132).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #5, to modified the invention of Yin as modified by the invention of Hirata, which teaches, wherein the first directional ion bombardment process sharpens the first corner of the photoresist layer, to incorporate a structural condition that would reduce the curling up of the resist source, as taught by Hirata.
///
Claim(s) #7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yin et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2015/0255577), hereinafter referred to as "Yin".
Yin substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #6 above.
Yin shows, with respect to claim #7, a method wherein the first directional ion bombardment process is performed after post-baking the photoresist layer (paragraph 0030).
The Examiner notes that Yin does not explicitly state that a post-baking of the photoresist is done. However, as shown by Yin (paragraph 0030, “ the photoresist layer is subjected to a photolithography process including exposure and development to form a pattern”), the photoresist layer is used/developed as a mask, including any of the developmental processes for photolithographic conditioning, such as follows;
Photolithography Process Parameters
Cleaning the substrate.
Applying and baking a photoresist.
Aligning and exposing the photoresist to UV light through a mask.
Post-Exposure baking.
Developing the remove soluble resist.
Etching or depositing material before stripping the remaining resist.
Yin discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly stating that baking process is done. The Examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to apply the standard processes for developing photolithographic mask since it was known in the art that the standard methods of development of a photolithographic mask is needed in insure proper exposure to needed portions of designate areas.
/////
Claim #8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2015/0255577), hereinafter referred to as "Yin" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 and in view of Shimada et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0102382), hereinafter referred to as "Shimada".
Yin substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Yin fails to show, with respect to claim #8, a method wherein the first directional ion bombardment process uses at least Argon ions.
Shimada teaches, with respect to claim #8, a method wherein the first directional ion bombardment process uses at least Argon ions (paragraph 0094).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #8, to modified the invention of Yin as modified by the invention of Shimada, which teaches, wherein the first directional ion bombardment process uses at least Argon ions, to incorporate a structural condition that would prevent oxidation, enable precise etching/sputtering, and increase component lifespan while allowing for precise, low-temperature modification of surfaces and photoresists, as taught by Shimada.
EXAMINATION NOTE
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andre’ Stevenson whose telephone number is (571) 272 1683 (Email Address, Andre.Stevenson@USPTO.GOV). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith can be reached on 571-272 2429. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Andre’ Stevenson Sr./
Art Unit 2899
02/10/2026
/ZANDRA V SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899