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 .
This action is responsive to the following communications: the Amendment filed 2/23/2026.
Claims 1-8 and 25-32 are pending. Claims 9-24 are cancelled. Claims 25-32 are new.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 2/23/2026 is acknowledged. An election of Species I or II has not been specified in the reply filed on 2/23/2026, however considering all claims directed to Species II have been canceled prosecution of the current application will continue under the presumption that Species I has been elected.
Claims 9-24, which have been canceled, were drawn to a nonelected Group/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/23/2026.
Newly submitted claims 25-32 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-8, drawn to methods for manufacturing a semiconductor device, classified in H10W 70/01.
III. Claims 25-32, drawn to an apparatus for manufacturing a semiconductor device, classified in H10P 72/04.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and III are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand.
For example, the circuit manufacturing process of claim 1 can be performed by hand (i.e., a human personnel can perform the steeping and staggering steps of claim 1) or an apparatus which staggers the reticle at alternative locations on a non-semiconductor wafer as opposed to an apparatus which operates the stepper to stagger the reticle at alternate stepped locations on a semiconductor wafer as detailed and required in the apparatus of claim 25.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these 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.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 25-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Group III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/23/2026.
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.
Claims 7-8 are 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 7 recites the limitation “alternative stepped locations” in line 2 of the claim, however an “alternative stepped locations” element was already introduced earlier in line 4 of claim 1, which claim 7 depends from, and thereby it is unclear whether the “alternative stepped locations” in line 2 of the claim is directed to that same element and therefore should be properly amended to “the alternative stepped locations” or directed to an entirely different element and therefore should be amended with specific language to distinguish it from the already introduced element.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “alternative stepped locations” in line 2 of the claim, however an “alternative stepped locations” element was already introduced earlier in line 4 of claim 1, which claim 8 depends from, and thereby it is unclear whether the “alternative stepped locations” in line 2 of the claim is directed to that same element and therefore should be properly amended to “the alternative stepped locations” or directed to an entirely different element and therefore should be amended with specific language to distinguish it from the already introduced element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grivna et al. (US 2011/0175242 A1, hereinafter “Grivna”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Grivna discloses a circuit manufacturing process comprising:
stepping a reticle 332 (“mask”- ¶0080) across a wafer 30 (“wafer”- ¶0024), the reticle 332 comprising at least one stacked complementary pair of non-rectangular patterned areas, since 332 would correspond to shapes of die 34-42 and which comprise pairs of non-rectangular patterned areas (¶¶0080-0081) (see Figs. 2 and 12); and
staggering the reticle 332 at alternate stepped locations on the wafer 30, since the 332 includes staggered shapes of die 34-42 (see Figs. 2 and 12).
Regarding claim 2, Grivna discloses the circuit manufacturing process further comprising exposing the wafer 30 through the reticle 332 at the stepped locations (¶¶0080-0081) (see Figs. 2 and 12).
Regarding claim 4, Grivna discloses wherein the non-rectangular patterned areas are stepped tables, since the shapes of die 34-42 includes “steps” and can be considered as “stepped tables” (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Grivna discloses wherein the reticle 332 comprises two stacked complementary pairs of non-rectangular patterned areas (see Figs. 2 and 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record including Grivna, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein the non-rectangular patterned areas are isosceles trapezoids”.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record including Grivna, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein the reticle is staggered at the alternate stepped locations by an odd number of reticle pattern units”.
Claims 7-8 (which depend from claim 6, which includes allowable subject matter as noted above) would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Arai (US 6,528,864 B1), which discloses a circuit manufacturing process comprising forming non-rectangular patterned areas on a wafer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6132. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 12pm-10pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571)-272-7925. 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.
/JAY C CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817