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
Confirmation of Applicant’s Response to Election/ Restriction filed (ELC.) filed 07/15/2026 with respect to the election/restriction requirement mailed 06/09/2026 has been received; wherein applicant elects Species I corresponding to Claims 1 – 5, 17, and 20 – 22, without traverse; and consideration is withdrawn from claims 6 – 16 and 18 – 19. Claims 1 – 5, 17, and 20 – 22, are currently pending an Office action on the merits as follows.
Rejections
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.
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 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.
Claims 1 – 2, 17, and 20 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawley et al. (US 5970326 A), and further in view of Suzawa et al. (US 20050056934 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lawley teaches a method of manufacturing a structure having
an electrode (Fig. 8; electrodes 11a/b ) and an anodized part (Fig. 8; anodic second film 2/ anodic third film 3), comprising:
forming a top metal layer (Fig. 3; first film 1 is taught to be formed of metal materials such as tantalum or aluminum in at least col. 3; lines 51 – 52) on a substrate (Fig. 3; substrate 10);
forming a top patterned photoresist (Fig. 5; examiner is interpreting mask pattern 4 to be a top patterned photoresist) on the top metal layer (Fig. 5) to expose a portion of a top surface of the top metal layer (Fig. 6; portion of first film 1 exposed), ...
anodizing the top metal layer through the top patterned photoresist to form an anodized segment (Fig. 7);
However, Lawley does remain silent regarding:
wherein the top patterned photoresist has a first mask portion and a second mask portion thicker than the first mask portion;
...
removing the first mask portion after the anodizing; and
etching the top metal layer through the top patterned photoresist after the removing the first mask portion to form a top metal pattern.
However, in a related field of transistor structure formation, Suzawa teaches a method of forming a similar wiring structure (which may be used in the formation of transistor structures taught in at least [0005]); wherein a resist mask pattern, i.e., 604a + 604b (Figs. 6A – 6B), is used to create a tapered/sloped/slanted surface of a metallic lamination film, i.e., metallic lamination film 603b (Fig. 6B). This is similar to at least Lawley’s teaching of a tapered/sloped/slanted surface of their anodic second film 2 and anodic third film 3 (Figs. 6 and 9) for at least the disclosed shapes. Further, examiner asserts that Suzawa teaches wherein the top patterned photoresist (Figs. 6A – 6B; resist mask pattern 604a + 604b) has a first mask portion (Figs. 6A – 6B; resist mask pattern 604b) and a second mask portion (Figs. 6A – 6B; resist mask pattern 604a) thicker than the first mask portion (Figs. 6A – 6B); and etching the top metal layer through the top patterned photoresist after the removing the first mask portion to form a top metal pattern (Figs. 6A – 6B). Thus, examiner’s asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply Suzawa’s technique after anodizing the metal layer because it would be obvious to form a desired shape/ remove rough surfaces of the top metal layer after anodizing, because the anodizing process may introduce undesirable features that interfere with the intended/expected operation of the device (from at least cols. 4 – 5; lines 20 – 4). Thus, Lawley, further in view of Suzawa, yield the method of manufacturing wherein removing the first mask portion is done after the anodizing of Lawley’s first film 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Lawley to include a top patterned photoresist with a first mask portion and a second mask portion thicker than the first mask portion, as disclosed by Suzawa; such that the method includes removing the first mask portion after the anodizing and etching the top metal layer through the top patterned photoresist after the removing the first mask portion to form a top metal pattern; because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Suzawa’s method is comparable to Lawley because they teach similar devices and shapes therof. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Lawley to include a top patterned photoresist with a first mask portion and a second mask portion thicker than the first mask portion, as disclosed by Suzawa; such that the method includes removing the first mask portion after the anodizing and etching the top metal layer through the top patterned photoresist after the removing the first mask portion to form a top metal the predictable result of forming a transistor structure with appropriate shapes of structures therein.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Lawley, further in view of Suzawa, teach the method of claim 1, wherein
a thickness of the top metal layer is less than 1.0 µm (Lawley: col. 6; lines 1 – 13).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Lawley, further in view of Suzawa, teach the method of claim 1, wherein
an etch selectivity of the top metal layer and the anodized segment is greater than 2.0.
The selectivity taught by Suzawa is understood by the examiner to be representative of the known methods in the field of endeavor; wherein Suzawa teaches that their metallic film, i.e., top metal layer and anodized segment, have a selectivity greater than 2.5 ([0036]), which is a selectivity greater than 2.0.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Lawley to include an etch selectivity of the top metal layer and the anodized segment is greater than 2.0, as disclosed by Suzawa, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Suzawa’s metal film is comparable to Lawley top metal layer because they are material layers, made of metal, intended for conductive purposes. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Lawley to include an etch selectivity of the top metal layer and the anodized segment is greater than 2.0, as disclosed by Suzawa, with the predictable result of appropriately removing material during etching.
Therefore, structure wherein an etch selectivity of the top metal layer and the anodized segment is greater than 2.0 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, from at least [0036] of Suzawa, because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results; it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995).
Regarding dependent claim 20, Lawley, further in view of Suzawa, teach the method of claim 1, wherein
the anodizing is performed until the anodized segment reaches a side of the top metal layer away from the top patterned photoresist (Lawley: Figs. 6 – 7).
Regarding dependent claim 21, Lawley, further in view of Suzawa, teach the method of claim 1, wherein
an atomic ratio of aluminum in the top metal layer is greater than 80%.
Lawley teaches that the anodisable material of the first film is predominantly aluminum in at least col. 2; lines 42 – 44. Examiner understands “predominantly” to mean at least a majority, wherein the examiner understands a majority in this case to mean a value greater than 50%. Thus, it is the examiner’s opinion that Lawley teaches a broad range for the atomic ratio of aluminum from 50% exclusive to 100% inclusive, which would obviously include the variation wherein an atomic ratio of aluminum in the top metal layer is greater than 80%.
Therefore, structure wherein an atomic ratio of aluminum in the top metal layer is greater than 80% would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, from at least col. 2; lines 42 – 44 of Lawley, because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results; it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawley et al. (US 5970326 A), and further in view of Suzawa et al. (US 20050056934 A1) and Nomura et al. (US 20080145996 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Lawley, further in view of Suzawa, teach the method of claim 1; however, they remain silent wherein
the removing the first mask portion is performed by a plasma ashing process.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nomura (US 20080145996 A1) teaches how a resist pattern may be removed by plasma ashing (at least [0048]). The dry etching method taught by Suzawa is understood to be very similar to a plasma ashing process, and thus the method of Lawley, further in view of Suzawa, may be modified accordingly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the etching of the mask of Lawley and Suzawa, to include a plasma ashing process, as disclosed by Nomura, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Nomura’s plasma ashing process is comparable to the plasma etching/dry etching process of Nomura because of similar etching practices/materials. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the etching of the mask of Lawley and Suzawa, to include a plasma ashing process, as disclosed by Nomura with the predictable result of appropriately removing the photoresist material.
Claims 4 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawley et al. (US 5970326 A), and further in view of Suzawa et al. (US 20050056934 A1) and Cheng (US 20220293608 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Lawley, further in view of Suzawa, teach the method of claim 1; however, Lawley remains silent wherein
the top patterned photoresist is a positive tone photoresist layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cheng teaches that a positive photoresist is used such that exposed regions are processed; which is the examiner’s understanding of how Lawley and Suzawa are using their masks/photoresists. It would be obvious for the top patterned photoresist to be a positive tone photoresist layer from at least Cheng when performing the steps of Lawley or Suzawa.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Lawley and Suzawa to include a positive tone photoresist layer as the top patterned photoresist, as disclosed by Cheng, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Cheng’s photoresist is comparable to the photoresists of Lawley and Suzaswa because they are using their photoresist as positive photoresist. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Lawley and Suzawa to include a positive tone photoresist layer as the top patterned photoresist, as disclosed by Cheng, with the predictable result of using the pattern of the photoresist to form functions as intended.
Regarding dependent claim 5, Lawley, further in view of Suzawa and Cheng, teach the method of claim 4, wherein
an over cut ratio of the top patterned photoresist is smaller than 0.3 (Lawley: Fig. 6).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawley et al. (US 5970326 A), and further in view of Suzawa et al. (US 20050056934 A1) and Wong et al. (US 20060057851 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 22, Lawley, further in view of Suzawa, teach the method of claim 1, wherein
a width of the anodized segment is smaller than 20 µm.
Lawley teaches windows 5 which are the effective widths of the anodized segments; however, Lawley remains silent regarding the width of windows 5.
Similarly, in a related disclosure directed towards transistor manufacturing, Wong teaches a similar “window” as a spacing, e.g., Fig. 7; spacing 716; wherein claim 19 states that the width of the space is less than 40 micros, which would obviously include the variation wherein a width of the anodized segment is smaller than 20 µm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Lawley and Suzawa to include Wong’s teaching of a width of a window is smaller than 20 µm, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Wong’s window is comparable to the windows of Lawley, and even Suzawa, because the window is part of the “patterned” mask portion. This pattern results in a width of the anodized segment is smaller than 20 µm. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Lawley and Suzawa to include Wong’s teaching of a width of a window is smaller than 20 µm with the predictable result of forming a width of the anodized segment is smaller than 20 µm.
Therefore, structure wherein a width of the anodized segment is smaller than 20 µm would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, from at least claim 19 of Suzawa, because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results; it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20150144960 A1 considered for Figs. 1 - 2.
US 20160358817 A1 considered for at least Figs. 2A – 2F and Figs. 3A – 3F.
US 20030170937 A1 considered for similar structures and methods.
US 6808963 B2 considered for methods of removing mask.
US 5728592 A considered for methods of removing mask.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO A AUTORE whose telephone number is (571)270-0059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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.
MARIO A. AUTORE JR.
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/MARIO ANDRES AUTORE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights