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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,547,072 (hereby referred to as US ‘072). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claim 1 of the instant application functionally claims the same invention as independent claim 1 of US ‘072. The table below summarizes claim 1 of the instant application and US ‘072.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,547,072
Comparison
A method of microfabrication comprising:
A method of microfabrication comprising:
Identity
Providing a substrate having an existing pattern, wherein the existing pattern comprises features formed within a base layer such that a top surface of the substrate has the features uncovered and the base layer is uncovered
Providing a substrate having an existing pattern, wherein the existing pattern comprises features formed within a first layer such that a top surface of the substrate has the features uncovered and the first layer is uncovered
Identity
Depositing a selective attachment agent on the substrate, wherein the selective attachment agent comprises a solubility-shifting agent
Depositing a selective attachment agent on the substrate, wherein the selective attachment agent comprises a solubility-shifting agent
Identity
Depositing a first resist on the substrate
Depositing a first resist on the substrate
Identity
Activating the solubility-shifting agent such that a portion of the first resist becomes insoluble to a first developer
Activating the solubility-shifting agent such that a portion of the first resist becomes insoluble to a first developer
Identity
Developing the first resist using the first developer such that the portion of the first resist insoluble to the first developer remains
Developing the first resist using the first developer such that a relief pattern comprising openings is formed, wherein the openings expose the features of the existing layer
Partial Difference
Executing a selective growth process that grows a selective-deposition material on the features and within the openings of the relief pattern to provide self-aligned selective deposition features.
Difference
Instant claim 1 is practically identical to claim 1 of US ‘072. The last step of claim 1 differs in language to the analogous step of claim 1 of US ‘072, but these steps are essentially the same. Developing the resist such that the insoluble portion of the resist remains produces a relief pattern (refer to paragraphs 0080-0081 of the instant application’s specification and Fig. 3E). The pattern shown in Fig. 3E of the instant application matches that shown in Fig. 2D of US ‘072, and similarly has openings that expose the features of the existing layer. Claim 1 of US ‘072 also includes an additional step. However, the method recited by claim 1 of US ‘072 states each of the steps of instant claim 1, and thus would anticipate claim 1 of the instant application if US ‘072 qualified as prior art. Therefore, instant claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US ‘072. Claims 2-14 of the instant application are similarly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting due to depending from independent claim 1 of the instant application. Furthermore, some of the dependent claims of the instant application recite identical features as claims of US ‘072. For instance, instant claim 2 is identical to claim 2 of US ‘072, claim 3 of the instant application is identical to claim 4 of US ‘072, and instant claims 8-14 are identical to claims 5-11 of US ‘072 (respectively).
Claims 26-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,547,072 (hereby referred to as US ‘072). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claim 26 of the instant application functionally claims the same invention as independent claim 14 of US ‘072. Both instant claim 26 and claim 14 of US ‘072 are directed towards a method of microfabrication wherein a substrate having a base/first layer with uncovered features formed within the base/first layer is provided, a first solubility-shifting agent is applied that adheres to the features more than the base layer, a second solubility-shifting agent is deposited that adheres to the base layer more than the features, a first resist is deposited on the substrate, the solubility-shifting agents are activated to change the solubility of the resist in the developer, and the resist layer is developed using a developer to remove soluble portions of the resist layer, leaving behind a pattern. Claim 14 of US ‘072 recites an additional step not recited by claim 26 of the instant application, but nonetheless anticipates the method of claim 26 of the instant application. Claim 27 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting due to being dependent from claim 26.
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(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180366406 A1 (hereby referred to as Olson).
Regarding Claims 1 and 15, Olson discloses semiconductor device structures. A method disclosed by Olson includes providing a substrate having exposed pattern features and an exposed base layer (Olson, paragraph 0020 and Fig. 1-2). Pools of acidic or basic material are formed on the pattern features (Olson, paragraph 0022 and Fig. 2). The pools are provided by spin-coating the material on the substrate (Olson, paragraph 0022). A resist layer is then formed over the substrate structure and the pools of material (Olson, paragraph 0023 and Fig. 3). The resist may be formed before the pool material is activated (i.e. “made acidic or basic”), and the pools may be heated (e.g. baked) after forming the resist to generate the acid or base (Olson, paragraph 0023). The resist is then patterned to form openings, and the acid or base material may diffuse into portions of the resist, thus altering the solubility of the resist in the developer during development (Olson, paragraph 0025). Thus, the pools of acidic or basic material are functionally solubility-shifting agent pools. Development is performed to remove portions of the resist to form openings in the resist (Olson, paragraph 0026). Development may be positive tone or negative tone, depending on the materials used (Olson, paragraph 0026). Therefore, Olson discloses the method according to instant claim 1.
Regarding Claims 2, 5 and 16, Olson discloses that the pools of the acidic or basic material is formed primarily on the preexisting features on the substrate rather than the base layer itself (Olson, paragraph 0022 and Fig. 2). However, Olson also teaches that the type of pool material changes solubility of the resist differently (Olson, paragraph 0022), and thus the type of pool material would determine whether or not the pool material adheres more to the base layer than the feature surfaces, or vice versa.
Regarding Claims 4, 7, and 17, Olson discloses that the portion of the first resist that becomes insoluble to the first developer is above the features and the base layer of the substrate (Olson, paragraph 0024 and Fig. 3-5A).
Regarding Claim 6, Olson discloses that the pool material is formed using a solution of the pool material (Olson, paragraph 0024), and that the solvent used to produce the solution may be an alcohol (Olson, paragraph 0024). Thus, the selective attachment agent comprises an alcohol.
Regarding Claim 8, Olson discloses that the acid material may comprise a thermal acid generator (TAG) or photo acid generator (PAG) (Olson, paragraph 0018).
Regarding Claim 14, Olson discloses that after depositing the pools of acidic or basic material and before depositing the resist, pre-treating may be performed. The pre-treating may be a bake or a planarization process (Olson, paragraph 0022).
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.
Claim(s) 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180366406 A1 (hereby referred to as Olson).
Regarding Claims 26-27, Olson discloses semiconductor device structures. A method disclosed by Olson includes providing a substrate having exposed pattern features and an exposed base layer (Olson, paragraph 0020 and Fig. 1-2). Pools of acidic or basic material are formed on the pattern features (Olson, paragraph 0022 and Fig. 2). The pools are provided by spin-coating the material on the substrate (Olson, paragraph 0022). A resist layer is then formed over the substrate structure and the pools of material (Olson, paragraph 0023 and Fig. 3). The resist may be formed before the pool material is activated (i.e. “made acidic or basic”), and the pools may be heated (e.g. baked) after forming the resist to generate the acid or base (Olson, paragraph 0023). The resist is then patterned to form openings, and the acid or base material may diffuse into portions of the resist, thus altering the solubility of the resist in the developer during development (Olson, paragraph 0025). Thus, the pools of acidic or basic material are functionally solubility-shifting agent pools. Development is performed to remove portions of the resist to form openings in the resist (Olson, paragraph 0026). Development may be positive tone or negative tone, depending on the materials used (Olson, paragraph 0026).
However, Olson does not provide an explicit example wherein two different solubility-shifting agents are used. The broader disclosure of Olson teaches that the pools of acidic or basic material may be formed of an acid generator or a thermal base generator (Olson, paragraph 0018). Olson further teaches that selecting different combinations of pool material, resist, and developer allows the shape of the openings to be controlled (Olson, paragraph 0027). Furthermore, Olson teaches that the type of pool material affects solubility differently (Olson, paragraph 0022 and 0028-0030). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use both an acidic and a basic solubility-shifting agent in the method disclosed by Olson because the solubility of the resist can be more carefully controlled and thus a particular pattern shape can be formed in the resist (refer to Olson, paragraph 0022 and 0028-0030).
Claim(s) 3, 11-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180366406 A1 (hereby referred to as Olson) in view of US 20160011508 A1 (hereby referred to as Nagahara).
Regarding Claims 3, 11-13, and 18, Olson discloses the method according to instant claims 1 and 15, as explained above. The pool acidic material may be an acidic material (Olson, paragraph 0018). However, Olson is silent in regards to specific acidic species.
Nagahara teaches a composition for forming a fine resist pattern and a method using the same. The composition comprises a polymer, a solvent, and an acid (Nagahara, paragraph 0017-0021). The polymer is considered analogous to the resist layer disclosed by Olson, and the acid is considered analogous to the pool acidic material. The acid contained in the composition is selected from a group of organic acids (Nagahara, paragraph 0045). A preferred acid is p-toluenesulfonic acid, due to this acid having a high boiling point (Nagahara, paragraph 0045). The p-toluenesulfonic acid is a sulfonic acid free of fluorine.
Olson and Nagahara are analogous art because both references pertain to patterning methods for resist compositions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use p-toluenesulfonic acid, as taught by Nagahara, as the pool acidic material disclosed by Olson because p-toluenesulfonic acid has a high boiling point and does not volatilize much when heated (Nagahara, paragraph 0045). Following deposition of the pool material, a bake is performed (Olson, paragraph 0022). Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate an acidic pool material that does not volatilize during the bake step is useful as an acidic pool material for Olson’s method.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180366406 A1 (hereby referred to as Olson) in view of US 20190137871 A1 (hereby referred to as Lee).
Regarding Claims 9-10, Olson discloses the method according to instant claim 1, as explained above. The pool acidic material may be an acid generator (Olson, paragraph 0018). However, Olson is silent in regards to specific acid generating species.
Lee teaches a resist composition comprising a polymeric resin and a photoacid generator (Lee, paragraph 0033). The polymeric resin is analogous to the resist material disclosed by Olson, and the photoacid generator is analogous to the pool acidic material. The photoacid generator in Lee’s composition may be triphenylsulfonium antimonate (Lee, paragraph 0040), which is an acid generator free of fluorine. The use of such an acid generating species prevents pattern defects that deteriorate pattern accuracy (Lee, paragraph 0041).
Olson and Lee are analogous art because both references pertain to pattern formation techniques involving resist compositions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use triphenylsulfonium antimonate, as taught by Lee, as the acid generator in the method disclosed by Olson because such an acid generator prevents patterning defects caused by excessive acid generation (Lee, paragraph 0041).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYSON D COSGROVE whose telephone number is (571)272-2153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-18:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/JAYSON D COSGROVE/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
