DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites “wherein only a part of the microstructured NbN layer covers, only partly, each of the at least two conductive leads”, this phrase renders the claim unclear. Claim 16, from which claim 20 depends, recites “a microstructured layer of Niobium Nitride (NbN) extending over only a part of the tip and covering an apex of the tip and/or covering at least one area adjoining the apex of the tip and/or covering, only partly, the insulating lever.” The term “only” excludes other parts of the probe being covered by the NbN layer, therefore, it is not clear how the NbN layer covers “only a part of the tip and covering an apex of the tip and/or covering at least one area adjoining the apex of the tip and/or covering, only partly, the insulating lever” and also “only a part of the microstructured NbN layer covers, only partly, each of the at least two conductive leads.” Please clarify.
For examination on the merits the claim will be interpreted as best understood.
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 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 16-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2019133948 (hereinafter KR) in view of Zeldov et al. (US 2018/0045754) (hereinafter Zeldov).
Regarding claim 16, KR teaches a probe device for nanoscale thermal measurements comprising: an insulating lever (200), a tip (tip; see Fig. 5c) protruding from the insulating lever (see Fig. 5c and Abstract, page 2, lines 1-7, page 4, lines 37-39), and at least two conductive leads (300) extending from the insulating lever (200) (see Fig. 5 and page 5, line 40 through page 6, line 9).
However, KR does not explicitly teach a microstructured layer of Niobium Nitride (NbN) extending over only a part of the tip and covering an apex of the tip and/or covering at least one area adjoining the apex of the tip and/or covering, only partly, the insulating lever, and at least two conductive leads extending from the insulating lever to the microstructured NbN layer.
Zeldov teaches a microstructured layer of Niobium Nitride (NbN) (10) extending over only a part of the tip (12) and covering an apex of the tip (12) (see Figs. 1-2b and paragraphs 0053-0056 and 0065) and at least two conductive leads (14,16) extending from the insulating lever to the microstructured NbN layer (see Figs. 1-2b and paragraphs 0053-0056 and 0065).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the probe as taught by KR with a microstructured layer of Niobium Nitride (NbN) extending over only a part of the tip and covering an apex of the tip and at least two conductive leads extending from the insulating lever to the microstructured NbN layer as taught by Zeldov. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a high resolution and high-performance probe device for nanoscale thermal measurements.
Regarding claim 17, KR as modified by Zeldov teaches all the limitations of claim 16, KR further teaches a support (100) from which the insulation layer (200) is extending (see Fig. 5d).
However, KR as modified by Zeldov does not explicitly teach said support having a size superior to 500 µm.
Although, KR as modified by Zeldov does not explicitly teach said support having a size superior to 500 µm, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the support having a size superior to 500 µm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). One would be motivated to provide a support having a size superior to 500 µm in order to meet the user requirements as known in the art.
Regarding claim 18, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 17, and further teaches at least two electrical contact pads (18) provided on the support (200), each of the at least two conductive leads (14,16) extends from a different electrical contact pads (18) among the at least two electrical contact pads (18) (see Zeldov; Figures 1 and 2; and paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 19, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 16, and further teaches the microstructured NbN layer forms a strip (see Zeldov; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, KR teaches the at least two conductive leads (300) do not cover the apex of the tip (see Figures 5a-5d).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR in view of Zeldov and in further view of Hu et al. (US 6566650) (hereinafter Hu).
Regarding claim 22, the prior combination teaches all the limitation teaches all the limitations of claim 16.
However, KR as modified by Zeldov does not explicitly teach at least two conductive leads are made of a titanium / gold superposed bi-layer.
Hu teaches at least two conductive leads are made of a titanium / gold superposed bi-layer (see column 3, lines 5-11).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the probe as taught by the prior combination with at least two conductive leads being made of a titanium / gold superposed bi-layer as taught by Hu. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to protect the two conductive leads from oxidation, therefore, providing long term reliability.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR in view of Zeldov and in further view of JP 4831009 (hereinafter JP).
Regarding claim 23, KR teaches a method for manufacturing a probe device for nanoscale thermal measurements, said method comprising: coating, at least partly, an insulating lever (200), then lithograph the layer of conductive material (300) to form at least two leads of conductive material (see Figs. 4-5 and page 4, line 33 through page 5, line 15).
However, KR does not explicitly teach then coating, at least partly, the tip and/or, at least partly, an apex of the tip and/or, at least partly, the at least two leads of conductive material with a layer of Niobium Nitride (NbN), then lithograph the NbN layer: to form a microstructured layer of Niobium Nitride (NbN) extending over only a part of the tip and covering an apex of the tip and/or covering at least one area adjoining the apex of the tip, and so that the at least two leads of conductive material extend from the insulating lever to the microstructured NbN layer.
Zeldov teaches then coating, at least partly, the tip with a layer of Niobium Nitride (NbN) (10), to form a microstructured layer of Niobium Nitride (NbN) extending over only a part of the tip (12) and covering an apex of the tip and so that the at least two leads of conductive material extend from the insulating lever to the microstructured NbN layer (see Figs. 1-2b and paragraphs 0053-0056 and 0065).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method as taught by KR coating, at least partly, the tip with a layer of Niobium Nitride (NbN), to form a microstructured layer of Niobium Nitride (NbN) extending over only a part of the tip and covering an apex of the tip and so that the at least two leads of conductive material extend from the insulating lever to the microstructured NbN layer as taught by Zeldov. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a high resolution and high-performance probe device for nanoscale thermal measurements.
However, KR as modified by Zeldov does not explicitly teach then lithograph the NbN layer.
It is very well known in the art to lithograph the NBN layer to form a desired pattern as evidenced by JP (see page 4, lines 8-10).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by the prior combination with then lithograph the NbN layer as taught by JP. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide the NBN layer with the desired pattern as known in the art.
Regarding claim 24, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 23, KR further teaches the step of lithograph the conductive material further comprises: forming at least two leads of conductive material (see Figs. 1-2b and paragraphs 0053-0056 and 0065).
However, KR as modified by Zeldov and JP does not explicitly teach the step of lithograph the conductive material further comprises: subsequently to the step of coating the insulating lever, coating the layer of conductive material with a layer of a first resist, then lithograph and develop the first resist, then etching the conductive material to form at least two leads of conductive material.
It is very well known in the art that a photolithography step is performed by applying a photoresist, then exposure, then development, then etching as evidence by JP (see page 4, lines 8-11).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the step of lithograph the conductive material to form the at least two leads of conductive material as taught by the prior combination with subsequently to the step of coating the insulating lever, applying a photoresist, then exposure, then development, then etching as taught by JP to provide coating the layer of conductive material with a layer of a first resist, then lithograph and develop the first resist, then etching the conductive material to form at least two leads of conductive material. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide the desired pattern to the at least two leads of conductive material as known in the art.
Regarding claim 25, KR in view of Zeldov and JP teaches method according to claim 23, and further teaches wherein the step of lithograph the NbN layer further comprises: subsequently to the step of coating the NbN layer, coating the NbN layer with a layer of a second resist, then lithograph and develop the second resist, then etching the NbN layer to form the microstructured NbN layer (see JP; page 4, lines 8-11).
Claims 26-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR in view of Zeldov and in view of JP and in further view Lai (US 4302529) (hereinafter Lai).
Regarding claim 26, KR in view of Zeldov and JP teaches the method according to claim 24.
However, KR as modified by Zeldov and JP does not explicitly teach the first resist is a negative resist.
Lai teaches the first resist is a negative resist (see column 2, lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first resist as taught by the prior combination with a negative resist as taught by Lai. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a resist that allows for fast processing times and high resolution patterns.
Regarding claim 27, KR in view of Zeldov and JP teaches the method according to claim 24.
However, KR in view of Zeldov and JP does not explicitly teach the first and/or the second resist is an e-beam resist.
Lai teaches a first resist been an e-beam resist (column 5, lines 25-32).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first resist as taught by the prior combination with an e-beam resist as taught by Lai. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide high-resolution patterns.
Regarding claim 29, KR in view of Zeldov and JP teaches the method according to claim 24.
However, KR as modified by Zeldov and JP does not explicitly teach wherein a resist developer for developing the first and/or the second resist is: a resist developer comprising, in weight, between 0 and 40% of di-propylene glycol monomethyl ether and between 60 and 100% of propanediol, or a resist developer comprising methyl ethyl ketone.
Lai teaches a resist developer for developing the first resist is: a resist developer comprising methyl ethyl ketone (see Abstract and column 5, lines 25-32).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by the prior combination with a resist developer comprising methyl ethyl ketone as taught by Lai. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide high resolution patterns.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR in view of Zeldov and in view of JP and in further view of Lawson et al. (US 2011/0097668) (hereinafter Lawson). Regarding claim 28, KR in view of Zeldov and JP teaches method according to claim 24.
However, KR as modified by Zeldov and JP does not explicitly teach the first and/or the second resist is a sterol based molecular resist.
Lawson teaches the first resist being a sterol based molecular resist (see paragraph 0009).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first resist as taught by the prior combination with a sterol based molecular resist as taught by Lawson. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to improve line-edge-roughness and provide high contrast, high resolution patterns.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR in view of Zeldov and in view of JP and in further view Nakamura et al. (US 2008/0090383) (hereinafter Nakamura).
Regarding claim 30, KR in view of Zeldov and JP teaches all the limitations of claim 24.
However, KR as modified by Zeldov and JP does not explicitly teach wherein the first and/or the second resist layer is coated by evaporation.
Nakamura teaches the first resist layer being coated by evaporation (see paragraph 0076).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first resist layer as taught by the prior combination with the first resist layer being coated by evaporation as taught by Nakamura. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide improved adhesion to the underlying layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 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.
Regarding claim 20, the closest prior art alone or in combination fails to teach or render obvious the specific limitation of only a part of the microstructured NbN layer covers, only partly, each of the at least two conductive leads
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE M SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-7707. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/JANICE M SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights