DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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.
2. Claim 3 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 3 depends on claim 1. In claim 1, the applicants recite “wherein a first sidewall of the first mask layer defining the first opening is aligned with a second sidewall of the second mask layer defining the second opening” (emphasis added). The examiner interprets the term “aligned” means to arrange in a straight line; adjust according to a line (See https://www.dictionary.com/browse/align ). Therefore, the previous limitation means that the first sidewall of the first mask layer and a second sidewall of the second mask layer are arranged in a straight line (i.e. no spacing between the first sidewall and the second sidewall; See Figure 5 of current application). However, in claim 3, the applicants provide a new contradicted limitation “the first sidewall of the first mask layer and the second sidewall of the second mask layer are spaced apart from each other in a plan view, and a distance between the first sidewall and the second sidewall is constant.” (See Fig 6). It is not possible to satisfied both limitations “wherein a first sidewall of the first mask layer defining the first opening is aligned with a second sidewall of the second mask layer defining the second opening” (claim 1) and “the first sidewall of the first mask layer and the second sidewall of the second mask layer are spaced apart from each other in a plan view, and a distance between the first sidewall and the second sidewall is constant” (claim 3) in the same embodiment. Specifically, it is not possible for an embodiment of claim 1 as shown Figure 5 (i.e. no spacing apart between the first sidewall and the second sidewall) and an embodiment of claim 3 as shown in Figure 6 (i.e. spacing between the first sidewall and the second sidewall) to be true in the same single embodiment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2017/0110366 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2016/0154306 A1).
Note:
As to claim 1, Lu discloses a mask comprising:
a first mask layer (108) through which a first opening is defined, the first mask layer comprising a
a second mask layer (110) which contacts a surface of the first mask layer and through which a second opening is defined (Fig 17, paragraph 0073-0074)
wherein a first sidewall of the first mask layer defining the first opening is aligned with a second sidewall of the second mask layer defining the second opening (fig 17).
As to claim 1, Lu fails to disclose the first mask layer (108) comprises a polymer material. However, Lu clearly discloses the first mask layer comprises resist material or photoresist material (paragraph 0035-0041). Park discloses the photoresist material comprises polymer material (abstract, paragraph 0006-0014). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lu in view of Park by using polymer material for the resist material because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 2, Lu discloses the first sidewall of the first mask layer (108) and the second sidewall of the second mask layer (111) are consecutively connected to each other and define a sidewall (See Fig 17).
As to claim 3, Lu discloses the first sidewall of the first mask layer (108) and the second sidewall of the second mask layer (110) are spaced apart from each other in a plan view, and a distance between the first sidewall and the second sidewall is constant (See Fig 14-15).
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH X TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
BINH X. TRAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/BINH X TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights