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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,140,871 B2 issued to Wang et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of application 18/942941 are directed to the same invention of claims of U.S. 12,140,871 B2. In this instance the claims of application 18/942941 are broader than that of U.S. 12,140,871 B2. As such the claim of application 18/942941 is met by claims of U.S. 12,140,871 B2. No further analysis is necessary.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fries [US 2006/0192932 A1] in view of Fritze et al. [US 2003/0165749 A1].
Regarding claims 1, 7, 13, 17 and 20, Fries discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a controller (paragraph [0096], see also Figs. 1 and 2), cause a computer system to perform operations comprising:
a slab (implicit); a moveable stage (22) disposable over the slab, the moveable stage (20) configured to support a substrate (20) having a photoresist layer (21) disposed thereon; a controller (17) configured to provide a mask pattern data to a lithography system, the mask pattern data comprising a gray pattern for at least one exposure area, wherein the gray pattern comprise a plurality of sub-grids, each sub-grid including a plurality of pattern units defined therein (paragraph [0065]),
providing a mask pattern data to a processing unit of a lithography system (Figs. 1 and 2) having an image projection system (paragraph [0049] teaches programmable mask pattern), the mask pattern data comprising a gray pattern for at least one exposure area (paragraphs [0051] and [0065] teaches producing gray scaled patterns);
overlaying the gray pattern (14) on a substrate (20) supported under the image projection system (as shown in Figs. 1 and 2), the gray pattern comprising a plurality of sub-grids each having a plurality of pattern units (paragraph [0059] teaches exposure in a step and repeat method), and each of the plurality of pattern units corresponding to a local transmittance rate of a plurality of shots to be received in each sub-grid of the gray pattern; and projecting a plurality of shots to the substrate according to the gray pattern to expose at least one exposure area of the substrate, the plurality of shots projected to the plurality of patterned objects in each of the plurality of pattern units of the gray pattern overlaid on the substrate (paragraphs [0074]-[0077] teaches the gray scale controller modulates the mask pattern wherein the angular position and time duration of the angular positioning of the mirrors in micromirror array is varied according to commands from gray scale controller to create areas of varying thickness in the photosensitive material, and/or composition, according to the time duration and intensity (local dose of UV irradiation) of direct exposure).
Fries does not teach the gray pattern comprises a plurality of patterned lines.
However, Fritze et al. discloses gray-tone features to locally adjust an exposure dose in regions corresponding to features defined in the primary exposure. Moreover, the gray-tone features enable the forming of features having different critical dimensions on a substrate (abstract). Specifically, Fritze et al. discloses gray pattern of multiple fine line critical dimensions defined in resist during a single feature definition exposure by adding exposure of a gray-tone patterns to locally partially expose different regions of a substrate, thereby allowing for a range of fine line critical dimensions to be defined by the feature definition exposure with varying degrees of transmission (paragraph [0130]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide gray patterns comprising a plurality of patterned lines, are taught by Fritze et al. in the system of Fries because such a modification provides a suitable alternative digital patterning method provides a geometric property of a desired substrate feature and determines automatically, based upon the specified geometric property of the desired substrate feature, mask features for a gray-tone mask (paragraph [0057] of Fritze et al.).
Regarding claim 2, Fries discloses wherein the plurality of shots is projected to the substrate in a single scan of the substrate by the image projection system (as shown in Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claims 3-6, 8-11, 14-16 and 18, Fries in view of Fritze et al. discloses further comprising the operation of selecting a designated dose amount for the plurality of shots projected, wherein the designated dose amount is determined based on a material of a photoresist layer on the substrate to be exposed, further comprising the operation of varying the local transmittance rate of the plurality of shots projected to the sub-grids of the gray pattern overlaid on the substrate to planarize a topography of a photoresist layer on the substrate, further comprising the operation of varying a dose amount of the plurality of shots projected to each the sub-grids of the gray pattern overlaid on the substrate, wherein the dose amount is varied by varying a dwell time or an intensity of the plurality of shots projected, further comprising the operation of widening a pulse width of a light source of the image projection system by increasing a shot time of the plurality of shots, further comprising increasing the local transmittance rate of the plurality of shots received by the plurality of sub-grids to increase a thickness of a photoresist layer on the substrate exposed by the plurality of shots projected to the substrate, further comprising decreasing the local transmittance rate of the plurality of shots received by the plurality of sub-grids to decrease a thickness of a photoresist layer on the substrate exposed by the plurality of shots projected to the substrate, further comprising the operation of varying the local transmittance rate of the plurality of shots projected to the sub-grids of the gray pattern overlaid on the substrate to vary a step height of a photoresist layer on the substrate (in the combination of Fries and Fritze et al. see paragraphs of Fries [0074]-[0077] and paragraph [0130] of Fritze et al.).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Fries in view of Fritze et al. discloses wherein the plurality of patterned lines in each of the plurality of pattern units comprises 2 pitch vertical or angled patterned lines, 2.5 pitch vertical or angled patterned lines, or 3 pitch vertical or angled patterned lines (as show in Figs. 1-24 of Fritze et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEORAM PERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/DEORAM PERSAUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights