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 .
Double Patenting
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,197,128 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims in current application (18/973,300) are broader than claims in US Patent No. 12,197,128 B2.
The following table will match the current application claim vs US Patent No. 12,197,128 claim
18/973,300 Claims US Patent No. 12,197,128 B2 Claims
1 1
2 1
3 1
4 1
5 1
6 3
7 4
8 4 and 18
9 7
10 8 and 9
11 8 and 9
12 7
13 10
14 13 and 14
15 8 and 18
16 1, 16
17 16 and 5
18 18
19 19
20 20
4. Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,392,036 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims in current application (18/973,300) are broader than claims in US Patent No. 11,392,036 B2.
The following table will match the current application claim vs US Patent No. 12,197,128 claim
18/973,300 Claims US Patent No. 11,392,036 B2 Claims
1 1 or 8 or 16
2 1
3 1
4 10, 11
5 9
6 2
7 18
8 18
9 8
10 8
11 8
12 20
13 15
14 9-11
15 16 and 18
16 1, 16
17 3
18 18
19 19
5. Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,392,036 B2 in view of De Simone (EP 3258317 A1).
As to claim 20, US Patent No. 11,392,036 B2 fails to disclose the photosensitive is deposited directly on the reflective film stack. However, US Patent No. 11,392,036 B2 clearly discloses the photosensitive is deposited over the reflective film stack (See claims 1, 8). De Simone discloses the photosensitive (40) is deposited directly on the reflective film stack (100) (See Fig 2B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify US Patent No. 11,392,036 B2 in view of De Simone by having the photosensitive is deposited directly on the reflective film stack because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-6, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Simone et al. (EP 3258317 A1).
As to claim 1, De Simone discloses a method comprising:
depositing a reflective film stack (20) on a target layer (10), the reflective film stack comprising alternating layers of a first material (20) and a second material (30), the first material having a higher refractive index than the second material (paragraph 0017-0019, 0022; 0064-0070; 0072-0075
depositing a photosensitive layer (40) over the reflective film stack (Fig 2B; paragraph 0083-0084);
exposing the photosensitive layer to a patterned energy source, wherein the reflective film stack reflects at least a portion of the patterned energy source to a backside of the photosensitive layer (paragraph 0010, 0019-0021, 0077-0078);
developing the photosensitive layer to form a first opening exposing the reflective film stack (Fig 2C, paragraph 0021); and
transferring a pattern of the first opening to the target layer through the reflective film stack (Fig 7a-7c, paragraph 0100-0116).
As to claim 2, De Simone discloses the photosensitive layer (40) is deposited in direct contact with the first material (paragraph 0083).
As to claim 3, De Simone discloses the photosensitive layer (40) is deposited in direct contact with the second material (paragraph 0083).
As to claim 4, De Simone the first material comprises silicon (Si) (See paragraph 0044, 0089).
As to claim 5, De Simone the first material comprises molybdenum (Mo) (See paragraph 0044, 0089).
As to claim 6, De Simone discloses the different in the refractive index of the first material and the second material is between 1 % to 15%, including a refractive index in the range of 0.85 and 1.05 or first refractive index n1 = 1.01 and second refractive index n2 = 0.97 (See paragraph 0025, 0039-0044 within applicant’s range of 1.05 to 1.10)
As to claim 10, De Simone discloses a method comprising:
depositing a film stack on a target layer, wherein the film stack comprises alternating layers of a first material (20) and a second material (30), wherein a ratio of a refractive index of the first material to an index of the second material is from 1.05 to 1.10; (See paragraph 0025; 0039-0040, 0044; Fig 3, 0088
depositing a photosensitive layer (40) on the film stack (Fig 2B; paragraph 0083-0084);
patterning the photosensitive layer and the film stack, wherein patterning the photosensitive layer comprises exposing the photosensitive layer to a patterned energy source, and wherein the film stack reflects at least a portion of the patterned energy source; (paragraph 0010, 0019-0021, 0077-0078); and
patterning the target layer using the film stack as a mask (Fig 7a-7c, paragraph 0100-0116).
As to claim 12, De Simone discloses prior to depositing a film stack, depositing an etch selectivity layer on a target layer (paragraph 0067-0069).
As to claim 13, De Simone discloses the patterned energy source is reflected at an interface between the first material and the second material (paragraph 0018; 0026, 0077, 0084-0085, 0100, 0116, 0121).
As to claim 14, De Simone discloses the second material comprises molybdenum (Mo) and the first material comprises silicon (Si) (See paragraph 0044, 0089).
As to claim 16, De Simone discloses a method comprising:
depositing a reflective film stack on a target layer, wherein the reflective film stack comprises alternating layers of a first material (20) and a second material (30) having a lower reflectivity index than the first material (paragraph 0017-0019, 0022; 0064-0070; 0072-0075);
depositing a photosensitive layer (40) on the reflective film stack (Fig 2B; paragraph 0083-0084);
exposing the photosensitive layer to radiation, wherein a portion of the radiation is reflected off an interface between the first material and the second material; (paragraph 0018; 0026, 0077, 0084-0085, 0100, 0116, 0121).
developing the photosensitive layer to form a first opening exposing the reflective film stack; Fig 2C, paragraph 0021);
etching the reflective film stack through the first opening to expose the target layer; and transferring a patterning of the reflective film stack to the target layer (paragraph 0109-0114, Fig 7A-7d).
As to claim 17, De Simone discloses the first layer of the first material in the reflective film stack has a different thickness (t1 vs t2) than a second layer of the second material in the reflective film stack (paragraph 0105, 0126, 0128).
As to claim 19, De Simone discloses the reflective film stack (100) is formed directly on the target layer (Fig 2b; paragraph 0072-0073).
As to claim 20, De Simone discloses the photosensitive layer (40) is deposited directly on the reflective film stack (Fig 2B, paragraph 0083).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 7-8, 15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Simone (EP 3258317 A1) as applied to claims 1-6, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 19-20 above, and further in view of Hagiwara et al. (US 2016/0064403 A1.
As to claim 7, De Simone fails to disclose increasing a hydrophobicity of the reflective film stack prior to depositing the photosensitive. As to claim 8, De Simone fails to disclose increasing a hydrophobicity of the reflective film stack comprises exposing the reflective film stack to hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS). As to claim 15, De Simone fails to discloses exposing the film stack to gaseous hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS) prior to depositing the photosensitive layer. As to claim 18, De Simone fails to disclose exposing the reflective film stack to hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS). Hagiwara discloses increasing a hydrophobicity of the reflective film stack by exposing the film stack to gaseous hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS) prior to depositing the photosensitive (See paragraph 0137; Hagiwara’s claim 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify De Simone in view of Hagiwara by increasing a hydrophobicity of the reflective film stack by treating the film stack with gaseous HMDS prior to depositing the photosensitive because it improves adhesiveness to the photosensitive layer (paragraph 0137).
12. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Simone (EP 3258317 A1) as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Beasley et al. (US 2016/0011344 A1).
As to claim 9, De Simone fails to disclose depositing a planarity layer on the target layer, wherein the target layer has non-planar surface, wherein the reflective film stack is deposited on the planarity layer. Beasley discloses depositing a planarity layer on the target layer, wherein the target layer has non-planar surface, wherein the reflective film stack (306) is deposited on the planarity layer (paragraph 0053, 0096). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify De Simone in view of Beasley by depositing a planarity layer on the target layer, wherein the target layer has non-planar surface, wherein the reflective film stack is deposited on the planarity layer because it helps to provide a smooth surface.
13. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Simone (EP 3258317 A1) as applied to claims 10 above, and further in view of Beasley et al. (US 2016/0011344 A1) and Wu et al. (US 11,243,461 B2).
As to claim 11, De Simone fails to disclose prior to depositing the film stack, depositing a planarity layer on the target layer, wherein the target layer has a non-planar top surface; and performing a planarization process on the planarity layer. Beasley discloses depositing a planarity layer on the target layer, wherein the target layer has non-planar surface, wherein the reflective film stack (306) is deposited on the planarity layer (paragraph 0053, 0096). However, Beasley fails to disclose performing a planarization process on the planarity layer. Wu discloses performing a planarization process (i.e. polishing) on the planarity layer (See col. 7 lines 4-12; Wu’s claim 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify De Simone in view of Beasley and Wu by depositing a planarity layer on the target layer prior depositing a film stack, wherein the target layer has a non-planar top surface; and performing a planarization process on the planarity layer because it helps to provide a smooth surface.
Conclusion
14. 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