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 13 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.
As to claim 13, the claim recites that “the second distance less than the first distance”, however neither claim 13 nor nay claim from which claim 13 depends introduces or otherwise defines a “second distance”. Accordingly, it is unclear what distance is intended by “the second distance”, thereby rendering the scope of claim 13 uncertain.
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 claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,235,589. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the presently claimed subject matter constitutes no more than an obvious variation of the subject matter claimed in the mentioned patent.
With respect to claims 1-8, claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,235,589 B2 claim substantially the same semiconductor manufacturing method including: exposing portions of a photoresist layer using respective portions of an extreme ultraviolet mask; moving the photoresist layer relative to the mask between exposures; successively exposing different portions of the photoresist layer using different portions of the mask: providing mask portions having the same pattern, controlling the accumulated exposure dose, and moving the photoresist layer laterally, vertically, and/or by tilting relative to the mask. The presently claimed selection of first and second focus positions on opposite sides of a target focus position represents an obvious variation in the selection of the respective focus positions for carrying out the claimed multiple-exposure process and does not render the presently claimed method patentably distinct from the patented method.
With respect to claims 9-14, claims 9-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,235,589 B2 claim substantially the same multiple-exposure semiconductor manufacturing method involving lateral stepping of the photoresist layer relative to the mask, successive exposures of different portions of the photoresist layer using corresponding portions of the mask, variation of the relative distance between the photoresist layer and mask, mask portions having the same pattern, and adjustment of the wafer stage. Further, claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,235,589 B2 claims tilting the photoresist layer relative to the extreme ultraviolet mask. Accordingly, employing such tilting in the multiple-exposure process of the patented claims to establish a desired focus position would have been an obvious variation of the patented subject matter and does not define a patentably distinct invention.
With respect to claims 15-20, claims 15-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,235,589 B2 claim substantially the same photolithography apparatus comprising: a photomask; a wafer stage configured to support a substrate coated with a photoresist layer; and a controller configured to control successive exposures while providing relative lateral and/or vertical movement between the photoresist layer and photomask. The patented claims further recite the successive exposure of different portions of the photoresist layer using different portions of the photomask in substantially the same manner presently claimed. In view of the tilting operation already claimed in claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,235,589 B2, configuring the controller and wafer stage to provide such relative tilting to establish a target focus position would have been an obvious variation of the patented apparatus and would not result in a patentably distinct invention.
Accordingly, the differences between presently claimed subject matter and the subject matter claimed in U.S. Patent No. 12,235,589 B2 amount to no more than obvious variations in the implementation of the same multiple-exposure photolithographic process and apparatus. In fact, claims 1-20 of the present application are merely re-written versions/or broader versions of claims 1-20 of the '589 patent. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patentably distinct from the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,235,589 B2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Toan Minh 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
Hvn
8/11/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights