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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language “Embodiments of the disclosure include” should be deleted. The abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 0333new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jain et al. (US 2009/0023098 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jain et al. teach a method ( abstract, claims , paragraphs [0013, 0039, 0066-0075] and figures 1A, 1B, 2B, 3A, 3B and 4B), comprising exposing first portions ( figure 3B, square 2. The specific embodiment shows that only one square is exposed, however, it is implicitly disclosed that more than one trench and via feature is manufactured, cf. paragraphs [0013, 0039 and 0073]: “… to make trenches and vias…” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) ) within a first region ( figures 3A, 3B: rectangular 1) of a photoresist ( see figures 4A and 4B, paragraph [0075]: resist layer 5) to electromagnetic radiation from a radiation source at a first dose ( [0067 and 0074]; cumulative intensity of overlapping region 3, defines by the overlap of square 2 and rectangular 1, correspond to 100 percent dose radiation), the first portions having first depths (fig. 4B and [0075]: depth of trench 6, cf. with trench 6C) and first surface areas ( fig 3B : square 2); exposing second portions ( figs. 3A and 3B: rectangular 1) within the first region of the photoresist to electromagnetic radiation from the radiation source at a second dose ( [0074]: rectangular 1 is exposed with 50 percent dose of radiation), the second portions having second depths ( fig. 4B: vias in 6)and second surface areas ( figures 3A, 3B and 4B: rectangular 1 without overlapping region 3), each of the first surface areas ( figs. 3A, 3B and 4B: square 2) of the first portions is disposed within one of the second surfaces areas of the second portions ( figs. 3A, 3B and 4B: rectangular 1); and exposing the third portions within a second region ( figs. 3A and 3B: rectangular 10) of the photoresist to the electromagnetic radiation from the radiation source at the first dose ( [0074]: rectangular 10 is patterned with 100% dose of radiation), the third portions having the first depths and the first surface areas ( fig. 4B: same depth in 6 and 6C).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Jain et al. teach the method further comprising fourth portions within the second regions of the photoresist to the electromagnetic radiation from the radiation source at the second dose, the fourth portions having the second depths and the second surface areas, each of the first surface areas of the third portions is disposed within one of the second surface areas of the fourth portions and the fourth portions are exposure during a scan that includes exposing the first portions to the electromagnetic radiation from the radiation source at the first dose ( see paragraphs [00019, 0025 and 0026]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Jain et al. teach that the first depths are greater than the second depths and that the first depths extend from a top to a bottom surface of the resist ( fig, 4B).
Regarding claim 6, Jain et al. teach the first intensity is greater than the second intensity ([0067 and 0074]).
Regarding claims 9, 10 and 11, Jain et al. teach the forming a dual damascene structure comprising trenches and via ( it is noted that Jain et al. uses the term trench for the vertical connections and the term via for the lines; [fig, 4B]). The forming of plurality of damascene structure is implicitly disclosed, since integrated circuits disclose always a plurality of damascene structures ( cf. [0013] of Jain et al. : “ “ Processing methods of the present invention are capable of making micro-and nano-scale structures, such as Dual Damascene profiles…”). In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)
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.
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 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. (US 2009/0023098 A1) in view of Tzu et al. (US 6174801 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Jain et al. ( see abstract, claims, examples and figures) teach an apparatus comprising a radiation source configured to direct electromagnetic radiation towards a photoresist disposed over a substrate ([0030]; electromagnetic radiation) and a process ( abstract, claims , paragraphs [0013, 0039, 0066-0075] and figures 1A, 1B, 2B, 3A, 3B and 4B), comprising exposing first portions ( figure 3B, square 2. The specific embodiment shows that only one square is exposed, however, it is implicitly disclosed that more than one trench and via feature is manufactured, cf. paragraphs [0013, 0039 and 0073]: “… to make trenches and vias…” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) ) within a first region ( figures 3A, 3B: rectangular 1) of a photoresist ( see figures 4A and 4B, paragraph [0075]: resist layer 5) to electromagnetic radiation from a radiation source at a first dose ( [0067 and 0074]; cumulative intensity of overlapping region 3, defines by the overlap of square 2 and rectangular 1, correspond to 100 percent dose radiation), the first portions having first depths (fig. 4B and [0075]: depth of trench 6, cf. with trench 6C) and first surface areas ( fig 3B : square 2); exposing second portions ( figs. 3A and 3B: rectangular 1) within the first region of the photoresist to electromagnetic radiation from the radiation source at a second dose ( [0074]: rectangular 1 is exposed with 50 percent dose of radiation), the second portions having second depths ( fig. 4B: vias in 6)and second surface areas ( figures 3A, 3B and 4B: rectangular 1 without overlapping region 3), each of the first surface areas ( figs. 3A, 3B and 4B: square 2) of the first portions is disposed within one of the second surfaces areas of the second portions ( figs. 3A, 3B and 4B: rectangular 1); and exposing the third portions within a second region ( figs. 3A and 3B: rectangular 10) of the photoresist to the electromagnetic radiation from the radiation source at the first dose ( [0074]: rectangular 10 is patterned with 100% dose of radiation), the third portions having the first depths and the first surface areas ( fig. 4B: same depth in 6 and 6C).
Further regards to claim 12, Jain et al. do not explicitly disclose “one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations…”. The technical effect of one or more transitory computer readable media storing executable instructions is to overcome manual adjustment of the exposure and to enable remote usage of the apparatus. The objective technical problem can be therefore formulated as how to automate and facilitate the operation. Nonetheless, the examiner has added Tzu et al. to teach it is well-known in the art of dual damascene structure ( figs. 2b and 2c) to include a step of enabling an apparatus to disclose that the data which is needed to expose the resist can be computer generated ( col. 6, lines 53-55) and that the profile writing by scanning is realized under the control of a computer ( col. 5, line 56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to include in the apparatus of Jain et al. a computer to automatize the operation.
Regarding claim 13, Jain et al. teach that the intensity of the electromagnetic radiation from the radiation source at the first dose is decreased to expose the second portions to the electromagnetic radiation from the radiation source at the second dose ( see [0067 and 0074]).
Regarding claim 14, Jain et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the first dose includes a first total duration of exposure and the second dose includes a second total duration of exposure that is less than the first total duration of exposure as instantly claimed. However, Tzu et al. teach the use of different dose duration (col. 6,lines 60-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to include different dose durations as taught by Tzu et al. into the apparatus of Jain et al. in view of optimization. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Jain et al. teach that the first depths are greater than the second depths and that the first depths extend from a top to a bottom surface of the resist ( fig, 4B).
Regarding claims 17-19, Jain et al. teach the forming a dual damascene structure comprising trenches and via ( it is noted that Jain et al. uses the term trench for the vertical connections and the term via for the lines; [fig, 4B]). The forming of plurality of damascene structure is implicitly disclosed, since integrated circuits disclose always a plurality of damascene structures ( cf. [0013] of Jain et al. : “ “ Processing methods of the present invention are capable of making micro-and nano-scale structures, such as Dual Damascene profiles…”). In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. (US 2009/0023098 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tzu et al. (US 6174801 B1).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Jain et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the first dose includes a first total duration of exposure and the second dose includes a second total duration of exposure that is less than the first total duration of exposure as instantly claimed. However, Tzu et al. teach the use of different dose duration (col. 6,lines 60-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to include different dose durations as taught by Tzu et al. into the apparatus of Jain et al. in view of optimization. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. (US 2009/0023098 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Jain et al. teach using a lithography system( abstract, claims , paragraphs ([0013, 0039, 0066-0075] and figures 1A, 1B, 2B, 3A, 3B and 4B) to create the present claimed structure [0066, 0068, 0070 and 0073]. Jain et al. further teach an electromagnetic sources ( [0030]: electromagnetic radiation).
Further regards to claim 20, Jain et al. do not explicitly recite “one or more user inputs specifying electromagnetic radiation …”. The one or more user inputs lead to the technical effect that the dose can automated adjusted. The objective technical problem can be therefore formulated as how to facilitate operation of the lithography system. Based on Jain et al. , the providing of a user input to adjust the dose is considered as a standard practices employed by a person of ordinary skilled in the art of lithography. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to include an operation of including one or more user inputs to the lithography system of Jain et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the 200(571)270-3786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP).
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, Mark Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights