Tag Archives: Small Times Magazine

May 3, 2007 — Hewlett-Packard says it has signed its first nanotechnology licensing deal for a process that may enable manufacture more powerful semiconductors inexpensively. Using HP’s approach to nanoimprint lithography, Nanolithosolutions has developed a tool for stamping out patterns for wires that make up computer chips.

Hewlett-Packard spends about $3.6 billion a year on research and development and licenses the resulting technology. This is the first deal related to the nanotechnology work done at the company’s Quantum Science Research group over the past 12 years, said Stan Williams, the group’s director. About 10 percent of the 600 people at HP Labs work on nanotechnology.

Nanolithosolutions said its tool adapts existing equipment into high-resolution nanoimprint lithography machines, which are then used to create miniaturized patterns that can be measured in nanometers, or billionths of a meter. The technology costs one- tenth of current systems, which start at about $1 million, said Bo Pi, chief executive officer of Nanolithosolutions.
Once a “master” mold is created, copies can be stamped out quickly and filled in with wires as part of a manufacturing process that delivers higher-density, more powerful chips at lower costs.

Using the process, HP Labs has created prototypes with wire widths of 15 nanometers, about one-third the size of the most advanced chips due this year, Williams said.

Terms were not disclosed. Hewlett- Packard holds an equity stake in Nanolithosolutions.

May 3, 2007 — The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg, Maryland says its newly established Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST) is accepting proposals for nanotechnology related research projects.

The center is a resource for university, industry, government and other researchers who need access to state-of-the-art facilities to study a wide range of nanotechnology topics.

The CNST consists of both an active interdisciplinary research program and a national user facility: a 16,000 square foot nanofabrication facility, about half of which is devoted to class 100 cleanroom space. The nanofabrication facility includes more than 30 state-of-the-art tools such as photolithography, ion beam, and etching equipment capable of creating, measuring, and inspecting nanoscale devices with dimensions as small as 10 nanometers.

Researchers interested in working at the facility can submit proposals for review in any nanotechnology research area. The center will accept both proprietary and non-proprietary research proposals. Non-proprietary research may qualify for a partial waiver of use fees if the project falls within CNST’s mission, and such proposals are expected to lead to publication of research results in the open scientific literature.

May 2, 2007 — SUSS MicroTec has introduced the DSM200, an automated metrology system for double-sided (front-to-back) alignment and exposure applications.

The cassette-cassette system enables verification of alignment accuracy on wafers from 2 inches to 200mm. Incorporating new pattern-recognition technology, it promises measurement accuracy of 0.2 microns at 3 sigma with minimial operator intervention.

Based on SUSS’s MA200Compact Mask Aligner, the DSM200 targets the manufacture of MEMS devices, power semiconductors, and optoelectronics.

SUSS’s DSM200 double-sided metrology system. (Photo: Business Wire)

May 2, 2007 — The Australian government has released what the Australian Nano Business Forum (ANBF) calls a “$1.4 billion industry statement,” which recognizes the imperative of Australian industry to adopt nanotechnologies.

Australia has committed “to develop a National Nanotechnology Strategy and develop niche manufacturing industries based on nanotechnology, totaling $57.7 million,” according to the ANBF. ANBF CEO Tina Rankovic notes that “this type of commitment mirrors that previously announced by governments of major economies such as the US, Japan, UK and Germany.”

The ANBF urges the government to move quickly to implement this component of the industry statement. “Australia is a medium-sized economy in an increasingly global community, with a range of pressures and challenges. One of the mechanisms to address such challenges is to build sustainable competitive advantage at all levels — company, industry and country — through both product and business process innovation” says Rankovic.

The statement specifically targets the SME (small-to-medium enterprise) sector, particularly manufacturing, which is reportedly a key driver of Australian innovation.

(Image: Earth Search Sciences, Inc.)

May 2, 2007 — Earth Search Sciences, Inc., a commercial provider of hyperspectral remote sensing technology, has received a patent on its third-generation imaging instrument, the OmniProbe. The OmniProbe promises vastly improved spectral and spatial resolution to a wide range of resource industries at a fraction of the cost of its leading-edge predecessor instrument, Probe 1. In addition, it will provide a greater number of applications for use.

The first generation of hyperspectral instruments weigh 500-plus pounds and are approximately six feet in diameter. Thanks to the influence of nanotechnology and MEMs, Earth Search’s new instrument will weigh less than 40 pounds, be approximately the size of a shoebox, and will attach to virtually any airborne platform. OmniProbe will quickly and accurately map targets of interest from altitudes of 35,000 feet, at speeds of 500 to 600 knots per hour, and will possess telescoping optics to scope down to 6 inch data.

“As we move into the next stage of our strategy, our newly-advanced instrument will enable us to joint venture with mineral, hydrocarbon, environmental, and military resource industries to quickly map targets of interest more precisely and economically than any instrument with which we’re familiar,” said Vance.

May 1, 2007 — There is a growing opportunity and responsibility to leverage nanotechnology to reduce pollution, conserve resources and, ultimately, build a “clean” economy, according to a new report, from the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, called Green Nanotechnology: It’s Easier Than You Think.

The report summarizes proceedings at a national American Chemical Society symposium and four workshops held in 2006. It cites examples of research progress toward using nanotechnology to accomplish environmental goals in combination with
commercial or other objectives, and defines four categories in which nanotechnology applications and environmental interests intersect:

— Fostering new nanotechnology-enabled products and processes that are environmentally benign;

— Managing nanomaterials and their production to minimize potential environmental, health, and safety risks;

— Using nanotechnology to clean up toxic waste site and other legacy pollution problems; and

— Substituting green nanotechnology products for existing products that are less environmentally friendly.

The report recommends development of policies that actively promote pollution prevention through use of nanotechnology.

“It is not as though nanotechnology will be an option; it is going to be essential for coming up with sustainable technologies,” said Paul Anastas, director of the American Chemical Society’s Green Chemistry Institute.

May 1, 2007 — NanoInk, Inc., has reached a distribution agreement with Schmidt Scientific of Taiwan and China, to become the exclusive distributor for NanoInk’s NSCRIPTOR Dip Pen Nanolithography (DPN) System in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao.

NanoInk specializes in nanometer-scale manufacturing and applications development for the life science and semiconductor industries. The company’s NSCRIPTOR DPN System is an integrated hardware and software system designed for the DPN process of writing stable nanoscale patterns of molecular “ink” onto a sample substrate via a coated stylus tip. DPN users can build at resolutions ranging from many micrometers down to 15 nanometers, using virtually any material. This makes for numerous commercial applications.

“Schmidt Scientific’s visibility and presence in the Nanotechnology markets in China and Taiwan will accelerate the adoption of our DPN technology in Asia,” said Tom Levesque, Senior Director of DPN Global Sales. “Our technology is already in use at several prominent universities in the region, and we see it migrating into industrial development as a general purpose nanofabrication tool with a low cost and a small desktop footprint.”

By Barbara G. Goode, Small Times staff

May 1, 2007 — This year’s recent FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) Championship at the Georgia Dome in Atlanta featured the Nano Quest real-life challenge, which tasked students, ages 9 to 14, to design, build, and program robots to explore the world of nanotechnology.

Nano Quest was part of the event’s FIRST LEGO League (FLL) World Festival; it drew 94 teams from around the world. “Every FIRST LEGO League challenge helps students discover how imagination and creativity combined with science and technology can solve real-world problems, and this year’s focus on nanotechnology introduces them to a new frontier of science and technology,” said Dean Kamen, FIRST founder and inventor of the Segway transporter.

According to FIRST organizers, Nano Quest presented nanotechnology in understandable terms, highlighting diverse and positive ways it promises to enhance or even revolutionize existing technologies to solve problems and invent things never thought possible. FIRST collaborated with the University of Notre Dame’s Center for Nano Science & Technology and the Cornell University Nanobiotechnology Center to help shape a theme and challenge missions that reflect real issues in the study of traditional sciences at the molecular level. These include manipulating individual atoms, clothes that never get dirty, an elevator to outer space, and cures for disease.


Every participating team’s robot ran through a series of missions on the Nano Quest table. (Photo: Adriana M. Groisman)

One mission involved testing nanotechnology-enhanced stain-resistant fabric. Each team’s robot was required to deliver a dirt trap to a specific location and empty the tester’s dirt dumper. Correct delivery of the dirt trap was worth 15 points; a completely empty dumper when empty was worth another 15 points. The dirt pieces were Bonus Objects, worth 5 points each in the dirt trap, and 3 points each everywhere else on the table.

Top honors went to Champion’s Award 1st Place winner, Team 1031 “Pigmice” from Portland, Oregon; and Champion’s Award 2nd Place winner, Team 1677 “Access 9” from South Bend, Indiana.

Dear reader,


May 1, 2007

As we put the finishing touches on our annual university rankings’ issue, the news is filled with reflection on the tragic shootings that took place at the Virginia Tech. And so we dedicate this issue to all those touched by that terrible event.

Proper education of the next generation of small-tech engineers, researchers, and technicians is key to the development of the technology and its applications-and to our nation’s competitiveness long-term. Several recent commercial and policy developments are facilitating our ability to succeed in this endeavor. Last issue we reported on a new generation of microscopes that will, because of their significantly lower price tags, allow more students and others to study micro- and nanoscience (see “Power microscopy for the masses,” Mar/Apr 2007, page 8). And breaking news on our way to print is that a new provision to U.S. competitiveness legislation authorizes use of National Science Foundation grant funds to acquire micro/nanotechnology equipment and software for teaching students in high schools, colleges, and universities.

Education is a top concern among industry players and observers. Another is the ability to process patent applications efficiently. In a recent online exclusive, Small Times’ publisher Patti Glaza reported on a nanotechnology roundtable discussion led by Under Secretary for Technology at the U.S. Department of Commerce Robert Cresanti (see “Cresanti leads nano commercialization roundtable,” at www.smalltimes.com). The report’s coverage of small-tech patent application review frustrations drew a handful of responses-one from Cresanti, himself, and another from John Doll, Commissioner for Patents.

Challenging one particular line in the report, Doll said, “It is not ‘strong union forces,’ but federal law, that makes it harder for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to recruit and retain patent examiners.” He also explained the USPTO’s new use of special law provisions to overcome the shortage of qualified examiners.

Doll then detailed work being done to fast-track patent-application review, including the provision for applicants to request accelerated examination, “guaranteeing a final examiner decision within 12 months in return for adhering to certain requirements.” He said his department knows that more must be done to ensure micro- and nanotechnology developers get decisions on their patent applications more quickly. And in the letter he announced that the USPTO is “seeking solutions from the public and those with a stake in the patent system through a series of town hall meetings and focus groups we will hold later this year.” When Doll and his team finalize plans for these meetings, they will be announced on the USPTO Website.

“We welcome the thoughts and suggestions of readers of Small Times,” Doll concluded. So send your thoughts and suggestions to me at [email protected], and I’ll pass them on to Doll.

Barbara G. Goode is editor-in-chief of Small Times. She can be reached at [email protected].

Small Times introduced its university rankings in 2005, based on a survey sent to research institutions in the United States. After that first publication, we assembled an advisory panel of directors at university-based micro- and nanotech centers to refine the questionnaire, which now includes 26 questions (though some are multi-part and fairly complex). Because education of technicians becomes increasingly important as small tech evolves and grows, this year we also wanted to include technical and community colleges-and so devised a questionnaire for them as well.

University focus

The questionnaire covers the school year beginning August/September 2005 and ending May/June 2006 and is divided into four sections:

  • Infrastructure: This section asks the universities to detail their research facilities, annual facility budgets, access to industry, etc.
  • Tech transfer/university programs: Here, respondents provided measurable proof of success, such as the number of micro- and nanotech patents awarded in FY 2006, the number of companies formed, partnerships with industry, and so on.
  • Engineering and sciences: This section was designed to assess the university’s science and engineering educational and research programs, with an emphasis on micro- and nanotechnology. Questions ranged from the number of science and engineering faculty, undergraduates, and graduate students to the numbers of micro- and nano-specific courses and degrees.

Universities also were asked to provide figures on grant expenditures and papers published in refereed journals and proceedings. Small Times and its advisory panelists agreed that questions dealing with micro- and nano-specific grants and papers would be difficult, if not impossible, to track and report. Consequently, those answers covered all sciences (excluding the social sciences) and engineering.

Respondents also were asked to give their opinion on which universities they considered tops in micro- and nanotech research and commercialization. Their replies were tabulated to create the peer rankings.

  • Index material: This section asked the universities to describe their small-tech programs in 250 words or less.

Responses from the four sections provided the data for a quantitative analysis of each university’s strengths in micro- and nanotech research, education, facilities, industry outreach, and commercialization. If a university responded that data was not available, or left a question blank, it was recorded as 0. Responses were also vetted for misinterpretations.

Some universities did not respond to the survey but appear in the magazine because they were named among the top schools in the peer rankings section. Several other universities expressed an interest in participating but did not meet the deadline for submission.

Technical and community colleges

This year we devised a second, less-complex questionnaire for technical and community colleges. This survey covers the same basic areas as the university survey, but requires less detail-which is appropriate, considering that two-year colleges are just beginning to offer courses and programs in small tech and therefore have less to report at this early stage.

Because this segment of the higher-education community is so new to micro- and nanotechnologies, we received just four community college submissions. Instead of ranking them, then, we summarize their programs in the sidebar, “Community colleges are critical,” on page 28). Don’t dismiss them as less important than the well-established university programs; community and technical college programs will prove essential to the growing list of small-tech developers, who will ultimately need many more technicians than Ph.D.s.