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 .
Final Rejection
Claims 1 and 9 are pending. Claim 1 is independent. Claims 2-8 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klipp et al. (US 9,891,520 B2) and Wayton (EP 1298492 A2) and further in view of Skee (WO2005043245A2) is withdrawn in light of Applicants amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/2026 have been fully considered however, upon an updated search a new grounds of rejection is made below.
Applicant’s continue to urge that table 16 of their specification shows superior and unexpected results in experimental examples 1-80 (transparent examples) as compared to the comparative examples 1-13 which are opaque. Upon careful consideration, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive because achievement of lifting of defects and transparency as noted in table 16, is not found to be superior nor even unexpected result because as explained below Zhang et al. illustrate a similar lithography process solution comprising a fluoroalkyl surfactant and glycerol for wafer cleaning process solutions, i.e., additives to process solutions for critical cleaning or precision cleaning as a lithography rinse solution in addition to, or in place of a deionized water rinse. The surfactant within the process solution may allow for the reduction of equilibrium and dynamic surface tension while minimizing foaming. One of ordinary skill will reasonably expect to achieve a clean (particle free) transparent photomask surface when using composition taught by Zhang et al teaching the same reagents as claimed. Accordingly upon an updated search of the claim amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made below.
New Grounds of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 7,521,405).
Zhang et al. teach a process solution for application to a substrate having a photoresist coating applied thereto (col.13,ln.34-35) that reduces the number of pattern collapse defects (see col.16,ln.9) having surface tension less than 45 nN/m (see tables I in col.16 and Table VIII in col21). Examiner notes 1 dyne/centimeter (dyn/cm) (as disclosed by Zhang is exactly equal to 1 milliNewton/meter (mN/m) units required by the claim language.
The process solution is prepared by adding 0.1% of surfactant to deionized water (see col.17,ln.8). Col.17,ln.30-32 teach process solutions containing 0.1 weight percent of a fluoro surfactant (perfluoroalkyl ethoxylate) and an ionic surfactant (sodium lauryl sulfate). Table VIII copied herein
PNG
media_image1.png
454
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
illustrating less than 0.1 wt% concentration of the surfactant within each process solution has surface tension less than 45 nN/m and formulations 12, 14-21 have a contact angle of less than 65o which encompasses the instant abstract where the process liquid composition has a surface tension of 45 mN / m or less and has a contact angle of 65 ° or smaller. Zhang teaches the contact angle of the process solution on the photoresist surface was measured. See col.18,ln.33. While this is different from claim 1 preamble recitation “photoresist pattern having a contact angle of 75° or greater of a photoresist surface with respect to water”, the claim 1 recitation “photoresist pattern having a contact angle of 75° or greater of a photoresist surface with respect to water” preamble is not limiting because the body of the claim 1 describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. The instant specification US20220342313 abstract provides support to “a photoresist pattern having hydrophobicity represented by a contact angle of 75o or greater of a surface” having similar text with language to “photoresist surface”. Examiner also notes the instant abstract discloses the process liquid composition having a surface tension of 45 mN / m or less and has a contact angle of 65 ° or smaller.
Zhang claims 1 and 10, table III and example 11 illustrate a process rinse solution to reduce at least one defect comprising 0.1 weight percent of an aqueous fluorosurfactant (potassium perfluorooctane carboxylate) (see example 11 linking col.19-20) with claims 10 and 25 guiding one of ordinary skill to include a glycerol solvent in the process solution.
With respect to the claim 1 limitation of 0.001 to 1.0% of 1,2,3 propane triol, claim 1 teaches the inclusion of a non-aqueous solvent and claims 10 and 25 guide one of ordinary skill to the claimed glycerol and col.8,ln.20-24 suggest the amount of non-aqueous solvent within the process solution may range from about 1% to about 50% by weight with the balance of the solvent within the process solution comprising an aqueous solvent. Thus Zhang et al. discloses “overlapping” ranges and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Zhang et al. do not exemplify a process liquid comprising the aqueous fluorine based surfactant with 1,2,3 propanetriol as required by the amended claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at claimed process liquid composition of claim 1 because Zhang et al. suggest a patterned photoresist on a semiconductor substrate is cleaned with aqueous solution of fluorinated surfactant and glycerol having a surface tension of less than 45 mN/m.
With respect to claim 9, see col.17,ln. 36 teaching application to semiconductor and col.18-19 example 10 teaching a photoresist-coated substrate was exposed to a 365 nm light, heated to a temperature of approximately 110°C. for a time of 5 about 1 minute and then developed to form a patterned photoresist. See also example 11 illustrate a process rinse solution to reduce at least one defect comprising 0.1 weight percent of an aqueous fluorosurfactant (potassium perfluorooctane carboxylate) (see example 11 linking col.19-20) with claim 10 guiding one of ordinary skill to include a glycerol solvent in the process solution. It is the Examiner’s position that Zhang et al. teach the claim 9 method for reducing defects in the manufacture of semiconductor devices which method comprises: providing a substrate comprising a photoresist coat ing; exposing the substrate to a radiation source to form a pattern on the photoresist coating; applying a developer solution to the substrate to form a patterned photoresist coating: optionally rinsing the substrate with deionized water; and cleaning/contacting the substrate with a process solution comprising a solvent and 10 ppm to about 10,000 ppm of at least one of fluorinated surfactant and glycerol having a surface tension of less than 45 mN/m in general encompasses the method for reducing a lifting defect level of a photoresist pattern of claim 9. See col.4,ln.20-30, ex. 11; claims 10 and 25.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/PREETI KUMAR/ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights