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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 6 and 12, as well as the addition of claims 21 and 22, is acknowledged.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification to correct reference item “S210” to “S120” has overcome the objection to the drawings. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 29 September 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20190294049 A1 (hereby referred to as Harumoto).
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to recite that the supplying of the nonpolar rinse solution is started while rotating the substrate at a second rpm, which is lower than the first rpm. The language of the claims has also been amended to state that the nonpolar rinse solution is continued to be supplied while rotating the substrate at a third rpm, and that after rotating the substrate at the third rpm, the substrate is rotated at a fourth rpm, which is between the second rpm and the third rpm. Independent claim 10 has been amended to similarly recite that during the second or the third step, the supply of the organic developing solution is stopped while the supply of the rinse solution is started. Applicant argues that the previously cited prior art (Hashimoto and Kamimura) fails to disclose or suggest the limitations of the amended independent claims. In particular, Applicant argues that Hashimoto’s fourth rotation speed (ω4) is not lower than the first rotation speed (ω1), and further argues that the third rotation speed (ω3) is faster than ω1. Thus, the disclosure of Hashimoto cannot enable the rinse liquid being applied while the substrate is rotating at a rate lower than the first rotation speed during the developing solution is applied, which is in direct contrast to the relationship required by the independent claims. However, the instant claims (particularly, claim 1) recites that the second rpm is lower than the first rpm, and the third rpm is greater than the second rpm. There is no requirement in the claim language that the third rpm must be less than the first rpm. As written, the claims require the first rpm to be greater than the second rpm, but the third rpm and fourth rpm may be greater than the first rpm. That being said, the amendments to the instant claims, wherein the rinsing liquid must begin to be supplied whilst the substrate is rotating at a second rpm, which is less than the first rpm, has overcome the teachings of Hashimoto, as Hashimoto teaches starting the supplying of the rinsing liquid whilst the substrate is rotated at an rpm greater than the rpm at which the developing solution is supplied. Furthermore, Hashimoto does not teach rotating the substrate at a fourth rpm, which is between the second and third rpms, after the rotation at the third rpm. Therefore, the Applicant’s claim amendments have overcome the previous rejection. Accordingly, the previous rejection is withdrawn. However, a new rejection is presented in view of US 20190294049 A1 (hereby referred to as Harumoto), as explained below.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to claim 8 are noted and found to be persuasive. Notably, claim 8 depends from independent claim 1, which itself is rejected under a new ground(s) of rejection. However, a new rejection of claim 8 is presented in view of US 20190294049 A1 (hereby referred to as Harumoto) and US 20130194557 A1 (hereby referred to as Yamamoto), further explained below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-11, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190294049 A1 (hereby referred to as Harumoto) in view of US 20190258168 A1 (hereby referred to as Kamimura).
Regarding Claims 1, 5, and 10, Harumoto teaches a developing method. The developing method includes a pre-wetting process (Step S01) (Harumoto, paragraph 0061-0064), a developing process (Step S02) (Harumoto, paragraph 0065-0071), a rinsing process (Step S03) (Harumoto, paragraph 0072-0085), and a drying process (Step S04) (Harumoto, paragraph 0086-0094). Notably, the developing method is performed on a substrate held on a rotating stage equipped with a spin chuck and a rotary drive unit (Harumoto, paragraph 0043-0046 and Fig. 1). Fig. 4 of Harumoto depicts a timeline of the developing method, showing the rotation speed of the substrate throughout (Harumoto, paragraph 0026 and 0059). Referring to Fig. 4 of Harumoto, at time T3 the developer supply is initiated and the rotation speed of the substrate is raised to 2500 rpm (Harumoto, paragraph 0067-0068). After a short duration of time, the rotation speed of the substrate is reduced (T6 through T9), while the developer supply is stopped at time T8 (Harumoto, paragraph 0069-0071). The rotation speed of the substrate is set at 100 rpm when the rinsing solution begins to be supplied (Harumoto, paragraph 0073), and is further increased to 1000 rpm while the rinsing solution continues to be supplied (Harumoto, paragraph 0073). After some time, up to time T12, the rotation speed of the substrate is maintained at 1000 rpm and then reduced gradually to 500 rpm (Harumoto, paragraph 0083). Following the stoppage of the rinse liquid supply, the rotation speed is increased to 650 rpm (Harumoto, paragraph 0084). Whilst the timing chart depicted in Fig. 4 of Harumoto depicts additional rotational speeds, the ones described above are of note. The above steps taught by Harumoto correspond to those recited by instant claim 1. In particular, the developing supply is performed at a first rpm (2500 rpm), the substitution of the developer solution with the rinse solution is performed at a second rpm less than the first rpm (100 rpm), the rinse solution is provided at a third rpm that is greater than the second rpm (1000 rpm), and after rotating the substrate at a third rpm the substrate is rotated at a fourth rpm between the second and third rpm (500 rpm OR 650 rpm). Furthermore, Harumoto discloses that the substrate includes a photoresist film formed thereon (Harumoto, paragraph 0060), and thus the above steps taught by Harumoto correspond to those recited by instant claim 10 as well.
However, Harumoto is silent about the rinse liquid being nonpolar. Kamimura teaches a treatment liquid. The treatment liquid may be used as a developing solution and/or a rinsing liquid (Kamimura, paragraph 0071). When used as a rinsing liquid, the treatment liquid is performed using a rotation discharging mode, wherein the substrate is rotated at a specified revolutions per minute (rpm) (Kamimura, paragraph 0425). This is analogous to the rinsing method recited by instant claim 1 as well as the method described by Harumoto. Kamimura teaches that the treatment liquid contains an organic solvent (Kamimura, paragraph 0088) and may be a hydrocarbon-based solvent (Kamimura, paragraph 0090) such as nonane, decane, undecane, and/or dodecane (Kamimura, paragraph 0092).
Harumoto and Kamimura are analogous art because both references pertain to the processing of substrates with developers and/or rinsing liquids. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use a nonpolar rinsing liquid such as nonane, decane, undecane, or dodecane, as taught by Kamimura, as the rinsing liquid in the method disclosed by Harumoto because the use of hydrocarbon-based solvents (specifically aliphatic hydrocarbon-based solvents such as nonane, decane, undecane, and dodecane) in the rinsing liquid suppresses pattern collapse by rinsing permeated developer in the resist film and suppressing swelling (Kamimura, paragraph 0183).
Regarding Claims 2-4 and 11, the combination of Harumoto and Kamimura renders obvious the method of claims 1 and 10, as discussed above. However, Harumoto is silent in regards to the developer composition and further, Harumoto does not disclose if the resist film is a negative-type or positive-type resist.
Kamimura further teaches a treatment liquid that may be used as a developer solution or a rinsing liquid. As a developer, Kamimura teaches that the developing solution may comprise an organic solvent (Kamimura, paragraph 0127), wherein the organic solvent may be an ester-based solvent such as butyl acetate (Kamimura, paragraph 0130-0131). Kamimura further teaches that the treatment liquid can be applied to a negative-positive or positive-type resist (Kamimura, paragraph 0941).
Harumoto and Kamimura are analogous art because both references pertain to the processing of substrates with developers and/or rinsing liquids. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use n-butyl acetate, as taught by Kamimura, as the developing solution disclosed by Harumoto because ester-based solvents such as n-butyl acetate suppresses the swelling of a resist film (Kamimura, paragraph 0142-0143). In the case that n-butyl acetate is used as the developer solution and an aliphatic hydrocarbon-based solvent such as nonane, decane, undecane, or dodecane is used as the rinsing solution (as suggested above in regards to instant claims 1 and 5), the conditions of instant claims 3-4 are satisfied.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Harumoto and Kamimura renders obvious the method of instant claim 1, as discussed above. Harumoto teaches that the developer is slowed from the initial developer supplying rotational speed to allow pooling and slightly sped up to the second rpm to decrease the amount of pooled developer on the substrate (Harumoto, paragraph 0071). The time at which the substrate is held at these lower rotational speeds is functionally a development time. Harumoto, however, does not teach that the length of time at which the substrate is rotated at the second rpm is greater than the length of time at which the substrate is rotated at the third rpm.
Kamimura teaches that the development step may be performed by rotating the substrate whilst dispensing the developing solution (Kamimura, paragraph 0416) and the developing time is not particularly limited as long as the resist that is to be removed is sufficiently dissolved (Kamimura, paragraph 0418). Typical development times may be 10 to 300 seconds (Kamimura, paragraph 0418). The rinsing step may similarly be performed by rotating the substrate whilst dispensing the rinsing solution (Kamimura, paragraph 0425). The rinsing time is not particularly limited, and may typically go for 10 to 300 seconds (Kamimura, paragraph 0426). Given that the resist material will determine the solubility in the developing solution, it is expected that the development time would be dependent on the resist material chosen to coat the substrate.
Harumoto and Kamimura are analogous art because both references pertain to the processing of substrates with developers and/or rinsing liquids. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to perform the method disclosed by Harumoto and hold the substrate at the second rotational speed for a longer duration than the substrate is held at the third rotational speed because, per the teachings of Kamimura, the development time depends on how long it takes to dissolve the resist material (Kamimura, paragraph 0418). The second rotational speed recited by the instant application corresponds to a development step. Thus, through routine optimization of the teachings of Hashimoto and Kamimura, one having ordinary skill in the art would arrive at a longer development time than a rinsing time based upon the material behaviors of the resist material, as well as the developing and rinsing solutions. See MPEP 2144.05 II. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize in such a manner in order to obtain sufficient dissolution of the resist material in the developing solution (Kamimura, paragraph 0418) and thus ensure high pattern fidelity.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Harumoto and Kamimura renders obvious the method of claim 1, as discussed above. However, Harumoto fails to disclose a treatment of the substrate with a supercritical fluid at any point in the developing process.
Kamimura further teaches that following the development treatment or the rinsing treatment, the residual developer or rinsing liquid which adheres onto the resist pattern may be removed using a supercritical fluid.
Harumoto and Kamimura are analogous art because both references pertain to the processing of substrates with developers and/or rinsing liquids. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to process the substrate with a supercritical fluid, as taught by Kamimura, following the rinsing step taught by Harumoto because the supercritical fluid can remove adhered rinsing solution (Kamimura, paragraph 0428), and thus more effectively dry the rinsed resist pattern.
Regarding Claim 22, Harumoto discloses that the developer supplying begins when the substrate is rotating at a speed of 2500 rpm (Harumoto, paragraph 0067-0068).
Claim(s) 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190294049 A1 (hereby referred to as Harumoto) in view of US 20190258168 A1 (hereby referred to as Kamimura) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20130194557 A1 (hereby referred to as Yamamoto).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Harumoto and Kamimura renders obvious the processing method of instant claim 1, as discussed above. However, both Harumoto and Kamimura are silent in regards to the developer supply nozzle and the rinsing solution supply nozzle being contained in a single nozzle structure.
Yamamoto teaches a developing method. The developing method is a method that develops a substrate having a surface coated with an exposed resist whilst the substrate is rotated (Yamamoto, paragraph 0031). The method includes a developing liquid supplying step that supplies developing liquid from a developer nozzle onto the surface of the substrate and a rinsing liquid supplying step that supplies DIW (deionized water, the rinsing liquid) from a DIW nozzle onto the surface of the substrate (Yamamoto, paragraph 0033-0034). The apparatus that performs the developing method comprises a single nozzle structure that houses the developer nozzle and the rinse nozzle, in addition to a pre-wet nozzle and a gas nozzle (Yamamoto, paragraph 0060 and Fig. 3). The nozzles are aligned in a row (Yamamoto, paragraph 0060).
Harumoto, Kamimura, and Yamamoto are analogous art because each reference pertains to the processing of substrates with developers and/or rinsing liquids. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to include the developer and rinsing nozzles in a single nozzle structure, as taught by Yamamoto, in the method obtained by combining the teachings of Harumoto and Kamimura because an integrated single nozzle structure allows for the nozzles to dispense their respective fluids concurrently in the same localized area (Yamamoto, paragraph 0080).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 21 of the instant application was added via the most recent claim amendments. Instant claim 21 recites all of the method steps of instant claim 1 (due to claim 21 depending from claim 1) and further recites that the developing solution is supplied onto the substrate for a portion of the second period of time at which the substrate is rotated at the second rpm, and that the development solution supplying is stopped when the rinsing solution is starting to be supplied during the second period of time. The Harumoto prior art cited above in regards to claim 1 teaches that the development solution is supplied for a first duration of time at a first rotational speed (first rpm). Harumoto further teaches that the rinsing solution is initially supplied while the substrate is rotated at a second rotational speed (second rpm). However, Harumoto fails to teach or suggest that the development solution is supplied at the second rpm, and only stopped when the rinsing solution begins to be supplied. Instead, there is a time between the supplying of the development solution and the supplying of the rinsing solution wherein neither solution is supplied. There exists no rotational speed of the substrate within Harumoto’s disclosure at which both the developing solution and the rinsing solution are supplied to the substrate. The additionally cited prior art, as well as the other prior art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the limitations of instant claim 21. In other words, the prior art prior to the effective filing date does not anticipate instant claim 21, or reasonably establish a prima facie case of obviousness (when taken in combination with the presently cited prior art) for instant claim 21. Due to instant claim 21 depending from independent claim 1, which itself is rejected presently under 35 U.S.C. 103, claim 21 is objected to rather than deemed allowable at this time.
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 JAYSON D COSGROVE whose telephone number is (571)272-2153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-18:00.
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.
/JAYSON D COSGROVE/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734