DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-20, in the reply filed on April 29, 2025, is acknowledged. Claim 21 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, 9, and 12, 16-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0056542 (hereinafter referred to as Meyers) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0209855 (hereinafter referred to as Tanaka) and either U. S. Patent No. 3,961,961 (hereinafter referred to as Rich) or U. S. Patent No. 3,954,468 (hereinafter referred to as Lewis) and U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0176623 (hereinafter referred to as Son).
Meyers, in the abstract, and [0048], [0061], discloses coating the substrate that has a plurality of layers (underlayers) with the coating material comprising the resist coating. Meyers, in [0040], and [0100], discloses that the resist coating formed on the substrate is subjected to heating (post application bake) and will inherently result in a hardened resist film. Meyers, in [0037], [0067]-[0069], and [0074], [0078], discloses subjecting the coated resist film to EUV exposure and then performing a positive tone developing using a wet developer. Meyers, in the abstract, and in [0078] discloses that the positive tone imaging (positive tone developing) can use a developer such as an aqueous acid. Meyers, in [0082], discloses that the imaged coating material (after exposure) is treated in air (includes oxygen) (claims 1-2, and 18). Meyers, in [0053], and [0065], discloses that the heating prior to radiation promotes densification of the coating (claimed condensing) (claim 3). Meyers, in [0004], and [0036], discloses that the resist coating can be formed by a dry deposition process such as CVD or PVD (claim 4). Meyers, in [0005], [0039], [0055]-[0056], discloses that the patterning material (resist material) includes precursors that include metal and alkyl ligands and is the same as that recited in claim 5. Meyers, in [0005], [0006], and [0053], discloses that coated substrate (organometallic precursor coated and dried) has metal carboxylate bonds and/or is M-O-M bonds (claim 9). Meyers, in [0082], and [0102], discloses that the substrate that was developed (exposed) was stored in an atmospheric ambient (inert atmospheric ambient) (claim 12). Meyers, in [0037], discloses that the exposure of the radiation sensitive coating material results in irradiated and non-irradiated coating material and in the positive patterning the exposed coating material is selectively removed. Meyers, in [0005], [0053], discloses that the composition coated on the substrate includes metal-carboxylate bonds, and the irradiated material is converted during the exposure to be removed (positively patterned) and the unirradiated part has the metal carboxylate species (bonds) (claim 17). Meyers, in the abstract, [0035], discloses that the radiation sensitive film comprises organometallic oxide/hydroxide film, and Meyers, in [0048], and [0056], discloses that the composition comprises Sn (claims 19-20).
The difference between the claims and Meyers is that the post application bake (PAB) is performed in the absence of an oxygen-containing gas. Meyers does not disclose that the heating Meyers does not disclose that treatment of the imaged coating material (claimed exposed resist) to an oxygen-containing agent is treatment with ozone or hydrogen peroxide. The difference between the claims and Meyers is that Meyers does not disclose that the acid used for wet development is acetic acid.
Tanaka, in the [0027], [0034], and [0048], disclose that the exposed resist is treated with an oxygen-containing treatment gas (line 3 of [0030]) in a treatment chamber, wherein the oxygen-containing gas introduced into the treatment chamber to treat the surface of the exposed resist includes ozone.
The difference between the claims and Meyers in view of Tanaka is that Meyers in view of Tanaka does not disclose that the acid used for wet development is acetic acid. Tanaka does not disclose the baking (PAB) performed in the absence of oxygen-containing gas.
Rich, in the abstract, and in col 9, lines 21-45, discloses that after exposure to light the photosensitive layer is subjected to a positive tone development using acetic acid.
Lewis, in the abstract, in col 1, lines 40-57, and in col 2, lines 26-33, and in col 11, lines 64-68, and in col 12, line 12, discloses that the photopolymer that has been subjected to imagewise exposure was developed using an acid developer such as acetic acid.
The difference between the claims and Meyers in view of Tanaka and either Rich or Lewis is that Meyers in view of Tanaka and Rich or Lewis does not disclose the post application baking being performed in the absence of an oxygen containing gas.
Son, in [0052], lines 9-15, and in [0056], lines 1-4, discloses that the organometallic composition coating (used for patterning as a photoresist) on the substrate is heat treated, and Son , in [0057], lines 1-2, discloses that the heat treating can be performed in vacuum or a nitrogen atmosphere i.e., in the absence of an oxygen containing gas.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Meyers by including the claimed oxygen-containing gas such as ozone as the treatment gas to treat the exposed resist as taught by Tanaka because Tanaka, in [0048]-[0050], discloses that modifying the surface of the exposed resist with the ozone in the oxygen-containing gas enables the modifying of the exposed resist surface such that higher uniformity in the subsequent developing occurs resulting in retaining a uniformity of dimensions within the wafer surface and the prevention of micro-swelling on the resist sidewall, and also results in the prevention of the resist pattern collapse. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Meyers in view Tanaka by using the acid developer taught by either Rich or Lewis because Meyers teaches the use of an acid developer for positive tone development and Rich and Lewis teaches the use of acetic acid as a developer in positive tone imaging and Rich, in col 10, lines 4-14, discloses that using acetic acid as the developer enables the avoidance of developer solvents that are hazardous to health and environment. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Meyers in view of Tanaka and Rich or Lewis by using an ambient that is free of or devoid of an oxygen-containing gas during the baking of the resist layer as taught by Son because Son teaches that the organometallic layer can be heated in vacuum or nitrogen atmosphere to perform a soft baking process and Son , in [0007], lines 7-9, and [0042], discloses heat treating in a reducing atmosphere or merely heat treating without added reducing agents (like vacuum) results in a film with lower resistivity.
Claim(s) 6-8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0056542 (hereinafter referred to as Meyers) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0209855 (hereinafter referred to as Tanaka) and either U. S. Patent No. 3,961,961 (hereinafter referred to as Rich) or U. S. Patent No. 3,954,468 (hereinafter referred to as Lewis) and U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0176623 (hereinafter referred to as Son) as applied to claims 1-5, 9, 12, 16-20, above and further in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0164689 (hereinafter referred to as Sano).
Meyers in view of Tanaka, Rich, Lewis, and Son is discussed in paragraph no. 4, above.
Meyers, in [0047], [0066], discloses that the heating of the coating (organometallic, radiation sensitive) material is performed at a temperature greater than 0°C for at least 0.5 minutes (claims 6-8).
The difference between the claims and Meyers in view of Tanaka and either Rich or Lewis is that Meyers in view of Tanaka and either Rich or Lewis does not disclose the claimed ambient.
Sano, in [0009], [0041], discloses the heating of the metal-containing resist (post apply baking treatment, prior to exposure) wherein the gas in the ambient is exhausted from the chamber (in vacuum, absence of oxygen).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Meyers in view of Tanaka and either Rich or Lewis and Son by employing the heating process taught by Sano because Meyers, in [0066], discloses that the heating is performed to remove the solvent from the coating and Sano, in [0010], and [0012], discloses that heating in an treatment chamber where gas is exhausted enables the suppression of metallic contamination and thus suppress defects in semiconductor devices and enables the formation of a resist pattern that is uniform in dimension.
Claim(s) 22, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0056542 (hereinafter referred to as Meyers) in view of U. S. Patent No. 5,108,875 (hereinafter referred to as Thackeray) and U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0176623 (hereinafter referred to as Son).
Meyers, in the abstract, and [0048], [0061], discloses coating the selected substrate with precursor coating material comprising the resist coating. Meyers, in the abstract, [0035]-[0036], discloses that the precursor composition is an organometallic oxide/hydroxide film, and Meyers, in [0048], and [0056], discloses that the metal component in the organometallic precursor comprises Sn. Meyers, in [0037], discloses that the exposure of the radiation sensitive coating material results in irradiated and non-irradiated coating material and in the positive patterning the exposed coating material is selectively removed. Meyers, in [0078], discloses that the exposed resist is subjected to a positive tone imaging (positive tone developing) using an acid developer (wet development with acid) to form a pattern (claim 22).
The difference between the claims and Meyers is that Meyers does not disclose performing both a wet development and a dry development on the exposed resist. Meyers does not disclose that the post application bake (PAB) is performed in the absence of an oxygen-containing gas.
Thackeray, in col 3, lines 35-42, discloses that the exposed resist is subjected to a wet development followed by a dry development.
The difference between the claims and Meyers in view of Thackeray is that Meyers in view of Thackeray does not disclose the post application baking being performed in the absence of an oxygen containing gas.
Son, in [0052], lines 9-15, and in [0056], lines 1-4, discloses that the organometallic composition coating (used for patterning as a photoresist) on the substrate is heat treated, and Son , in [0057], lines 1-2, discloses that the heat treating can be performed in vacuum or a nitrogen atmosphere i.e., in the absence of an oxygen containing gas.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Meyers by including a dry development after the wet development as taught by Thackeray because Thackeray , in col 5, lines 20-25, discloses that performing a wet develop prior to dry development enables the removal of excess metal containing particles in the exposed regions, and in col 3, lines 11-12 discloses the formation of cleaner images. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Meyers in view Thackeray by using an ambient that is free of or devoid of an oxygen-containing gas during the baking (pre-baking or post-application baking) of the resist layer as taught by Son because Son teaches that the organometallic layer can be heated in vacuum or nitrogen atmosphere to perform a soft baking process and Son , in [0007], lines 7-9, and [0042], discloses heat treating in a reducing atmosphere or merely heat treating without added reducing agents (like vacuum) results in a film with lower resistivity.
Claim(s) 23-24, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0056542 (hereinafter referred to as Meyers) in view of U. S. Patent No. 5,108,875 (hereinafter referred to as Thackeray) and U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0176623 (hereinafter referred to as Son), as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of either U. S. Patent No. 3,961,961 (hereinafter referred to as Rich) or U. S. Patent No. 3,954,468 (hereinafter referred to as Lewis).
Meyers in view of Thackeray and Son is discussed in paragraph no. 6, above.
The difference between the claims and Meyers in view of Thackeray and Son is that Meyers in view of Thackeray and Son does not disclose that the wet developer is an organic acid such as acetic acid (claims 23-24).
Rich, in the abstract, and in col 9, lines 21-45, discloses that after exposure to light the photosensitive layer is subjected to a positive tone development using acetic acid.
Lewis, in the abstract, in col 1, lines 40-57, and in col 2, lines 26-33, and in col 11, lines 64-68, and in col 12, line 12, discloses that the photopolymer that has been subjected to imagewise exposure was developed using an acid developer such as acetic acid.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Meyers in view of Thackeray and Son by using the acid developer taught by either Rich or Lewis because Meyers teaches the use of an acid developer for positive tone development and Meyers, in [0090], discloses that the acid can be an oxalic acid i.e., an organic acid and Rich and Lewis teaches the use of acetic acid as a developer in positive tone imaging and Rich, in col 10, lines 4-14, discloses that using acetic acid as the developer enables the avoidance of developer solvents that are hazardous to health and environment.
Claim(s) 25-27, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0056542 (hereinafter referred to as Meyers) in view of U. S. Patent No. 5,108,875 (hereinafter referred to as Thackeray) and U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0176623 (hereinafter referred to as Son), as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of U. S. Patent No. 8,367,303 (hereinafter referred to as Keller).
Meyers in view of Thackeray and Son is discussed in paragraph no. 6, above.
The difference between the claims and Meyers in view of Thackeray and Son is that Meyers in view of Thackeray and Son does not disclose the dry developer recited in claims 25-27.
Keller, in the abstract, and in col 3, lines 8-10, and lines 38-40 discloses that the dry development process can use hydrogen halide containing gas (includes HCl) or a HBr containing gas to develop the carbon-based mask (photoresist)
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Meyers in view of Thackeray and Son by employing a dry development chemistry taught by Keller because Thackeray teaches the use of a dry development process and Keller, in col 3, lines 5-10, discloses that using a hydrogen halide gas in the dry develop chemistry enables the tuning of the critical dimension of the device features formed during the semiconductor fabrication process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment and Remarks, filed June 24, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5, 9, and 12-20 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 over pending claims, see paragraph nos. 4, and 6, above. With respect to applicant’s argument that none of the references teach the post-application treatment of the radiation sensitive film in the absence of an oxygen containing gas, none of the references prohibit such a teaching and Son is dependent upon to disclose the use of an inert atmosphere i.e., nitrogen or even vacuum ambient during the heating of the photosensitive film coating. With respect to applicant’s argument that all the references including Meyers, Tanaka, Rich, and Lewis teach that the resist is initially heated/baked in the presence of air, none of the references prohibit the use of vacuum or inert ambient, and Meyers teach the densification of the resist due to the initial heating of the resist film prior to exposure i.e., the resist film is hardened due to the heating process, and Son teaches that either vacuum or an inert ambient such as a nitrogen atmosphere or even air can be present during the heating of the resist film, and furthermore , the instant invention , as also recited in claims 7-8 teaches the use of an oxygen containing gas such as CO2 during the post-application bake and the air suggested by the previous references includes CO2. With respect to applicant’s argument that Sano teaches a PEB operation and not a post application bake (PAB), Sano, in [0041], discloses that the thermal treatment process performed in the apparatus starts with a “PAB” treatment i.e., a heat-treating of the wafer after the resist coating treatment and does not suggest only a post-exposure bake process, and that the same apparatus used for the PAB is also the heat treatment apparatus for the PEB and post-baking treatments wherein the wafer that is resist coated is subjected to the same thermal treatment referred to in [0010] of Sano, wherein the gases in the treatment is exhausted out of the treatment chamber and suggest a vacuum ambient and includes the absence of an oxygen containing gas. Thackeray and Keller are not dependent upon to disclose an absence of oxygen-containing gas during a pre-bake or post-application bake of the resist layer.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Meyers or Tanaka or Sano does not disclose developing the exposed resist film using an acetic acid and that Meyers or Tanaka or Sano does not disclose performing a dry development process after a wet development process on the exposed resist film as recited in the new claim 22, Meyers teaches the use of an acid for a positive tone developing process (aqueous acid, i.e., wet development with acid), however, Rich and/or Lewis is dependent upon to disclose the use of acetic acid as the wet developer, and Thackeray is dependent upon to disclose the use of both a wet developing process and subsequent dry developing process. With respect to applicant’s argument that Meyers does not disclose that the exposed resist is treated with an oxygen-containing agent such ozone or hydrogen peroxide, Meyers teaches that the imaged resist is being subjected to a treatment with oxygen-containing gas, however, Tanaka is dependent upon to disclose that the oxygen-containing gas that treats the surface of the exposed resist can be ozone. With respect to applicant’s argument that neither Meyers nor Sano teaches the limitations of claims 6-8, Meyers teaches heating the coated resist layer to a temperature range that is within the claimed range for a duration in the claimed range, and does not prohibit the presence of the claimed ambient, and Sano, in figures 5, and 7 illustrates that the thermal treatment chamber that heats the wafer that is already coated with the resist during a PAB (heat treating a wafer after the resist coating treatment, [0041]) is in a vacuum ambient, because the gases from the thermal treatment chamber are exhausted from the chamber via the exhaust pipe using a vacuum pump (352) that is connected to the exhaust pipe (351), and Sano in [0098], discloses that the exhaustion of gases from the treatment chamber is continuously performed i.e., a certain amount of vacuum is maintained in the heat treatment chamber.
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 Daborah Chacko-Davis whose telephone number is (571) 272-1380. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30AM-6:00PM EST Mon-Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. 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.
/DABORAH CHACKO-DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 August 19, 2026.
Prosecution Insights