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 .
Amendment to the claims were submitted on 07/29/2026.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-16, 19-23, and 25 are under consideration
Claim 4-6, 8, and 17-18 is canceled
Claim 24 is withdrawn
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9-15, 19, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US6607867B1, published 2003) in view of Carcasi (US 20110244402 A1, published 2011).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7, 9-15, 19, 25,
Kim teaches a photoresist composition comprising of an organometal (metal containing photoresist) and a method of forming photoresist patterns, where differences in etch rates (selectivity) between exposed and unexposed portions make dry development possible [abstract], reading on instant claim 13. Kim teaches a method comprising of coating their photoresist solution onto a silicon wafer, performing a soft bake (past application bake, PAB, first thermal treatment step) at 120 °C, patterned exposure to form a clear latent image (pattern with exposed and unexposed portions), a baking step (post exposure bake, PEB, second thermal treatment step) at 130 °C, and then etching (dry developed, where etching speed differs between exposed and unexposed areas) [col 10 lines 42-53], reading on instant claims 11 and 19.
Kim teaches that the organometal of their photoresist may contain the following repeating unit, where M may be OSi (a metal oxide) [col 4 lines 25-54].
PNG
media_image1.png
171
119
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim is silent to their PEB process controlling pressure or gas flow/ratio. Kim also fails to teach ramping their temperatures.
Carcasi teaches a PEB may comprise setting the post-exposure temperature, a time the substrate is elevated to the post-exposure temperature, a heating rate for achieving the post-exposure temperature, a cooling rate for reducing the post-exposure temperature, a pressure of a gaseous environment surrounding the substrate during the elevation of the substrate to the post-exposure temperature, or a composition of a gaseous environment (which would include gas chemistry and flow rate) surrounding the substrate during the elevation of the substrate to the post-exposure temperature, or a combination of two or more thereof. The post-exposure temperature may be ramped, or stepped [0075], reading on instant claims 3 and 14.
Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include atmospheric air (which would include oxygen and nitrogen) as a possible component of the gaseous environment, reading on instant claims 1, 7, and 25.
Carcasi also teaches the PAB and PEB may be between 50 and 200 °C [0066], overlapping the range of instant claims 10 and 12. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
As both Carcasi and Kim teach PEB and PAB process steps for use with a photoresist layer, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using the temperatures taught Carcasi, including optionally ramping the temperatures, in the PAB and PEB treatments of Kim would provide for a comparable and expected thermal treatment process.
Kim is silent to changes to exposure radiation sensitivity of the photoresist due to their treatment steps.
However, the PEB and PAB treatments would be expected to inherently modify material properties of the photoresist, where the film would be expected to further harden as solvent is evaporated. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the hardened photoresist layer would require a lower dose to form a desired pattern and provide for a lower line edge roughness, when compared with a softer photoresist layer where the solvent has not yet been removed, as a potentially more fluid photoresist layer would not be expected to form as clear of a pattern after exposure, reading on instant claim 9.
Kim is also silent to the pressure used in their PEB and PAB treatment processes.
However, as they are silent to performing their PEB and PAB treatments at elevated pressures (above atmospheric pressure), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the processes may be performed at normal atmospheric pressure (about 760 Torr), reading on instant claim 15.
Claims 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US6607867B1, published 2003) in view of Carcasi (US 20110244402 A1, published 2011) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sano (US 20180164689 A1, published 2018).
Regarding claims 20-23,
Kim et al. teaches the above limitations set forth.
Kim et al. fails to explicitly teach EUV exposure.
Sano, analogous art, teaches a thermal treatment apparatus that performs a thermal treatment on a metal-containing film formed on a substrate [abstract]. Sano further teaches that in recent years, miniaturization of the resist pattern is required with higher integration of semiconductor devices. Hence, to realize the miniaturization of the resist pattern, there is proposed exposure processing using extreme ultraviolet (EUV) light. Further, a resist containing metal (hereinafter referred to as a “metal-containing resist”) is proposed as the resist used for EUV from the characteristics such as high-resolution property, high etching resistance, and high sensitivity to exposure [0004].
As Sano and Kim both teach metal containing photoresists, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try using the EUV exposure taught by Sano with the photoresist composition of Kim, in order to realize the miniaturization of the resist pattern as taught by Sano, reading on instant claims 20-23.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US6607867B1, published 2003) in view of Carcasi (US 20110244402 A1, published 2011) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liegl (US 20040121264 A1, published 2004).
Regarding claims 15-16,
Kim et al. fails to teach a post application treatment step with a low pressure.
Liegl teaches curing a photosensitive layer prior to exposure by using evaporation without using elevated temperatures by using a low pressure or vacuum environment, where the pressure may be about 1-10,000 Pa (about 0.008 to 75 Torr) [0014], overlapping the range of instant claim 15-16.
As both Liegl and Kim teach curing (baking) a photoresist layer prior to exposure, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try using the low pressure curing process of Liegl in place of, or in addition to, the PAB process of Kim, as Liegl teaches their method eliminates or reduces roughness on the sidewalls of the photosensitive layer [abstract].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US6607867B1, published 2003) in view of Carcasi (US 20110244402 A1, published 2011) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US 20110308942 A1, published 2011).
Kim is silent to their PEB treatment increasing cross-linking in the photoresist.
Liu teaches a PEB process is performed to selectively cross-link the exposed portions of the photoresist layers by means of either a hot plate or a convection oven [0091], reading on instant claim 2.
As both Kim and Liu teach a PEB treatment to a photoresist layer, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the PEB process of Kim may similarly increase crosslinking in the photoresist layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 regarding the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Kim and Carcasi in the manner asserted, as they teach differences in photoresist composition, mechanism, and development process. The applicant further asserts Carcasi fails to provide guidance for selecting any composition of the gaseous environment.
However, the examiner maintains that Kim and Carcasi are analogous art, as each teach PEB and PAB process steps for use with a photoresist layer. Carcasi is then relied upon to teach a PEB process may comprise of controlling the temperature, pressure, and gaseous composition (ambient gas composition). The examiner further maintains that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include atmospheric air (which would include oxygen and nitrogen) as a possible component of their gaseous composition.
The applicant asserts Neither Kim nor Carcasi teach a photoresist comprising of a metal oxide.
However, Kim teaches that the organometal of their photoresist may contain the following repeating unit, where M may be OSi (a metal oxide) [col 4 lines 25-54].
PNG
media_image1.png
171
119
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The above rejections have been updated accordingly.
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 Alexander Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2261. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5:30 EST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at (571) 272-3458. 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.
/A.N.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/KEITH WALKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights