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Amendment to the claims were submitted on 02/12/2026, the 112(b) rejection to claim 10 is withdrawn, claims 4-6 and 17-18 are canceled.
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Claim 24 is withdrawn
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/12/2026 has been entered.
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 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,
Kimet 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 02/12/2026 regarding the 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. While the 102 rejections have been withdrawn, a 103 rejection has been made in view of Carcasi. The above rejections have been updated accordingly.
Conclusion
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, 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.
/A.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights