DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 17809912 application filed June 30, 2022, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on December 5, 2025. Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s cancellation of claim 5 acknowledged.
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 .
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-8 and 21 rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambino et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20120115303), hereinafter “Gambino”, in view of Lee et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20030003714), hereinafter “Lee”:--Claim 1, 2, 6, 7, 21: Gambino teaches a method of forming pattern, comprisingforming a first wiring layer 110 over substrate, then forming a barrier layer 115 then a dielectric layer 120 over the first wiring layer, wherein the dielectric layer 120 may comprise porous or nonporous hydrogen silsesquioxane polymer (HSQ), porous or nonporous methyl silsesquioxane polymer (MSQ), porous or nonporous organosilicate glass ([0015], Fig. 1A);forming a bottom ARC (BARC) layer on the layer 120 ([0016]);forming a first photoresist layer over the substrate, then patterning the photoresist layer by exposing and developing to form a first photoresist pattern 125 (Fig. 1B, [0016-0017]);removing the BARC layer, then etching the layer 120 through the first photoresist pattern 125 ([0018], Fig. 1C);removing the first photoresist pattern 125 ([0022-0023]);optionally forming a bottom ARC (BARC) layer 144 on the layer 120, then forming a second photoresist pattern 145 on layer 144 ([0022-0023], Fig. 2A);etching the layer 120 through the second photoresist pattern, then optionally removing the BARC layer 144 ([0024-0025], Fig. 2B);etching the layer 115 through the second photoresist pattern ([0026], Fig. 2C);removing the second photoresist pattern 145 ([0027], Fig. 2D);forming a second wiring layer 162 on the first wiring layer 110 ([0028], Fig. 2E). It is noted that the first photoresist pattern 125 reads on the first photolithography mask as recited in claim 1. Gambino further teaches that the developing the photoresist comprises dissolving a portion of the photoresist by using a developer, but fails to teach the claimed wet etching process. Lee, also directed to manufacturing a semiconductor device, teaches that a photolithography method comprises forming a photoresist layer, exposing the photoresist layer by using a mask, then developing the photoresist layer by using a chemical solution ([0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the method taught by Lee as the lithography method in the invention of Chan because Gambino is silent about the lithography method, and Lee teaches that such method would be effective. It is noted that layer 120, BARC, first photoresist layer, and second photoresist layer read on the lower layer, first middle layer, first upper layer and second upper layer, respectively as recited in claim 1. It is further noted that the first photoresist pattern 125 reads on the first photolithography mask as recited in claim 1.--Claim 8: Although Gambino is silent about an etch selectivity of the BARC layer vs the layer 120, since Chan teaches that the etching is selective and Fig. 1B showing the layer 120 remains intact, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the etching selectivity to greater than 100 because it’s been well established that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 9-11 rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambino in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Egbe et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20070149430), hereinafter “Egbe”:--Claims 9, 10, 11: Gambino teaches the invention as shown above. Gambino further teaches that the BARC layer may be formed by spinning or by deposition ([0023]), but fails to teach removing the BARC layer by using wet etching; Egbe teaches that after patterning by using a photoresist mask it is important to selectively remove residual photoresist and BARC material ([0002-0008]), and teaches to use an aqueous composition comprising TMAH and TMAF (Claim 3, Table 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the composition taught by Egbe to remove the photoresist and BARC material during the patterning in the invention of Gambino because Egbe teaches that it is important to selectively remove residual photoresist and BARC material, and such composition would be effective.
Claims 12, 14-18 and 20 rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambino in view of Lee and Egbe, and further in view of Ogihara et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20070117411), hereinafter “Ogihara”:--Claims 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20: Gambino modified by Lee and Egbe teaches the invention as shown above. Gambino fails to teach forming the claimed second middle layer comprising siloxane. Ogihara teaches that it is advantageous to use a silicon resin film as the ARC layer in order to facilitate reworking procedure ([0005-0022]), by using a method comprising:forming an organic film 11, then a first silicone resin layer 12, then a first photoresist patterned layer 13 on a device layer 10a on substrate ([0053], Fig. 1(a)), the first photoresist patterned layer 13 is formed by forming a first photoresist layer on the first silicone resin layer 12, exposing the first photoresist layer with a Cr mask, and developed by using TMAH ([0205-0209]) ;detecting an anomaly of the photoresist patterned layer 13 ([0209]);removing the first photoresist patterned layer 13 by using a solvent ([0056-0059], Fig. 1(b));forming a second silicone resin layer 14 on the first silicone resin layer 12 ([0060], Fig. 1(c));forming a second photoresist layer on the second silicone resin layer 14 ([0063-0064], Fig. 1(d)), then exposing and developing a portion of the second photoresist layer to form a second photoresist patterned layer 13 that is identical to the first photoresist patterned layer 13 ([0172, 0214], Fig. 2(a));etching the first silicone resin layer 12 and the second silicone resin layer 14 by using the photoresist patterned layer 13 as a mask to form a silicone resin pattern ([0174-0174], Fig. 2(b)); etching the organic layer 11 by using the silicone resin pattern as a mask to form an organic pattern ([0175], Fig. 2(c));etching the device layer 10a by using the organic pattern as a mask ([0177-0178], Fig. 2(d)); Ogihara further teaches that the organic layer 11, the first silicone resin layer 12, and the second silicone resin layer 14 are crosslinked ([0066, 0070]). In another embodiment, Ogihara teaches that the organic layer 11 may be omitted ([0181-0187], Fig. 3(a)-(c)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to deposit the silicon resin layer before forming the second photoresist layer in the invention of Gambino modified by Lee and Egbe because Ogihara teaches that it would facilitate reworking procedure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include 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: With respect to claim 3, none of the cited prior arts teaches the feature “the second photo lithography mask has a same pattern as the first photo lithography mask” in the context of claim 3.
Claim 13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include 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: With respect to claim 13, none of the cited prior arts teaches the feature “the first photoresist and the second photoresist are patterned using photolithography masks that have a same pattern” in the context of claim 13;
Claim 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include 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: With respect to claim 19, none of the cited prior arts teaches the feature “the first light-exposure process and the second light-exposure process are performed using photo lithography masks having an identical pattern” in the context of claim 19;
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submission should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 23, 2025 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the Office action is confusing and improper because it does not recite claim features by using the claim language and include parts of the references irrelevant to the claims, this argument is not persuasive. It is not improper to explain how Applicant’s invention reads on the cited prior arts as shown in the Office action. Applicant fails to cite any section in the MPEP that supports this argument. It is noted that the Office action clearly relates features in the cited prior arts to features in the claims, e.g. “(i)t is noted that layer 120, BARC, first photoresist layer, and second photoresist layer read on the lower layer, first middle layer, first upper layer and second upper layer, respectively as recited in claim 1” (as stated in the previous Office action).--Regarding Applicant’s argument that rejection a plurality of claims together without addressing individual claim is improper, this argument is not persuasive. It is not improper to group claims together as shown in the Office action. Applicant fails to cite any section in the MPEP that supports this argument.--Regarding Applicant’s argument that a failure to explicitly explain how every features of a claim reads on the cited prior art, even if the cited prior art discloses the feature, would render a rejection based on that prior art improper, this argument is not persuasive. Applicant fail to cite any section in the MPEP that supports this argument.--However, in order to clarify the issues and expedite prosecution, all rejections except based on Gambino are withdrawn, as shown above
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713