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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 10, 2026, has been entered.
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) 17-21, and 24, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0028684 (hereinafter referred to as Chen) in view of either U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0305040 (hereinafter referred to as Kuo) or U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0393035 (hereinafter referred to as O’ Meara).
Chen, in the abstract, and in [0002], discloses a patterning process for forming a semiconductor device (microfabrication process) the process includes forming a resist layer on a substrate ([0030]), wherein the substrate is a silicon substrate that has multiple layers of metal, metal oxide or metal nitride layers buffer layers, dielectric layers etc., i.e., the substrate has a layer stack, and the resist layer is formed on the underlying multilayer ([0063]-[0066]). Chen, in [0029], discloses forming a dehydrated barrier film on the resist , wherein the dehydrated barrier film is formed by a vapor deposition process ([0036]), wherein the substrate with the resist film is subjected to UV exposure treatment prior to the barrier film formation completion ([0038]). Chen, in [0041], discloses that the barrier film and the underlying resist layer is selectively exposed to actinic radiation, and then subjected to development (claims 17-19). Chen, in [0029], and [0097], discloses that the barrier film prevents moisture (water vapor) from entering the resist (includes at least the claimed permeability) (claim 21). Chen, in [0037], and [0038], discloses that the forming of the barrier dehydrated film including exposure to UV irradiation is performed in a vacuum ambient (claims 20, 24).
The difference between the claims and Chen is that Chen does not disclose that the barrier layer is deposited on the top surface of the photoresist layer by a vapor phase-deposition.
Kuo, in [0091], discloses that the cap layer deposited onto the photoresist layer is deposited by a chemical vapor deposition.
O’ Meara, in the [0007], [0027], discloses that the deposition of protective caps on the top surface of the photoresist layer via atomic layer deposition i.e., a vapor phase deposition.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Chen by using the vapor phase deposition processes taught by either Kuo or O’ Meara because Chen teaches that the photoresist layer is exposed to an organic solvent vapor and does not prohibit the use of a vapor phase deposition technique and Kuo, in [0102], discloses that the cap layer formed prevents the oxygen absorption into the photoresist and prevents moisture from being absorbed into the photoresist, and O’ Meara, in [0027], discloses that forming the protective cap on the photoresist top surface in the claimed manner prevents damages from external components such as erosion via etch damage of the photoresist and increases the etch resistance of the capped photoresist.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1,4-10, and 23, are allowable over the prior art of record (USPGPub. No. 2022/0028684, and USPGPub. No. 2017/0192357). See Remarks, filed February 17, 2026, on page 7, and in the paragraph spanning pages 7-8.
Claims 12-16, and 22, are allowable over the prior art of record (USPGPub. No. 2009/0042148, and USPGPub. No. 2022/0028684). See Remarks, filed February 17, 2026, in the second last paragraph on page 9, and in the paragraph spanning pages 9-10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment and Remarks, filed February 17, 2026, and entered in an RCE filed March 10, 2026, with respect to rejections made over claims 1,4-7,8-10, 12-16, 22-23 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 12-13, 22, and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1,4-11, and 14-16, made in the previous office action have been withdrawn. Also, see paragraph nos. 5-6 above.
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment and Remarks, filed on February 17, 2026, and entered in an RCE filed March 10, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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 either Kuo or O’ Meara. See paragraph no. 4, above. With respect to applicant’s argument that Chen does not use a vapor phase deposition process to deposit the barrier layer, Chen does not prohibit the use of a vapor phase deposition and Kuo and/or O’ Meara are dependent upon to disclose the use of a vapor phase deposition process to deposit a protective cap layer that behaves as the claimed barrier layer to the underlying photoresist layer.
Conclusion
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, Mark F. Huff can be reached on (571) 272-1385. 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 March 21, 2026.
Prosecution Insights