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 II, claims 10-18, in the reply filed on August 7, 2025, is acknowledged. Claims 1-9, and 25-27, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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) 10-14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0189428 (hereinafter referred to as De Silva) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0029270 (Hatakeyama).
De Silva, in the abstract, and in [0004], [0020], and figure 4, discloses forming a resist layer on a top portion of a semiconductor substrate (above layers formed on a semiconductor substrate), forming a metal-containing top coat (claimed hermetic overlayer) over the resist layer, and De Silva, in [0042], and in figure 5, discloses that the stack including the top coat is subjecting to a patterning EUV exposure resulting in exposed and unexposed areas in the resist layer (underlying the top coat) and as illustrated in figure 6, the exposed areas are removed leaving the unexposed (unchanged areas) of the resist to form a resist pattern i.e., a positive tone resist pattern. De Silva teaches using EUV lithography process and inherently suggests the use of an enclosure that has a vacuum ambient (claim 10). De Silva, in [0039], discloses that the metal-containing top coat is configured to generate secondary electrons into the underlying resist layer (claimed injections of secondary photoelectrons) during exposure (claim 11). De Silva, in [0022], [0023], discloses that the resist layer is subjected to a post-application bake process and will inherently necessarily remove volatile components from the resist layer formed and the post application bake process is performed prior to forming the top coat (hermetic layer), and De Silva also discloses that the metal-containing top coat (hermetic layer) is coated by a ALD process at a temperature (thermal ALD) less than the post application bake temperature applied to the resist layer (claims 12-13). De Silva, in [0043], discloses that the metal-containing top coat is stripped prior to developing i.e., after the stripping of the top coat the stack is left with exposed and unexposed areas of the resist overlying the stack on the semiconductor substrate (claim 14).
The difference between the claims and De Silva is that De Silva does not disclose that the material of the resist layer comprises an EUV-sensitive metal oxide.
Hatakeyama, in [0019]-[0020], [0023], discloses that the resist layer is a chemically amplified resist composition that includes a metal complex of a β-diketone (metal oxide containing resist).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify De Silva by using a metal-oxide containing chemically amplified resist material as the resist as taught by Hatakeyama because De Silva does not prohibit the claimed resist material because De Silva teaches in [0020] that other types of resist can also be used and in [0040], De Silva teaches that metal oxide can infiltrate into the resist and can be part of the resist layer i.e., the resist layer can include a metal oxide containing resist layer and Hatakeyama teaches in [0118] that using a metal complex of a β-diketone in the resist material enables strong absorption of EUV wavelengths (claimed EUV sensitive) and that the sensitivity of the resist is improved upon exposure to EUV due to the electrons from the outer shell of the metal (upon excitation during exposure to EUV) transferring to the acid generator in the resist composition and thereby increasing the efficiency of acid generation.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0189428 (hereinafter referred to as De Silva) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0029270 (Hatakeyama) as applied to claims 10-14, above, and further in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0204749 (hereinafter referred to as TEL).
De Silva in view of Hatakeyama is discussed in paragraph no. 4, above.
The difference between the claims and De Silva in view of Hatakeyama is that De Silva in view of Hatakeyama does not disclose conducting metrology to the photoresist stack as recited in claim 15.
TEL, in [0009], [0012], and [0068] discloses that a metrology process is included (metrology integrated into the lithographic apparatus, claimed in situ metrology) along with the lithographic process, at the same time, on the patterning stack.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify De Silva in view of Hatakeyama by employing the metrology process in the claimed manner as taught by TEL because De Silva does not prohibit conducting metrology as part of the lithographic process at the same time of the patterning of the stack and TEL, in [0012], discloses that conducting the metrology process before a final stage patterning process and conducting metrology along with the lithographic process at the same time enables effective optimization of the patterning stack for robust performance i.e., effective performance in response to process variations in the patterning process.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0189428 (hereinafter referred to as De Silva) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0029270 (Hatakeyama) as applied to claims 10-14, above, and further in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0084412 (hereinafter referred to as Waldfried).
De Silva in view of Hatakeyama is discussed in paragraph no. 4, above.
De Silva in [0043], discloses stripping the top coat (claimed overlayer) prior to developing the underlying layer (resist).
The difference between the claim and De Silva in view of Hatakeyama is that De Silva in view of Hatakeyama does not disclose that the stripping process is the claimed process recited in claim 16.
Waldfried, in [0014], [0015], and [0028], [0037], discloses performing a plasma process (plasma ashing using a downstream plasma asher) to strip the overlayer.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify De Silva in view of Hatakeyama by employing the plasma process to perform stripping of the overlayer as taught by Waldfried because De Silva teaches stripping the top coat (overlayer) and does not prohibit a plasma stripping process, and Waldfried teaches in [0007] and [0008], that using a plasma enables the removal of an overlayer without physically damaging the underlying substrate and/or without removing the underlying surface materials.
Claim(s) 17-18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0189428 (hereinafter referred to as De Silva) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0029270 (Hatakeyama) as applied to claims 10-14, above, and further in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0330503 (hereinafter referred to as Bae).
De Silva in view of Hatakeyama is discussed in paragraph no. 4, above.
The difference between the claims and De Silva in view of Hatakeyama is that De Silva in view of Hatakeyama does not disclose the claimed hardening process recited in claims 17, and 18.
Bae, in [0005], discloses performing thermal hardening and/or UV curing on the resist, and Bae, in [0030], discloses that after developing, a hardbake at 180°C is performed on the developed resist to form a hardened resist pattern wherein the baking is performed in an oven or on a hot plate (claimed air ambient).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify De Silva in view of Hatakeyama be employing the hardening process taught by Bae because De Silva teaches in [0056], that annealing is a commonly used process in semiconductor manufacturing processes, and Bae, in [0005], teaches that thermal hardening enables resist stabilization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment and Remarks, filed , with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10-14, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and claims 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hatakeyama, see paragraph nos. 4-7, above. With respect to applicant’s argument that De Silva teaches and is limited to an organic EUV photoresist and more particularly an organic chemically-amplified photoresist and that De Silva and/or the prior art used in the previous office action, is silent regarding a resist film comprising an EUV-sensitive metal oxide, De Silva teaches that other types of resist material can also be used and De Silva teaches in [0040], that metal oxide (SnOx infiltrated resist) infiltrates into the resist and becomes part of the resist layer and enhances the sensitivity of the resist i.e., De Silva does not prohibit the use of an EUV sensitive metal-oxide containing resist, and neither Tel nor Waldfried nor Bae is dependent upon to disclose the claimed new limitation, and Hatakeyama is dependent upon to disclose the use of a metal-oxide containing resist as the resist layer wherein the resist sensitivity to EUV is enhanced due to the metal-oxide containing material in the resist.
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, 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 January 29, 2026.
,