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 of Group I, claims 1-19, in the reply filed on November 17, 2025, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 11, 13-15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0154185 (hereinafter referred to as Ho).
Ho, in the abstract, in [0002], and [0005], discloses fabrication of fine patterns(microfabrication), the process includes coating a process surface (working surface) of the substrate (semiconductor wafer) with a photoresist layer (see [0016]), and Ho, in claim 4, discloses that the photoresist layer is exposed to activating light, wherein the light can include wavelengths as low as X-ray wavelength (i.e., the wavelength includes 13.5nm, the photoresist is sensitive to wavelengths including 13.5nm, and is the same as the claimed EUV sensitive and exposing to EUV). Ho, in [0017], discloses that the exposed photoresist layer is subjected to a developing process, and after the developing process, the developed photoresist pattern (patterned resist portions) is monitored to determine the dimensions of the resist pattern (i.e., the developing process is stopped and examined under TEM or SEM to determine the dimensions of the resist patterned portions). Ho, in [0019], discloses that the patterned resist portions are then subjected to a second development process to remove additional portions i.e., the initial dimension of the patterned resist portions (also called first patterned resist portions) are larger (and is the claimed first critical dimension larger); the removing of the additional portions of the patterned resist portions resulting in a reduced dimension of second patterned resist portions (claimed shrinking the critical dimension) lesser in dimensions than the first patterned resist portions. The initial measuring of the CD determines the width of the resist portions and the resist portions are further subjected to a second developing process to reduce the dimensions of the resist pattern i.e., Ho determines that the CD of the first developing process is larger and thereby performs another developing (second developing or the claimed corrective treatment process) to form a resist pattern with reduced width (reduced dimensions) and is the same as the claimed hybrid develop of the photoresist film (claims 1, 5 and part of claim 13, claim 14). Ho, in the abstract, in [0005], [0010], [0021]-[0024], discloses that the resist pattern after the second developing is subjected to a dry etch trim process that further reduces the dimension (CD) of the resist pattern to form a final target width (the claimed target CD) (claim 2, and part of claim 13). Ho, in [0017], discloses that after the exposure of the photoresist layer (to a pattern of radiation, exposed through a mask, [0026], radiation wavelength as low as X-ray wavelength include EUV, see claim 4), the exposed resist layer is subjected to a post exposure baking process (PEB). Ho, in [0017], and [0018], discloses that the patterned resist portions (already developed resist pattern) is subjected to a second baking process prior to another developing process (second developing process that includes the dry trimming or plasma etching process) (claims 6, and 15). Ho, in [0017], discloses the PEB temperature that is different than the post-developed baking temperature disclosed in [0018], and Ho teaches the PEB bake and time differing than the post-developed baking temperature and the post-developed baking time (see [0020]) (claim 7). Ho, in [0017], discloses a wet developing process as the first developing process (developing after PEB), and Ho, in [0025], discloses one dry etching process (claimed one of more dry development) as part of the second developing process (claim 11).
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) 3-4, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0154185 (hereinafter referred to as Ho) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0349390 (hereinafter referred to as de Schepper).
Ho is discussed in paragraph no. 4, above.
The difference between the claims and Ho is that Ho does not disclose the developer solvent recited in claim 3 or claim 17, and Ho does not disclose the developer solvent combination recited in claim 4.
de Schepper, in [0090], discloses that the developer solvent can be PGMEA and acetic acid.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Ho by using the developer solvent combination taught by de Schepper because Ho teaches the use of organic solvent mixture in the developer and de Schepper, in [0089] discloses the use of aqueous acids as developers, and de Schepper, in [0090], discloses that using PGMEA with acetic acid results in an improved developer composition that enables the controlling of developing time, and that the developer selection is based on solubility parameters of the coating material that is both irradiated and non-irradiated, and is based on the properties of the developer material.
Claim(s) 8-10, 18-19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0154185 (hereinafter referred to as Ho) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0259025 (hereinafter referred to as Hansen).
Ho is discussed in paragraph no. 4, above.
Ho, in [0005], [0021], and [0026], teaches that after the developing process a dry trimming process or dry etching process is carried out, wherein the trimming can include a plasma process. Ho, in [0024], discloses that the removal rate (development rate) in the second developing process is higher than the first development removal rate (since three times the amount is removed in the second development etching process).
The difference between the claims and Ho is that Ho does not disclose that the dry etch or trimming process comprises a chemical vapor etch as recited in claim 8 or claim 18 and Ho does not disclose that the plasma uses the gas recited in claim 9 or claim 19. Ho does not disclose that the first development is a dry development as recited in claim 10.
Hansen, in [0242], discloses that the dry development can be performed using an HCl or HBr vapor etching , and/or using a plasma comprising the HCl or HBr to etch during the dry development. Hansen, in [0249], discloses that the development process can be a first and second dry development process, and Hansen in [0242], discloses that the dry development etch rate can be up to 1nm/sec, and Hansen teaches a dry development that takes up to a minute, and Hansen, in [0267], discloses that at higher temperature ranges the etch rate can be decreased.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Ho by using the claimed gases in the dry etch/trimming process and by using a dry development process both in the first and second developing process as taught by Hansen because Ho teaches that the subsequent developing process removes more material during the developing process and teaches the use of a dry etch trim process and does not limit the gas used in the dry etching developing process, and Hansen, teaches in [0084], and [0184], discloses that dry development processes yield a higher contrast between exposed and unexposed areas, and Hansen, in [0200], discloses that using the dry development process (that uses halide chemistry, HCl or HBr [0147]) prevents line collapse i.e., improves development performance.
Claim(s) 12, and 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0154185 (hereinafter referred to as Ho) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0315135 (hereinafter referred to as Huli).
Ho is discussed in paragraph no. 4, above.
Ho, in [0018], and [0019], teaches the use of a first development (wet developing) and second development (includes a final dry etch trimming) i.e., the claimed hybrid develop to form the target critical dimension in the resist pattern.
The difference between the claims and Ho is that Ho does not disclose the first dose and the second dose and using the second dose for the exposure process as recited in claim 12. Ho does not disclose that after the first wet developing process, the resist portions are exposed to UV prior to the second developing process as recited in claim 16.
Huli, in [0047], discloses that exposure dose (the claimed second dose) used for the resist during exposure is lower than the exposure dose required to achieve the target CD of the pattern (the claimed first dose). Huli, in [0037], and [0041], discloses that the developed resist pattern (after developing) is further subjected to irradiation with electromagnetic radiation (includes UV).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Ho by employing the exposure dose for the exposing of the photoresist layer as taught by Huli because Ho teaches that after the exposure and first developing the resist pattern formed requires further removal of the resist pattern portions in order to achieve target CD, and Huli teaches that using the lower exposure dose in the exposure process of exposing the resist layer results in a CD that is larger than the target CD, and thereby enables the exposure of resist material that are less sensitive to the EUV, and Huli, in [0051], discloses that using reduced exposure dose enables adequate throughput, and in [0053], Hansen teaches that as the EUV dose goes down, the number of substrates processed per hour increases. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Ho by exposing the initially developed resist pattern to UV as taught by Huli because Ho does not preclude the exposure to radiation in between developing processes, and Huli, in [0041], discloses that exposing the developed pattern to radiation enables adjusting of parameters in the process of irradiation so as to achieve roughness reduction and control.
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 January 4, 2026.