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 .
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) 1-2, 5-9, 13-15, 18-19, and 21-23, 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, 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 [0026], discloses that the photoresist is exposed through a mask (exposing to a pattern of radiation) i.e., after exposure the photoresist film includes exposed and unexposed regions. 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, and claim 21). 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). 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 of Ho), 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]) (claims 7, and 23). 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.
The difference between the claims and Ho is that Ho does not disclose that the photoresist is an organometallic EUV film that comprises a metal oxide core or that the removed portions of the photoresist film is the unexposed portion of the resist film. Ho does not disclose that the development process for removing the unexposed second portion of the organometallic resist film is a dry developing process. 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 the claimed metal oxide core recited in claim 22.
Hansen, in [0007], [0011], and [0139]-[0140], discloses that the EUV sensitive organometallic film as the radiation sensitive resist film wherein the resist film comprises a metal center that has metal-oxygen bonds (metal oxide core). Hansen, in figure 1H, and in figure 8, discloses that the metal oxide core includes tin oxide. Hansen, in [0143], [0183], [0207], discloses that the exposure of the EUV sensitive film results in the exposed regions becoming photo crosslinked resulting in denser exposed regions that are more resistant to the development after the exposure (the exposed regions do not develop away in the developer) and that the subsequent development can be a hybrid development of wet and dry development that removes the unexposed regions (negative tone development). Hansen discloses in [0084], and [0184], that the development process includes both wet and dry development process. 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 employing the radiation sensitive organometallic resist taught by Hansen because Ho, in [0015], line 7, discloses that any type of resist can be used for making the pattern structures, and does not prohibit the metal-containing resist, and Hansen, in [0022], and [0084], discloses the using the metal containing resist film enable the patterning of the resist either as a positive tone resist or a negative tone resist, and that using the EUV or DUV resist that contains metal or metal oxide enables the combination of both wet and dry development processes and that using metal in the resist components enhances EUV photon adsorption and increases etch selectivity for the underlying film stack. 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) 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. 2023/0259025 (hereinafter referred to as Hansen) as applied to 1-2, 5-11, 13-15, 18-19, 21, and further in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0349390 (hereinafter referred to as de Schepper).
Ho in view of Hansen is discussed in paragraph no. 3, 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 in view of Hansen 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.
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. 2023/0259025 (hereinafter referred to as Hansen) as applied to 1-2, 5-11, 13-15, 18-19, 21, and further in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0315135 (hereinafter referred to as Huli).
Ho in view of Hansen is discussed in paragraph no. 3, 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 developing to form the target critical dimension in the resist pattern.
Hansen, in [0007], [0011], and [0139]-[0140], discloses that the EUV sensitive organometallic film as the radiation sensitive resist film and Hansen discloses in [0084], and [0184], that the development process includes both wet and dry development process.
The difference between the claims and Ho in view of Hansen is that Ho in view of Hansen 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 in view of Hansen 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 film 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 in view of Hansen 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 in view of Hansen 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment and Remarks, filed April 7, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 11, 13-15, 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 Hansen, see paragraph no. 3, above. With respect to applicant’s argument that Ho does not disclose the currently amended claims 1 or 13, or that Ho teaches a dry trim process and not a dry develop process, Ho teaches a first developing process and a second developing process that includes a subsequent dry etching trim process. Nothing in the independent claims recite that the second development process that is presently a dry developing process excludes a dry etch trim process. Furthermore, Ho performs the dry trim only to the resist pattern and is not a dry etching process the removes the exposed underlying layer, and Ho, in [0010], and [0019], teaches that the second developing process removes additional portions of the unwanted regions of the resist (already patternwise exposed resist) that is still remaining after the first development so as to achieve a critical dimension closer to the final dimension. However, Hansen is dependent upon to disclose the currently amended claim limitations including the use of an organometallic resist as the photoresist film. Hansen is dependent upon to disclose the newly claimed organometallic EUV resist and the use of a combination of wet development and dry development so as to remove or develop away unexposed regions of the resist film. Ho does not limit the resist film to a positive tone resist and teaches using any resist composition for the resist film to form the line/space pattern, and Ho teaches the multiple developing processes that include intervening bake process, so as to finally form the target CD by using a combination of wet and dry processes such as wet development and dry etch trimming processes. See paragraph no. 3, above.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. 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 June 5, 2026.
Prosecution Insights