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
Newly submitted claims 22-23, are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Newly filed claims 22-23, which have substantially the same subject matter as the non-elected claims 18-20 that constitute the Group II claims, and were subject to restriction requirement (mailed September 24, 2025) and are presently the non-elected cancelled claims, are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention for the same reasons as set forth in the restriction requirement that was mailed September 24, 2025. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 22-23, are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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) 1-9, and 21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0203456 (hereinafter referred to as Suganaga) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0142315 (hereinafter referred to as Ohtomi).
Suganaga, in [0009], and [0016], discloses coating a semiconductor substrate with a photoresist layer and in figures 6A and figure 11A, the photoresist layer is formed of a first height (a first thickness, reference 61 in figure 6A and reference 1 in figure 11A). Suganaga, in [0056], and [0060], and in figures 6A and 11A, discloses that the photoresist layer is exposed to radiation through a mask (exposed selectively) to form exposed and unexposed regions. Suganaga in the abstract, [0009], and [0014], discloses forming an upper layer film on the resist film, wherein the upper layer film is an acid polymer containing film (agent-containing layer). Suganaga, in the in [0015], and [0029], discloses that a baking process is performed after the exposing (claimed post-exposure bake) such that a mixing layer is formed in the resist by the upper layer film, and as illustrated in figure 6B, and in figure 11B, the upper layer film components permeate into the underlying resist film portions and Suganaga in [0032], discloses that the mixing layer portion in the exposed area is up to 100nm and much less in the unexposed portions such as up to about 30nm, and is the same as the claimed modifying portion of the exposed regions and non-exposed regions. Suganaga, in [0032], discloses that the mixing layer portions (in the unexposed part of the resist) is rendered soluble in the developer by the components of the upper layer film that penetrated into the resist layer upper portions of the unexposed part of the resist (to form the mixing layer) and thereby upon development the exposed regions and the mixing layer portions (in the unexposed part) are developed away to form the pattern (see figure 11B [Wingdings font/0xE0] figure 11C, the mixing layer portions A1, A2 B1 and B2 are developed away in the developing process) that has now a reduced thickness (claimed second height) than the initial thickness (first height) of the resist film (claims 1, and 21). Suganaga, in [0032], [0055], discloses that the acid polymer (acid generator that generates acid, see [0043]) (first solubility-changing agent or claimed second solubility-changing agent recited in claim 21) permeates into the top portions of the resist layer in the unexposed regions (non-exposed) during the baking process so as to form mixing layer in the top surface portions of the unexposed part of the resist layer. Suganaga, in [0032], and [0055], discloses that acid (second solubility-changing agent or first solubility agent of claim 21) is generated in the exposed regions due to the acid generator in the resist film ([0036]) during exposure and due to heating after exposure in the exposed regions such that during development the mixing layer portions of the unexposed portions of the resist are rendered soluble in the developer. Suganaga, in [0033]-[0035], discloses that the resist includes a base polymer that has an acid-dissociative dissolution suppression group (claimed acid-reactive material) (claims 2, 4). Suganaga, in [0043], [0056]-[0057], discloses that the mixing layer thickness (depth of permeation of the acid component from the upper layer film into the resist film) formed in the unexposed part can be a changed to a desired dimension (target depth) and the thickness of the mixing layer can be changed by adding components in the upper layer film, by changing the solvent or plurality of solvents in the upper layer film i.e., by changing concentration and by the type of component in the upper layer film composition (claim 3). Suganaga, in [0039], [0041], discloses that the upper layer film components include a polymer, and an acid generator and/or acids (solubility-changing agent or agent for generating ingredient for generating solubility-changing agent) (claim 5). Suganaga, in [0011], and in [0012], discloses that the prior to the baking process (post-exposure bake) protons (acid, claimed second solubility-changing agent) are generated in the resist film during exposure (response to actinic radiation) (claim 6). Suganaga, in [0054], discloses that the upper layer film (agent-containing film) is spin-coated onto the resist film (claim 7). Suganaga, in [0009], discloses that the exposure process can be an immersion exposure process (claim 8). Suganaga, in [0002], and [0058], discloses that the resist pattern (after coating with acid polymer, exposing and developing as described in the preceding sentences) formed improves the OPE characteristics generated by the sparse and dense patterns formed in the mask pattern i.e., includes sub-resolution features (claim 9).
The difference between the claims and Suganaga is that Suganaga does not disclose that the upper layer acid polymer containing film (agent-containing layer) is deposited on the photoresist layer subsequent to the exposing of the photoresist layer.
Ohtomi, in the abstract, and in [0019], and [0022], discloses applying a protic solvent to the exposed photoresist layer (that has exposed and unexposed regions) and maintaining the protic solvent coating (acid containing solvent) formed on the photoresist layer throughout the post-exposure bake process.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Suganaga by applying the acid-containing layer on the already exposed photoresist layer as taught by Ohtomi because Suganaga does not prohibit the coating of the upper layer after exposure and Ohtomi, in [0017], discloses that coating the exposed photoresist layer after exposure with the protic solvent (acid containing material) results in an immersion post-exposure bake process (photoresist surface immersed in the protic solvent layer) during the post-exposure baking, and enabling the deprotection of the photoresist polymer with less irradiation on the photoresist (other than that during the exposure process) and thereby enables high throughput in the lithography process.
Claim(s) 10-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0203456 (hereinafter referred to as Suganaga) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0092829 (hereinafter referred to as Noelscher) and U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0017610 (Yang).
Suganaga, in [0009], and [0016], discloses coating a semiconductor substrate with a photoresist layer and in figures 6A and figure 11A, the photoresist layer is formed of a first height (a first thickness, reference 61 in figure 6A and reference 1 in figure 11A). Suganaga in the abstract, [0009], and [0014], discloses forming an upper layer film on the resist film, wherein the upper layer film is an acid polymer containing film (agent-containing layer). Suganaga, in [0007], discloses that the resist layer is baked and hardened, and Suganaga, in [0009], discloses that the upper layer film is baked and hardened (prior to exposure, the claimed pre-exposure bake). Suganaga, in [0056], and [0060], and in figures 6A and 11A, discloses that the photoresist layer is exposed to radiation through a mask (exposed selectively) to form exposed and unexposed regions. Suganaga, in the in [0015], and [0029], discloses that a baking process is performed after the exposing (claimed post-exposure bake) such that a mixing layer is formed in the resist by the upper layer film, and as illustrated in figure 6B, and in figure 11B, the upper layer film components permeate into the underlying resist film portions and Suganaga in [0032], discloses that the mixing layer portion in the exposed area is up to 100nm and much less in the unexposed portions such as up to about 30nm, and is the same as the claimed modifying portion of the exposed regions and non-exposed regions. Suganaga, in [0032], discloses that the mixing layer portions (in the unexposed part of the resist) is rendered soluble in the developer by the components of the upper layer film that penetrated into the resist layer upper portions of the unexposed part of the resist (to form the mixing layer) and thereby upon development the exposed regions and the mixing layer portions (in the unexposed part) are developed away to form the pattern (see figure 11B [Wingdings font/0xE0] figure 11C, the mixing layer portions A1, A2 B1 and B2 are developed away in the developing process) that has now a reduced thickness (claimed second height) than the initial thickness (first height) of the resist film (claim 10). Suganaga, in [0032], [0055], discloses that the acid polymer (acid generator that generates acid, see [0043]) (first solubility-changing agent) permeates into the top portions of the resist layer in the unexposed regions during the baking process so as to form mixing layer in the top surface portions of the unexposed part of the resist layer. Suganaga, in [0039], [0041], discloses that the upper layer film components include a polymer, and an acid generator and/or acids (solubility-changing agent or agent for generating ingredient for generating solubility-changing agent) and Suganaga, in [0033]-[0035], discloses that the resist material includes an acid-dissociative dissolution suppression group (claimed acid-reactive material) Suganaga, in [0032], and [0055], discloses that acid (second solubility-changing agent) is generated in the exposed regions due to the acid generator in the resist film ([0036]) during exposure and due to heating after exposure in the exposed regions such that during development the mixing layer portions formed in the unexposed part (due to heating and diffusing of acid) and the exposed part (acid de-protected and maximum of the mixing layer formed in the exposed part) of the resist are rendered soluble in the developer. (claims 11, and 13, and part of claim 14). Suganaga, in [0009], discloses that the exposure process can be an immersion exposure process (claim 15). Suganaga, in [0002], and [0058], discloses that the resist pattern (after coating with acid polymer, exposing and developing as described in the preceding sentences) formed improves the OPE characteristics generated by the sparse and dense patterns formed in the mask pattern i.e., includes sub-resolution features (claim 16). Suganaga, in [0056], and in figure 1E, discloses that the resist is transparent to the actinic radiation (light through the mask 3, pattern of actinic radiation) (claim 17).
The difference between the claims and Suganaga is that Suganaga does not disclose that the pre-exposure bake causes the diffusion of the first solubility-changing agent (acid) into the region between the agent-containing layer (upper layer film) and underlying photoresist layer (resist film) and Suganaga does not disclose selectively removing the agent-containing layer as recited. Suganaga does not disclose that the pre-exposure bake causes the diffusion of the first solubility-changing agent (acid) to diffuse in the claimed target depth, or the selection of the agent type or concentration or the agent-layer thickness to cause the diffusion of the first solubility-changing agent in the claimed target depth as recited in claim 12. Suganaga does not disclose that the pre-exposure bake causes the diffusion of the first solubility-changing agent into the first portion of the photoresist layer to cause the first portion soluble for development (remaining part of claim 14).
Noelscher, in [0014], [0015], [0017], and [0019], discloses the coating of a contrast enhancing layer (CEL) as a top coat formed on a resist film, and discloses the diffusion of the CEL components into the underlying resist film and Noelscher in [0030], discloses the process of coating the CEL includes performing a pre-bake, and then removing a portion of the CEL while leaving behind a hardened portion on the resist.
Yang, in [0018], discloses that the acid-containing treatment layer formed on the photoresist layer is subjected to heating and that acid (claimed first solubility-changing agent) is diffused from the treatment layer into the underlying photoresist layer, and Yang, in [0031], discloses that after the diffusing portions are formed, the remainder of the treatment material layer is removed. Yang, in [0019], discloses the amount of diffusion and the diffusion length into the underlying photoresist material layer is based on the strength of the acid and the concentration of the acid in the treatment layer and the temperature of the process (during diffusion) and the duration of reaction process (diffusion of acid into the photoresist layer portions), and Yang, in [0030], discloses that the treated portions (upper portions of the photoresist material layer, that the acid diffused into, exposed or unexposed) are developed away in the developer (rendered soluble) and thereby the thickness of the photoresist layer patterned is less than the initial thickness of the photoresist layer.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Suganaga by heat-treating prior to exposure in the manner taught by either Noelscher or Yang because Suganaga teaches heating and hardening prior to performing exposure and development, and Yang, in [0020], teaches the treatment of the acid treatment layer for a time as needed and then removed once the desired concentration of acid in the photoresist layer is reached, and Noelscher in [0030], discloses that the once the hardened portion of the CEL in the underlying resist film is formed, the remainder is removed to avoid undesired intermixing of the two layer components. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Suganaga by employing the pre-bake of Yang to cause diffusion in the desired amount so as to cause developing, because Suganaga teaches in [0043], [0056]-[0057], that the mixing layer thickness (depth of permeation of the acid component from the upper layer film into the resist film) formed in the unexposed part can be a changed to a desired dimension (target depth) and the thickness of the mixing layer can be changed by adding components in the upper layer film, or by changing the solvent or the plurality of solvents in the upper layer (concentration) and Yang, in [0019]-[0020] and [0036], teaches the baking (prior to post-exposure baking) increases the diffusion of the acid into the photoresist layer and the diffusion can be controlled such that the features (photoresist pattern) formed will not be adversely affected, while the contrast ratio of the lithography process is improved.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment and Remarks, filed April 28, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9, 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 Ohtomi, see paragraph no. 4, above. With respect to applicant’s argument that Suganaga does not discloses exposing the photoresist to form exposed and non-exposed regions of the photoresist layer, Suganaga, in [0055], lines 4-8, discloses that the resist layer is exposed to ArF radiation through a mask i.e., after the selective ArF exposure the resist layer will have exposed and unexposed regions. With respect to applicant’s argument that Suganaga does not disclose depositing the agent-containing layer after the exposure of the photoresist layer to the pattern of actinic radiation, Ohtomi is dependent upon to disclose this limitation.
Applicant's arguments filed April 28, 2026, with respect to claims 10-17, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection made in the previous office action over claims 10-17, has been maintained. With respect to applicant’s argument that none of the prior art of record (Suganaga, Noelscher and Yang) disclose executing a pre-exposure bake …. that causes a first solubility-changing agent to diffuse from the agent-containing layer to a first portion of the photoresist layer, Suganaga teaches the baking of the photoresist and acid polymer containing upper film layer prior to exposure. Noelscher is dependent upon to disclose the removing of the photosensitive coating after the pre-bake of the resist layer to form hardened resist layer as disclosed in [0030]. However, Noelscher in [0024], discloses that the photosensitive coating out diffuses additives to the underlying resist film that it is in surface contact with, wherein the out diffusing occurs during baking even to areas of resist that is not exposed to radiation and suggests that the photosensitive coating with additives possess the property of out diffusing additives during a bake process to the underlying resist layer that it is in surface contact with. Yang is dependent upon to disclose a photoresist layer that is coated with an agent containing layer such as a treatment layer ([0026]), and when a baking process is conducted such as a regular bake (and not just the post-exposure bake) the baking (regular bake, claimed pre-exposure bake) causes the additive in the overlying treatment layer to react with the component inside the underlying photoresist layer ([0027]) and that an upper portion of the photoresist layer becomes the mixing layer due to diffusion, and is lost (developed away) upon a subsequent exposure and development due to the diffusion of the additive in the top surface portion (upper portion) of the underlying photoresist resulting in a thickness of the developed resist pattern being less than the original thickness of the photoresist layer (second height) ([0030]). Therefore, Suganaga in view of Noelscher and Yang discloses claim 10.
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 July 1, 2026.
Prosecution Insights