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 I, claims 1-10, 12, in the reply filed on December 2, 2025, is acknowledged. Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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) 1-10, and 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0125791 (hereinafter referred to as Somervell) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0319556 (hereinafter referred to as Wang).
Somervell, in the abstract, and [0008]-[0012], discloses a process that includes forming a resist pattern (uneven pattern) on a substrate, and displacing the rinse liquid on the pattern (resist pattern) with gap-fill treatment liquid (claimed solid-state stiffener), and removing the excess gap-fill treatment liquid and drying (claimed molecular weight reduction processing) the gap-fill treatment liquid in the resist pattern opening (recess) to form a gap-fill material layer (claimed solid-state stiffener in solid state) in the recess (pattern opening) (claim 1). Somervell, in [0009],[0036], and [0039], discloses that the resist pattern is formed by exposure and development of the exposed resist layer, and the gap-fill treatment liquid within the resist pattern is subjected to heating (thermal energy), and radiation treatment (energy rays) and is the same claimed molecular weight reduction processing, such that a polymer compound in the liquid volatilizes and not the resist pattern material (resist pattern material is maintained and not removed during thermal or radiation treatment, see figure 5), and thereby the gap treatment material remaining as the dried (solid) layer in the recess (resist pattern opening) inherently has the claimed reduction of intermolecular bonds (claims 2, 8). Somervell, in [0038], discloses that the gap-fill material layer (dried) is volatilized in vacuum (pumped away, depressurized) i.e., sublimated in a depressurized space (removed) (claims 3-4). Somervell, in [0036], and [0038], discloses that the gap-fill material layer can be removed by plasma etching (dry etching) (claim 5). Somervell, in [0037], discloses supplying (spun on to the substrate with the resist pattern) the gap-fill treatment liquid to the photoresist pattern lines (plurality of recesses) such that the gap-fill treatment liquid (claimed processing liquid) displaces the rinse liquid in the openings of the photoresist pattern (between the line patterns, claimed replacing the liquid in the recess) such that the gap-fill treatment liquid fills the openings in the pattern (reference 350 of figure 4), and Somervell, in [0036],discloses that the excess gap-fill treatment liquid is removed and then dried to form the gap-fill material layer (solid gap-fill layer in the pattern, reference 360 in figure 4) (claims 6-7). Somervell, in [0037], and discloses that the drying step causes the removal of solvents and in [0039], Somervell discloses the use of a heating device (thermal energy) and will inherently and necessarily cause the claimed dehydration condensation (claim 9). Somervell, in [0035], discloses that the resist is exposed to light to form a latent image line pattern and the exposed resist is subjected to a developing process (using a developer) so as to remove a portion of the resist film (develop portions of the photoresist) to form a developed photoresist line pattern on the substrate. Somervell, in [0038], and [0039], discloses that the solidified gap fill layer (gap fill material liquid subjected to drying, claimed molecular weight reduction processing, solid-state stiffener) in the pattern (resist pattern) when subjected to plasma etch process results in the gap-fill layer being removed and leaving behind the photoresist line pattern i.e., the photoresist pattern has good etch resistance (including the surface of the resist pattern, see reference 310 of figure 4) (claim 10). Somervell, discloses that the gap-fill treatment liquid (solid-state stiffener) includes a polymer such as poly (vinyl alcohol) (claim 12).
The difference between the claims and Somervell is that Somervell does not disclose that the resist is a negative type resist and that the resist includes a metal.
Wang, in [0009], discloses a resist pattern that is subjected to gap-fill treatment using a gap-filling composition, and Wang, in [0058], discloses that the resist material used to form the resist pattern can be a negative resist. Wang, in [0080] that the resist material composition can be a metal-containing resist.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Somervell by using the resist composition material taught by Wang as the resist material because Somervell does not preclude the use of a negative tone resist and does not limit the resist material to a positive tone resist, and Wang, in [0080], teaches that using a metal-containing resist enables the use of a resist that has a low etching rate i.e., the resist is etch resistant, And Somervell, in [0039], discloses the need for the photoresist to possess resistance in order to prevent the volatilization and/or depolymerization of the photoresist during the thermal treatment.
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 December 27, 2025.