DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 10, 12, 14-19, 22, 25-30, 32, 34-40, 43 are pending. Claims 1-3, 10, 12, 14-16 are withdrawn. Claims 17-19, 22, 25-30, 39, 40, 43 are rejected. Claim 32 is allowed. Claims 34-38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 17-19, 22, 25-30, 39, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yoshimizu et al. (US 2019/0035636).
With respect to claims 17, 18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30 Yoshimizu describes a manufacturing method of an integrated circuit comprising: contacting and activating a treatment liquid including water to generate hydroxyl radicals (OH) in the water to oxidize and remove the resist formed on the surface of the wafer (para 52, 53). This water contains hydroxyl radicals would read on claimed “a photoresist liquid”, “a developer liquid” because the terms “a photoresist liquid” and “a developer liquid” of a photolithography, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, see MPEP 2111, describe a property of the liquid, and the claimed liquid doesn’t require any specific compounds according to claim 17, and the plasma-treated water is used to removed the resist; therefore, it reads on claimed “photoresist liquid” or “a developer liquid”.
This water contains hydroxyl radicals wherein the hydroxyl radicals are generated by the plasma would also read on claimed a multi-component liquid, which are OH radicals and water, and OH radicals would read on claimed plasma activated components.
In another embodiment Yoshimizu describes forming groove GR3 in a wafer with etching liquid containing water and HF acid (para 18-19, 62-65) wherein the “OH radicals are formed in the liquid by the atmospheric-pressure plasma. The OH radicals form silicon oxide on a silicon surface, and the hydrofluoric acid dissolves the silicon oxide.” This etching liquid of HF in water with the OH radicals formed by irradiating the etching liquid with a plasma under atmospheric pressure (para 18, 19) would read on claimed activating a photolithography liquid with a plasma and treating the a device component with the activated photolithography liquid of “a photoresist liquid”, “a developer liquid” and a “cleaning solution liquid that is a multi-component liquid comprising a plurality of a plasma activated components” because the terms “a photoresist liquid” and “a developer liquid” of a photolithography, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, see MPEP 2111, describe a property of the liquid, and the claimed liquid doesn’t require any specific compounds according to claim 17; also, the liquid of water and HF is capable of being used in a photolithographic process (please see Komatsu cited below for the description of the uses for dilute HF and buffered HF as a cleaning agents or a photoresist developer and a photoresist stripper); therefore, this etching liquid would read on claimed “a photoresist liquid” or “a developer liquid”. Furthermore, this etching liquid reads on claimed “a cleaning solution liquid that is a multi-component liquid comprising a plurality of a plasma activated components” since it contains multi-components of water, HF and plasma activated OH radicals.
With respect to claims 22, 25, 26, they depend on claim 19 in which these limitation are listed as optional according to claim 19; therefore, they are also optional and not necessary contribute or part of the claimed method.
With respect to claim 39, the plasma is an atmospheric pressure plasma (para 57).
With respect to claim 40, the activation occurs in a control gas environment 87 (fig. 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimizu et al. (US 2019/0035636) and further in view of Bai et al. (CN 110879508A).
With respect to claim 43, Yoshimura above teaches further steps of providing a resist pattern mask, etching the wafer to transfer the resist or photoresist pattern mask to the substrate, ashing the resist to remove the resist (para 67, 68), and cleaning the wafer with the plasma activated treatment liquid (para 45). Unlike claimed invention, Yoshimura doesn’t explicitly describe etching the wafer to transfer the pattern to an oxide layer. However, he teaches in an embodiment wherein the substrate includes a groove, which is formed in a silicon-oxide film (fig. 11A-11C; para 69, 73). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to transfer a pattern to an silicon oxide layer because it would provide a structure for a semiconductor device with expected results.
Unlike claimed invention, Yoshimura doesn’t teach the steps of providing a photoresist mask pattern which includes coating, hardening, electromagnetic radiation, and developing. However, these are well known steps in providing a photoresist pattern as shown here by Bai, who describes coating a photoresist liquid on a substrate, baking or hardening the photoresist liquid into a layer; exposing the photoresist layer electromagnetic radiation of to KrF, ArF, or 13.5 nm EUV and developing the photoresist layer with a solution to form a pattern (page 8 of the translation). One skilled in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention, in light of Bai’s teaching, to use those photoresist processing steps because these steps have been successfully used to provide a photoresist pattern on the substrate for the patterning or etching of the substrate with expected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 32 is allowed because Yoshimizu doesn’t teach that the photolithography liquid comprises a positive photoresist or a negative photoresist. He teaches treating a liquid including water and/or HF acid.
Claims 34-38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 34 and its dependent claims 35-38, Yoshimizu doesn’t teach hardening the photoresist liquid into a solid layer of photoresist on the device component; wherein the activating step comprises creating free radicals, solvated electrons, or both in the photolithography liquid; and wherein after the hardening step, the free radicals and/or solvated electrons produced via the activating step are trapped in the solid layer of photoresist. He teaches treating a liquid including water or HF acid before used on a semiconductor substrate.
Komatsu et al. US 20070007196A1 is cited to show the uses of dilute HF and buffer HF or water with HF as a photoresist developer and stripper (para 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remark that Yoshimizu teaches a cleaning solution, he doesn’t describe “a phototoresist liquid”, “a developer liquid”, or “a multi-component liquid comprising a plurality of plasma activated components” are found unpersuasive.
As explained above “a photoresist liquid” or “a developer liquid” describes a property of the liquid and claim 17 doesn’t require any specific compounds; therefore, any liquid/solution that is capable of being used on a photoresist would read on claimed “a photoresist liquid” or “a developer liquid”. Yoshimizu’s teaching of using solutions of plasma activated water for removing resist and plasma activated water with HF for forming grooves are certainly capable of being used on a photoresist, please see rejections above; therefore, they would read on claimed “a phototoresist liquid”, “a developer liquid”, or “a multi-component liquid comprising a plurality of plasma activated components.”
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 DUY VU NGUYEN DEO whose telephone number is (571)272-1462. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-272-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
3/24/2026