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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no description that fairly indicates that Applicant had possession of the concept that the first thin film layer is a metal layer. All discussion says that the layer includes metal; none says that it actually is metal. Applicant cites p. 26, lines 20-22 that the first thin film metal is a power rail as evidence for the assertion that the layer is metal but a power rail does not have to be metal.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 20090305169 A1) in view of Singh et al. (US 20210033974 A1).
Kobayashi teaches a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising a plurality of layers (Fig. 3d) wherein 11 is a resist film (abstract) and several embodiments. The first embodiment comprises of: spin coating an organic lower film 31 onto a wafer and then spin coating a silicon-containing intermediate film 32 over the organic lower film 31 and baking (process 1) [0034]; next, the resist film 11 is spin coated over the silicon-containing intermediate film 32 (process 2) [0035]; then baking at about 125 °C for about 60 seconds (process 3) [0036]; then immersion exposure using an ArF excimer laser (process 4) [0037]; followed by a post exposure bake at about 115 °C for about 60 seconds (process 5) [0038]; developing using tetra methyl ammonium hydroxide (TMAH) aqueous solution to form a pattern on the resist film 11 (process 6) [0039]; and removing the edge of the resist film using an organic solvent (process 7) [0040] (claim 10). Kobayashi further teaches a modification example of the second embodiment wherein Fig. 9 shows the schematic diagram of the substrate processing device comprising a stage 90, an infrared irradiation device 91 (heating device) (claim 2), and the wafer serving as a processing object [0065]. The infrared irradiation device 91 is moved to irradiate and heat the edge of the resist film on the wafer with the infrared ray (claims 3, 5-8, 11, 13-15) and the wafer edge exposure device 62 is moved to perform the wafer edge exposure on the edge of the resist film [0065] (claim 1). Kobayashi teaches this heat treating is performed after the post exposure bake (process 5; [0036]) [0051 and 0063] (claim 9).
However Kobayashi is silent on the first thin layer comprising a metal (claims 1, 4-5, 10, and 12-13).
Singh et al. teaches methods for forming a multilayer stack comprising forming a carbon layer over a film stack, forming a metal rich oxide layer 206 on the carbon layer 204 by a physical vapor deposition (PVD) process, forming a metal oxide photoresist layer 208 on the metal rich oxide layer 206, and patterning the metal oxide photoresist layer (abstract; Figs. 1 & 2) (claims 1, 4-5, 10, and 12-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined the method of Kobayashi with the multilayer stack composition of Singh et al. because both references teach a multilayer stack comprising three layers with the photoresist as the top layer and further Singh et al. teaches the “metal rich oxide layer formed by the PVD process improves adhesion of the metal oxide photoresist layer” (abstract). See MPEP § 2143, rationales (A). See also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 20090305169 A1) in view of Singh et al. (US 20210033974 A1), as applied to claim 1 and further in view of JP 57-052052 (citations to translation provided by Applicant in the IDS filed 9/25/23).
Kobayashi and Singh are described above but do not explicitily discuss the use of a photoresist to pattern a metal layer. JP 57-052052 teaches the use of photlithography to pattern chrome layers for use in process integrated circuits (translation, p. 1, lines 1-3; p. 1 , last 3 lines; p. 2, last 4 lines).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the filing of the instant application to have used the method of Kabayashi and Singh to have processed metal layer by photolithography where the metals were desired to be patterned by photolithography.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is 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.
Kobayashi is discussed above but does not fairly teach or suggest irradiating light olbliquely on an upper surface of the first thin film layer such that the first thin film layer absorbs the light and functions as an internal heat source that heats the substrate as a post-exposure bake process.
JP 2017-016069, cited in the IDS of 12/12/25 is of interest because it patternwise exposes an internal layer to light that patterns photoresist layer 3. However, this is the exposure process itself, not a post-exposure process, and it is a local patterning process rather than a pos-exposure bake process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the Kobayashi and Singh lack motivation to arrive at a post-exposure, layer-selective heating. The argument is unconvincing because it is arguing features that are not claimed. Claim 1 does not require the heating to be post-exposure nor layer-selective.
Regarding new claim 21, the argument is unconvincing in light of JP 57-052052 to show photolithography including metal layers.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant argues that claim 10 has been amended to recite irradiating after the exposure process. However, the argument is unconvincing because the art as applied meets this limitation. Kobayashi teaches that its edge irradiation process occurs after the photoresist exposure process, as discussed 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 MICHAEL B CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)272-1418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights