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) 1-6, 9-13, 16-19, and 21-22, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0117598 (hereinafter referred to as Case) in view of U. S. Patent No. 5,673,101 (hereinafter referred to as Tenner), U. S. Patent No. 4,908,656 (hereinafter referred to as Suwa) and U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0015410 (hereinafter referred to as Imai).
Case, in the abstract, and in [0035]-[0036], discloses a process of making photoresist pattern by coating silicon wafer (substrate) with photoresist (unpatterned photoresist), and conducting plural overlapping exposure on the same portion of the photoresist i.e., first exposure region is subjected to exposure such that the second exposure region overlaps the first exposure, wherein each exposure is subthreshold such that at least partially exposed or patterned photoresist is formed ([0062], create the overlapped exposure regions). Case, in [0055]-[0061], discloses that the exposure can be multiple times with short interval between the illuminations. Case, in [0081]-[0082], discloses that the two exposures performed on the photoresist can be of two different light sources and of two different wavelength wherein one wavelength is longer than the other wavelength. Case, in [0094], discloses that the second wavelength used in the second exposure can be a longer wavelength (claimed greater wavelength) (claims 1, 11-12). Case, in [0087]-[0089], discloses that the two sources of radiation can be of the same wavelength and the radiation can be a UV radiation (same source, any wavelength that induces a desired behavior in the photoresist can be used for both the illumination processes) (claims 2-3). Case, in [0068], discloses that the photoresist (prior to exposure is the claimed unpatterned photoresist) is subjected to repeated illumination steps each time (first, second, and repeated exposures after the first and second) receiving sub-threshold exposure doses i.e., a third exposure and fourth exposure can be performed and Case, in [0072]-[0077], discloses that exposure processes can be performed at least four times till the exposed region reaches necessary exposure to form a complete pattern and discloses that in the repeated exposures the duration should be long enough to exceed the threshold exposure i.e., doses of the exposures vary i.e., the third and fourth doses of exposure can be longer or different from the first dose of radiation exposure (also see figure 7)i.e., the repeated exposure (includes fourth) is determined if the photoresist exposed is completely exposed (catalyzed, chemically changed) or not and repeated till the exposure of the photoresist in the desired regions are complete (claims 5, 18-19). Case, in [0086]-[0090], discloses that wavelength in either the first illumination process (that has a first dose) or the wavelength in the second illumination process (that has a second dose) can be changed or that any desired wavelength can be used as long as the selected wavelength can induce a desired behavior in the photoresist and thus Case teaches tunable wavelength, and Case, in [0076]-[0077], discloses that the time (duration) for either of the illumination processes (first or second or any of the repeated exposure/illumination processes) can be long enough such that at least the central peak exceeds threshold illumination to certain extent and at the same time short enough to create less intense side lobes i.e., the time (exposure duration or illumination duration) can be tunable (claimed tunable longevity) (claim 6). Case, in [0033], discloses that upon exposure the resist can be subjected to heating and the exposed regions are heated to above a critical temperature i.e., exposed regions (fully exposed or completely exposed) of photoresist are subjected to a heating process (at least above claimed 30°C) and Case, in [0077]-[0078], discloses that once the exposure processes are performed to expose a complete pattern, the photoresist is subjected to developing (claims 9, 16). Case, in [0101]-[0102], discloses that the cumulative exposures catalyze (change the chemical composition of the photoresist, claimed optical property) the photoresist in the regions of the central peak and the non-desirable areas of the photoresist are still under sub-threshold that it does not catalyze in the non-desirable areas and thereby determine the complete exposure of the photoresist (claims 10, 17, 21-22). Case, in [0032], discloses that the first exposure dose can be a sub-threshold dose that the photoresist will not catalyze (no chemical change, does not change the optical property of the photoresist) (claim 13).
The difference between the claims and Case is that Case does not disclose measuring the optical property in the manner recited or measuring between each of the exposure doses as recited in the claims. Case does not disclose an on-board metrology device. Case does not disclose that the longevity of the first dose of EM radiation is less than or equal to 1 millisecond (claim 4).
Tenner, in col 1, lines 6-26, discloses that the light source used in the imaging of the substrate, includes a detection device (metrology device) that detects the latent image formed on the photoresist , and based on the quality of the pattern image formed, the imaging process is repeated consecutively i.e., the after each imaging process (exposure) the detection device is used to impinge the light on the exposed image formed on the resist and detect the formed image for its desired exposure dose and is the same as the claimed measuring the optical property of the unpatterned and partially patterned photoresist. Tenner, in col 3, lines 50-58, discloses that the output signal of the latent image detection device (metrology device), obtained when scanning the images formed on the photoresist layer, is used to determine the exposure dose for the consecutive exposure process, and the variation of the output signal obtained by the detection device determines the change in resist composition in the exposed areas (latent imaged areas) and is the same as the claimed measuring an optical property of the unpatterned and/or partially patterned photoresist.
The difference between the claims and Case in view of Tenner is that Case in view of Tenner does not disclose that the light source that is used for the exposure is the same light source used for the metrology device (detection device). Case in view of Tenner does not disclose the longevity of the first dose of EM radiation is less than or equal to 1 millisecond.
Suwa, in col 11, lines 67-68, and in col 12, lines 1-15, discloses that the exposure time (longevity) with the first exposure (first dose) can be less than 10 milli sec and including 0 millisecond.
Imai, in [0023], and [0024], discloses that the inspection device uses the same illumination means with short wavelengths of light within the UV range for both the exposure and for the subsequent inspection of the exposed resist image.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Case by employing a detection device as the claimed on board metrology device and determine optical property of the photoresist layer as taught by Tenner because Case teaches the necessity of repeating and changing exposure dose and time based on the complete catalyzing of the photoresist in the desired regions and Tenner, in col 1, lines 66-67, and col 2, lines 1-6, discloses that using a latent-image detection device enables examining the mask image (latent image formed on the substrate) without taking the substrate out of the apparatus and developing the substrate and thus avoid a time-consuming process and Tenner, in col 2, lines 65-67, discloses that using the latent image detection device provides measuring possibilities and Tenner, in col 3, lines 50-65, discloses that the latent image detection device provides an output signal of the scanned images (latent) formed in the photoresist layer that is used to determined exposure dose for the production projection process and direct and accurate measurement of the influence of the quantity of exposure dose on the mask pattern image to be formed in the substrate. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Case in view Tenner by using the same illumination source used for imaging the resist as the light source for performing the inspection of the exposed resist as taught by Imai because Imai discloses that the using same illumination source with very short wavelengths enables to process and analyze the state of the exposed resist very accurately. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Case in view of Tenner and Imai by using the exposure time/duration for the first exposure (or the first dose of radiation exposure) as taught by Suwa because Case, in [0027], discloses the tunability of exposure duration and discloses that the exposure duration can be for a short time and Case in [0068], discloses that the regions that receive the sub-threshold dose of illumination in one exposure (first dose) can be so negligible that it does not add to other sub-threshold doses of illuminations and suggest a very negligible duration of illumination, and Suwa, in col 14, lines 10-27, discloses that the exposure time is based on the desired optimum exposure.
Claim(s) 7-8, 14-15, and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0117598 (hereinafter referred to as Case) in view of U. S. Patent No. 5,673,101 (hereinafter referred to as Tenner), U. S. Patent No. 4,908,656 (hereinafter referred to as Suwa) and U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0015410 (hereinafter referred to as Imai), as applied to claims 1-6, 9-13, 16-19, and 21-22, above, and further in view of U. S. Patent No. 6,641,978 (hereinafter referred to as Chapman).
Case in view of Tenner, Suwa and Imai is discussed in paragraph no. 3, above.
The difference between the claims and Case in view of Tenner, Suwa and Imai is that Case in view of Tenner, Suwa and Imai does not disclose that the photoresist is a metal oxide photoresist (claims 7, 14, 20) or that the photoresist is deposited in the manner recited in claims 8, 15, and part of 20).
Chapman, in abstract, in col 4, lines 29-35, in col 8, lines 22-45, discloses that the resist being subjected to exposure can be inorganic resist wherein the inorganic resist can be oxide of metallic material and that the inorganic resist can be deposited via dry deposition processes such as CVD.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Case in view of Tenner, Suwa and Imai by employing the inorganic resist taught by Chapman and by using the deposition method taught by Chapman to deposit the photoresist layer because Case and Tenner and Suwa teaches the formation of a photoresist layer on a wafer/substrate and does not prohibit the use of inorganic resist or metal oxide containing resist or the preclude the use of dry deposition techniques to form the photoresist layer, and Chapman, in col 4, lines 66-67, and col 5, lines 1-35, discloses that the inorganic resist possess important thermal and optical characteristics and have sufficiently low thermal conductivity that the exposed areas do not exceed threshold temperature during a laser pulse that above threshold levels of exposures, and that the inorganic resist possess good sensitivity to the exposure radiation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed May 4, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 9-13, 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 Imai, see paragraph nos. 3, and 4, above. With respect to applicant’s argument none of the reference (Case, Tenner or Suwa) disclose the claimed method of preparing a patterned photoresist, Case teaches the exposing of the photoresist with partial doses such that the first exposure on a first portion (claimed first location) does not result in the complete exposure of the first portion since of the each of the exposures and subsequent exposure are sub-threshold exposures, and Case teaches the repeating of the sub-threshold exposures in each of the regions (first location) till the exposed region receives the complete dose of exposure to form the imaged pattern in the resist layer. Tenner is dependent upon to disclose using a metrology device (image detection device) to detect the characteristic of the exposed region of the resist immediately after exposure, and based on the output of the image detection device, the exposure is repeated on the region (first location). Imai is dependent upon to disclose the use of one of the illumination sources and the wavelength of light used in the illumination process for the purpose of performing an inspection on the imaged resist wherein the wavelength is a short wavelength in the UV region. Suwa is dependent upon to disclose the claimed duration. Therefore, Case in view of Tenner. Suwa and Imai teaches the claimed invention. With respect to applicant’s argument that Tenner teaches against the use of claimed light sources that were used for the first dose of EM radiation or the second dose of EM radiation, Tenner teaches the use of long wavelength radiation that are non-actinic so as to not produce any effect in the photoresist layer, however, Imai teaches using short wavelength illumination sources (actinic light) for the purpose of inspecting the exposed resist only causes a change in the resist characteristics when the irradiation amount is large and discloses that actinic radiation (illumination light) can be used due to its ability to inspect very accurately, and thereby preferred, as long the illumination light is of a low optimum dose and does not exceed irradiation threshold value.
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, 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 7, 2026.
Prosecution Insights