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, 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) and U. S. Patent No. 4,908,656 (hereinafter referred to as Suwa).
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). 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. 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.
The difference between the claims and Case in view of Tenner is that Case in view of Tenner does not disclose that 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.
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 of Tanner 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) and U. S. Patent No. 4,908,656 (hereinafter referred to as Suwa) as applied to claims 1-6, 9-13, 16-19, above, and further in view of U. S. Patent No. 6,641,978 (hereinafter referred to as Chapman).
Case in view of Tenner and Suwa is discussed in paragraph no. 3, above.
The difference between the claims and Case in view of Tenner and Suwa is that Case in view of Tenner and Suwa 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 and Suwa 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.
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 January 24, 2026.