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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 2/3/26 is acknowledged. Claims 1-16 and New Claims 21-24 are under consideration.
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 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu et al (2019/00227519) in view of Yang et al (CN 1131198549 A).
With respect to Claim 1, Chiu et al discloses a method of fabricating a semiconductor device, comprising: forming a photoresist layer over a substrate using the photoresist composition (Figure 7A , 704 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 33-34); forming a photoresist pattern in the photoresist layer exposing a portion of the substrate (Figure 7A, 708 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 35-35) ; and performing an operation on the exposed portion of the substrate (Figure 7A, 718, and corresponding text, especially paragraph 44). See Figure 7A and corresponding text of Chiu et al.
However, Chiu et al do not disclose “determining a concentration of a byproduct of a photoresist composition and forming a photoresist layer over a substrate using the photoresist composition when the concentration of the byproducts is below a threshold value”.
Yang et al disclose determining a concentration of a byproduct of a photoresist composition and forming a photoresist layer over a substrate using the photoresist composition when the concentration of the byproducts is below a threshold value, and its benefit of reducing the cost of the photoetching process. See the Abstract, page 2, lines 1-20 and page 4, lines 1-30.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to determine a concentration of a byproduct of a photoresist composition and to form a photoresist layer over a substrate using the photoresist composition when the concentration of the byproducts is below a threshold value, in the process of Chiu et al, for its known benefit of reducing the cost of the photoetching process as disclosed by Yang et al. The use of a known process for its known benefit would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 2, Chiu et al discloses wherein the operation is an ion implantation operation. See paragraph 44 of Chiu et al.
With respect to Claim 3, Chiu et al discloses wherein the operation is an etching operation. See paragraph 44 of Chiu et al.
With respect to Claim 4, Chiu et al discloses high aspect ratios. See paragraphs 12 and 24; and Figure 21B and corresponding text. With respect to the limitation “wherein the etching operation forms a trench in the substrate having an aspect ratio of 15 to 60”, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed limitations as changes in shape are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47, (CCPA 1966).
With respect to Claim 7, Chiu et al discloses high aspect ratios. See paragraphs 12 and 24; and Figure 21B and corresponding text. With respect to the limitation “wherein a trench in the photoresist pattern has an aspect ratio ranging from 8 to 30”, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed limitations as changes in shape are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47, (CCPA 1966).
With respect to Claim 8, , Chiu et al discloses aspect ratios. See paragraphs 12 and 24; and Figure 21B and corresponding text. With respect to the limitation “wherein a width of the trench in the photoresist pattern at 25% of a trench height from the substrate ranges from 0.75 to 0.90 of a width of the trench at 90% of the trench height from the substrate”, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed limitations as changes in shape are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47, (CCPA 1966).
With respect to Claim 9, Chiu et al discloses wherein the semiconductor device is a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor image sensor. See paragraph 26 of Chiu et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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 Claims 5-6, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious “wherein the byproduct is a tertiary amine oxide”, in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Claims 10-16 and 21-24 are allowed.
With respect to Claims 10-16, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious “determining a normalized concentration of tertiary amine oxide in a photoresist composition; forming a photoresist layer over an underlying layer using the photoresist composition when the normalized concentration of the tertiary amine oxide is below a threshold value”, in combination with the other claimed limitations.
With respect to Claims 21-24, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious “ forming a photoresist layer over an underlying layer using a photoresist composition having a concentration of tertiary amine oxide below 10% based on the total concentration of the photoresist composition measured by high performance liquid chromatography”, in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
April 23, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights