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 .
Amendment to the claims, specification, and drawings was submitted with corrections on 04/10/2026, objections to the drawings are withdrawn, claims 29 and 31 are canceled, new claims 35-36 are added.
Claim Status
Claims 1-23, 30, 32, and 35-36 are under consideration
Claims 29 and 31 are canceled
Claims 24-28 and 33-34 are withdrawn
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 30 recites the broad recitation greater than 0 nm and less than 10 nm, and the claim also recites less than 5 nm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14, 16-23, 32, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weng (US20210302833A1, published 2021).
Regarding claims 1-14, 16-23, 32, and 36,
Weng teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device includes forming a photoresist layer (radiation-sensitive, patternable material, polymeric material) over a substrate, including combining (reacting, polymerizing) a first precursor and a second precursor (instant precursors and/or reactants) in a vapor state (gas-phase) to form a photoresist material, and depositing the photoresist material over the substrate [abstract] in a vacuum chamber (reaction chamber/system) [0068], reading on instant claims 7-8, 14, 32, and 36.
Weng teaches the deposition may be performed by CVD (chemical vapor deposition), ALD (atomic layer deposition), PECVD (plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition), or PEALD (plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition) [0067], reading on instant claims 2-3.
Weng teaches the first precursor may be an organometallic precursor with formula MaRbXc, where M may be Si (silicon) and R is an alkyl, alkenyl, or carboxylate group (carbosilane, organosilicon, siloxane, carbosiloxane) [0057], including a dimer such as the one below (silazane) [fig 9, 0066], reading on instant claims 4-5 and 9-13.
PNG
media_image1.png
218
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Weng also teaches the second precursor (reactant) may be water or an amine [0063], reading on instant claims 10-11 and 13.
Weng teaches the precursor gases may be pulsed [0068], reading on instant claim 6.
Weng teaches their deposition gas my further contain argon (noble gas) [0075], reading on instant claim 16.
Weng teaches the substate may include buffer layers in its surface region, one or more layers of a metal containing layer, and a dielectric material [0052-0055], reading on the instant underlayer, as well as a patterned hard mask [0094], and a layer to be patterned over the substrate [0087], reading on instant claim 17.
Weng teaches selectively exposing their photoresist layer to EUV radiation to form exposed and unexposed regions [0031, 0088] and dry developing the patterned resist to remove the unexposed portions using either a gentle plasma (high pressure, low power) or a thermal process in a heated vacuum chamber while flowing a dry development chemistry [0048], reading on instant claims 19-21.
Weng teaches etching the substrate to transfer the pattern of the resist layer to the underlying substrate [0050], reading on instant claim 22.
Weng teaches filling trenches with a dielectric material (selective deposition onto the surface of the substrate) [0094], reading on instant claim 23.
Examine notes that the instant capping layer may be interpreted as any layer that caps (overlies) the resist layer, where a pulsed deposition process would include formation of multiple layers of the resist film, where a final deposition film may be considered the capping layer relative to the underlying formed resist layers, reading on instant claims 1 and 18.
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.
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 15, 30, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng (US20210302833A1, published 2021) as applied to claim 1 and 29 above.
Regarding claims 15, 30, and 35,
Weng teaches the above limitations set forth.
Weng further teaches the photoresist layer is formed to a thickness of about 5 nm to about 50 nm, and to a thickness of about 10 nm to about 30 nm in other embodiments [0074], overlapping the range of instant claims 15 and 30.
Weng teaches the pressure in their deposition chamber (reaction chamber) may be between about 5 mTorr to about 100 Torr (about 0.7 Pa to about 13332 Pa) [0070], overlapping the instantly claimed range, reading on instant claim 35.
Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 regarding the 102/103 rejections in view of Weng have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The applicant asserts the protective layer of Weng includes a polymer which is formed by spin coating, rather than formed within the reaction chamber of the gas-phase reactor.
The examiner finds this argument persuasive.
The Applicant asserts Weng fails to teach a resist material formed within the reaction chamber of the gas-phase reactor, further asserting that their resist material does not “comprise silicon”.
However, as noted in the above rejection, Weng teaches forming their photoresist layer in a vacuum chamber using reactive precursors in a vapor state (reading on the reaction chamber of a gas phase reactor), where the first precursor may contain silicon. Thus, the examiner maintains the rejection.
The above rejections have been updated to account for the new claim amendments.
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 Alexander Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2261. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5:30 EST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at (571) 272-3458. 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.
/A.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights