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) 1-4, 6-8, 10-15, and 17-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0075319 (hereinafter referred to as Chang) in view of WO2022/016123 (hereinafter referred to as Hansen).
Chang, in the abstract, in [0013]-[0014], [0019], and [0027]-[0028], and in figure 1, discloses the manufacturing of a semiconductor device that includes the forming of a photoresist layer on a substrate, and patterning the photoresist layer by using a developer to develop the exposed photoresist to form a photoresist pattern (reference 118 of figure 1). Chang, in [0031]-[0034], and [0063], discloses coating the photoresist pattern (the photoresist that has been developed with a developer, i.e., a post-development treatment step of coating the photoresist pattern) with a metal based composite material such a metal precursor resulting in the formation of a coating or crust (claimed etch resistant layer) on the photoresist pattern (figure 2B or figure 6B). Chang, in [0089]-[0092], discloses that coating the photoresist pattern with the metal containing precursor results in a photoresist pattern that can be used as a mask and behaves etch resistant to the subsequent etch processes i.e., the crust or layer (claimed etch resistant layer) formed on the photoresist pattern is etch resistant (claims 1, 11 and 18). Chang, in [0032]-[0034], discloses that the metal composite material coated onto the photoresist pattern includes a metal precursor, and discloses that the metal precursor coated on the photoresist pattern includes an organic component and an inorganic component, that are bound to each other (claim 2). Chang, in [0032], discloses that the inorganic component includes metal such as Al, or Sn or Ti or Zr (claims 3-4). Chang, in [0034], discloses that the precursor used for coating the photoresist pattern includes a silane (claim 6) and is the same claimed binder component recited in claim 15 and part of claim 14. Chang in [0033]-[0034], discloses that the silane precursor coated on the photoresist pattern includes tris (dimethylamino)silane or bis(diethylamino)silane i.e., the R includes claimed linear alkyl groups and is the same structure recited in claims 7-8, and 20. Chang, in [0033], discloses that the ALD process (vapor deposition) is used to deposit the thin film on the upper layer 118 of figure 1 (photoresist pattern, 118) and is a post-development coating (treating) step (claims 12, 19). Chang, in [0060], and [0061], and in figure 6A, discloses that the photoresist pattern is coated with a metal based composite and converting the photoresist pattern to a mask layer, and Chang in [0062], and in figure 6B, discloses that the thermal ALD process is performed to form the uniform cross link resulting in a crust formation on the pattern surface i.e., after the initial coating, a heating is performed to cause crosslinking of the coated material uniformly on the photoresist pattern (claim 13). Chang, in the abstract, and in [0031], discloses the coating of the metal oxide crust on the upper layer 118 (the photoresist pattern of figure 1) i.e., the component in the coating formed over the photoresist pattern includes a metal oxide and is the same as the claimed etch resistant component recited in claim 17 and part of claim 14.
The difference between the claims and Chang is that Chang does not disclose that the photoresist layer formed on the substrate is a metallic resist layer. Chang does not disclose that the organic component of the layer formed on the photoresist pattern include the claimed crosslinker moiety or that the crosslinking occurs via a crosslinker component or the crosslinker component, or the ligand moiety recited in claim 10.
Hansen, in [0007], [0020] and [0084] discloses that the photoresist is a metal-containing resist with one or more metal species in the organic components of the photoresist. Hansen, in [0020], and [0027], and in [0198], discloses that the capping layer formed over the photoresist layer is formed by using an initial precursor and an organic co-reactant wherein the organic co-reactant and/or the capping film formed includes an epoxy moiety that crosslinks metal atoms (the claimed crosslinker moiety or crosslinker component). Hansen, in [0020], [0024], and [0087], discloses the modified precursor that is coated onto the photoresist layer to form the capping layer, and the modified precursor includes ligands wherein the ligands include an amino functional group (monodentate ligand).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Chang by using a metallic resist as the resist layer coated on the substrate as taught by Hansen because Chang does not prohibit the use of a metal-doped or metal-containing photoresist and Hansen, in [0083]-[0084], discloses that using photoresist that is a metal-containing material or a using a metal mixed with organic components as the photoresist material enables sub-30nm patterning resolution and enhances both EUV or DUV photon absorption and generate secondary electrons and increases the etch selectivity to underlying film stack and device layers. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Chang by using a crosslinker and/or a ligand in the coating material applied on the photoresist pattern as taught by Hansen because Chang teaches that crosslinking occurs in the coating formed on the photoresist and Hansen, in [0027], discloses that the crosslinker provides a polymerizable moiety and Hansen, in [0191] and [0196], discloses that the polymerization occurs in vapor phase such that a metal-oxide-metal bond formation occurs and the formed film can be used as a capping layer (cap layer atop the photoresist). It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Chang by using the ligands in the material coated onto the photoresist surface as taught by Hansen because Chang does not prohibit the use of ligands in the metal-composite material coated on the photoresist pattern and Hansen in [0020], and [0081], discloses that having ligands in the organometallic material causes the replacing of at least one ligand with organic co-reactants to form the modified precursor that is coated onto the resist material (as capping layer) and thereby using appropriate combination of polymerizable moieties (crosslinkable moieties) and ligands in the coating material enable the control of chemical, physical and optical properties of the deposited film.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0075319 (hereinafter referred to as Chang) in view of WO2022/016123 (hereinafter referred to as Hansen) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-15, and 17-20, above, and further in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0189779 (hereinafter referred to as Allen).
Chang in view of Hansen is discussed in paragraph no. 4, above.
The difference between the claims and Chang in view of Hansen is that Chang in view of Hansen does not disclose that the metal-containing precursor (inorganic component of the etch resistant layer) coated onto the photoresist is a three-dimensional cage structure as recited in claim 5.
Allen, in [0003], and in [0018], discloses that the topcoat material coated onto the photoresist is a polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane and is a three-dimensional cage structure.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Chang in view of Hansen by employing a top coat material that has the claimed structure as taught Allen because Chang teaches that the metal precursor includes inorganic and organic components and the inorganic components include metal oxide variants such as SiOx and Allen teaches topcoat material that has oligomers of Si and O and Allen in [0040], discloses that photoresist with the claimed topcoat material has a photoresist pattern that has a squarer profile with less rough edges and less thickness loss than a photoresist without the topcoat material.
Claim(s) 21-22, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0075319 (hereinafter referred to as Chang) in view of WO2022/016123 (hereinafter referred to as Hansen) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-15, and 17-20, above, and further in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0335349 (hereinafter referred to as Wang).
Chang in view of Hansen is discussed in paragraph no. 3, above.
The difference between the claims and Chang in view of Hansen is that Chang in view of Hansen does not disclose that the organic component in the composition coated over the resist pattern includes the crosslinker moiety recited in claims 21-22.
Wang, in [0019], and [0029], discloses that the treatment material composition coated over the patterned resist layer includes components such as acrylates and methacrylate and that the acrylate/methacrylate pendant groups bond to the resist surface via covalent bonds i.e., the acrylate or methacrylate in the treatment material is the same as the claimed crosslinker moiety recited in the claims.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Chang in view of Hansen because Chang teaches treating the photoresist pattern with a precursor material that includes organic components and does not prohibit the claimed crosslinker moiety, and Wang, in [0200], discloses the acrylate groups, in the treatment material, as the linking groups, and Wang teaches in [0029]-[0030], that the treatment material that comprises the acrylate/methacrylate linking groups bonds to the surface of the patterned resist material by way of covalent bonding, and that the treated patterned resist layer (treated with the treatment material composition) possess minimal line width roughness and excellent local critical dimension uniformity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 22, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-20 made in the previous office action are maintained. Also, the newly filed dependent claims, viz., 21-22, have been addressed in paragraph no. 5, above. With respect to applicant’s argument that the capping layer of Hansen is used to cover an unpatterned photoresist layer and that there is no reason to apply Hansen’s capping layer over a patterned metallic resist pattern, or that Hansen does not provide any reason to apply the capping layer as an etch resistant layer over a patterned surface, Chan already teaches the coating of the patterned resist with a precursor coating material and Chang already teaches that the precursor material coated over the resist pattern provided etch resistivity, and Hansen is dependent upon to disclose the use of a photoresist that comprises a metallic resist (metal-containing photoresist), using a capping material that comprises the claimed crosslinking moiety and Hansen does not limit the capping material to unpatterned photoresist, because Hansen in figure 3B, discloses that the modified precursor material is coated onto the patterned resist material as disclosed in figure 3B even after the developing step wherein the patterned resist is coated with the modified precursor (the modified precursor-coated metallic resist pattern labeled as either (i) or (ii)). Additionally, Hansen discloses in [0020], that the capping material over the resist or even over the resist pattern as illustrated in figure 3B, reduces off-gassing of one or more metal species present in the underlying photoresist, and does not limit the off-gassing only during the EUV patterning process of the capped photoresist layer, because Hansen subjects the developed resist (that has the cap layer over the patterned resist as illustrated in figure 3B) to further post development processes ([0177]), and Hansen, in [0127], discloses that the organic moieties in the organic component of the modified precursor improves LWR and/or LER of the resist pattern formed and increases wafer patterning throughput.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 31, 2026.
Prosecution Insights