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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms 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.
4. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wong et al. (US Patent 6,319,655).
With regard to claims 1, 2, 4, and 6, Wong et al. teach that a 193nm photoresist is spin-coated onto a blank silicon substrate. The photoresist layer and the substrate are soft baked at 140oC for 60 seconds on a hot plate to drive off most of the solvent. After the soft-bake the thickness was about 6,000 Angstrom. Each photoresist film was measured with a J.A. Woolam spectroscopic ellipsometer to obtain post-coat thickness and optical constants. FTIP spectroscopy was also performed to obtain infrared spectra of each film (Example 2 in columns 9 and 10).
The measurement is performed before the exposure of the photoresist layer (see Example 2 in columns 9 and 10).
The spin-coating of the photoresist layer on a blank silicon substrate of Wong et al. is the step of “depositing the photoresist layer on a substrate” in claim 1.
The soft-bake step of Wong et al. is the step of “baking the photoresist layer” in claim 1.
The spectroscopic ellipsometer is an optical tool in claim 1, and meets the limitations of claim 2.
Measuring the thickness with the spectroscopic ellipsometer of Wong et al. is the step of “measuring properties of the photoresist layer with an optical tool, wherein the photoresist layer is not exposed prior to measuring properties of the photoresist layer with the optical tool” in claim 1, and meets the limitation of claim 4.
The measurement of thickness occurs after the soft-bake step, as required
in claim 6.
With regard to claim 3, a spectroscopic ellipsometer may use light with a wavelength of 400-750 nm, as evidenced in column 5, lines 1-8 of McGahan (US Patent 6,381,009).
With regard to claim 7, Wong et al. teach that the soft-bake is performed on a hot plate and the measuring of thickness is performed with a J.A. Woolam spectroscopic ellipsometer (Example 2 in columns 9 and 10). This shows that the optical tool is a distinct tool apart from the tool used for soft-bake.
With regard to claim 10, the thickness of a photoresist layer determines the sensitivity to light exposure, as evidenced in column 1, lines 70-71 of Middelhoek et al. (US Patent 3,669,732).
With regard to claim 12, Wong et al. teach that the 193nm photoresist is a chemically amplified resist (column 2, lines 17-31).
5. Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin (KR 20060121563A, with machine translation provided by the applicant on December 12, 2025).
With regard to claims 1, 4, and 6, Shin teaches a method comprising the steps of:
-applying a photoresist on the surface of the surface of a wafer;
-performing soft-bake and cooling the soft-baked photoresist film (page 4 of the machine translation); and
-measuring the photoresist film thickness during or after the step of cooling (page 5 of the machine translation).
Shin also teaches that the photoresist film thickness is measured using the reflection angle of light reflected from the photoresist, and is composed of a light sensor that irradiates light to the photoresist film and receives light reflected from the photoresist (pages 6 and 7 of the machine translation). The measurement is performed before the exposure of the photoresist layer (see page 5 of the machine translation).
The step of applying a photoresist on the surface of the surface of a wafer of Shin is the step of “depositing the photoresist layer on a substrate” in claim 1.
The soft-bake step of Shin is the step of “baking the photoresist layer” in claim 1.
The light sensor that irradiates light to the photoresist film and receives light reflected from the photoresist of Shin is an optical tool in claim 1.
The step of measuring the thickness of Shi is the step of “measuring properties of the photoresist layer with an optical tool, wherein the photoresist layer is not exposed prior to measuring properties of the photoresist layer with the optical tool” in claim 1, and meets the limitation of claim 4.
The measurement of thickness occurs after the soft-bake step, as required
in claim 6.
With regard to claim 7, in the process of Shin the soft-baking in performed in a unit different than the one used for thickness measurement (see page 6 of the machine translation).
With regard to claim 10, the thickness of a photoresist layer determines the sensitivity to light exposure, as evidenced in column 1, lines 70-71 of Middelhoek et al. (US Patent 3,669,732).
6. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nikoonahad et al. (US 2002/0180986).
With regard to claims 1, 2, 4, and 8, Nikoonahad et al. teach that a resist may be applied on a specimen in the resist apply process chamber (148), and then the specimen having the resist layer is subjected to post apply bake in the chamber (150) of a lithography track (par.0233, fig.3). A spectroscopic ellipsometer may be coupled to the lithography track, and may be coupled to a processor to determine at least one property such as critical dimension, profile, thickness of the resist layer formed on the specimen (par.0537).
Nikoonahad et al. further teach that the spectroscopic ellipsometer may be configured to direct light toward and detect light returned from the specimen during the post apply bake process (par.0537).
The exposure is performed after the post apply bake process (par.0234).
The step of applying a resist onto a specimen of Nikoonahad et al. is the step of “depositing the photoresist layer on a substrate” in claim 1.
The post apply bake step of Nikoonahad et al. is the step of “baking the photoresist layer” in claim 1.
The spectroscopic ellipsometer is an optical tool in claim 1, and meets the limitations of claim 2.
Measuring critical dimension, profile, thickness with the spectroscopic ellipsometer of Nikoonahad et al. is the step of “measuring properties of the photoresist layer with an optical tool, wherein the photoresist layer is not exposed prior to measuring properties of the photoresist layer with the optical tool” in claim 1, and meets the limitation of claim 4.
The measurement of critical dimension, profile, thickness occurs during the post apply bake step (par.0537), as required in claim 8.
With regard to claim 5, the profile of a resist implies a microstructure of a resist layer.
With regard to claim 9, Nikoonahad et al. teach that the spectroscopic ellipsometer is disposed within the lithography track (par.0538), and the lithography track includes the post apply bake chamber (150) (fig.13, par.0233).
7. Claims 1, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watts et al. (US Patent 4,874,240).
With regard to claims 1 and 4, Watts et al. teach that a resist is applied onto a substrate (column 2, lines 15-50), the resist is subjected to soft-bake to eliminate solvent (column 2, lines 44-50), and then it is subjected to exposure and development (column 2, lines 51-58). These steps are equivalent to the steps of “depositing a photoresist layer in a substrate” and “baking the photoresist layer” in claim 1.
Watts et al. further teach that the soft-bake temperature appears to have more effect than the soft-bake time on the thickness of the resist material coated on a substrate (column 3, lines 52-60), and that the thickness of the resist material is measured by measuring the total reflectivity or total transmissivity of the resist material (column 1, lines 45-58).
This implies that the thickness of the resist material after soft-bake and before exposure has been measured with a tool that measures the total reflectivity or total transmissivity of the resist material, it is equivalent to the step of “measuring the properties of the photoresist layer with an optical tool, wherein the photoresist layer os not exposed prior to measuring the properties of the photoresist layer with the optical tool” in claim 1, and meets the limitations of claim 4.
With regard to claim 6, the thickness is measured after the soft-bake (column 3, lines 52-60).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (KR 20060121563A, with machine translation provided by the applicant on December 12, 2025) in view of Srivastava et al. (US 2018/0158723).
With regard to claim 11, Shin teaches the method of claim 1 (see paragraph 5 above), but fail to specifically teach that the photoresist is a metal oxo photoresist material.
However, it is well-known that a metal oxide photoresist can be directly patterned using an exposure source and can be etched with a higher selectivity than organic films, such as conventional photoresist (see par.0012 of Srivastava et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use a metal oxide photoresist in the process of Shin, in order to take advantage of its higher selectivity in an etching step.
10. Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (US Patent 6,319,655) as evidenced by Middelhoek et al. (US Patent 3,669,732) and in view of Saito (US 2008/0213677).
With regard to claim 13, Wong et al. teach that a 193nm photoresist is spin-coated onto a blank silicon substrate. The photoresist layer and the substrate are soft baked at 140oC for 60 seconds on a hot plate to drive off most of the solvent. After the soft-bake the thickness was about 6,000 Angstrom. Each photoresist film was measured with a J.A. Woolam spectroscopic ellipsometer to obtain post-coat thickness and optical constants. FTIP spectroscopy was also performed to obtain infrared spectra of each film (Example 2 in columns 9 and 10).
The measurement is performed before the exposure of the photoresist layer (see Example 2 in columns 9 and 10).
The spin-coating of each photoresist on a blank silicon substrate of Wong et al. meets the limitations for the steps of “depositing a first photoresist layer on a first substrate” and “depositing a second photoresist layer on a second substrate” in claim 13.
The soft-bake of each photoresist of Wong et al. meets the limitations for the steps of “baking the first photoresist layer with a first PAB” and “baking the second photoresist layer with a second PAB” in claim 13.
The spectroscopic ellipsometer is an optical tool in claim 13.
Measuring the thickness of each photoresist layer with the spectroscopic ellipsometer of Wong et al. meets the limitations for the steps of “measuring a material property of the first photoresist layer after the first PAB with an optical tool, wherein the first photoresist layer is not exposed prior to measuring properties of the first photoresist layer with the optical tool” and “measuring a material property of the second photoresist layer after the second PAB with the optical tool” in claim 13.
The thickness of a photoresist layer determines the sensitivity to light exposure, as evidenced in column 1, lines 70-71 of Middelhoek et al. (US Patent 3,669,732).
Therefore, photoresist with different thickness and different sensitivities may be prepared.
Wong et al. and Middelhoek et al. fail to teach the selecting step in claim 13.
However, it is well-known in the art that a plurality of resists different in sensitivity may be prepared and the resist having sensitivity necessary and sufficient to form desired pattern dimensions may be selected (see par.0033 of Saito).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to select the resist having sensitivity necessary and sufficient to form desired pattern dimensions from the plurality of prepared photoresists of Wong et al.
With regard to claim 17, the soft-bake occurs before the exposure and development (Example 2 in columns 9 and 10), so optimizing the soft-bake happens without exposing and developing the photoresist layers.
11. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (US Patent 6,319,655) as evidenced by Middelhoek et al. (US Patent 3,669,732) and in view of Saito (US 2008/0213677). as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Nikoonahad et al. (US 2002/0180986).
With regard to claim 16, modified Wong teach the method of claim 13 (see paragraph 10 above), but fail to teach that the spectroscopic ellipsometer is integrated with the tool that implements the first PAB.
Nikoonahad et al. teach that a resist may be applied on a specimen in the resist apply process chamber (148), and then the specimen having the resist layer is subjected to post apply bake in the chamber (150) of a lithography track (par.0233, fig.3). A spectroscopic ellipsometer may be coupled to the lithography track, and may be coupled to a processor to determine at least one property such as critical dimension, profile, thickness of the resist layer formed on the specimen (par.0537).
Nikoonahad et al. teach that the spectroscopic ellipsometer is disposed within the lithography track (par.0538), and the lithography track includes the post apply bake chamber (150) (fig.13, par.0233).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to perform the soft bake of modified Wang modified in a post apply bake chamber, and have the spectroscopic ellipsometer in the post apply bake chamber, in order to determine at least one property such as critical dimension, profile, thickness of the resist layer formed on the specimen.
12. Claims 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts et al. (US Patent 4,874,240) as evidenced by Middelhoek et al. (US Patent 3,669,732) and in view of Saito (US 2008/0213677).
With regard to claim 13, Watts et al. teach that a resist is applied onto a substrate (column 2, lines 15-50), the resist is subjected to soft-bake to eliminate solvent (column 2, lines 44-50), and then it is subjected to exposure and development (column 2, lines 51-58).
Watts et al. further teach that the soft-bake temperature appears to have more effect than the soft-bake time on the thickness of the resist material coated on a substrate (column 3, lines 52-60), and that the thickness of the resist material is measured by measuring the total reflectivity or total transmissivity of the resist material (column 1, lines 45-58).
Watts et al. further teach that three resist materials have been tested (fig.3, column 3, lines 61-column 4, line 9).
The process of Watts et al. includes the steps of “depositing a first photoresist layer on a first substrate, baking the first photoresist layer with a first PAB” and “depositing a second photoresist layer on a second substrate, baking the second photoresist layer with a second PAB” in claim 13.
The process of Watts et al. implies that the thickness of the resist materials after soft-bake and before exposure has been measured with a a tool that measures the total reflectivity or total transmissivity of the resist material, and it is equivalent to the steps of “measuring a material property of the first photoresist layer after the first PAB with an optical tool, wherein the first photoresist layer is not exposed prior to measuring the properties of the first photoresist layer with the optical tool” and “measuring the material property of the second photoresist layer after the second PAB with the optical tool” in claim 13, wherein the material property is the thickness.
The thickness of a photoresist layer determines the sensitivity to light exposure, as evidenced in column 1, lines 70-71 of Middelhoek et al.
Therefore, photoresist with different thickness and different sensitivities may be prepared.
Watts et al. and Middelhoek et al. fail to teach the selecting step in claim 13.
However, it is well-known in the art that a plurality of resists different in sensitivity may be prepared and the resist having sensitivity necessary and sufficient to form desired pattern dimensions may be selected (see par.0033 of Saito).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to select the resist having sensitivity necessary and sufficient to form desired pattern dimensions from the plurality of prepared photoresists of Watts et al.
With regard to claims 14 and 15, Watts et al. teach the soft-bakes (the claimed first and second PAB) have different temperature and durations (column 3, line 52-column 4, line 8).
With regard to claim 17, Watts et al. teach that the soft-bake occurs before the exposure and development (column 2, lines 51-58), so optimizing the soft-bake happens without exposing and developing the photoresist layers.
13. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikoonahad et al. (US 2002/0180986) in view of Chan et al. (US 2004/0119102).
With regard to claims 18-20, Nikoonahad et al. teach that a resist may be applied on a specimen in the resist apply process chamber (148), and then the specimen having the resist layer is subjected to post apply bake in the chamber (150) of a lithography track (par.0233, fig.3). A spectroscopic ellipsometer may be coupled to the lithography track, and may be coupled to a processor to determine at least one property such as critical dimension, profile, thickness of the resist layer formed on the specimen (par.0537).
Nikoonahad et al. further teach that the spectroscopic ellipsometer may be configured to direct light toward and detect light returned from the specimen during the post apply bake process (par.0537).
The exposure is performed after the post apply bake process (par.0234).
The resist apply process chamber (148) of Nikoonahad et al.is equivalent to the “deposition module, wherein the deposition module is configured to deposit a photoresist layer on a substrate” in claim 18.
The post apply bake chamber (150) of Nikoonahad et al.is equivalent to the “post apply bake (PAB) module, wherein the PAB module is configured to bake the photoresist layer” in claim 18.
The spectroscopic ellipsometer which may be configured to direct light toward and detect light returned from the specimen during the post apply bake process (par.0537) of Nikoonahad et al.is equivalent to the “optical tool for measuring one or more properties of the photoresist layer during the bake, wherein the photoresist layer is not exposed prior to measuring the one or more properties of the photoresist layer with the optical tool” in claim 18, and meets the limitations of claim 19.
Nikoonahad et al. fail to teach a dry deposition process of the resist.
However, it is well-known in the art that CVD is a process for applying a photoresist onto a substrate (see par.0047 of Chan et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to apply the resist of Nikoonahad et al. onto the specimen by CVD.
CVD (chemical vapor deposition) is a dry application process in claim 18, and meets the limitations in claim 20.
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner would like to note that:
-the rejection of claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendments to the claims;
-the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2006/0094131) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1;
-the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2006/0094131) in view of Srivastava et al. (US 2018/0158723) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1;
-the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2006/0094131) in view of Choi (US Patent 6,045,970) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1;
-the rejection of claims 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2006/0094131) in view of Middelhoek et al. (US Patent 3,669,732) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 13; and
-the rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2006/0094131) in view of Houshmand et al. (WO 2022/108773 A1) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 18.
However, new grounds of rejection for claims 1-20 are presented in paragraphs 3-13 above.
Conclusion
15. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 ANCA EOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
