DETAILED ACTION
1. The Amendment filed 06/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 & 21-23 in the application remain pending. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 18-20 were cancelled. Claims 13-17 remain withdrawn from consideration. Claims 21-23 are new.
2. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. 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
4. Applicant's election was filed on 01/12/2026 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 for further examination. Newly submitted claims 21-23 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention of group I, originally claimed for the following reasons:
Group I, claims 1-12, drawn to a post baking apparatus comprising: a baking chamber configured to receive a substrate with an exposed photoresist film; a lower heater in the baking chamber under the substrate to heat the exposed photoresist film; an applier applying an electric field or a magnetic field to the exposed photoresist film along a vertical direction, which is substantially perpendicular to an upper surface of the exposed photoresist film, to control diffusions of an acid or a secondary electron, which are generated from the exposed photoresist film, along a horizontal direction, wherein an open gap filled with a processing gas is directly above the upper surface of the exposed photoresist film and the open gap filled with the processing gas extends from the upper surface of the exposed photoresist film vertically upwardly toward an upper electrode of the applier; and a controller configured to control an operation of the applier.
Group II, claims 13-17 (withdrawn) & claims 18-20 (cancelled).
Group III, claim 21-23, drawn to a post baking apparatus comprising: a baking chamber configured to receive a substrate with an exposed photoresist film; a lower heater in the baking chamber under the substrate to heat the exposed photoresist film; a lower electrode under the lower heater; an upper electrode over the substrate to form an electric field from the lower electrode to the upper electrode along a vertical direction; a coil on an inner sidewall of the baking chamber to form a magnetic field from the upper electrode to the lower electrode along the vertical direction; an upper heater over the substrate, wherein the upper heater is a lamp heater; an applier comprising the lower electrode, the upper electrode, and the coil, the applier applying the electric field or the magnetic field to the exposed photoresist film along the vertical direction, which is substantially perpendicular to an upper surface of the exposed photoresist film, to control diffusions of an acid or a secondary electron, which are generated from the exposed photoresist film, along a horizontal direction; and a controller configured to control operations of the lower heater, the lower electrode, the coil, and the lamp heater, wherein the controller is configured to control an impulse of the lamp heater.
Thus a prior art that satisfies the limitations of claim 1 would not necessarily satisfy the limitations of claim 21, as they both contain different combinations of structural components with different functional limitations. Thus, regardless of the search method, inventions with different limitations will require different search strategies, and the times to consider the relevancy of collective references would increase proportionality as well and it would be necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention. Thus far, applicant has not proved or provided convincing argument that there is no material difference between the two inventions above currently on the record.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, newly submitted claims 21-23 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. Claims 1-9 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buchberger, Jr. et al. (US 2016/0357107 A1) hereinafter Buchberger (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Buchberger are included between parentheses).
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “exposed photoresist film… the exposed photoresist film, to control diffusions of an acid or a secondary electron, which are generated from the exposed photoresist film… filled with a processing gas… filled with the processing gas”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Buchberger since Buchberger meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having an exposed photoresist film substrate and controlling diffusions of an acid or a secondary electron, which are generated from the exposed photoresist film and the open gap filled with a processing gas, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 1, Buchberger discloses a post baking apparatus (abs; fig 1), comprising:
a baking chamber (100) configured to receive a substrate (140) with an exposed photoresist film ([0021]-[0024]; fig 1);
a lower heater (132) in the baking chamber (100) under the substrate (140) to heat the exposed photoresist film ([0021]-[0026]; fig 1);
an applier (116+118+160+170+174+176+196) applying an electric field or a magnetic field to the exposed photoresist film along a vertical (z) direction, which is substantially perpendicular to an upper surface (top surface of 140) of the exposed photoresist film, capable of controlling diffusions of an acid or a secondary electron, which are generated from the exposed photoresist film, along a horizontal (x) direction, wherein an open gap (112) capable of being filled with a processing gas ([0032]) is directly above the upper surface of the exposed photoresist film and the open gap (112) capable of being filled with the processing gas ([0032]) extends from the upper surface of the exposed photoresist film vertically upwardly toward an upper electrode (116) of the applier (116+118+160+170+174+176+196) ([0021]-[0040]; [0045]-[0047]; [0049]; [0052]; [0054]; [0063]; [0065]; fig 1-5B); and
a controller (implicit, [0006]-[0007]; [0020]; [0026]-[0027]; [0031]-[0032]; [0046]) configured to control an operation of the applier (116+118+160+170+174+176+196) ([0024]-[0040]; [0045]-[0047]; [0049]; [0052]; [0054]; [0063]; [0065]; fig 1-5B).
As regards to claim 2, Buchberger discloses a post baking apparatus (abs; fig 1), wherein the applier (116+118+160+170+174+176+196) includes: a lower electrode (118) under the lower heater (132); and an upper electrode (116) over the substrate (140) to form the electric field between the lower electrode (118) and the upper electrode (116) along the vertical (z) direction ([0024]-[0040]; [0045]-[0047]; [0049]; [0052]; [0054]; [0063]; [0065]; fig 1-5B).
As regards to claim 3, Buchberger discloses a post baking apparatus (abs; fig 1), wherein the electric field is formed from the lower electrode (118) to the upper electrode (116) along the vertical (z) direction ([0024]-[0040]; [0045]-[0047]; [0049]; [0052]; [0054]; [0063]; [0065]; fig 1-5B).
As regards to claim 4, Buchberger discloses a post baking apparatus (abs; fig 1), wherein the applier (116+118+160+170+174+176+196) further includes a power source (174) connected to the lower electrode (118) ([0024]-[0040]; [0045]-[0047]; [0049]; [0052]; [0054]; [0063]; [0065]; fig 1-5B).
As regards to claim 5, Buchberger discloses a post baking apparatus (abs; fig 1), wherein the applier (116+118+160+170+174+176+196) further includes a coil (196 - electromagnets coupled to a power supply) on an inner sidewall of the baking chamber (100) to form the magnetic field along the vertical (z) direction ([0024]-[0040]; [0045]-[0047]; [0049]; [0052]; [0054]; [0063]; [0065]; fig 1-5B).
As regards to claim 6, Buchberger discloses a post baking apparatus (abs; fig 1), wherein the magnetic field is formed from the upper electrode (116) to the lower electrode (118) along the vertical (z) direction via the coil (196 - electromagnets coupled to a power supply) ([0024]-[0040]; [0045]-[0047]; [0049]; [0052]; [0054]; [0063]; [0065]; fig 1-5B).
As regards to claim 7, Buchberger discloses a post baking apparatus (abs; fig 1), wherein the controller (implicit, [0006]-[0007]; [0020]; [0026]-[0027]; [0031]-[0032]; [0046]) controls operations of the lower electrode (118) and the coil (196 - electromagnets coupled to a power supply) ([0024]-[0040]; [0045]-[0047]; [0049]; [0052]; [0054]; [0063]; [0065]; fig 1-5B).
As regards to claim 8, Buchberger discloses a post baking apparatus (abs; fig 1), wherein the controller (implicit, [0006]-[0007]; [0020]; [0026]-[0027]; [0031]-[0032]; [0046]) controls an operation of the lower heater (132) [0006]-[0007]; [0020]; [0026]; [0031]-[0032]; [0046]; [0062]; fig 1).
As regards to claim 9, Buchberger discloses a post baking apparatus (abs; fig 1), wherein the lower heater (132) includes a plate heater (see fig 1) ([0026]-[0027]; [0062]; fig 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchberger as applied to claim 1 above, (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Buchberger are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 10, Buchberger discloses a post baking apparatus (abs; fig 1), further comprising an upper heater ([0027]) positioned within or outside baking chamber (100) to heat the substrate (140) ([0026]-[0027]; [0062]; fig 1), however Buchberger does not disclose over the substrate (140).
Although Buchberger does not explicitly disclose the claimed upper heater configuration of over the substrate, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Buchberger to have the upper heater configuration of over the substrate recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as Buchberger discloses other heating sources, for example, heat lamps may be positioned within or outside the chamber 100 ([0027]) and since “the particular placement of structural components was held to be an obvious matter of design choice.” In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
As regards to claim 11, Buchberger discloses a post baking apparatus (abs; fig 1), wherein the upper heater ([0027]) includes a lamp heater ([0027]) ([0026]-[0027]; [0062]; fig 1).
As regards to claim 12, Buchberger discloses a post baking apparatus (abs; fig 1), wherein the controller (implicit, [0006]-[0007]; [0020]; [0026]-[0027]; [0031]-[0032]; [0046]) controls an impulse of the lamp heater (implicit, [0006]-[0007]; [0020]; [0026]-[0027]; [0031]-[0032]; [0046]).
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
(a) Applicant respectfully submits that Buchberger does not teach the claimed feature of an “open gap filled with a processing gas is directly above the upper surface of the exposed photoresist film.” In contrast, Buchberger explains that a liquid solution or gel is provided as an intermediate medium to eliminate the air gap between the upper electrode assembly and the photoresist layer, which otherwise causes a severe loss of electric field strength. Buchberger explains that air has a very low dielectric constant of approximately 1, which creates a "significant voltage drop" when the electric field attempts to transmit across the empty processing volume [0049]. Because this weakened field would fail to properly drive the charged species in the photoresist [0020], Buchberger teaches a non-gas medium, such as a liquid solution or organic gel, with a much higher dielectric constant of greater than 9 or 10 to physically bridge the space [0049, 0051]. By replacing the low-dielectric air with this physical medium, the system prevents the voltage drop and maintains the electric field at the exact strength required to accurately guide the acids and reduce line edge roughness [0020, 0068]. Buchberger states that: “an intermediate medium is placed between the photoresist layer and the electrode assembly to prevent an air gap from being created therebetween.” See Paragraph [0020]. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that Buchberger’s electric field does not appear operable with a standard gas gap because Paragraph [0049] explicitly states it causes a “significant voltage drop” and renders the process inoperable.
It is noted that while Paragraph [0032] of Buchberger describes pressurizing the macroscopic interior of the processing chamber 100 - broadly referred to as the "processing volume 112" - to establish a general background "controlled environment" or to introduce a plasma, Buchberger does not teach or suggest operating the system with only gas in the localized gap directly above the photoresist layer 150. While Buchberger occasionally uses the term "processing volume 112" as a catch-all to describe both the overall chamber and the small confined gap, Paragraphs [0008], [0020], and [0029] explicitly state that the critical space directly between the electrode assembly 116 and the photoresist layer 150 is filled with a " non-gas phase " intermediate medium (such as a liquid, gel, or solid) to prevent voltage drops during electric field application. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the introduction of background gases or plasma described in paragraph [0032] applies to the broader macroscopic chamber environment and does not override Buchberger’s core requirement to eliminate the air/gas gap directly above the photoresist layer 150. Interpreting Paragraph [0032] to mean the system operates with only gas in that small, confined volume would appear to contradict the explicitly stated purpose of the invention to apply fields "without air gap intervention" (paragraph [0008]).
(b) Accordingly, at least for these reasons, Buchberger is not believed to teach the above-cited features of claim 1. Withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1, along with claims depending therefrom, is respectfully requested.
(c) New claims 21-23.
8. In response to applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments.
(a) As already discussed above in detail in regards to claim 1, the recitation “exposed photoresist film… the exposed photoresist film, to control diffusions of an acid or a secondary electron, which are generated from the exposed photoresist film… filled with a processing gas… filled with the processing gas”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Buchberger since Buchberger meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having an exposed photoresist film substrate and controlling diffusions of an acid or a secondary electron, which are generated from the exposed photoresist film and the open gap filled with a processing gas, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
That is, “filled with a processing gas…the processing gas” is not a structural part of the apparatus and does not further limit the mechanical structure of the claimed apparatus as “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim and since the proffered prior art discloses every structural feature of the claimed invention, it is expected that the apparatus of the prior art would be capable of operating in the claimed manner.
Even further, Buchberger discloses the capability of the open gap (112) being filled with a processing gas ([0032]:The lid assembly 110 may optionally include an inlet 180 through which gases provided by the supply sources 104 may enter the processing chamber 100. The supply sources 104 may optionally controllably pressurize the processing volume 112 with a gas, such as nitrogen, argon, helium, hydrogen, neon, chlorine, other gases, or combinations thereof. The gases from the supply sources 104 may create a controlled environment within the processing chamber 100).
Thus, Buchberger discloses a post baking apparatus wherein an open gap (112) capable of being filled with a processing gas ([0032]) is directly above the upper surface of the exposed photoresist film and the open gap (112) capable of being filled with the processing gas ([0032]) extends from the upper surface of the exposed photoresist film vertically upwardly toward an upper electrode (116) of the applier (116+118+160+170+174+176+196) ([0021]-[0040]; [0045]-[0047]; [0049]; [0052]; [0054]; [0063]; [0065]; fig 1-5B).
(b) In view of the foregoing, Examiner respectfully contends the limitations of claim 1 are indeed satisfied. Claims 2-12 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 1, as well as for their own rejections on the merits, respectively.
(c) New claims 21-23 are withdrawn, see Election/Restrictions above.
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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, Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights