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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 30 March 2026, with respect to the objection to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended Fig. 4 to relabel the first hydrocarbon polymer layer as “420”, as supported by paragraph 0075 of the instant application’s specification. Accordingly, the objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-13, filed 30 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 16, as well as their dependent claims, under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 4663275 A (hereby referred to as West).
Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 16. Claim 1 now recites that the moisture barrier layer is transmissive or reactive to EUV radiation. Claim 16 now recites that the EUV-active photoresist film is formed using CVP and the photoresist film is an organometallic oxide polymer film having carbon-carbon bonds. Claim 16 similarly now recites that the second hydrocarbon polymer layer is transmissive or reactive to EUV radiation. The Applicant argues that the previously cited prior art (Chen and Singh) fails to render obvious the inventions of claims 1 and 16. Specifically, Applicant argues that Chen and Singh fail to teach or suggest plasma depositing a moisture barrier layer that is either transmissive or reactive to EUV radiation. In particular, Applicant notes aspects of Singh to suggest that Singh’s moisture barrier layer is not transmissive to EUV radiation. Singh teaches that the protective coating as a whole is transparent, and so each constituent layer is also transparent (Singh, paragraph 0071). However, Singh is silent in regards to EUV radiation. The Examiner notes that being optically transparent to the human eye does not necessarily mean that the barrier layer is also EUV transmissive. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments in this regard are considered persuasive and the previous rejection is withdrawn. However, a new rejection is presented in view of US 4663275 A (hereby referred to as West), as explained below.
In addition to the amendments to the independent claims, Applicant has also amended dependent claims 2 and 17 to specify that the EUV-active photoresist film uses CVP to form the photoresist film, and that the photoresist film comprises an organometallic oxide with polymerized carbon-carbon bonds. Applicant argues that whilst Chen teaches organometallic oxides, Chen fails to teach organometallic oxide polymers having C-C bonds. Upon review of Chen’s disclosure, Applicant’s arguments are found to be persuasive and therefore the previous rejection is withdrawn. However, a new rejection is presented in view of US 20230259025 A1 (hereby referred to as Hansen), as explained below.
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, 3-5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220028684 A1 (hereby referred to as Chen) in view of US 20190344307 A1 (hereby referred to as Singh) and US 4663275 A (hereby referred to as West).
Regarding Claims 1, 4, and 8, Chen discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (Chen, Abstract). The method includes coating a substrate surface with a resist layer (Chen, paragraph 0030). A surface treatment is then performed on the resist layer to form a surface treated layer (Chen, paragraph 0031). See Fig. 3 of Chen. The surface treated layer is a dehydrated film, also referred to as barrier film (Chen, paragraph 0029). The barrier film forms a barrier preventing volatiles from outgassing from the photoresist layer and preventing ambient water and oxygen from reacting with the photoresist layer (Chen, paragraph 0029). Thus, the barrier film is analogous to the claimed moisture barrier film. The photoresist layer may be formed of a material suitable to be patterned by an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) exposure source (Chen, paragraph 0041, 0044, 0047, and 0067). The resist layer is selectively exposed to radiation to form a patterned photoresist on the surface of the semiconductor substrate (Chen, paragraph 0041 and Fig. 7A).
However, Chen is silent in regards to plasma depositing the moisture barrier film, as well as the moisture barrier film containing a hydrocarbon polymer. Singh teaches a method for depositing a protective coating onto a substrate, wherein the protective coating comprises a moisture barrier layer, as well as several additional layers disposed over the moisture barrier layer (Singh, Abstract). Each layer of the protective coating is prepared by plasma deposition (Singh, paragraph 0020). Preferably, plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) of precursor mixtures is employed as the plasma deposition technique (Singh, paragraph 0021). Singh teaches that the nature and composition of the material deposited depends on several process parameters, such as the plasma pressure, drive frequency, plasma power, and the like (Singh, paragraph 0025). The plasma drive frequency is in the range of 1 kHz to 4 GHz (Singh, paragraph 0026), a source power of 175 W is utilized (Singh, paragraph 0146), and the gas pressure may be between 0.001 mbar (0.75 mTorr) to 10 mbar (7.5 Torr) (Singh, paragraph 0026). Singh is silent in regards to temperature, implying that the plasma deposition occurs in ambient temperatures. In some embodiments, the precursor mixture comprises a hydrocarbon compound of formula (X), which forms a hydrocarbon polymer of formula CmHn (Singh, paragraph 0051-0052). Examples of hydrocarbons represented by formula (X) include 1,4-dimethylbenzene, 1,3-dimethylbenzene, 1,2-dimethylbenzene, toluene, 4-methyl styrene, 3-methyl styrene, 2-methyl styrene, 1,4-divinyl benzene, 1,3-divinyl benzene, 1,2-divinyl benzene, 1,4-ethylvinylbenzene, 1,3-ethylvinylbenze and 1,2-ethylvinylbenzene (Singh, paragraph 0058).
However, Chen and Singh are silent in regards to a moisture barrier layer that is transmissive or reactive to EUV radiation. West teaches a photolithographic method including a barrier layer. The photolithographic method includes steps of depositing a photoresist layer on a substrate, depositing an optically transparent polymeric barrier layer on the photoresist layer, exposing the layers to light of a predetermined wavelength through a mask, and developing the photoresist while stripping the barrier layer (West, Col. 2 Line 33-51). The polymer barrier layer is transparent to light used to expose the photoresist (West, Col. 3 Line 3-11).
Chen, Singh, and West are analogous art because each reference pertains to the formation of moisture barrier layers (refer to the abstracts of Chen, Singh, and West). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to utilize plasma deposition to form the moisture barrier layer, as taught by Singh, in the method disclosed by Chen because plasma deposition results in a unique class of materials that cannot be prepared using other techniques, which provides the resulting material with distinct chemical and physical properties (see Singh, paragraph 0023). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to include a hydrocarbon polymer in the moisture barrier layer, as taught by Singh, in the barrier film taught by Chen because hydrocarbon polymers offer high density and hardness of the barrier film (Singh, paragraph 0077 and 0064) and function well to protect underlying layers from moisture (Singh, paragraph 0072-0074). Lastly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to make the barrier layer transmissive to EUV radiation, as taught by West, in the method obtained by combining the teachings of Chen and Singh because the barrier layer being transmissive to EUV radiation allows for the underlying photoresist to be patterned sufficiently using photolithography techniques (West, Col. 3 Line 3-35).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Chen, Singh, and West renders obvious the method of instant claim 1, as discussed above. Chen is silent in regards to a hydrocarbon polymer as the barrier film. Singh teaches a hydrocarbon polymer formed from primarily vinyl benzene monomers (Singh, paragraph 0051-0058). However, Singh further teaches that the precursor mixture containing a hydrocarbon compound of formula (X) may comprise reactive gas(es), such as N2O, NO2, NH3, N2, CH4, C2H6, C3H6, and/or C3H8 (Singh, paragraph 0062). When one or more of the aforementioned nitrogen-containing reactive gases are present in the precursor mixture, the resulting hydrocarbon polymer would comprise carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and potentially oxygen (if N2O or NO2 is utilized).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to include a reactive gas containing nitrogen and optionally oxygen in the precursor mixture, as taught by Singh, in the method obtained by combining the teachings of Chen, Singh, and West because including the reactive gas allows modification of the properties of the barrier film, such as the density of the aromatic rings in the hydrocarbon polymer (Singh, paragraph 0062-0063 and 0077).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Chen, Singh, and West renders obvious the method of instant claim 4, as discussed above. Chen is silent in regards to a hydrocarbon polymer as the barrier film. Singh teaches a hydrocarbon polymer formed from primarily vinyl benzene monomers (Singh, paragraph 0051-0058). Whilst Singh does not explicitly state styrene (C6H5CH=CH2) as an example of the hydrocarbon precursor, the general formula (X) taught by Singh is a benzene ring wherein one of the substituents is C1-C3 alkyl or C2-C3 alkenyl, and the remaining substituents may be hydrogen (Singh, paragraph 0052-0053). In particular, the Z1 group may be a vinyl group, and Z2 through Z6 may be hydrogen (Singh, paragraph 0054). In this embodiment, the hydrocarbon precursor is styrene. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art, when presented with the disclosures of Chen and Singh, would find styrene as an obvious precursor to use in the formation of the hydrocarbon polymer moisture barrier film. Refer to MPEP 2143 I. E.
Regarding Claim 9, Chen discloses that the photoresist layer comprises an organometallic compound or organometallic precursor, wherein the metallic element is at least one of tin (Sn), zirconium (Zr), indium (In), antimony (Sb), bismuth (Bi), hafnium (Hf), or aluminum (Al) (Chen, paragraph 0068). Chen teaches that the metallic species may be a metal oxide (Chen, paragraph 0071).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen discloses patterning of the EUV-active photoresist film (Chen, paragraph 0041). The exposed portions of the photoresist undergo a crosslink reaction as a result of the exposure to actinic radiation (Chen, paragraph 0053). A development process then removes the unexposed portion of the photoresist layer (Chen, paragraph 0053). The development process also removes the barrier film over both the exposed and unexposed regions of the photoresist layer (Chen, paragraph 0060). As noted in regards to claim 1 above, West provides teaching and motivation to make the barrier layer EUV transmissive.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220028684 A1 (hereby referred to as Chen) in view of US 20190344307 A1 (hereby referred to as Singh) and US 4663275 A (hereby referred to as West) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 20230259025 A1 (hereby referred to as Hansen).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Chen, Singh, and West renders obvious the method of claim 1, as discussed above. Chen teaches organometallic oxides for the photoresist composition (Chen, paragraph 0068).
However, Chen, Singh, and West are silent in regards to a CVP process for forming an organometallic oxide polymer film having carbon-carbon bonds as a photoresist. Hansen teaches dry deposited photoresists. Hansen teaches the use of carbon-containing co-reactants to produce a radiation-sensitive film including an organometallic oxide (Hansen, paragraph 0033-0036). The process produces a polymerized organometallic material produced in a vapor and deposited on a substrate (Hansen, paragraph 0205). Hansen further teaches that the substrate may be heated (e.g. a heat treatment) to allow the reaction to further proceed (Hansen, paragraph 0223). The resulting photoresist film is sensitive to EUV radiation (e.g. EUV-active) (Hansen, paragraph 0029).
Chen, Singh, West, and Hansen are analogous art because each reference pertains to the formation of moisture barrier layers (refer to the abstracts of Chen, Singh, and West and paragraph 0178 of Hansen). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to produce the EUV-active photoresist film using a CVP process to produce an organometallic oxide polymer, as taught by Hansen, in the method obtained by combining the teachings of Chen, Singh, and West because the CVP method for producing an organometallic polymer photoresist allows for tuning of properties such as EUV responsivity (which increased wafer patterning throughput), patterning quality, such as line-edge-roughness, and mechanical properties of the photoresist film (Hansen, paragraph 0140-0141).
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220028684 A1 (hereby referred to as Chen) in view of US 20190344307 A1 (hereby referred to as Singh) and US 4663275 A (hereby referred to as West) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 11802337 B1 (hereby referred to as Gandhiraman).
Regarding Claims 6-7, the combination of Chen, Singh, and West renders obvious the method of instant claim 1, as discussed above. However, Chen, Singh, and West are silent in regards to the use of precursors having aldehydes or amines to produce a barrier layer.
Gandhiraman teaches plasma-based fabrication methods and functional coatings. Gandhiraman utilizes a system (Gandhiraman, Col. 5 Lines 4-21) to form functional coatings via plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) onto two- or three-dimensional substrates (Gandhiraman, Col. 8 Line 42-58). The substrate may be a semiconductor (Gandhiraman, Col. 16, Line 40-48). The materials used as precursors for the coating include polystyrene (Gandhiraman, Col. 16 Line 64-68), and may also include functional coatings such as amines and aldehydes (Gandhiraman, Col. 17 Line 4-20).
Chen, Singh, West, and Gandhiraman are analogous art because each reference pertains to coated films applied to substrates. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use an aldehyde or amine precursor, as taught by Gandhiraman, to produce the moisture barrier film in the method obtained by combining the teachings of Chen, Singh, and West because it is taught in the art that aldehydes and amines are functional equivalents to polystyrene (which is a material taught or suggested by Singh as a suitable hydrocarbon polymer barrier layer, as discussed above) for the purposes of producing plasma deposited coatings onto semiconductor substrates (see Gandhiraman, Col. 16 Line 64 through Col. 17 Line 20). Thus, per MPEP 2143 I. B., the use of aldehydes and/or amines is prima facie obvious.
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220028684 A1 (hereby referred to as Chen) in view of US 20190344307 A1 (hereby referred to as Singh) and US 4663275 A (hereby referred to as West) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 20220005688 A1 (hereby referred to as Fung).
Regarding Claims 11-12, the combination of Chen, Singh, and West renders obvious the method of instant claim 10, as discussed above. Chen further discloses that the photoresist layer may be formed of either a positive-tone or a negative-tone resist (Chen, paragraph 0066). Notably, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the type of resist determines whether the reacted or unreacted regions of the patterned resist layer are removed during development.
However, Chen, Singh, and West are silent in regards to a selective deposition of a material film over the patterned regions of the substrate device. Fung teaches selective deposition of carbon on a photoresist layer for lithography applications. Fung provides a film stack (302) with an anti-reflective coating (304) disposed over the film stack, a hard mask layer (306) over the anti-reflective coating, and a resist layer (308) over the hard mask layer (Fung, paragraphs 0039, 0041, and 0047; see also Fig. 3C). The resist film is formed into a photoresist pattern (308A) by exposure and development (Fung, paragraph 0052-0055; see also Fig. 3E). Then, a passivation layer (316) is selectively formed on the patterned photoresist layer (Fung, paragraph 0061 and Fig. 3F). The formed passivation layer is formed on a top surface of the patterned resist layer (Fung, paragraph 0061).
Chen, Singh, West, and Fung are analogous art because each reference pertains to processing substrates. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to selectively deposit a layer following the patterning of a resist layer, as taught by Fung, in the method obtained by combining the teachings of Chen, Singh, and West because selectively applying a layer based upon the patterning of the photoresist allows for the pattern profile (such as the dimensions and geometries) of the openings in the patterned resist layer to remain unchanged, allowing for pattern transfer to occur without profile alteration (Fung, paragraph 0061).
Claim(s) 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220028684 A1 (hereby referred to as Chen) in view of US 20190344307 A1 (hereby referred to as Singh) and US 4663275 A (hereby referred to as West) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20090142704 A1 (hereby referred to as Huang).
Regarding Claims 13 and 15, the combination of Chen, Singh, and West renders obvious instant claim 1, as discussed above. West further teaches the removal of the barrier layer following the patterning of the photoresist layer (West, Col. 2 Line 49-51). However, Chen, Singh, and West are silent in regards to the moisture barrier layer being patterned and using the patterned moisture barrier layer as a mask for the underlying resist layer.
Huang teaches a photolithography method utilizing a barrier layer disposed over a photoresist (Huang, Abstract). A substrate is provided with a photoresist layer and a barrier layer disposed over the photoresist layer (Huang, paragraph 0031). A patternwise exposure using a mask is performed to form a latent image in the barrier layer (Huang, paragraph 0031). The patterned barrier layer has the exposed portions removed, revealing the underlying photoresist layer (Huang, paragraph 0032 and Fig. 1d). The revealed portions of the photoresist layer are then patterned via a second exposure (Huang, paragraph 0033).
Chen, Singh, West, and Huang are analogous art because each reference pertains to substrate processing and semiconductor device manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to pattern the moisture barrier film obtained by combining the teachings of Chen, Singh, and West and using the patterned barrier film as a mask for patterning the underlying layer(s), as taught by Huang, because the patterning method taught by Huang yields improved pattern accuracy (Huang, paragraph 0029). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to remove the barrier layer following patterning of the photoresist, as taught by West, because removing the barrier layer inhibits the formation of scum that interferes with pattern accuracy (West, Col. 4 Line 27-35).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220028684 A1 (hereby referred to as Chen) in view of US 20190344307 A1 (hereby referred to as Singh), US 4663275 A (hereby referred to as West), and US 20090142704 A1 (hereby referred to as Huang) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 20220005688 A1 (hereby referred to as Fung).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Chen, Singh, West, and Huang renders obvious the invention of claim 13, as discussed above. However, Chen, Singh, West, and Huang are silent in regards to selective deposition on the patterned resist layer.
Fung teaches selective deposition of carbon on a photoresist layer for lithography applications. Fung provides a film stack (302) with an anti-reflective coating (304) disposed over the film stack, a hard mask layer (306) over the anti-reflective coating, and a resist layer (308) over the hard mask layer (Fung, paragraphs 0039, 0041, and 0047; see also Fig. 3C). The resist film is formed into a photoresist pattern (308A) by exposure and development (Fung, paragraph 0052-0055; see also Fig. 3E). Then, a passivation layer (316) is selectively formed on the patterned photoresist layer (Fung, paragraph 0061 and Fig. 3F). The formed passivation layer is formed on a top surface of the patterned resist layer (Fung, paragraph 0061).
Chen, Singh, West, Huang, and Fung are analogous art because each reference pertains to processing substrates and semiconductor manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to selectively deposit a layer following the patterning of a resist layer, as taught by Fung, in the method obtained by combining the teachings of Chen, Singh, West, and Huang because selectively applying a layer based upon the patterning of the photoresist allows for the pattern profile (such as the dimensions and geometries) of the openings in the patterned resist layer to remain unchanged, allowing for pattern transfer to occur without profile alteration (Fung, paragraph 0061).
Claim(s) 16-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220028684 A1 (hereby referred to as Chen) in view of US 20190344307 A1 (hereby referred to as Singh), US 4663275 A (hereby referred to as West), and US 20230259025 A1 (hereby referred to as Hansen).
Regarding Claims 16, 17, and 19, Chen discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (Chen, Abstract). The method includes coating a substrate surface with a resist layer (Chen, paragraph 0030). A surface treatment is then performed on the resist layer to form a surface treated layer (Chen, paragraph 0031). See Fig. 3 of Chen. The surface treated layer is a dehydrated film, also referred to as barrier film (Chen, paragraph 0029). The barrier film forms a barrier preventing volatiles from outgassing from the photoresist layer and preventing ambient water and oxygen from reacting with the photoresist layer (Chen, paragraph 0029). Thus, the barrier film is analogous to the claimed moisture barrier film. The photoresist layer may be formed of a material suitable to be patterned by an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) exposure source (Chen, paragraph 0041, 0044, 0047, and 0067). The resist layer is selectively exposed to radiation to form a patterned photoresist on the surface of the semiconductor substrate (Chen, paragraph 0041 and Fig. 7A).
However, Chen is silent in regards to plasma depositing the moisture barrier film, as well as the moisture barrier film containing a hydrocarbon polymer. Chen also fails to teach a first hydrocarbon polymer layer on the surface of the substrate. Singh teaches a method for depositing a protective coating onto a substrate, wherein the protective coating comprises a moisture barrier layer, as well as several additional layers disposed over the moisture barrier layer (Singh, Abstract). Each layer of the protective coating is prepared by plasma deposition (Singh, paragraph 0020). Preferably, plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) of precursor mixtures is employed as the plasma deposition technique (Singh, paragraph 0021). In some embodiments, the precursor mixture comprises a hydrocarbon compound of formula (X), which forms a hydrocarbon polymer of formula CmHn (Singh, paragraph 0051-0052). Examples of hydrocarbons represented by formula (X) include 1,4-dimethylbenzene, 1,3-dimethylbenzene, 1,2-dimethylbenzene, toluene, 4-methyl styrene, 3-methyl styrene, 2-methyl styrene, 1,4-divinyl benzene, 1,3-divinyl benzene, 1,2-divinyl benzene, 1,4-ethylvinylbenzene, 1,3-ethylvinylbenze and 1,2-ethylvinylbenzene (Singh, paragraph 0058).
However, Chen and Singh are silent in regards to a moisture barrier layer that is transmissive or reactive to EUV radiation. West teaches a photolithographic method including a barrier layer. The photolithographic method includes steps of depositing a photoresist layer on a substrate, depositing an optically transparent polymeric barrier layer on the photoresist layer, exposing the layers to light of a predetermined wavelength through a mask, and developing the photoresist while stripping the barrier layer (West, Col. 2 Line 33-51). The polymer barrier layer is transparent to light used to expose the photoresist (West, Col. 3 Line 3-11).
However, Chen, Singh, and West are silent in regards to a CVP process for forming an organometallic oxide polymer film having carbon-carbon bonds as a photoresist. Hansen teaches dry deposited photoresists. Hansen teaches the use of carbon-containing co-reactants to produce a radiation-sensitive film including an organometallic oxide (Hansen, paragraph 0033-0036). The process produces a polymerized organometallic material produced in a vapor and deposited on a substrate (Hansen, paragraph 0205). Hansen further teaches that the substrate may be heated (e.g. a heat treatment) to allow the reaction to further proceed (Hansen, paragraph 0223). The resulting photoresist film is sensitive to EUV radiation (e.g. EUV-active) (Hansen, paragraph 0029).
Chen, Singh, West, and Hansen are analogous art because each reference pertains to the formation of moisture barrier layers (refer to the abstracts of Chen, Singh, and West and paragraph 0178 of Hansen). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to utilize plasma deposition to form the moisture barrier layer, as taught by Singh, in the method disclosed by Chen because plasma deposition results in a unique class of materials that cannot be prepared using other techniques, which provides the resulting material with distinct chemical and physical properties (see Singh, paragraph 0023). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to include a hydrocarbon polymer in the moisture barrier layer, as taught by Singh, in the barrier film taught by Chen because hydrocarbon polymers offer high density and hardness of the barrier film (Singh, paragraph 0077 and 0064) and function well to protect underlying layers from moisture (Singh, paragraph 0072-0074). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to form a hydrocarbon polymer layer directly on the substrate surface, as taught by Singh, and then forming a resist layer and a barrier layer, as taught by Chen, because the barrier layer formed directly on the substrate prevents moisture in the form of water vapor from damaging the underlying substrate (Singh, paragraph 0072), and the upper barrier layer disposed over the resist layer prevents volatiles from outgassing from the resist layer while also protecting the resist layer from reacting with water vapor (Chen, paragraph 0029). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to make the barrier layer transmissive to EUV radiation, as taught by West, in the method obtained by combining the teachings of Chen and Singh because the barrier layer being transmissive to EUV radiation allows for the underlying photoresist to be patterned sufficiently using photolithography techniques (West, Col. 3 Line 3-35). Lastly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to produce the EUV-active photoresist film using a CVP process to produce an organometallic oxide polymer, as taught by Hansen, in the method obtained by combining the teachings of Chen, Singh, and West because the CVP method for producing an organometallic polymer photoresist allows for tuning of properties such as EUV responsivity (which increased wafer patterning throughput), patterning quality, such as line-edge-roughness, and mechanical properties of the photoresist film (Hansen, paragraph 0140-0141).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Chen, Singh, West, and Hansen renders obvious the method of instant claim 16, as discussed above. Chen is silent in regards to a hydrocarbon polymer as the barrier film. Singh teaches a hydrocarbon polymer formed from primarily vinyl benzene monomers (Singh, paragraph 0051-0058). However, Singh further teaches that the precursor mixture containing a hydrocarbon compound of formula (X) may comprise reactive gas(es), such as N2O, NO2, NH3, N2, CH4, C2H6, C3H6, and/or C3H8 (Singh, paragraph 0062). When one or more of the aforementioned nitrogen-containing reactive gases are present in the precursor mixture, the resulting hydrocarbon polymer would comprise carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and potentially oxygen (if N2O or NO2 is utilized).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to include a reactive gas containing nitrogen and optionally oxygen in the precursor mixture, as taught by Singh, in the method obtained by combining the teachings of Chen, Singh, West, and Hansen because including the reactive gas allows modification of the properties of the barrier film, such as the density of the aromatic rings in the hydrocarbon polymer (Singh, paragraph 0062-0063 and 0077).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Chen, Singh, West, and Hansen renders obvious the method of instant claim 19, as discussed above. Chen is silent in regards to a hydrocarbon polymer as the barrier film. Singh teaches a hydrocarbon polymer formed from primarily vinyl benzene monomers (Singh, paragraph 0051-0058). Whilst Singh does not explicitly state styrene (C6H5CH=CH2) as an example of the hydrocarbon precursor, the general formula (X) taught by Singh is a benzene ring wherein one of the substituents is C1-C3 alkyl or C2-C3 alkenyl, and the remaining substituents may be hydrogen (Singh, paragraph 0052-0053). In particular, the Z1 group may be a vinyl group, and Z2 through Z6 may be hydrogen (Singh, paragraph 0054). In this embodiment, the hydrocarbon precursor is styrene. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art, when presented with the disclosures of Chen and Singh, would find styrene as an obvious precursor to use in the formation of the hydrocarbon polymer moisture barrier film. Refer to MPEP 2143 I. E.
Regarding Claim 23, Chen discloses that the photoresist layer comprises an organometallic compound or organometallic precursor, wherein the metallic element is at least one of tin (Sn), zirconium (Zr), indium (In), antimony (Sb), bismuth (Bi), hafnium (Hf), or aluminum (Al) (Chen, paragraph 0068). Chen teaches that the metallic species may be a metal oxide (Chen, paragraph 0071). Furthermore, Hansen teaches organometallic oxide polymers comprising Sn, Te, Bi, Sb, Hf, or Zr (Hansen, paragraph 0101).
Claim(s) 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220028684 A1 (hereby referred to as Chen) in view of US 20190344307 A1 (hereby referred to as Singh), US 4663275 A (hereby referred to as West), and US 20230259025 A1 (hereby referred to as Hansen) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 11802337 B1 (hereby referred to as Gandhiraman).
Regarding Claims 21-22, the combination of Chen, Singh, West, and Hansen renders obvious the method of instant claim 16, as discussed above. However, Chen, Singh, West, and Hansen are silent in regards to the use of precursors having aldehydes or amines to produce a barrier layer.
Gandhiraman teaches plasma-based fabrication methods and functional coatings. Gandhiraman utilizes a system (Gandhiraman, Col. 5 Lines 4-21) to form functional coatings via plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) onto two- or three-dimensional substrates (Gandhiraman, Col. 8 Line 42-58). The substrate may be a semiconductor (Gandhiraman, Col. 16, Line 40-48). The materials used as precursors for the coating include polystyrene (Gandhiraman, Col. 16 Line 64-68), and may also include functional coatings such as amines and aldehydes (Gandhiraman, Col. 17 Line 4-20).
Chen, Singh, West, Hansen, and Gandhiraman are analogous art because each reference pertains to coated films applied to substrates. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use an aldehyde or amine precursor, as taught by Gandhiraman, to produce the moisture barrier film in the method obtained by combining the teachings of Chen, Singh, West, and Hansen because it is taught in the art that aldehydes and amines are functional equivalents to polystyrene (which is a material taught or suggested by Singh as a suitable hydrocarbon polymer barrier layer, as discussed above) for the purposes of producing plasma deposited coatings onto semiconductor substrates (see Gandhiraman, Col. 16 Line 64 through Col. 17 Line 20). Thus, per MPEP 2143 I. B., the use of aldehydes and/or amines is prima facie obvious.
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 JAYSON D COSGROVE whose telephone number is (571)272-2153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-18:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/JAYSON D COSGROVE/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights