DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on December 22, 2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 13 has/have been canceled and no claim(s) has/have been added. Therefore, claim(s) 1-12 and 14-16 remain(s) pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (US 2021/0013037, hereinafter “Sun”, previously cited).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches in Fig. 1 (shown below) and related text a method of forming a structure comprising a photoresist underlayer, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a substrate (102, Fig. 1 and ¶[0065]) comprising a surface comprising an oxide (104, Fig. 1 and ¶[0065]), a nitride, silicon, or a self-assembled monolayer, wherein the self-assembled monolayer is formed using organic or organosilicon compounds;
forming a photoresist underlayer (106, Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0063]-[0071], [0085]-[0086] and [0095]) overlying and in contact with the surface of the substrate using a cyclic deposition process (e.g. ALD or CVD, ¶¶[0085]-[0086] and [0095]); and
forming a photoresist layer (108, Fig. 1 and ¶[0063]) overlying the photoresist underlayer, the photoresist layer in direct contact with the photoresist underlayer (106, Fig. 1) or with a carbon-containing layer, or a self-assembled layer between the photoresist layer and the photoresist underlayer;
wherein the photoresist underlayer is a single discrete layer selected from the group consisting of an oxide, a nitride, and an oxynitride of a metal (¶[0095]);
wherein the metal comprises one or more transition metals (¶[0098]).
PNG
media_image1.png
444
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 7-8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Tsai et al. (US 2019/0103272, hereinafter “Tsai”, previously cited) in view of De Silva et al. (US 2018/0203355, hereinafter “De Silva”).
Regarding claim 1, Tsai teaches in Fig. 1C (Fig. 1C shown below) and related text a method of forming a structure comprising a photoresist underlayer, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a substrate (e.g. 102/112, Fig. 1C and ¶¶[0017]-[0018]) comprising a surface comprising an oxide (e.g. 112 on substrate 102, Fig. 1C and ¶[0018]), a nitride, silicon, or a polymer layer (e.g. 114, Fig. 1C and ¶[0019]);
forming a photoresist underlayer (116, Fig. 1C and ¶¶[0021]-[0022]) overlying and in contact with the surface of the substrate using a cyclic deposition process (e.g. ALD or CVD, ¶¶[0021]-[0022]); and
forming a photoresist layer (118, Fig. 1C and ¶[0047]) overlying the photoresist underlayer, the photoresist layer in direct contact with the photoresist underlayer (114/116 or 116, Fig. 1C) or with a carbon-containing layer (116, Fig. 1C), or a self-assembled layer between the photoresist layer and the photoresist underlayer;
wherein the photoresist underlayer (116, Fig. 1C) is a single discrete layer selected from the group consisting of an oxide, a nitride, and an oxynitride of a metal (e.g. oxide of Ti, ¶[0021]);
wherein the metal comprises one or more transition metals (e.g. Ti, ¶[0021]).
PNG
media_image2.png
452
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tsai, however, does not explicitly teach that the polymer layer is a self-assembled monolayer, wherein the self-assembled monolayer is formed using organic or organosilicon compound.
De Silva, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches that a polymer layer disclosed by Tsai, and a self-assembled monolayer formed using an organic compound (¶¶[0036] and [0042]) are well-known equivalent materials that can be formed over a substrate in order to meet specific design requirements.
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claim method steps and elements, using such steps and elements would lead to predictable results and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the self-assembled monolayer formed using an organic compound, as disclosed by De Silva, in place of the polymer layer disclosed by Tsai, as the two materials were well-known equivalents in the art that can be used in order to meet specific design requirements.
Regarding claim 2 (1), the combined teaching of Tsai and De Silva discloses wherein the photoresist underlayer (116, Fig. 1C) comprises the metal, oxygen, and carbon (Tsai, ¶[0044], underlayer formed from TDMAT would include metal, oxygen, and carbon), and
wherein a metal-containing precursor is provided to the reaction chamber during the step of forming a photoresist underlayer, wherein the metal-containing precursor is an alkoxide or alkylamide metal precursor (Tsai, i.e. TDMAT (Ti(N(CH3)2)4), ¶[0044]).
Regarding claim 3 (2), the combined teaching of Tsai and De Silva discloses wherein the metal-containing precursor has a general formula M[R(CxHy)n]4, wherein M is selected from Ti, Ta, Hf, Zn, and Zr, wherein R is selected from OCH and N, wherein x is 1 or 2, wherein y is 3-6, and wherein n is 2 or 3 (Tsai, i.e. TDMAT disclosed by Tsai has a formula Ti(N(CH3)2)4) where M=Ti, R=N, x=1 and y=3, ¶[0044]).
Regarding claim 4 (3), the combined teaching of Tsai and De Silva discloses wherein M is Ti (Tsai, ¶¶[0021]-[0022] and [0044]).
Regarding claim 7 (3), the combined teaching of Tsai and De Silva discloses wherein the photoresist underlayer is formed using a reactant selected from H2O, O3, and H2O2 (Tsai, ¶¶[0042]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 8 (1), the combined teaching of Tsai and De Silva discloses wherein the photoresist underlayer is formed using a plasma ALD or a plasma-enhanced pulsed CVD method (Tsai, ¶[0021]) that employs a plasma selected from the list consisting of H2, H2/He, H2/Ar, Ar, and 02 plasmas (Tsai, ¶¶[0041]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 16 (1), the combined teaching of Tsai and De Silva discloses wherein a thickness of the photoresist underlayer is about 10 Å (1 nm) to about 50 nm (116, ¶[0021]) which is overlapping the claimed range of less than 5 nm where, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the range of Tsai to the claimed range as a routine skill in the art to discover the optimum and/or workable range (see MPEP § 2144.05 for overlap of ranges).
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and De Silva as applied to claims 4 and 3 above, respectively, and further in view of Ha et al. (US 2012/0164846, hereinafter “Ha”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 5 (4), the combined teaching of Tsai and De Silva was discussed above in the rejection of claim 4 and includes using TDMAT (Ti[N(CH3)2]4) as a metal-containing precursor. While Tsai and De Silva do not explicitly teach that the metal-containing precursor is titanium(IV) isopropoxide (TTIP), using titanium(IV) isopropoxide (TTIP) as a metal-containing precursor in place of TDMAT disclosed by Tsai in order to form, for example, TiO would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as the two precursors were are recognized equivalents as demonstrated by Ha (¶[0055]).
Thus, because these two precursors were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute TTIP for TDMAT.
Regarding claim 14 (3), the combined teaching of Tsai and De Silva was discussed above in the rejection of claim 3. Tsai and De Silva, however, do not explicitly teach that the photoresist underlayer is exposed to a plasma surface treatment. Ha, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches exposing a metal oxide layer, disclosed by Tsai as the photoresist underlayer, to a plasma surface treatment, in order to prevent moisture adsorption followed the layer deposition (¶¶[0021], [0051] and [0055]).
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed method steps, using such steps would lead to predictable results and as such, it 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 invention pertains to expose the photoresist underlayer disclosed by Tsai and De Silva to a plasma surface treatment disclosed by Ha in order to prevent moisture adsorption to the photoresist underlayer.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and De Silva as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Laxman et al. (US 2002/0172766, hereinafter “Laxman”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 6 (3), the combined teaching of Tsai and De Silva was discussed above in the rejection of claim 3 and includes wherein the photoresist underlayer comprises carbon (e.g. SiOC layer). While Tsai and De Silva do not explicitly teach that a carbon precursor is further provided in the reaction chamber during the step of forming a photoresist underlayer, wherein the carbon precursor comprises one or more of a carboxylic acid anhydrate, toluene, diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, acetaldehyde, and an organosilicon compound, providing a carbon precursor, such as, organosilicon precursor to a reaction chamber during the step of forming the SiOC layer disclosed by Tsai is well-known in the art as evidenced by Laxman (¶[0085]). Specifically, Laxman teaches that organosilicon precursor are known to be used when forming carbon containing films, such as SiOC, disclosed by Tsai.
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed method steps, using such steps would lead to predictable results and as such, it 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 invention pertains to provide the carbon precursor disclosed by Laxman in the reaction chamber during the step of forming the photoresist underlayer disclosed by Tsai and De Silva as doing so would amount to nothing more than selecting a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and De Silva as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view Wang et al. (US 2014/0202632, hereinafter “Wang”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 9 (3), the combined teaching of Tsai and De Silva was discussed above in the rejection of claim 3. Tsai, however, does not explicitly teach performing a surface treatment step.
Wang, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches performing a surface treatment step on a layer under a photoresist layer that includes oxymetal (i.e. oxide of a metal) similar to that disclosed by Tsai and De Silva, in order to improve adhesion between the photoresist layer and the layer underneath it (¶¶[0003]-[0007] and [0012]).
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed method steps, using such steps would lead to predictable results, and as such, it 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 invention pertains to perform surface treatment as disclosed by Wang in a method disclosed by Tsai and De Silva in order to improve adhesion between the photoresist layer and the layer on which it is formed.
Regarding claim 10 (9), the combined teaching of Tsai, De Silva and Wang disclosed wherein the surface treatment step comprises exposing the photoresist underlayer to one or more carbon-containing compounds selected from the group consisting of a carboxylic acid anhydrate, toluene, diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, acetaldehyde, and organosilicon compounds, such as silane and siloxanes (e.g. toluene, Wang, ¶[0012]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and De Silva as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 11 (3), the combined teaching of Tsai and De Silva was discussed above in the rejection of claim 3 and includes wherein the photoresist underlayer (116, Fig. 1C) can be a multilayer stack that includes a combination of SiN, SiON, SiCON, SiC, SiOC, SiO, TiO, an oxide, other dielectrics (Fig. 1C and ¶[0021]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a carbon-containing layer that comprises silicon, oxygen, and carbon (i.e. SiOC layer, ¶[0021]) directly overlying, for example, the photoresist underlayer (i.e. layer formed from TDMAT, ¶[0044]), as doing so would amount to nothing other than selecting a known materials from list of known materials to form photoresist underlayer with desired characteristics.
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claim elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the carbon-containing layer comprising silicon, oxygen, and carbon on the photoresist underlayer (i.e. layer of 116 formed from TDMAT) in order to form photoresist underlayer with desired characteristics.
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and De Silva as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view Uchida et al. (US 2020/0062968, hereinafter “Uchida”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 12 (3), the combined teaching of Tsai and De Silva was discussed above in the rejection of claim 3 and includes forming the photoresist layer (Tsia, 118, Fig. 1C) and the photoresist underlayer (116, Fig. 1C). Tsai and De Silva, however, do not explicitly teach that a self-assembled layer is formed overlying the photoresist underlayer and between the photoresist layer and the photoresist underlayer, wherein the self-assembled layer is formed of a material selected from the group consisting of dimethylamino-trimethylsilane, hexamethyldisilazane, (3-bromopropyl)trimethoxysilane, (3-iodopropyl)trimethoxysilane, 3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl acrylate, trimethoxyphenyl silane, trimethoxy (3,3,3- trifluoropropyl)silane, 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctyltriethoxysilane, and tichloro(phenyl)silane, and trimethoxy(1H,1H,2H,2H-heptadecafluorodecyl)silane.
Uchida, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches treating a surface of a layer underlying a photoresist layer with dimethylamino-trimethylsilane (TMSDMA) or hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS) (¶¶[0068], [0082] and [0102]), thereby forming a self-assembled layer, in order to improve adhesiveness between the photoresist layer and the layer underlying the photoresist layer (i.e. photoresist underlayer, ¶[0183]).
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the elements of the claimed method, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it 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 invention pertains to form a self-assembled layer on the layer underlying photoresist disclosed by Tsai and De Silva by treating the surface of the layer underlying the photoresist layer with TMSDMA or HMDS, as disclosed by Uchida, in order to improve adhesiveness between the photoresist layer and the layer underneath it.
Regarding claim 15 (1), the combined teaching of Tsai and De Silva was discussed above in the rejection of claim 3. Tsai, however, does not explicitly teach a step of exposing the photoresist underlayer to a surface treatment, the surface treatment comprising a step of exposing the photoresist underlayer to an organosilicon compound selected from the list consisting of bis(tripropylsilyl)amine, bis(triethylsilyl)amine, bis(trimethylsilyl)amine, (dimethylamino)trimethylsilane, (diethylamino)trimethylsilane, (diethylamino)triethylsilane, and (dimethylamino)triethylsilane.
Uchida, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches treating a surface of a layer underlying a photoresist layer with dimethylamino-trimethylsilane (TMSDMA) (¶¶[0068], [0082] and [0102]) in order to improve adhesiveness between the photoresist layer and the layer under the photoresist layer (¶[0183]).
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the elements of the claimed method, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it 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 invention pertains to expose underlayer disclosed by Tsai and De Silva to a surface treatment that includes exposing the layer underlying the photoresist layer to TMSDMA as disclosed by Uchida in order to improve adhesiveness between the photoresist layer and the layer underneath it.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouattara et al. (US 2013/0129995, hereinafter “Ouattara”) in view of Takashima et al. (US 9,359,513, hereinafter “Takashima”).
Regarding claim 1, Ouattara teaches a method of forming a structure comprising a photoresist underlayer, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a substrate (¶[0030]) comprising a surface comprising an oxide , a nitride, silicon (¶[0030]), or a self-assembled monolayer, wherein the self-assembled monolayer is formed using organic or organosilicon compounds;
forming a photoresist underlayer (i.e. assist layer, ¶¶[0031] and [0045]) overlying and in contact with the surface of the substrate (¶¶[0009] and [0031]); and
forming a photoresist layer (¶¶[0009] and [0037]) overlying the photoresist underlayer, the photoresist layer in direct contact with the photoresist underlayer (¶¶[0009] and [0036]) or with a carbon-containing layer, or a self-assembled layer between the photoresist layer and the photoresist underlayer;
wherein the photoresist underlayer is a single discrete layer selected from the group consisting of an oxide, a nitride, and an oxynitride of a metal (¶[0045]);
wherein the metal comprises one or more transition metals (e.g. Ti, ¶[0045]).
Ouattara, however, does not explicitly teach that the photoresist underlayer is formed using a cyclic deposition process. Takashima, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches that spin coating process, such as that disclosed by Ouattara, and cyclic deposition process, as claimed, are art recognized equivalent processes for forming metal oxide underlayers (col. 17, ll. 15-35). Therefore, because these two processes were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to deposit the underlayer disclosed by Ouattara using cyclic deposition instead of spin coating.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Ouattara and Takashima and includes a teaching of the photoresist underlayer comprising the metal, oxygen, and carbon (Ouattara, ¶¶[0045]-[0051]), wherein the metal-containing precursor is an alkoxide or alkylamide metal precursor (Ouattara, ¶[0048]).
Regarding claim 3 (2), the combined teaching of Ouattara and discloses wherein the metal-containing precursor has a general formula M[R(CxHy)n]4, wherein M is selected from Ti, Ta, Hf, Zn, and Zr, wherein R is selected from OCH and N, wherein x is 1 or 2, wherein y is 3-6, and wherein n is 2 or 3 (Ouattara, ¶[0048]).
Regarding claim 4 (3), the combined teaching of Ouattara and Takashima discloses wherein M is Ti (Ouattara, ¶[0045]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but are either not persuasive or 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.
On page 7 of the response, the applicant argues that “Sun does not constitute prior art to the present application. Therefore, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection to claim 1 in view of Sun”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted above in the rejection of claim 1 based on the Sun reference, “[t]he applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. Accordingly, in order for the Sun reference to be disqualified as prior are one of the above conditions must be met.
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 ANETA B CIESLEWICZ whose telephone number is 303-297-4232. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 2:30 PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.B.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893