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 .
This is the initial office action for US Patent Application No. 18/321596 by Heo et al.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the additive is in an amount of about 0.0001 wt% to less than about 1.0 wt%. The limitation is considered to be indefinite because it is unclear if the weight percentage of the additive is relative to the total weight of the developer composition or if the weight percentage of the additive is relative to the amount of organic solvent present. Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and are concurrently rejected.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the metal-containing photoresist developer composition of claim 1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation ""the metal-containing photoresist". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “coating the metal-containing photoresist composition for removing edge beads from a metal-containing photoresist, of the metal-containing photoresist composition”. The aforementioned limitation is unclear and therefore is considered to be indefinite.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In claim 10, the limitations “means for coating”, “means for drying”, “means for exposing” and “means for developing” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
In the instant application, Applicant’s specification is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim and no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. With regard to the limitations recited in claim 10 directed to a “means for coating”, “means for drying”, “means for exposing” and “means for developing””, the specification does not adequately describe any structure or apparatus that performs the respective coating, drying, exposing and developing steps.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2004/0170931 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Suzuki teaches [0023] a developer composition that can include an organic solvent and a reducing agent (additive). Suzuki further teaches [0026] the reducing agent can include a sulfurous acid or a phosphorus acid in an amount of 0.05 to 5 percent by weight of the developer. The weight percentage range taught by Suzuki overlaps the claimed weight percentages recited in claims 1 and 2.
MPEP Chapter 2144.05, Section I states “In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”. Since the weight percentage range of the reducing agent taught by Suzuki overlaps the weight percentage ranges of additive taught by Applicant, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established.
Claims 3, 4, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2004/0170931 A1) in view of Weng et al. (US 2021/0134589 A1), herein referred to as Weng.
Suzuki teaches the developer composition recited in claim 1. Suzuki though does not appear to explicitly teach the compositions of the additives recited in claims 3 and 4, or the method and apparatus recited in claims 9 and 10 respectively. However, from the same field of technology, Weng recites a photoresist developer composition and method of developing a photoresist.
In view of claims 3 and 4, Weng teaches [0060 and 0083] an organic acid is used as a quencher (additive) for a photoresist developer composition. The organic acid may include phosphonic acid (a phosphorous acid-based compound) or phosphinic acid (a hypophosphorous acid-based compound).
In view of claims 9 and 10, Weng teaches [0022-0027, 0066, 0069] a process and system for manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising coating a photoresist on a substrate wherein the photoresist may include metal oxide nanoparticles (metal-containing photoresist), performing a baking operation (heating and drying the photoresist) on the photoresist covered substrate, exposing the photoresist covered substrate with a photomask (exposing the photoresist) and then developing the exposed photoresist covered substrate
At the time of the effective filing date of the pending application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the developer composition teachings of Suzuki to include the teachings of Weng directed to including various additives in a photoresist developer and further processing the photoresist developer in order to optimize the formation of semiconductor device patterns during a photolithographic exposure process. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the known additives taught by Weng in the developer composition taught by Suzuki to yield predictable results (MPEP Chapter 2143, Section I, Part B).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2004/0170931 A1) in view of Zi et al. (US 2018/0173096 A1), herein referred to as Zi.
Suzuki teaches the developer composition recited in claim 1. Suzuki though does not appear to explicitly teach the compositions of the additive recited in claim 5. However, from the same field of technology, Zi recites a developer composition for photolithography.
In view of claim 5, Zi teaches [0038] a chemical additive for a developer composition wherein the chemical additive may include a sulfurous acid-based compound as such benzenesulfonic acid, ethanesulfonic acid or methanesulfonic acid.
At the time of the effective filing date of the pending application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the developer composition teachings of Suzuki to include the teachings of Zi directed to including various additives in a photoresist developer in order to optimize the formation of semiconductor device patterns during a photolithographic exposure process. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the known additives taught by Zi in the developer composition taught by Suzuki to yield predictable results (MPEP Chapter 2143, Section I, Part B).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2004/0170931 A1) in view of Hansen et al. (US 2023/0266670 A1), herein referred to as Hansen.
Suzuki teaches the developer composition recited in claim 1. Suzuki though does not appear to explicitly teach the compositions of the additive recited in claim 6. However, from the same field of technology, Hansen recites a metal chelator additive that is employed for photoresist development.
In view of claim 6, Hansen teaches [0080 and 0086] a metal chelator chemical additive that may be included in a developer composition. Hansen further teaches the metal chelator [0111 and 0115-0117] can include hydroxamic acid and various derivatives of hydroxamic acid that would read on the compositions recited in claim 6.
At the time of the effective filing date of the pending application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the developer composition teachings of Suzuki to include the teachings of Hansen directed to including various additives in a photoresist developer in order to optimize the formation of semiconductor device patterns during a photolithographic exposure process. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the known additives taught by Hansen in the developer composition taught by Suzuki to yield predictable results (MPEP Chapter 2143, Section I, Part B).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2004/0170931 A1) in view of Suzuki (US 2004/0170931 A1) in view of Clark (US 2023/0143629 A1).
Suzuki teaches the developer composition recited in claim 1. Suzuki though does not appear to explicitly teach the metal-containing photoresist compositions recited in claims 7 and 8. However, from the same field of technology, Clark recites a photoresist composition comprising a metal oxide network.
In view of claim 7, Clark teaches [0006] a metal-containing photoresist composition that includes tin oxide terminated with alkoxy groups (tin compound containing an organic carbonyl oxy group). In view of claim 8, Clark teaches (Figures 5A-5C and [0055]) a metal-containing photoresist composition comprising tin alkoxides that satisfy Chemical Formula 1 recited in claim 8.
At the time of the effective filing date of the pending application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the developer composition teachings of Suzuki to include the teachings of Clark directed to the use of a metal-containing photoresist in order to optimize the formation of semiconductor device patterns during a photolithographic exposure process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEWART A FRASER whose telephone number is (571)270-5126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am-4pm, EST.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724