DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This office action is responsive to applicant’s amendment filed on 11/19/2025. Claims 1-8, 10-16 are pending. Claims 1, 10-11 have been amended. Claim 9 has been cancelled. Claims 15-16 are withdrawn claims.
The applicant’s amendment filed on 11/19/2025 along with the remark were sufficient to overcome the examiner’s previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b). However, the applicant’s amendment fails to overcome the examiner’s previous ground of rejection under 35 U.SC 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) and/or 103.
Response to Arguments
3. The previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b) with respect to claims 11-12 was withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendment filed on 11/19/2025 along with the remark.
Regarding to previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Sheu et al. (US 8,329,585), the applicants stated: “Applicant respectfully submits that Sheu, Anderson, and Hosoya fail to disclose these features of Claim 1.
“Applicant respectfully submits that Sheu does not teach or suggest "annealing the photoresist pattern at 40 to 200 °C," nor does any secondary reference cure this deficiency.
1. Sheu's temperature disclosure relates to ESC temperature-not annealing.
Sheu, col. 6-7, discloses that the electrostatic chuck (ESC) temperature during plasma exposure may be between:
-60 °C and 200 °C (general range)
-30 °C to 120 °C (desirable range).
This is not an annealing step.
Annealing is a heating process, not a temperature-range setting of the chuck, and certainly not a process performed at negative temperatures.”
The examiner strongly disagrees. The examiner interprets the term “annealing” means a heating process. Sheu clearly teaches to a pre-etch treatment by curing the photoresist and heating the substrate having a photoresist pattern by setting a temperature of electrostatic chuck to a temperature of 120 °C or 200 °C (See col. 4 lines 65 to col. 5 lines 1-15). It is noted that the substrate having a photoresist pattern is positioned on top of the electrostatic chuck, therefore the temperature of the substrate and photoresist pattern is approximately around 120 °C or around 200 °C. It is noted that 120 °C or 200 °C is clearly fall within applicant’s range of 40 to 200 °C. Even if the temperature of the photoresist is slightly below 120 °C or 200 °C dues to heat lost, this temperature would fall within applicant’s temperature range “40 to 200 °C”.
The applicants further stated:
“2. Sheu does not disclose any standalone annealing process.
The Examiner cites col. 8:10-35 for heating of the photoresist pattern.
However, Sheu never identifies the heating as annealing, does not describe a distinct, intentional thermal treatment step, and only identifies temperature exposure as a consequence of plasma processing or ESC conditions.
In contrast, claim 1 requires a separate annealing step, performed after plasma hardening, at a defined thermal window of 40-200 °C, and applied directly to the photoresist.
Nothing in Sheu teaches or suggests these features.” (emphasis added)
The applicant’s argument that “In contrast, claim 1 requires a separate annealing step, performed after plasma hardening, at a defined thermal window of 40-200 °C, and applied directly to the photoresist” is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. There is no limitation in claim 1 which requires separate annealing step after plasma hardening as argued by applicants. Sheu clearly discloses hardening a surface of the photoresist pattern by exposing the photoresist pattern to a first plasma generated from a first discharge gas containing a reforming gas including carbon (C) and sulfur (S) (i.e. COS gas; Fig 3 step 106, 108, col. 4 lines 32 to col. 5 lines 40; Note: the plasma treatment facilitates passivation and strengthening of the sidewalls of the photoresist feature; See col. 5 lines30-40) and
annealing the photoresist pattern at a temperature of 120 °C or 200 °C (See col. 8 lines 10-35). Specifically, Sheu wrote
“A specific example of a treatment recipe provides a non-etching plasma pre-etch treatment gas of 300 sccm H2 and 10 sccm COS at a pressure of 15 mT. Ranges of the treatment gas in this example recipe may provide 100-600 sccm H2 and 5 to 60 sccm COS, at pressures between 2-150 mT, with preferred pressure below 80 mT. Preferably, the ranges of the treatment gas in this example recipe may provide 200-500 sccm H.sub.2 and 5 to 30 sccm COS, at pressures between 2-40 mT. The power provided to form a plasma from the treatment gas is 300-400 W at 60 MHz with a low bias voltage. More specifically, the power is 400 W. The bias voltage is between 0 to 500 volts, preferably between 0 to 150 volts, more preferably between 0 to 100 volts. That is, the non-etching plasma pre-etch treatment is more chemical reaction than physical. An electrostatic chuck temperature between -60.degree. C. and 200 ° C. is provided, while more desirable temperature is between -30 ° C. and 120 ° C. The specific operating temperature for this treatment is generally dependent upon the temperature required to optimize the etch performance for subsequent layers of materials, and this temperature should not be limited to the range described above. The treatment process is maintained for 5-30 seconds, preferably about 12 seconds. Longer treatment time may be performed as needed to further improve LWR as long as there is enough PR thickness left for subsequent etch after prescribed non-etching plasma pre-etch treatment.” (col. 8 lines 9 to 36
It is clear from the record, that Sheu teaches an annealing process at a temperature of 120 °C or 200 °C for 5-30 seconds or longer as needed.
The applicant’s further stated:
“3. Negative temperatures in Sheu (-60 °C, -30 °C) contradicts annealing.
Since annealing is well understood to require heating, Sheu's disclosure of subzero temperatures proves that this is not a thermal annealing process.
A person skilled in the art would not interpret a range including -60 °C as a teaching of photoresist annealing.”
Regarding the applicants’ argument that negative temperatures in Sheu (-60 °C, -30 °C) contradicts annealing. The examiner disagrees. Sheu discloses both positive and negative temperature. The examiner never indicates that -60 °C, -30 °C of Sheu is equivalent with applicant’s annealing temperature at 40 °C to 200 °C. It is noted Sheu also teaches to heat the substrate by heating the electrostatic chuck to a temperature of 120 °C or 200 °C which clearly fall within applicant’s claimed range.
The applicants further stated:
“4. Temperature ranges do not match.
Claim 1 requires 40~200 °C (explicit annealing window).
Sheu discloses ESC setting of -60°C~ 200 °C or -30°C~ 120 °C desirable.
There is only partial incidental overlap, and the purposes and processes are fundamentally different.”
The examiner strongly disagrees. At point by applicants, Sheu discloses the heat the substrate by heating the electrostatic chuck to -60°C~ 200 °C or -30°C~ 120 °C. A temperature of 200 °C or 120 °C is clearly fall within applicant’s temperature range of “40 to 200 °C”. For the 102 or 103 rejection, the examiner only need to show that the prior arts disclose at least one embodiment value falls within applicant’s claimed range. The examiner does not need to show that ALL of the prior art value are fall within applicant’s claimed range.
Thus, the examiner’s still maintained the previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) with respect to claim 1
The examiner still maintained previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 103
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
6. Claims 1-3, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sheu et al. (US 8,329,585 B2).
As to claim 1, Sheu discloses a plasma etching method comprising:
forming a photoresist pattern (20) on a target etching layer (26 or 28); (See Fig 2, col. 3 lines 50 to col. 4 lines 30);
hardening a surface of the photoresist pattern by exposing the photoresist pattern to a first plasma generated from a first discharge gas containing a reforming gas including carbon (C) and sulfur (S) (i.e. COS gas; Fig 3 step 106, 108, col. 4 lines 32 to col. 5 lines 40; Note: the plasma treatment facilitates passivation and strengthening of the sidewalls of the photoresist feature; See col. 5 lines30-40) and
annealing the photoresist pattern (col. 8 lines 10-35; Note: the photoresist pattern is heated to a temperature approximately around 120 °C or 200 °C) and
etching the target etching layer with a second plasma generated from a second discharge gas using the surface-hardened photoresist pattern as a mask (Fig 3 step 112, Fig 5, col. 4 lines 55-65);
wherein the photoresist pattern is annealed at a temperature of approximately around 120 °C or 200 °C (col. 8 lines 20-30, within applicant’s range of 40 to 200 °C).
As to claim 2, Sheu discloses the first discharge gas comprises an inert gas (e.g. nitrogen; See col. 7 lines 62-65).
As to claim 3, Sheu discloses to modify the photoresist by exposing the photoresist to a plasma comprises COS at a pressure of 2 to 40 mtorr (See col. 8 lines 15-25, within applicant’s range of 2 mtorr to 1 torr).
As to claim 13, Sheu discloses the etching proceeds after hardening the surface to increase etch resistance comparing to the etching proceeding without hardening the surface (col. 8 lines 1-40).
As to claim 14, Sheu discloses wherein the exposing to the first plasma, the annealing, and the etching with the second plasma are performed sequentially within a single chamber (Fig 3, Fig 5, col. 6 lines 3-48).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 4-8, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheu et al. (US 8,329,585 B2) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Anderson et al. (US 2015/0294880 A1).
As to claim 4, Sheu fails to disclose wherein the reforming gas comprises CS2, which is supplied at a rate of 10 sccm to 1 slm for use in generating the plasma. However, Sheu clearly discloses the reforming gas comprises COS at a flow rate of 5 sccm to 60 sccm, preferably 5 sccm to 30 sccm (col. 8 lines 10-20). Anderson discloses the second gas is selected from the group consisting of COS, CS2, SO2 (paragraph 0075) at a flow rate of 1% v/v to approximately 99.9% v/v of the flow rate of range of 5 sccm to 1 slm (See paragraph 0075-0084). Any person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to calculate the flow rate of CS2 as shown below:
1% of 1 slm = 0.01 slm = 10 sccm (within applicant’s range of 10 sccm to 1 slm)
99.9% of 1 slm = 0.999 slm (within applicant’s range of 10 sccm to 1 slm)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sheu in view of Anderson by using CS2 at a flow rate of 10 sccm to 0.999 slm because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 5, Sheu discloses the first and the second plasma are generated by inductively couple plasma method, or capacitively coupled plasma method (See col. 4 lines 35-54).
As to claim 6, Sheu discloses to generate plasma using inductively couple plasma method at power of 400 Watts (See col. 4 lines 50-53, col. 8 lines 15-22, within applicant’s range of 20 to 1000 W).
As to claim 7, Sheu discloses the photoresist pattern is exposed to the first plasma for 5 to 30 seconds (See col. 8 lines 25-32, within applicant’s range of 1 second to 5 minutes).
As to claim 8, Sheu discloses wherein forming the photoresist pattern is proceeded in the stated of the target etching layer and the photoresist pattern being placed on the support electrode (308), the support electrode being applied with an RF voltage while the photoresist pattern being exposed to the first plasma (See Fig 5, col. 6 lines 33-48, col. 8 lines 10-35).
As to claim 11, Sheu fails to disclose the second discharge gas comprises an etching gas containing at least one material selected among a group consisting of chlorine compounds, fluorine compounds, Cl2, BCl3, HBr, NH3, CF4, CHF3, C2F6, CH2F2, SF6, CXFyHz (where x is a natural number from 1 to 6, y is a natural number from 4 to 8, and z is a natural number from 1 to 4), NF3, N2, H2, O2, CO2, CO, and COS, and an inert gas containing at least one material selected among the group consisting of He, Ar, Kr, Xe, and Ne. However, Sheu clearly discloses etching the target etching layer comprises silicon containing material using a second discharge gas (Fig 2-3). Anderson discloses etching the silicon-containing layer using a second discharge gas containing at least one material selected from the group consisting of fluorine compounds, O2, CO2, CO, N2, COS and inert gas containing at least one material selected among the group consisting of He, Ar, Kr, Xe and Ne (paragraph 0023-0041, 0075, 0100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sheu in view of Anderson by etching the etching target layer using a second discharge gas containing at least one material selected from the group consisting of fluorine compounds, O2, CO2, CO, N2, COS and inert gas containing at least one material selected among the group consisting of He, Ar, Kr, Xe and Ne because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 12, Sheu discloses the etching proceeds under the second plasma (Fig 3 step 112). Sheu fails to disclose that the etching proceeds for 2 to 600 seconds. Anderson teaches to etch for 10 minutes (Note: 10 minutes = 600 seconds; See paragraph 0122-0123, 0170, within applicant’s range of 2 to 600 seconds). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sheu in view of Anderson by performing the etching for 600 seconds because in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
9. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheu et al. (US 8,329,585 B2).
As to claim 10, Sheu discloses the photoresist pattern is annealed at temperature of 120 °C for 5-30 seconds (col. 8 lines 20-35). Sheu fail to disclose the annealing process is performed for 1 to 20 minutes. However, Sheu discloses the annealing process is performed for 0.5 minutes (30 seconds; See col. 8 lines 30-32). Sheu further disclose longer treatment times may be performed at need to further improve line width roughness (LWR) (See col. 8 lines 30-35). In the absence of unexpected result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform routine experiment to obtain optimal annealing time because longer treatment time will improve LWR and further it has been held that determination of workable range is not considered inventive (See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
10. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheu et al. (US 8,329,585 B2) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hosoya (US 2012/0031875 A1).
As to claim 11, Sheu fails to disclose the second discharge gas comprises an etching gas containing at least one material selected among a group consisting of chlorine compounds, fluorine compounds, Cl2, BCl3, HBr, NH3, CF4, CHF3, C2F6, CH2F2, SF6, CXFyHz (where x is a natural number from 1 to 6, y is a natural number from 4 to 8, and z is a natural number from 1 to 4), NF3, N2, H2, O2, CO2, CO, and COS, and an inert gas containing at least one material selected among the group consisting of He, Ar, Kr, Xe, and Ne. However, Sheu clearly discloses etching the target etching layer using a second discharge gas (Fig 3). Hosoya discloses etching the etching target layer using a second discharge gas containing at least one material selected from the group consisting of fluorine compounds, CF4, CHF3, O2, and inert gas containing at least one material selected among the group consisting of Ar (See paragraph 0069-0073, 0081-0084). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sheu in view of Hosoya by discloses etching the etching target layer using a second discharge gas containing at least one material selected from the group consisting of fluorine compounds, CF4, CHF3, O2, and inert gas containing at least one material selected among the group consisting of Ar because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Conclusion
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH X TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
BINH X. TRAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/BINH X TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713