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 addition of claims 12-19 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 16 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 20160314984 A1 (hereby referred to as Matsumura) and/or US 20120183908 A1 (hereby referred to as Anno).
Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 11 to recite that the composition for forming the resist underlayer film comprises an organic chain polymer and/or an inorganic polymer. Applicant argues that the previously cited prior art (Marks and Nakasugi) fails to disclose or suggest the invention according to instant claims 1 and 11, as amended. Particularly, Applicant argues that Marks fails to describe an underlayer film (conceded by the previous office action) and that Nakasugi does not disclose an underlayer film comprising an organic chain polymer and/or an inorganic polymer. Upon review of Nakasugi, the Examiner agrees with the Applicant that an organic chain polymer and/or an inorganic chain polymer is not taught by Nakasugi to be present in the resist underlayer film forming composition. Accordingly, Applicant's arguments are found to be persuasive and the previous rejection is withdrawn. However, a new rejection is presented in view of US 20160314984 A1 (hereby referred to as Matsumura) and/or US 20120183908 A1 (hereby referred to as Anno), as explained below.
Applicant further argues that it would not be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakasugi to include an organic chain polymer in the resist underlayer film forming composition, as Nakasugi suggests that organic chain polymers would not provide success in improving line width roughness (LWR) and it is difficult to form a uniform underlayer film. In Nakasugi's disclosure, Nakasugi states that particular prior art employs polymers having low thermal expansion coefficients are employed to improve pattern collapse and LWR, but these particular prior art references fail to fully improve LWR (Nakasugi, paragraph 0004). The Examiner notes that in response to the Applicant's amendments, Nakasugi is no longer relied upon for the newly presented rejection. Therefore, these points are not considered to be relevant to the new rejection presented 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) 1-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150221519 A1 (hereby referred to as Marks) in view of US 20160314984 A1 (hereby referred to as Matsumura).
Regarding Claims 1, 10-14, and 16-18, Marks teaches vacuum-integrated hardmask processes and an apparatus for the same. The hardmask formation process is demonstrated in Fig. 1A-1E of Marks (Marks, paragraph 0023). Notably, the process involves depositing metal-containing film sensitive to exposure patterning onto a semiconductor substrate and directly patterning the metal-containing film by exposure to the patterning agent in a vacuum (Marks, paragraph 0023). The metal-containing film of Marks is analogous to the metal-containing resist film of the instant application. Following exposure, the metal-containing film has exposed regions and unexposed regions (Marks, paragraph 0035). Development of the patterned metal-containing film involves heating the substrate to volatilize the unexposed regions of the metal-containing film, thereby forming a resist pattern (Marks, paragraph 0036).
However, Marks fails to teach a resist underlayer comprising an organic chain polymer and/or an inorganic polymer between the resist layer and the substrate. Matsumura teaches a method for film formation and a pattern forming method. The method involves forming a resist underlayer film on an upper side of a substrate, forming a resist pattern on the resist underlayer film, and forming a pattern by etching the substrate using the resist pattern as a mask (Matsumura, paragraph 0022). The resist underlayer is formed on the substrate, and an optional intermediate film is formed on the upper face of the resist underlayer film (Matsumura, paragraph 0025). The resist underlayer film is formed using a composition comprising a compound (A) and a solvent (B) (Matsumura, paragraph 0039). The composition may further contain an acid generator and/or a crosslinking agent (Matsumura, paragraph 0039). The compound (A) is preferably one of a novolak resin, a resol resin, a triazine resin, a calixarene resin, a pyrene resin, and the like (Matsumura, paragraph 0044). When a calixarene based resin is used, the molecular weight is preferably between 500 and 5,000, and more preferably 1,000 to 1,500 (Matsumura, paragraph 0129).
Marks and Matsumura are analogous art because both references pertain to patterning resists disposed on semiconductor substrates. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to form a resist underlayer film comprising an organic chain polymer between the resist layer and the semiconductor substrate, as taught by Matsumura, in the patterning method taught by Marks because the inclusion of the resist underlayer containing an organic chain polymer provides desirable etching resistance and heat resistance properties (Matsumura, paragraph 0043-0044). Accordingly, a pattern having favorable shape can be formed (Matsumura, paragraph 0012).
Regarding Claims 2-3, Marks teaches that the metal-containing film is formed on the substrate via a deposition process, such as atomic layer deposition (ALD) or chemical vapor deposition (CVD) (Marks, paragraph 0019, 0027, and 0040).
Regarding Claims 4-6, Marks teaches that the metal-containing film may be formed of tin bromide (SnBr4) (Marks, paragraph 0027), tetramethyl tin (Sn(CH3)4) (Marks, paragraph 0028), or hafnium chloride (HfCl4) (Marks, paragraph 0029).
Regarding Claim 7, Marks teaches that the metal-containing resist film is patterned by extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUVL), which utilizes an EUV exposure source (Marks, paragraph 0023).
Regarding Claims 8-9, Marks teaches that development of the exposed metal-containing film is performed by heating the substrate to volatilize unexposed regions of the metal-containing film, such that only the exposed regions remain as the resist pattern (Marks, paragraph 0036). The heating of the substrate occurs whilst the metal-containing film is present on the substrate, indicating that the metal-containing film, following exposure, is also heated.
Claim(s) 1-11, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150221519 A1 (hereby referred to as Marks) in view of US 20120183908 A1 (hereby referred to as Anno).
Regarding Claims 1, 10-11, 15, and 19, Marks teaches vacuum-integrated hardmask processes and an apparatus for the same. The hardmask formation process is demonstrated in Fig. 1A-1E of Marks (Marks, paragraph 0023). Notably, the process involves depositing metal-containing film sensitive to exposure patterning onto a semiconductor substrate and directly patterning the metal-containing film by exposure to the patterning agent in a vacuum (Marks, paragraph 0023). The metal-containing film of Marks is analogous to the metal-containing resist film of the instant application. Following exposure, the metal-containing film has exposed regions and unexposed regions (Marks, paragraph 0035). Development of the patterned metal-containing film involves heating the substrate to volatilize the unexposed regions of the metal-containing film, thereby forming a resist pattern (Marks, paragraph 0036).
However, Marks fails to teach a resist underlayer comprising an organic chain polymer and/or an inorganic polymer between the resist layer and the substrate. Anno teaches a resist pattern forming method. The method includes applying a resist underlayer film forming composition to a substrate to form a resist underlayer film, applying a resist film over the resist underlayer film, and patterning the resist film (Anno, paragraph 0009). The resist underlayer film composition comprises a polysiloxane (Anno, paragraph 0009-0010, 0025, and 0046). The composition further comprises a nitrogen-containing compound, an acid generator, and a solvent (Anno, paragraph 0046).
Marks and Anno are analogous art because both references pertain to pattern forming methods. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to provide a resist underlayer comprising a polysiloxane between the substrate and the resist layer, as taught by Anno, in the method disclosed by Marks because the polysiloxane resist underlayer interacts with the resist pattern such that excellent pattern collapse resistance is achieved (Anno, paragraph 0010). Additionally, pattern shape, critical dimension uniformity (CDU), and resolution are improved due to the improvement in pattern collapse resistance (Anno, paragraph 0010).
Regarding Claims 2-3, Marks teaches that the metal-containing film is formed on the substrate via a deposition process, such as atomic layer deposition (ALD) or chemical vapor deposition (CVD) (Marks, paragraph 0019, 0027, and 0040).
Regarding Claims 4-6, Marks teaches that the metal-containing film may be formed of tin bromide (SnBr4) (Marks, paragraph 0027), tetramethyl tin (Sn(CH3)4) (Marks, paragraph 0028), or hafnium chloride (HfCl4) (Marks, paragraph 0029).
Regarding Claim 7, Marks teaches that the metal-containing resist film is patterned by extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUVL), which utilizes an EUV exposure source (Marks, paragraph 0023).
Regarding Claims 8-9, Marks teaches that development of the exposed metal-containing film is performed by heating the substrate to volatilize unexposed regions of the metal-containing film, such that only the exposed regions remain as the resist pattern (Marks, paragraph 0036). The heating of the substrate occurs whilst the metal-containing film is present on the substrate, indicating that the metal-containing film, following exposure, is also heated.
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
