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 .
Amendment to the claims was submitted on 01/27/2026.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are under examination.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalutarage (US20220028691A1, filed 7/21/2020).
Regarding claims 9 and 15-16,
Kalutarage teaches a metal oxo (metal oxide) photoresist film comprising of a first and second metal oxo film (with a first and second density) [abstract], as well as at least a third metal oxo film (with a third density) over the first and second films [claim 8].
Kalutarage teaches a process 220 for depositing a metal oxo photoresist [0042], where processing gases may be the same during each deposition cycle [0051], which would be expected to result in a uniform density between each layer.
Kalutarage teaches a metal oxo photoresist for EUV lithography comprising of metal oxo molecules which may be referred to as nanoparticles (also known as clusters) [0018].
Kalutarage also teaches processing gases may be different during each deposition cycle [0051] and the composition may be different in each metal oxide layer [0078], which would result in different physical and chemical properties (which would include different densities and different concentrations of metal oxide clusters) [0025], reading on instant claim 15.
While Kalutarage is silent to the densities of their metal oxide layers, they clearly teach each layer may have a different composition. As each layer may have a materially different composition, each layer would expectedly contain different physical and/or chemical properties including density. Further, if each layer is materially different, it would be unexpected for each layer to have the exact same density.
Kalutarage teaches the metal precursors used in forming their metal oxo layers may have the general formula MRxLy, where M is a metal center, R is a leaving group, L is a ligand, x is 0 to 6, and y is 0 to 6 [0024], where M may be Sn [0026].
While Kalutarage is silent to “ordered arrangements” of their layers, the instant specification only seems to define ordered arrangements as a repeating pattern of atomic constituents “(e.g., a repeating pattern of metal-and-oxygen constituents)”. As Kalutarage teaches their metal oxide layers are formed by metal precursors with general formula MRxLy, their metal oxide layers would be expected to contain a repeating pattern of atomic constituents, such as the M and L groups, reading on the instantly claimed ordered arrangement.
The instant specification discloses that the present disclosure thus proposes methods for forming metal oxide resist materials having atomic structures that are less random, loose, and more ordered, dense, and/or uniform than metal oxide resist materials formed using conventional deposition techniques. The disclosed methods include performing a cyclic deposition process to form metal oxide resist sublayers that combine to form a metal oxide resist layer and performing a densification process that increases a density of at least one of the metal oxide resist sublayers [0018], where the densification treatment process may be a plasma process [0028-0029].
Kalutarage teaches a comparable cyclic deposition process [claims 14-15], where each metal oxo photoresist layer may optionally be treated with a plasma [0047], where for example, only the second of the three metal-oxo films is treated with a plasma process.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try performing the plasma process (instant densification process) on only the second of the three metal-oxo films, as Kalutarage clearly teaches that the process is optional, in an effort to further optimize the process of forming the photoresist layer.
As the deposition process of Kalutarage aligns with that of the instant cyclic deposition process, the metal oxo photoresist layers of Kalutarage would be expected to inherently have a similar ordered arrangement of the metal-and-oxygen constituents (which would result in same-sized portions of each layer including the same amounts of metal-and-oxygen constituents). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the metal oxo photoresist layers of Kalutarage would have an ordered arrangement, as the deposition process is comparable to that disclosed in the instant specification.
Additionally, the claim limitation of having “an atomic structure that includes metal-and-oxygen constituents stacked in an ordered arrangement” may be broadly interpreted to include any atomic structure having at least one instance where at least two metal-and-oxygen constituents are stacked in an ordered arrangement. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that any given metal oxo film would contain at least one instance where at least two metal-and-oxygen constituents are stacked in an ordered arrangement.
Similarly, the claim limitation of “same-sized portions of the second metal oxide photosensitive material include the same amount of metal-and-oxygen constituents therein” may be broadly interpreted to include metal oxo photoresist layers where at least two sufficiently small portions may each only contain a few units (or even one unit) of the metal-and-oxygen constituents. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that any given metal oxo film would contain at least two sufficiently small portions where each only contains a few units (or even one unit) of the metal-and-oxygen constituents, reading on instant claim 9.
Kalutarage teaches their metal oxide layers may have substantially uniform or non-uniform (different) thicknesses [0078], reading on instant claim 16.
Regarding claims 10-11 and 14,
Kalutarage teaches the above limitations set forth.
Kalutarage teaches that material composition of the metal oxo photoresist may be non-uniform through the thickness of the metal oxo photoresist [0075].
Kalutarage does not explicitly teach a compositional gradient in which density increases from the bottom to a top layer, or a compositional gradient in which density decreases from the bottom to a top layer.
While Kalutarage is silent to a gradient of ordered arrangements, the instant specification discloses “non-ordered, non-dense, and/or non-uniform atomic structures, which can diminish LER/LWR and patterning uniformity” [0018], suggesting that higher density correlates with more ordered arrangements, and further correlating with improved LEW/LWR (a function of exposure, and a metric for a developed profile).
With a metal oxo photoresist film with at least three layers in which a compositional gradient is formed through a thickness of the metal oxo photoresist as taught by Kalutarage, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try compositional gradients comprising of increasing or decreasing densities and/or ordered arrangements (from bottom to top) in order to optimize the photoresist layer for various applications and in order to control the exposure latitude curve, control the developed profile, and provide optical proximity correction (OPC) [0074], reading on instant claims 10-11 and 14.
Regarding claims 12-13,
Kalutarage also teaches an embodiment in which processing gasses may be changed between cycles, with an example where a first cycle may utilize a first metal precursor vapor, a second cycle may utilize a second metal precursor vapor, and subsequent cycles may continue alternating between the first metal precursor vapor and the second metal precursor vapor [0051].
While Kalutarage is silent to the physical properties of each metal oxo layer in their example, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a first and third metal oxo layer would be expected to have similar physical properties such as density, which is either greater or less than a density of a second metal oxo layer, reading on instant claims 12-13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/27/2026 with respect to the rejections to independent claims 1, 17, and their dependent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 with respect to the rejections to independent claim 9 and their dependent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The above rejection have been updated accordingly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 17-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claims 1 and 17 have been amended to disclose that the metal oxide resist sublayers and photosensitive metal oxide materials are post-deposited, metal-containing plasma treated.
A search did not find claimed inventions.
The closest prior art Kalutarage teaches a similar metal-oxide photoresist film as disclosed above.
However, Kalutarage fails to teach that the metal-oxo layers are post-deposited, metal-containing plasma treated.
Neither Kalutarage nor the prior art in general provide sufficient motivation to make it obvious to modify their invention to arrive at the instantly claimed invention.
Claims 2-8 and 18-20 depend on allowable independent claims 1 and 17.
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 Alexander Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2261. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5:30 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, Mark Huff can be reached at (571) 272-1385. 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.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights