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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/8/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities: 3, 4, and 9.
Claim 3 recites “and or”, which should be “and/ or”.
Claims 4 and 9 recite “peroxides/ persulfates”, which appears should be “peroxides, persulfates” as they are different types of compounds in the Markush group. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0009], [0014], [0058], recite “peroxides/ persulfates”, which appears should be “peroxides, persulfates” as they are different types of compounds in the Markush group.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kanakasabapathy et al (WO 2021/202198).
Kanakasabapathy et al disclose a process for EUV resist sensitization, wherein the process includes applying an EUV resist material to a semiconductor substrate and applying a sensitizer (sequentially or simultaneously), exposing the resist to EUV to pattern, developing the exposed resist to form a patterned sensitized resist layer (claims 7-19; instant claim 1).
The EUV resist is an organometallic material, including tin, selected for tin, a tin alloy, an oxide (instant claim 2; [0030], [0031]), and the sensitizer is preferably Xe or iodine (inorganic; instant claim 4).
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kanakasabapathy et al (2024/0302739).
Kanakasabapathy et al disclose a process for EUV resist doping, wherein the process includes applying an EUV resist material to a semiconductor substrate and applying a dopant (sequentially), exposing the resist to EUV to pattern, developing the exposed resist to form a patterned sensitized resist layer ([0116], claims 33-38; instant claim 1).
The EUV resist is an organometallic material, preferably M is tin organotin oxide (instant claim 2; [0012]-[0014], claims 24-26). The dopant is preferably Xe (instant additive, instant claim 4 [inorganic]; [0009], [0011], claim 33).
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) 2, 3, and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanakasabapahty et al.
The reference further teaches that the sensitizer is preferably xenon or iodine, preferably Xe or an iodo-substituted alkyl group (claims 2 and 3; instant claim 4), and the sensitizer and resist are provided in gas or vapor, and are combined or applied sequentially, where the sensitizer is applied as a layer on the resist material (instant claim 3, 7). The additive/ sensitizer is combined with a counter-reactant to be co-dispensed from the rection chamber, wherein the counter-reactant is an alcohol, water plasma, peroxides, oxygen plasma, glycols, formic acid, as described by the instant claim 5, and when the sensitizer is co-dispensed with the resist, the reference meets the limitations of the instant claim 6 for being co-dispensed as an aerosol (gaseous components with the alcohols, plasma, etc ; [0089], [0092], [0094]). The deposition of the sensitizer may be performed prior to the deposition of the EUV resist, simultaneously, or after ([0099; instant claim 8). While the reference prefers tin, additionally, bismuth, antimony, indium, are also contemplated by the reference ([0111]); instant claim 2).
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Kanakasabapathy et al choosing to perform the method wherein the sensitizer is deposited before (on the substrate) or after the resist, and wherein the sensitizer comprises an inorganic compound as taught by the reference
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanakasabapathy et al.
The reference has been discussed above, and further teaches that the dopant deposition can be performed sequentially, or concurrently ([0020], [0021], [0090]; instant claim 3). Alternatively, the reference teaches that the dopant can be deposited on the substrate before the organometallic material ([0090], [0091], [0097]; instant claim 8). The dopant precursor may include a compound wherein Z may be a silicon-containing compound ([0034], [0087]; instant claim 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
350
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, the dopant precursors may include (in addition to the silicon-containing group) alkoxy, amino, amide, alkenyl (vinyl) groups ([0126]-[0143]; instant claim 9).
The dopant is provided in vapor form, with a counter-reactant such as water, peroxide, oxygen plasma, water, alcohol, formic acid (instant claims 5-7; [0040], [0087]; wherein the vapor comprising the pressurized dopant and counter-reactant are an aerosol).
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Kanakasabapathy et al choosing to perform the method wherein the sensitizer is deposited before (on the substrate) or after the resist, and wherein the sensitizer comprises an inorganic compound as taught by the reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to fairly teach or suggest exposing the layer to additive after exposure to radiation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA C WALKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am to 4pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/AMANDA C. WALKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights