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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-6 and 21-34 are under consideration
Claims 7-20 are canceled
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/29/2026.
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.
Claim 34 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 34 disclose “The lithography method of claim 29, wherein prior to exposing the photoresist layer, the photoresist layer has a first glass transition temperature, and after developing the”. It is unclear what is meant by “and after developing the”. The examiner believes this may be a typographic error where a portion of the claim may be missing. However, the claim cannot be properly examined without the missing portion.
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 1-2, 4-6, 21-24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baik (US20050221019A1, published 2005).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-6, 21-24, and 26-28,
Baik teaches a method of improving the uniformity of a patterned resist on a photomask [title] where the application of a vacuum to a pattern irradiated (imaged) photoresist prior to development of the photoresist provides an improvement in critical dimension and uniformity in the developed photoresist. This improvement is translated into an improvement in the patterned photomask produced using the photoresist [0012]. Baik further teaches that exposure of the patterned (developed) photoresist to vacuum after development results in an improvement in the line edge roughness of pattern openings that have been formed through the photoresist layer thickness [0017], where in this second vacuum treatment, water vapor and solvents absorbed during the development process are desorbed from surfaces of the patterned resist, including the sidewalls and top resist surface [0044].
Baik teaches the vacuum treatment process is performed at a substrate temperature within the range of about 20° C to about 60° C for a period of time within the range of about 10 minutes to about 60 minutes, at a process chamber pressure ranging from about 5×10−6 mTorr to about 5 mTorr [0017], reading on instant claims 22 and 24.
Baik teaches forming a photoresist layer over an ARC layer (substrate) using spin-on coating techniques, a post application bake step, exposure to radiation, a post-exposure bake step, a development step, and a dry etch process to transfer the pattern in the photoresist to an underlying layer (substrate) [0030-0033, 0040, 0042, 0052], reading on instant claims 6, 23, and 28.
While Baik fails to disclose the weight of the photoresist layer after their vacuum treatment steps, it would be obvious by a person of ordinary skill in the art that after the vacuum treatment step, at least some portion of the photoresist layer (such as remaining solvents or other volatiles susceptible to outgassing) would be removed, resulting in a weight that is 99.9% or less than an initial weight prior to the vacuum treatment step, reading on instant claims 1-2 and 21.
Baik discloses measuring the CDs (critical dimensions, ADIs) [0039], which would necessarily be performed after development to form the pattern. Baik also teaches that exposure of the patterned (developed) photoresist to vacuum after development results in an improvement in the line edge roughness of pattern openings [0017], which would require ADIs performed both before and after the second vacuum treatment step, reading on instant claims 4 and 26.
Baik teaches a descum step as a known method in the art, performed after patterning a photoresist film (after development) [0010].
While silent to whether the descum step is performed prior to or after the second vacuum treatment, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to try both in an effort to further optimize the process. Further, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the second vacuum step may be performed after the descum step in an effort to further remove byproducts that may have formed during the descumming step, reading on instant claim 5 and 27.
Claims 3, 25, and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baik (US20050221019A1, published 2005) as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Chun (US 20040009437 A1, published 2004).
Regarding claims 3, 25, and 29-32,
Baik teaches the above limitations set forth, reading on instant claims 31-32.
Chun, analogous art, teaches the photoresist may also subsequently be subjected to one or more post-development steps. For example, a post-development bake is a process in which the resist is subjected to an elevated temperature upon completion of development and prior to etching. Its chief functions are to remove residual solvents, to improve adhesion and to increase the etch resistance of the photoresist. After or during post-development baking, photoresists may be subjected to an additional stabilization process [0005].
As both Baik and Chun teach methods for forming patterned photoresist films, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the post-development bake with the method of Baik, for the benefits disclosed by Chun, reading in instant claim 29.
As Chun teaches additional stabilization processes may be performed after the post-development, which would include the second vacuum treatment of Baik, reading on instant claim 3.
Further, the first vacuum treatment of Baik is performed prior to development, and thus prior to the post-development bake step, reading on instant claims 25 and 30.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baik (US20050221019A1, published 2005) in view of Chun (US 20040009437 A1, published 2004) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Tsai (US20070093069A1, published 2007).
Regarding claim 33,
Baik et al. teaches the above limitations set forth.
Tsai, analogous art, teaches a method for a dry etching process using a patterned photoresist layer [0013], where a purge process is performed after a dry etching process [0002], where the purge process may be performed at a pressure of less than 1 mTorr (a vacuum) [0030], aligning with the instant second vacuum treatment, where the purge process prevents the formation of defects in subsequent metal interconnect fabrication process [abstract]. The dry etching process would be expected by a person of ordinary skill in the art to etch (decompose and release a component of) at least some portion of the photoresist pattern layer, where the subsequent purge step would be expected to remove (evaporate) the said component.
As both Baik and Tsai teach dry etching processes using patterned photoresist layers at masks, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the purge step of Tsai with the method of Baik for the benefits disclosed by Tsai, reading on instant claim 33.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20070002296A1 teaches a vacuum process as part of a treatment step performed post exposure. US20220005687A1 teaches a dry development method performed in a vacuum chamber. US20220293587A1 teaches a vacuum UV process post development.
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
/MARK F. HUFF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights