DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on July 20, 2026.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on July 20, 2026 have been entered.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-14, 17 have been amended.
Claims 18-19 have been added.
Claims 1-19 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (p. 9), filed on 07/20/2026, with respect to the objections to the drawings have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (p. 9) that to expedite prosecution, Applicant has provided a corrected drawing sheet identified as “Replacement Sheet”. This corrected drawing sheet includes an updated Figure 1 and a copy of original Figure 2.
This argument is not persuasive.
The examiner submits that the current response did not include replacement sheets addressing the drawing objections. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the original specification describes Fig. 1 including fill-lined boxes, dashed boxes and dotted boxes (see [0112]), however, the actual figure does not illustrate these details and/or the order of the steps. Therefore, the objections to the drawings are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (p. 9), filed on 07/20/2026, with respect to the objections to the claims have been fully considered. In view of the amendments to the claims addressing the informalities raised in the previous office action, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new objections to the claims are presented below to address additional informalities/issues introduced by the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (p. 9-11), filed on 07/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered. In view of the amendments to the claims addressing the issues raised in the previous office action, the rejection of the claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues (p. 10-11) that the determined interfacial interaction may be utilized to optimize the resist structure relative to the underlayer material, and/or the predetermined dimension with respect to the resist structure … The resulting temperature reflects information on interactions between the resist structure and a underlayer material the resist structure. The derived information, in turn, allows for the interactions within the resist structure and the underlayer material to be optimized. See paragraph [0013] … the claimed disclosure and method provide a practical solution to the problem of the influence of the interfacial interaction between the resist structures and the material underlaying the resist structures due to the downscaling of the height of resist structures as discussed in the specification, for instance, at paragraph [0008].
These arguments are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (p. 9-11), filed on 07/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of the claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The examiner submits that the arguments correspond to the amendments of independent claim 1 (see above), however, claim 17 has not been amended to further recite a practical application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the rejection of claim 17 is maintained.
The examiner also submits that under the current guidance:
“Even if the judicial exception is narrow (e.g., a particular mathematical formula or detailed mental process), the Court has held that a claim may not preempt that judicial exception” (see 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence, “III. Update on Certain Areas of the USPTO’s Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Applicable to AI Inventions”, section “A. Evaluation of Whether a Claim Is Directed to a Judicial Exception (Step 2A)”);
“For data, mere “manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’” has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994))” (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); and
“Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include: … vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 1 does not show a flow chart with the details described in the original disclosure regarding the types of boxes and the flow of steps (see specification at [0112]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The method of claim 2, wherein determining the state transition temperature comprises fitting an exponential growth function to the correlation between the second value and [[the]]a temperature at which the heat treatment operation is applied” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The method of claim [[4]]5, wherein determining the state transition temperature comprises fitting an exponential growth function to the correlation between the second value and [[the]]a temperature at which the heat treatment operation is applied” in order to provide appropriate dependency for claim 7, which recites the same subject matter as claim 4 (in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(d)), and to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The method of claim 1, wherein determining the state transition temperature comprises fitting an exponential growth function to the correlation between the second value and [[the]]a temperature at which the heat treatment operation is applied” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “a’) obtaining the plurality of entities, wherein each entity comprises the at least one resist structure, formed of the resist material and having the predetermined dimensions on the underlayer material, wherein second value representative of the spatial feature of the at least one resist structure has the first value before the heat treatment operation” should read “a’) obtaining the plurality of entities, wherein each entity comprises the at least one resist structure, formed of the resist material and having the predetermined dimension on the underlayer material, wherein
Claim language “a’’’) determining the second value for representative of the spatial feature after the heat treatment operation for the at least one resist structure of each of the plurality of entities, to obtain the correlation between the second value and the temperature at which the heat treatment is applied” should read “a’’’) determining the second value [[for]] representative of the spatial feature after the heat treatment operation for the at least one resist structure of each of the plurality of entities, to obtain the correlation between the second value and the temperature at which the heat treatment operation is applied” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “… wherein step a’) further comprises forming a reference entity, comprising at least one reference resist structure, formed of the resist material and having the predetermined dimensions, on a reference substrate …” should read “… wherein step a’) further comprises forming a reference entity, comprising at least one reference resist structure, formed of the resist material and having the predetermined dimension, on a reference substrate …” in order to correct for minor informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “… wherein, within each set of entities, each entity comprises the at least one resist structure formed of the resist material and having predetermined dimension, on the underlayer material …” should read “… wherein, within each set of entities, each entity comprises the at least one resist structure formed of the resist material and having the predetermined dimension, on the underlayer material …” in order to correct for minor informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In this particular case, claim 17 recites:
“means for applying a heat treatment to a plurality of entities, wherein each entity comprises at least one resist structure, formed of a resist material and having predetermined dimensions, on a substrate, wherein a measure representative of a spatial feature of the at least one resist structure has a first value before the heat treatment, wherein a temperature at which the heat treatment is applied is different for each entity of the plurality of entities”, which is interpreted as being performed by an oven as indicated in the original specification (see [0068]).
“means for determining a second value representative of the spatial feature after the heat treatment for the at least one resist structure of each of the plurality of entities, so as to obtain a correlation between the second value and the temperature at which the heat treatment is applied”, which is interpreted as being performed by a scanning electron microscope or an optical detector, as indicated in the original specification (see [0069]).
“means for determining, from the correlation, a value representative of a state transition temperature, for which, when the heat treatment would be performed at the temperature, the second value differs by a predetermined amount from the first value”, which is interpreted as being performed by a data processing apparatus, as indicated in the original specification (see [0070]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “determining a correlation between the received second value after the heat treatment operation, and a first value for the spatial feature prior to the heat treatment operation, wherein the correlation reflects a change in the spatial feature” which is not supported in the original disclosure.
According to the original disclosure, a correlation is between the second value of a spatial feature and a temperature at which the heat treatment is applied (see [0015], [0024]-[0026], [0039]-[0040], [0067], [0104], [0110], [0128], [0138] and [0141]; see also Figs. 3-9, [0078]-[0084]).
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.
Claims 1-16 and 18-19 are 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 1 recites “determining a correlation between the received second value after the heat treatment operation, and a first value for the spatial feature prior to the heat treatment operation, wherein the correlation reflects a change in the spatial feature” which is unclear as to how this correlation is performed in light of the original disclosure details.
According to the original disclosure, a correlation is between the second value of a spatial feature and a temperature at which the heat treatment is applied (see [0015], [0024]-[0026], [0039]-[0040], [0067], [0104], [0110], [0128], [0138] and [0141]; see also Figs. 3-9, [0078]-[0084]), while the first value can be either measured or derived from the correlation (see [0015], [0019], [0025]-[0026], [0028], [0053], [0133]).
For examination purposes, claim language is interpreted as described in the prior art of record in light of the original disclosure.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-16 and 18-19 were evaluated for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY TEST FOR PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES described in the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) to determine patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 1, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test:
the limitation “determining a correlation between the received second value after the heat treatment operation, and a first value for the spatial feature prior to the heat treatment operation, wherein the correlation reflects a change in the spatial feature” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to evaluate information and obtain a relationship (i.e., a correlation; see Figs. 3-9, see also specification at [0015], [0024]-[0026], [0039]-[0040], [0067], [0104], [0110], [0128], [0138] and [0141]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation and/or applying mathematical concepts to compare data and obtain a relationship.
“b) determining, from the correlation, the state transition temperature with respect to the heat treatment operation” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to evaluate information and obtain a result (i.e., the state transition temperature; see Figs. 10-12 and 14-15, see also specification at [0024]-[0026]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation and/or applying mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain a result.
“determining an interfacial interaction between at least one of the resist structure and the underlayer material based on the correlation and the state transition temperature” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to evaluate information and obtain a result (i.e., an interfacial interaction; see specification at [0013], [0031], [0054], [0111], [0155]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation and/or applying mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain a result.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, the additional elements recited in the claim:
“A method for determining a state transition temperature of a resist structure” and “a) receiving, from an electron microscope, a second value representative of a spatial feature of at least one resist structure of each of a plurality of entities after a heat treatment operation, wherein each entity comprising the at least one resist structure is formed of a resist material to a predetermined dimension on an underlayer material before the heat treatment operation” when considering the claim as a whole, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by reflecting an improvement to other technology or technical field (e.g., determining state transition temperature of a resist structure using electron microscope measurements, and determining interfacial interaction between resist structure and the underlayer material, see specification at [0013], [0031], [0054], [0111], [0155]) (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Therefore, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim, when considered as a whole, is eligible at Prong Two of the Revised Step 2A (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Revised Step 2A, see also MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Regarding the dependent claims 2-16 and 18-19, they were found to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 by incorporating the eligible subject matter of their corresponding independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claim 17, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test:
the limitation “means for determining, from the correlation, a value representative of a state transition temperature, for which, when the heat treatment would be performed at the temperature, the second value differs by a predetermined amount from the first value” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to evaluate information and obtain a result (i.e., a value representative of the state transition temperature; see Figs. 3-12 and 14-15, see also specification at [0024]-[0026]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation and/or applying mathematical concepts to compare data and obtain a result.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when considering the claim as a whole. In particular, the
additional elements recited in the claim:
“means for applying a heat treatment to a plurality of entities, wherein each entity comprises at least one resist structure, formed of a resist material and having predetermined dimensions, on a substrate, wherein a measure representative of a spatial feature of the at least one resist structure has a first value before the heat treatment, wherein a temperature at which the heat treatment is applied is different for each entity of the plurality of entities” appends a transformation at a high level of generality and contributing only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., transformation used for data gathering or as a field-of-use limitation) (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); and
“means for determining a second value representative of the spatial feature after the heat treatment for the at least one resist structure of each of the plurality of entities, so as to obtain a correlation between the second value and the temperature at which the heat treatment is applied” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated, e.g., see specification at [0017]) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claim as a whole. The claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, the claim, when considered as a whole, does not
include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient
to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., determining a value representative of a state transition temperature of a resist structure), which as indicated in the MPEP: “As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (see MPEP 2106.05(h));
recite extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering by selecting a particular data source/type to be manipulated), which as indicated in the MPEP: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); and
append a transformation at a high level of generality and contributing only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which as indicated in the MPEP: “A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application)” (see MPEP 2106.05(c)).
The claim, when considered as a whole, does not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test.
Based on the analysis, the claim is not patent eligible.
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 1-19 are distinguished over the prior art of record for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1.
Choi (US 20050026078 A1, IDS reference) discloses/teaches:
A method for determining a value of a resist structure (Fig. 1C; Abstract: a method for forming a fine pattern in a semiconductor substrate by a thermal process using a resist composition layer is presented, with the amount of flow of the photoresist pattern during the thermal process being calculated (see [0055]-[0056])), the method comprising:
a) receiving a second value representative of a spatial feature of at least one resist structure of each of a plurality of entities after a heat treatment operation, wherein each entity comprising the at least one resist structure is formed of a resist material (Fig. 1A, item 30 – “resist compound layer”) to a predetermined dimension on an underlayer material (Fig. 1A, items 10 and 20) before the heat treatment operation, and determining a correlation (Fig. 2) between the received second value after the heat treatment operation, and a first value for the spatial feature prior to the heat treatment operation, wherein the correlation reflects a change in the spatial feature ([0034]-[0046], [0055]-[0056]: a fine pattern is formed on a substrate by heating a photoresist pattern (see Fig. 1B, item 30a showing the resist structures having a first value for a measure representative of a spatial feature before heating) at a temperature higher than the transition temperature, which implies the state transition temperature to be known, to obtain a modified photoresist pattern (see Fig. 1C, item 30b showing the resist structures having a second value for the measure representative of the spatial feature, the second value different from the first value); the amount of flow of the photoresist pattern during the thermal process being calculated; the reference describes applying temperatures higher than the transition temperature, not using the correlation to determine the value representative of the state transition temperature).
Regrading “electron microscope”, Amemiya (US 20120135353 A1) teaches:
“Namely, as shown in FIG. 10 and FIG. 11 in which after drawing a pattern using the focused laser beams, a sectional face of a resist pattern 5 after being developed using a general developing liquid, is evaluated using a scanning electron microscope (called SEM hereafter), and it is found that a sectional profile of the pattern size of the functionally gradient inorganic resist 4 of this embodiment is excellent (example 1), compared with the resolution of about 90 nm of the resist pattern (conventional example) obtained by a method described in patent document 1 (comparative example)” ([0264]: electron microscope is used to obtain sectional profile of pattern sizes of resist).
Cho (Cho, In Wook, Hyunsu Kim, Jee-Hye You, and Hye-Keun Oh. “Line edge roughness reduction using resist reflow process for 22 nm node extreme ultraviolet lithography.” Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 49, no. 3R (2010): 036502, IDS reference) discloses:
“The developed resist is baked above the glass transition temperature and with then flow … A 136 [Symbol font/0xB0]C glass transition temperature of the resist is used and the typical viscosity and adhesion factor of a commercial resist are used for RRP calculation” (p. 3, col. 1, section “2.3 Resist reflow process”: effects of resist reflow process (RRP) temperature on line edge roughness and linewidth roughness are studied by applying a thermal process above a particular glass transition temperature, which implies the state transition temperature to be known; the reference does not disclose using a correlation (as defined in the claim) to determine the value representative of the state transition temperature).
The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fails to teach or suggest:
“A method for determining a state transition temperature of a resist structure, the method comprising:
b) determining, from the correlation, the state transition temperature with respect to the heat treatment operation; and
determining an interfacial interaction between at least one of the resist structure and the underlayer material based on the correlation and the state transition temperature”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant (the examiner submits that the prior art of record discusses applying temperatures above the state transition temperature, which implies that this value is already known).
Regarding claim 17.
Choi (US 20050026078 A1, IDS reference) discloses/teaches:
A device comprising:
means for applying a heat treatment to a plurality of entities, wherein each entity comprises at least one resist structure (Fig. 1C), formed of a resist material (Fig. 1A, item 30 – “resist compound layer”) and having predetermined dimensions, on a substrate (Fig. 1A, items 10 and 20), wherein a measure representative of a spatial feature of the at least one resist structure has a first value before the heat treatment ([0034]-[0046], [0055]-[0056]: a fine pattern is formed on a substrate by heating (which examiner interprets to be applied in an oven, see [0041]) a photoresist pattern (see Fig. 1B, item 30a showing the resist structures having a first value for a measure representative of a spatial feature before heating) at a temperature higher than the transition temperature, which implies the state transition temperature to be known, to obtain a modified photoresist pattern (see Fig. 1C, item)), wherein a temperature at which the heat treatment is applied is different for each entity of the plurality of entities (see Table 1 and examples), and
means for determining a second value representative of the spatial feature after the heat treatment for the at least one resist structure of each of the plurality of entities, so as to obtain a correlation (Fig. 2) between the second value and the temperature at which the heat treatment is applied ([0034]-[0046], [0055]-[0056]: a fine pattern is formed on a substrate by heating a photoresist pattern (see Fig. 1B, item 30a showing the resist structures having a first value for a measure representative of a spatial feature before heating) at a temperature higher than the transition temperature, which implies the state transition temperature to be known, to obtain a modified photoresist pattern (see Fig. 1C, item 30b showing the resist structures having a second value for the measure representative of the spatial feature, the second value different from the first value); the amount of flow of the photoresist pattern during the thermal process being calculated; the reference describes applying temperatures higher than the transition temperature, not using the correlation to determine the value representative of the state transition temperature).
Amemiya (US 20120135353 A1) teaches:
“Namely, as shown in FIG. 10 and FIG. 11 in which after drawing a pattern using the focused laser beams, a sectional face of a resist pattern 5 after being developed using a general developing liquid, is evaluated using a scanning electron microscope (called SEM hereafter), and it is found that a sectional profile of the pattern size of the functionally gradient inorganic resist 4 of this embodiment is excellent (example 1), compared with the resolution of about 90 nm of the resist pattern (conventional example) obtained by a method described in patent document 1 (comparative example)” ([0264]: electron microscope is used to obtain sectional profile of pattern sizes of resist).
Cho (Cho, In Wook, Hyunsu Kim, Jee-Hye You, and Hye-Keun Oh. “Line edge roughness reduction using resist reflow process for 22 nm node extreme ultraviolet lithography.” Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 49, no. 3R (2010): 036502, IDS reference) discloses:
“The developed resist is baked above the glass transition temperature and with then flow … A 136 [Symbol font/0xB0]C glass transition temperature of the resist is used and the typical viscosity and adhesion factor of a commercial resist are used for RRP calculation” (p. 3, col. 1, section “2.3 Resist reflow process”: effects of resist reflow process (RRP) temperature on line edge roughness and linewidth roughness are studied by applying a thermal process above a particular glass transition temperature, which implies the state transition temperature to be known; the reference does not disclose using a correlation (as defined in the claim) to determine the value representative of the state transition temperature).
The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fails to teach or suggest:
“means for determining, from the correlation, a value representative of a state transition temperature, for which, when the heat treatment would be performed at the temperature, the second value differs by a predetermined amount from the first value” (the examiner submits that the prior art of record discusses applying temperatures above the state transition temperature, which implies that this value is already known)
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claims 2-16 and 18-19.
They are also distinguished over the prior art of record due to their dependency.
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 LINA CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
