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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on June 11, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 11, 2026.
Therefore, after the election, claims 1-18 are withdrawn, and claims 1-9 are pending for examination, as filed in the preliminary amendment of September 14, 2023.
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.
Claims 1-9 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, line 4, “chemically amplified” is unclear and indefinite as to what is required for a resist to be considered chemically amplified as opposed to just having chemicals as normally provided in a resist. For the purpose of examination, any resist used for EUV or described as chemically amplified is understood to meet the claim requirements.
Claim 6, line 6, “0.1%” is unclear what amount is referred to because there are no units as to the % of material. Therefore, it is unclear if 0.1 wt% or 0.1 vol%, etc. is referred to, and different units would give different overall amounts. For the purpose of examination, any % that can be considered as o.1 % is understood to meet the claim requirement, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.,
The dependent claims do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend, and are, therefore, also rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 4, “EUV” should be spelled out on first usage.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al (US 2017/0103889) in view of Yang et al (US 6653735), EITHER alone OR optionally, further in view of Chacko et al (US 2019/0385837).
Claims 1-2: Chan teaches a substate processing method that can be used to pattern and etch a semiconductor layer (note 0011, 0019). The processing method comprises providing a substrate/semiconductor layer 30 and there can also be a layer 20 over layer 30, and the combined layers 30 and 20 can be considered a substrate used (note figure 5(b), 0139, 0140), where onto this substrate, a first layer 10 is applied (note figure 5(b), 0140, 0121-0122), where layer 10 can be an amorphous carbon layer applied by forming a spin on carbon film on the substrate (note 0122, 0025-0028, 0019, so meeting the requirement of claim 2 as well), where this is part of forming a hard mask pattern on the substrate (note 0019). Over the layer 10, further layers 50, 60 can be applied, where layer 50 is a dielectric antireflective coating (DARC) and layer 60 is a bottom antireflective coating (BARC) (note 0142, 0155). It is also broadly taught that for stack 6 of figure 5(b), only one or more (so there can be just one) antireflective layer coating is provided (note 0141, for performing EUV lithography, for example). Over the layers 50 and 60/antireflective coating , a photoresist film 70 can be applied (note figure 5(b) and 0142, 0143), which resist can be selected based on the type of lithographic process to be used (note 0142, 0143, indicating that the resist is to be used in a lithographic process). Furthermore, the lithographic process to be used can be Extreme Ultra Violet (EUV) (note 0021). Noting the 35 USC 112 confusion as to “chemically amplified” resist, since the resist is being used for EUV, understood to be chemically amplified to the extent required.
As to providing that the BARC layer 60/antireflective coating on the carbon film is silicon carbide, for example, providing a silicon carbide film on the spin on carbon film, for example,
Yang teaches providing for lithographic etching over a semiconductor surface, where a layer of amorphous carbon is provided over the substrate surface, then an antireflective layer on the amorphous carbon layer, where the antireflective layer can be a BARC layer of silicon carbide (note figures 2, 3, column 4, line 55 to column 5, line 20, abstract). On the antireflective layer, a photoresist layer for lithographic etching is provided (note figures 2-3, column 5, lines 1-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan to provide that the BARC layer 60 or at the least, a single antireflective coating, on the amorphous/spin on carbon layer is silicon carbide, as suggested by Yang with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Chan teaches providing one or more antireflective layers on the amorphous/spin on carbon layer, and Yang teaches that when providing lithographic etching with an antireflective layer that can be a BARC layer applied over an amorphous carbon layer, and thereafter a photoresist layer, the antireflective layer can be silicon carbide.
Optionally, further as to using a chemically amplified resist, Chacko further describes providing EUV lithography systems (note 0002), where it is indicated that when providing a photoresist film/layer for EUV lithography, the resist can be a chemically amplified resist (note 0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan in view of Yang to use a specifically chemical amplified resist for the resist layer as suggested by Chacko with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Chan indicates using resist and to provide EUV lithography, and Chacko indicates that chemically amplified resist would be conventionally used as the resist when providing EUV lithography.
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Yang, EITHER alone OR further in view of Chacko as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US 2008/0118758) and Japan 2005-008882 (hereinafter ‘882).
Claims 3-9: As to providing the silicon carbide film structural features of claims 3-5, and the silicon carbide application method of claims 6-9, Yang describes that the SiC film can be applied by any suitable deposition technique (note column 5, lines 1-10).
Kim describes how a pure silicon carbide film can be provided on a substrate by providing an SiC precursor of polycarbosilane, for example, and dissolving in a solvent to provide a coating solution (note ooo8-0009, claim 2). The coating solution is applied to the surface to be coated and dried (note the figure, 0022-0029). Then the dried material is preprocessed/sublimated to sublimate the polymer in the coating layer and leave SiC with the Si and the C crosslinked/bonded to each other, where the preprocessing can be performed by irradiating with UV beams (note the figure, 0030-0031, 0060). Kim describes that then a further thermal treatment can be provided (note the figure, 0033-0035). It is indicated that drying can be provided in inert/vacuum, where presence of oxygen undesirable (note 0028, 0040).
‘882 describes how it is known that polysilane and polycarbosilane material can be converted to silicon carbide when irradiated with UV rays in an oxygen free or low oxygen atmosphere and baked (note page 24, translation). ‘882 further describes how a coating of polymer (Including such with polysilane/polycarbosilane chains) can be dissolved in a solvent and coating on a surface (here the pattern transfer film) and then heated (110 degrees C) to distill off the solvent, that is to dry the applied film, to be followed by a later UV and baking treatment (note Example 44, pages 86-87, translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan in view of Yang, EITHER alone OR further in view of Chacko to provide that the forming of the silicon carbide film comprises providing a film of silicon carbide film material in the form of only polycarbosilane that would contain a portion where Si and C are bonded, where this material is provided into solvent, applied to the substrate (which here would be the spin on carbon material) and dried with heating (so that only the polycarbosilane material is left), and then radiating a UV ray on the film of the silicon carbide film material in a no oxygen environment (so less than 0.1 % oxygen) as suggested by Kim and ‘882 with an expectation of providing the desired SiC film on the spin on carbon layer, since Yang indicates providing the SiC film by any suitable deposition method, where Kim would suggest providing a film of polycarbosilane and solvent, and drying off the solvent, leaving only the polycarbosilane on the substrate, where this would be understood to have a portion where Si and C are bonded given the material used, and as suggested by ‘882 when providing similar such drying, the substate can be heated, and after the drying, Kim would indicate irradiating with UV rays (also described by ‘882) as part of the process to provide SiC, which irradiating would be in a no oxygen environment (so less than 0.1 %) as suggested by ‘882. As to claim 9, it further would have been obvious to optimize the radiation time of the UV ray to the film based on a conditions regarding the substrate to be processed, since Kim indicates the UV acts to sublimate/crosslink Si and C (note0030) and ‘882 also indicates conversion (note page 24, translation), so based on various conditions the time for the action can vary (such as with thickness/amount of material to change, effect of reflection of substrate, etc.) and it would have been obvious to optimize for the specific substrate to be used. Additionally, as to the claims 3-5, it is understood that a main structural portion of the silicon carbide film would have silicon atoms and carbon atoms in an aggregate of portions where the silicon atoms are bonded to each other with the carbon atom between, with bonding by hydrogen dehydration, and where the in the main structural portion, except atoms that constitute a siloxane bond, an atom bonded to the silicon atom does not include an oxygen atom, but does include a carbon atom, since the same process indicated for such results has been provided. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Xiao (US 2016/0293837) indicates providing a C layer, an SiC layer over it, and a further resist layer (abstract).
Note that Chacko et al (US 2019/0385837) was listed on the PTO-892 of April 15, 2026.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights