DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 03/18/2026 is acknowledged.
3. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 03/18/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2022/0334482 A1) in view of Clevenger et al. (US 2010/0075261 A1).
Note:
As to claim 1, Lin discloses a method comprising:
insolubilizing a resist pattern (230) with respect to a
after the insolubilizing the resist pattern, removing the silicon-containing inorganic film (220) exposed from the resist pattern by supplying
after the removing the silicon-containing inorganic film (220), transferring the resist pattern to the organic film (210) by performing an etching process on the substrate (paragraph 0076-0080, Fig 2G).
As to claim 1, Lin fails to disclose the resist is insoluble with respect to a phosphoric acid and supplying the phosphoric acid solution to remove the silicon-containing inorganic film. However, Lin clearly discloses exposing the resist (230) to ultraviolet radiation such as deep ultraviolet (DUV) or extreme ultraviolet (EUV) (paragraph 0068) and removing the silicon-containing inorganic film using etching process (paragraph 0075). Clevenger discloses the resist is insoluble with respect to phosphoric after exposing the resist layer to UV radiation and using phosphoric acid to remove silicon-containing inorganic film (See paragraph 0014, 0016-0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lin in view of Clevenger by having the resist insoluble with respect to a phosphoric acid and using phosphoric acid to remove silicon-containing inorganic film because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 2, Lin discloses the resist pattern is formed of a chemically amplified resist (i.e. chemical amplification (CA) resist material; See paragraph 0035).
As to claim 3, Lin discloses the chemically amplified resist is an ArF resist material, KrF resist material or an EUV resist (paragraph 0068).
7. Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2022/0334482 A1) in view of Clevenger et al. (US 2010/0075261 A1) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Tanigaki et al. (US 2017/0285477 A1).
As to claims 4-6, Lin and Clevenger fail to disclose an amount of irradiation of the ultraviolet rays is 2,000 mJ/cm2 or more. However, Lin clearly discloses irradiating the photoresist with ultraviolet rays (See paragraph 0035). Tanigaki discloses to expose the photoresist with ultraviolet rays wherein an amount of irradiation of the UV rays is between 10 to 40,000 mJ/cm2 or 500 to 50,000 mJ/cm2 (See paragraph 0250, 0291; Note: 10 to 40,000 mJ/cm2 or 500 to 50,000 mJ/cm2 overlap applicant’s range of 2,000 mJ/cm2 or more). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lin and Clevenger in view of Tanigaki by having an amount of irradiation of the ultraviolet rays is 2,000 mJ/cm2 or more because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
As to claims 7-10, Lin and Clevenger fail to disclose a temperature of the phosphoric acid solution is 150 °C or higher. However, Clevenger clearly teaches to use phosphoric acid solution to remove inorganic film during an etching process (paragraph 0017). Tanigaki teaches to etch using phosphoric acid at temperature between 10 to 180 °C, preferably 20 to 160 °C during an etching process (paragraph 0263, 0268; Note: 180 °C or 160 °C is within applicant’s range of “150 degrees C or higher”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lin and Clevenger in view of Tanigaki by having a temperature of phosphoric acid solution at 150 °C or higher because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH X TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
BINH X. TRAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/BINH X TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights