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 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.
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, 3-6, 24-30 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVilliers et al (US 2021/0088904 A1) in view of DeVilliers et al (US 2016/0181115 A1).
DeVilliers ’904 discloses a method of microfabrication (see abstract) comprising:
providing a first relief pattern 311 on a target layer 301 [0039]-[0040] (Fig. 3A), wherein the first relief pattern comprises a first resist (“first photoresist” [0039]) having a first etch selectivity (inherently, a material has an etch selectivity);
coating the first relief pattern with a solubility-shifting agent 6321 (thermal acid generator TAG, [0040]);
depositing a second resist 331 on the first relief pattern such that the second resist is in contact with the first relief pattern (Fig. 3C), wherein the second resist has a second etch selectivity that is different from the first etch selectivity (inherently, because second resist is made of a different material, filler material, it inherently has a different etch selectivity).
diffusing the solubility-shifted agent a predetermined distance into the second resist 341 (“diffused by a predetermined distance into an abutting portion of the filler material 341” [0042]) to provide a solubility-shifted region of the second resist (“TAG changes solubility of the abutting portion of the filler material in the developer” [0042]), wherein the solubility-shifted region of the second resist borders the first relief pattern (as depicted in Fig. 3D);
developing the second resist such that the solubility-shifted region is dissolved (“TAG renders the abutting portion of the filler material 341 soluble to the developer” [0043]) providing gaps 351 between the first relief pattern and the second resist where a portion of the target layer is exposed (as depicted in Fig. 3E, [0043]).
DeVilliers ’904 fails to explicitly disclose filling the gaps between the first relief pattern and the second resist with a fill material. Instead, DeVilliers ’904 teaches that any subsequent patterning can be continued, such as selective transfer to an underlying layer [0043]. However, it is within the scope of one skilled in the art to determine that rather than transferring the opening to an underlying layer, that instead the opening may be filled. For example, DeVilliers ’115 teaches that patterns of resist layers 110, 130 (Fig.8) can be filled 150 (Fig.10). The advantage of filling is that a combined pattern 155 (Fig. 11) can be subsequently transferred into the substrate or target layer 107 [0023]. This provides for process flexibility to allow a designer to obtain desired patterns. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fill the gaps between the first relief pattern and the second resist with a fill material in the method of DeVilliers ’904 because DeVilliers ’115 teaches that this is a useful technique that is expected to allow for desired patterns to be transferred to the underlying layer.
As to claim 3, DeVilliers ’904 discloses that the structure may include an underlying layer 320 of the substrate 300 [0039]. DeVilliers ’115 also teaches that the target layer may include an intermediate layer 107 on top of a substrate [0023].
As to claim 4, DeVilliers ’904 discloses that a pattern defined by the first relief pattern and the second resist may be transferred to the target layer [0043]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fill the transferred feature in the target layer as cited in the method of DeVilliers ’904 in order to form the final product, for example a contact of the integrated circuit.
As to claim 5, DeVilliers ’904 discloses that the first relief pattern comprises features separated by gaps between the features (Fig.3A), wherein the features comprise the first resist (see the rejection of claim 1).
As to claim 6, DeVilliers ’904 discloses that the second resist fills the gaps of the first resist pattern (Fig. 3C).
As to claim 24, DeVilliers ’904 discloses diffusing directly after coating as cited [0042].
As to claim 25, DeVilliers ’904 discloses a bake step [0042].
As to claim 26, see the rejection of claims 1 and 24.
As to claims 27-30 and 34-35, see the rejections of claims 3-6 and 24-25.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 31-33 are 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose a method of microfabrication comprising removing the first relief pattern and then transferring a pattern defined by the second resist and the fill material into the target layer, and filling the target layer with a second fill material, as in the context of claim 8. And similarly, the prior art fails to disclose a method of microfabrication comprising removing the second resist and then transferring a pattern defined by the first resist and the fill material into the target layer, and filling the target layer with a second fill material, as in the context of claim 10.
The closest prior art, DeVilliers et al (US 2021/0088904 A1) and DeVilliers et al (US 2016/0181115 A1), disclose methods with a first resist, second resist, solubility-shifting agent, and filling as in the context of claim 1. However, DeVilliers ’904 and DeVilliers ’115 both fail to disclose removing one of the resist layers, transferring a pattern defined by the remaining resist layer and fill material, and then depositing a second fill material. The prior art also fails to teach the combination of steps of claims 8 and 10. Accordingly, there is no motivation to modify the method of DeVilliers ’904 to arrive at the claimed invention, as in the context of claim 8 and claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kondoh (US 2009/0305167 A1) is cited to show a method in which additive-diffused portions are removed to form a resist pattern with a remaining portion in another resist pattern.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA K ALANKO whose telephone number is (571)270-0297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5pm.
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.
/ANITA K ALANKO/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713