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 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.
Claim(s) 2, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. (US 2017/0316935)
With respect to claims 2, 7, 8 Tan describes a method comprising: providing a substrate having underlayer including a metal oxide layer and a patterned carbon containing material of an extreme ultraviolet photoresist or EUV resist (claim 1, 16, para 40, 45; fig. 8a); exposing the EUV resist to an oxidant using oxygen-containing gas to modify a surface of the EUV resist; removing the modified EUV resist surface with a plasma of an inert gas such as He, Ar, Xe, N2 (para 45-50, claim 1, 20). Tan describes that “the result photoresist has smooth sidewalls and reduce roughness, with improvement of LER. Stringers were reduced and scum of the photoresist was reduced.” (para 91). Therefore, it is expected that the modification process would modify the scum of the photoresist and remove the modified scum in order to reduce the scum of the photoresist.
Unlike claimed invention, Tan is silent about the underlying metal oxide layer is exposed. However, he describes that the layer to be etched includes underlayer of metal oxides (para 45). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an exposed underlayer of metal oxide so that it can be etched or patterned with expected results.
With respect to claims 9 and 10, the step of removal the modified EUV including modified scum is done at about 30-100V and at a power about 30-500W (para 50), in which the voltage would be typically in a continuous as there is no description of a pulsed mode.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-6, 8, 9, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12062538. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 10-18 of patent 12062538 describe the same steps of treating an EUV resist with halogen-containing gases to modify the scum on the photoresist and removing the modified scum with a plasma of inert gas comprising He, Ne, Ar, or Xe at about 0-100V continuously or 100-400V in a pulsing mode.
Claims 7, 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12062538 in view of Tan et al. (US 2017/0316935). With respect to claims 7 and 10, the claims 1, 10-27 of patent 12062538 fail to teach using oxygen-containing gas as the reactant to modify the scum and a power between 50-150W for the step of removing the modified scum. Tan teaches a similar method wherein oxygen-containing gas is used to modify an EUV photoresist and removing the modified EUV with an inert gas using a power between 30-500W (para 45-50; claims 1, 5, 9). It would have been obvious to use oxygen-containing gas in light of Tan because it would facilitate in the step of modifying the EUV photoresist and removing the modified EUV with expected results.
Claims 11-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 12062538. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-32 of patent 12062538 describe the same steps of repeating selective deposition to fill divots on an EUV photoresist with materials of silicon-containing precursor and amorphous carbon cap using a plasma of hydrocarbon, hydrogen and inert gas, which is then exposed to oxygen-containing reactant, wherein the silicon-containing precursor turns into silicon oxide and the material does not deposit on the exposed portion of an underlying metal oxide layer and then etching the EUV on the substrate with a plasma of inert gas. Even though claims 1-32 don’t describe the etching inside divots occurs at lower rate than non-divot areas. However, the method of claims 1-32 have the same steps using the same gases for selective deposition and etching; therefore, it is expected that the etching of the patterned EUV would also provide the etching inside divots occurs at a lower rate than non-divot areas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 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.
Claim 3 and its dependent claims are allowed over the prior art Tan because Tan, while teaches modifying the EUV with oxygen-contaning gases; he doesn’t teach modifying the EUV with a halogen-containing gas.
Claims 11-22 are allowed because the prior art Tan, while teaches a method to reduce roughness, stringers, scum and smooth sidewall of a photoresist as described above by using ALE and selective deposition to fill crevices or divots on the EUV (abs. para 3); however, Tan doesn’t teach selectively etching the pattern EUV resist, wherein etching inside the crevices or divots occurs at a lower rate than non-divot areas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY VU NGUYEN DEO whose telephone number is (571)272-1462. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F.
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 571-272-3176. 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.
/DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
3/9/2026