DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2 and 3 are now directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Applicant elected the invention shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Claim 1 now recites a transparent electrode and dependent claim 2 recites the electric field is applied laterally. Non-elected Species D, the embodiment shown in Fig. 5 and described in paragraph [0046], is the only species to read on the subject matter of claim 2 and Species D was not elected in the response filed on February 9, 2026. Claim 3 depend from claim 2. Accordingly, claims 2 and 3 are now withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
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.
Claim 8 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. The claimed first electrode (disclosed as the second electrode 412) in contact with substrate of claim 8 is not disclosed as transparent as required by claim 1 (see paragraph [0045] and Fig. 4 of the original disclosure).
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 7 and 8 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.
In claims 7 and 8, repeat “a first electrode” that is recited claim 1. It is unclear whether an additional first electrode is being introduced or the first recitation of the first electrode is being recalled.
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.
Claims 1 and 6-9 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh et al. [US 2014/0327894] in view of Wise et al. [US 2014/0193755].
For claim 1, Koh teaches a system for lithographically patterning semiconductor substrates (see Figs. 1-6) comprising:
an electromagnetic (EM) radiation source (EUV source, see [0043]);
an optical assembly (24 and 27, see Fig.5); and
a substrate support (13) and an electrode assembly (31 and 33),
the EM radiation source being configured for generating electromagnetic radiation, the optical assembly being constructed and arranged for directing the EM radiation towards the substrate support (see Figs. 1, 5, and 6),
the substrate support being constructed and arranged for supporting a semiconductor substrate (51), and
the electrode assembly being constructed and arranged for applying an electric field (see [0045]) to an EM-sensitive layer (photoresist, see [0041]) comprised in the semiconductor substrate,
the electrode assembly comprising an electrode pair wherein a first electrode of the electrode pair is at least partially transparent to the EM radiation (33a, see Fig. 4 and [0056]).
Koh fails to explicitly teach the chamber.
Wise teaches an exposure chamber (vacuum enclosure, see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vacuum chamber as taught by Wise in the system as taught by Koh in order to allow for passage of EUV light without significant attenuation of the beam intensity.
For claim 6, Koh teaches the electrode assembly is constructed and arranged for transversally applying the electric field to the EM-sensitive layer (vertical field, see [0045]).
For claim 7, Koh teaches the electrode assembly (see Fig. 1) comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein the first electrode (31) is electrically connected to the substrate support, and wherein the second electrode (33) is positioned substantially parallel with the semiconductor substrate, between the semiconductor substrate and the EM radiation source.
For claim 8, Koh fails to teach the first electrode is electrically connected to the semiconductor substrate.
Wise teaches the electrode assembly comprises a first electrode (conductive chuck) and a second electrode (conductive plate), wherein the first electrode is electrically connected to the semiconductor substrate (shorted to the substrate, see [0014]), and wherein the second electrode is positioned substantially parallel with the semiconductor substrate, between the semiconductor substrate and the EM radiation source (see the arrangement in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first electrode location as Wise in the position of the first electrode of Koh in order to reduce the possibility of field interaction with the substrate stage and providing only the substrate therebetween.
For claim 9, Koh teaches the EM radiation source comprises an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) source (see [0043]).
For claim 21, Koh teaches the electric field enhances secondary electron generation while exposing the semiconductor substrate to EM radiation (see [0050]).
For claim 22 and 23, Koh teaches the electric field comprises a DC field or an AC field (see [0044]).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh in view of Wise as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mickan et al. [US 2005/0231704].
For claims 19 and 20, Koh fails to teach the first electrode of the electrode pair has a thickness of at least 1.0 nm, wherein the first electrode of the electrode pair is configured to allow at least 10% of incident EM radiation to pass through.
Mickan teaches the first electrode of the electrode pair has a thickness of at least 1.0 nm, wherein the first electrode of the electrode pair is configured to allow at least 10% of incident EM radiation to pass through (10 nm, around 2%, see [0032] and [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the characteristics as taught by Mickan in the first electrode of the Koh in order to maintain intensity and dose requirement to maintain throughput.
Claims 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng et al. [US 2020/0019070] in view of Wise.
For claim 24, Weng teaches a system (see Figs. 1C-1, 1C-2) for lithographically patterning semiconductor substrates comprising:
an electromagnetic (EM) radiation source (102);
an optical assembly (110); and
a substrate support (116) and an electrode assembly (123),
the EM radiation source being configured for generating extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation (see [0028]),
the optical assembly being constructed and arranged for directing the EUV radiation towards the substrate support (see Figs. 1C-1, 1C-2),
the substrate support being constructed and arranged for supporting a semiconductor substrate (114), and
the electrode assembly being constructed and arranged for applying an electric field to an EM-sensitive layer (200),
wherein the electrode assembly is constructed and arranged for laterally applying the electric field to the EM-sensitive layer (field 185 from the side).
Weng fails to explicitly teach the chamber.
Wise teaches an exposure chamber (vacuum enclosure, see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vacuum chamber as taught by Wise in the system as taught by Weng in order to allow for passage of EUV light without significant attenuation of the beam intensity.
For claim 25, Weng teaches the electrode assembly comprises two electrodes that are positioned adjacent to the substrate support (see Figs. 1C-1, 1C-2).
For claim 26, Weng teaches the electric field enhances secondary electron generation while exposing the semiconductor substrate to EM radiation (see Figs. 8A and 8B).
For claims 27 and 28, Weng teaches the electric field comprises a DC field or an AC field.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng in view of Wise as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Ki [US 2022/0244646].
For claim 29, Weng fails to teach the EM-sensitive layer comprises at least an electron reflector layer.
Ki teaches the EM-sensitive layer comprises at least an electron reflector layer (layers 510 and 530, see Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the layers as taught by Ki in the system as taught by Weng in order to effectively prevent, suppress, or reduce exposure failure caused by the introduction of the external electrons.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wise in view of Kim et al. [US 2005/0074703].
For claims 24 and 25, Wise teaches a system for lithographically patterning semiconductor substrates (see Fig. 1) comprising:
an electromagnetic (EM) radiation source (EUV source, see [0014]);
an optical assembly (optics system with various mirrors, see [0025] and Fig.1); and
an exposure chamber (vacuum enclosure) comprising a substrate support (stage and chuck) and an electrode assembly (conductive plate and conductive chuck, see [0014]),
the EM radiation source being configured for generating extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation (EUV) source (see [0014]),
the optical assembly being constructed and arranged for directing the EUV radiation towards the substrate support (see Fig. 1),
the substrate support being constructed and arranged for supporting a semiconductor substrate (substrate), and
the electrode assembly being constructed and arranged for applying an electric field (see [0013] and [0020]-[0023] and Fig. 3) to an EM-sensitive layer (photoresist).
Wise fails to teach the electrode assembly is constructed and arranged for laterally applying the electric field to the EM-sensitive layer, wherein the electrode assembly comprises two electrodes that are positioned adjacent to the substrate support.
Kim teaches the electrode assembly (pair of electrodes 11, see Fig. 1 and [0023]) is constructed and arranged for laterally applying the electric field to the EM-sensitive layer, wherein the electrode assembly comprises two electrodes that are positioned adjacent to the substrate support (adjacent the support 9, see Fig. 1 and [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electrode assembly for laterally applying the electric field to the EM-sensitive layer as taught by Kim in the electrode assembly of the exposure apparatus as taught by Wise because the lateral electric field allows for producing finer pattern widths (see [0041] of Kim).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The scope of claims 24 and 25 are different than claims 1-3 as originally presented by introducing the EUV radiation source. Koh and Weng are relied upon to teach the salient features of the claims.
In spite of the change of scope, Applicant's arguments filed May 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 7 and 8, regarding the combination of Wise and Kim in the prior art obviousness rejection of previously presented claims 1-3, A) the proposed modification would render Wise unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because Kim's lateral electric field to Wise's system would increase lateral movement, directly undermining Wise's
Objective; B) Wise is directed to EUV lithography, while Kim, in contrast, is directed to DUV lithography, where the electric field is used to infiltrate acid (H⁺) into non-exposure regions and does not rely on secondary electron generation or ionization cascades; C) the purpose of the electric field in Kim contradicts that of Wise because Kim applies a lateral electric field to infiltrate acid (H⁺) into non-exposure regions and applies an electric field to induce movement of secondary electrons, therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to look to Kim's acid-infiltration technique when working with Wise's electron-based system; D) the motivation stated in the Office Action, that Kim's lateral electric field "allows for producing finer pattern widths," is based on Kim's acid infiltration mechanism, which does not exist in EUV lithography, therefore, he stated motivation does not provide a rational basis for combining Wise and Kim.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kim’s lateral diffusion of photoacid generated in a positive resist by lateral e-field during post exposure provides finer pattern widths (see Figs. 1-3 of Kim). Wise teaches the generation of photoacid in an EUV photoresist (see [0038]) and increasing the production of photoacid by the application of a vertical electric field (the opposite of Applicant’s argument in D). In the combination, Kim further localizes the photoacid generated in the exposure of Wise by applying the lateral electric field (increasing the functionally of Wise should a positive resist be used, relative to Applicant’s arguments in A-C). There is no current claim limitation that contradicts this combination.
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 Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights