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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-21 cancelled
Claims 22-30 pending and new
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 22-25, 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidman (PG Pub 2012/0088193 A1) in view of Bhateja (US Pat. 6,171,758 B1).
Consider Claim 22, Weidman teaches the of forming photoresist sensitive on radiation on the substrate (abstract). Weidman teaches the process to include; (A) forming by chemical vapor deposition and deposited layer comprising silicon precursor containing material (as first precursor) with Tin or germanium (as second precursor) on a substrate [0006]; (B) teaches the deposition process using CVD where the system is under vacuum for removing gas from the deposition chamber [0046] (such as under pressure of 4 Torr [0074]) as an outgassing step to remove contamination after the deposition process; (C) exposing portions of the deposited layer to radiation while leaving portions unexposed to radiation, parenting source radiation such as EUV (encompass wavelength from 10 to 20 nm [0002]-[0003]) while in a vacuum forming a pattern having exposed portions and unexposed portions, as a photoresist on a substrate [0006]: (D) removing the unexposed portions from the substrate using developer solution (wet etching) [0007].
Weidman does not teach the development step using thermal process.
However, Bhateja is in the prior art of forming photosensitive layer (Col. 4, lines 6-12), teaches the process of exposition the photosensitive layer to actinic radiation (Col. 4, lines 57-59) and the process of development for removing the unexposed/uncured portion of the photosensitive layer using heat as thermal development (Col. 2, lines 5-10).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Weidman with Bhateja to use thermal development instead of wet development using solution, to overcome problems posed by the later, such as time consuming, produce potentially toxic by-product wastes (Col. 1, lines 32-38).
Consider Claim 23, the combined Weidman (with Bhateja) teaches the process of development for removing the unexposed/uncured portion of the photosensitive layer using heat (non-plasma) as thermal development (Bhateja, Col. 2, lines 5-10).
Consider Claims 24-25, the combined Weidman (with Bhateja) teaches the metal containing precursor includes Tin (Weidman, [0006]).
Consider Claim 27, the combined Weidman (with Bhateja) teaches the metal containing precursor is organosilane (Weidman, [0020]), as silicon base precursor.
Consider Claim 28, the combined Weidman (with Bhateja) teaches the forming of hard-mask (Weidman, [0018]), having etch resistance properties (Weidman, [0022], [0024]).
Consider Claim 29, the combined Weidman (with Bhateja) teaches the desire for photoresist to exhibit sufficient connectivity to minimize affect associated with secondary electron generated during radiation exposure (Weidman, [0005]). Additionally, the instant specification states that metals which includes germanium, gallium, silicon and Tin in [0015] are metal-containing precursors would be metals that are less susceptible to secondary electron exposure effect. Therefore, the above metal-containing precursors of Weidman are metals that are less susceptible to secondary electron exposure effect.
Consider Claim 30, the combined Weidman (with Bhateja) teaches the deposition process is performed in a system under a temperature less than 100℃ (Weidman, [0048]), including 25℃.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidman (PG Pub 2012/0088193 A1) and in view of Bhateja (US Pat. 6,171,758 B1) and in further view of Debe (US Pat 4,940,854).
Consider Claim 26, the combined Weidman (with Bhateja) teaches the degassing process preformed under vacuum within CVD chamber (Weidman, [0046]).
The combined Weidman (with Bhateja) does not teach the vacuum/pressure value.
However, Debe is in the process deposition using CVD chamber (Col. 4, lines 47-52), teaches the outgassing of a chamber in a pressure ranging between 10-6 to 10-10 Torr (Col. 7, lines 20-24). In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Weidman (with Bhateja) with Debe to perform the outgassing process under vacuum of 10-8 Torr or less, to provide with a process to remove volatile gases under high vacuum, to prevent contamination of expensive reflective multilayer elements [0005].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718