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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 2/27/26 is acknowledged. Since the election is made without traverse, the restriction is deemed as proper and therefore made FINAL. Claims 10 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ko US 2021/0305048.
Per claim 1, Ko teaches a substrate processing method comprising forming a metal oxide resist film on a substrate including an underlayer (abstract, [0014], [0016]), forming a pattern in the metal oxide resist film (abstract), modifying the metal oxide resist film in which the pattern has been formed [0016]-[0017]; and etching the underlayer by using the metal oxide resist film as a mask [0015].
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko US 2021/0305048.
Per claim 2, Ko is silent regarding oxidizing the metal oxide layer. However, it is noted that Ko teaches a metal oxide (a metal that has been oxidized) and also teaches, for example, materials such as SnOx, or other suitable materials that can be chemical amplified resist materials (CAR). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have oxidized the metal resist layer with a reasonable expectation for success and predictable results.
Claim(s) 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko US 2021/0305048 in view of Kuo et al US 2022/0100088.
Per claim 3, Ko is silent regarding the use of hydrogen peroxide or ozone. Kuo teaches a similar process of forming and using metal oxide resist layers comprising using chemical reaction treatments on the resist material [0028], wherein the reaction gas includes ozone or hydrogen peroxide [0030]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a hydrogen peroxide or ozone gas to treat the metal resist layer which would result in oxidization as this is the same material and resist layer as claimed, because Kuo teaches that such a process would result in beneficial densification of the layer [0030].
Per claim 4, Kuo teaches a soft bake process (annealing process) [0031].
Per claims 5, 7, Kuo teaches a metal containing precursor and supplying said oxidizing gas to modify the metal oxide resist film [0030], wherein the portion is non-recessed (see Fig. 1-3).
Per claims 6, 8, Ko teaches AlO or SiO [0033].
Per claim 9, the step of shaping the protective film would have been inherent and necessary in order to form the film itself, as this is the intended purpose of the prior art (see Fig. 1-3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN T. LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-6:00pm.
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.
/NATHAN T LEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights