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 § 102
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 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) 1-3,5-12, 14-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyers et al. (US 2017/0102612).
Regarding Claims 1,5-6, 16, and 20, Meyers et al. (US’612) teach a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising: depositing a resist layer over a substrate by chemical vapor deposition [0033,0076-0079,0082], wherein the resist layer is a reaction (i.e. hydrolysis) product of a first precursor and second precursor [0080,0046,0068]. The first precursor can include (C6H5)CH2Sn(NMe2)3, or benzyl tris(dimethylamino) tin, which is represented by the structure in row 1, column 3 of Claims 1 and 16; (C6H5)CH3CHSn(NMe2)3-, represented by the structure in row 1, column 2 of Claims 1 and 16. Furthermore, US’612 teaches patternwise exposing the resist layer to actinic radiation (e.g. electron beam or extreme UV) (Abstract; [0002,0012,0029,0057,0087]) and applying a developer to the patternwise exposed resist layer to form a pattern in the resist layer [0089-0090,0097,0116].
Regarding Claims 11,14, 16, and 20, Meyers et al. (US’612) teach a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising: depositing a first organometallic material layer over a substrate, and depositing a gaseous material (e.g. vapor) over the first organometallic material layer (Claim 2; [0033,0145]; reacting the gaseous material with the first organometallic material layer to form a first layer of reaction product; depositing a second organometallic material layer of the organometallic material over the first layer of reaction product (i.e. “hydrolysable precursor is sequentially adsorbed, chemisorbed, or decomposed on the substrate surface, and the residual film reacted with a second reactive precursor through multiple deposition/reaction cycles to deposit the corresponding organotin oxide hydroxide” in an ALD process, which is a type of CVD process [0033,0078]); depositing an additional amount of the gaseous material over the second organometallic material layer; reacting the additional amount of the gaseous material with the second organometallic material layer to form a second layer of reaction product (id.; [0031,0082]); selectively exposing (i.e. patterning) the first and second layers of reaction product to actinic radiation (e.g. electron beam or extreme UV) (Abstract; [0002,0012, 0029,0057,0087]); and developing the selectively exposed first and second layers of reaction product, necessarily formed by the multiple deposition/ reaction cycles taught, to form a pattern in the resist layer [0005,0033,0089-0090,0097,0116]. US’612 teaches that an organometallic material for forming the first precursor can include (C6H5)CH2Sn(NMe2)3, or benzyl tris(dimethylamino) tin, which is represented by the structure in row 1, column 3 of Claims 11 and 16; (C6H5)CH3CHSn(NMe2)3-, represented by the structure in row 1, column 2 of Claims 11 and 16.
Regarding Claim 2, US’612 teaches that the developer can be a dry developer (e.g. gas, radiation) [0005].
Regarding Claim 3, US’612 teaches a dry developer, including a chemical vapor (i.e. reactive gas, which is necessarily a chemical) [0005].
Regarding Claim 7, US’612 teaches that the second precursor can be a gas [0033, 0143-0145].
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, US’612 teaches a deposition temperature (i.e. both first and second precursors) of between 50 and 160 C [0082,0143-0145].
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, US’612 teaches a pressure range between 10 mmTorr (0.01 Torr) and 25 Torr during deposition of the resist layer [0082, 0143-0145].
Regarding Claims 10 and 15, US’612 teaches after patternwise exposing the resist layer to actinic radiation and before applying a developer, heating the resist layer at a temperature ranging from 50 0C to 190 °C, including between 60 and 175 C [0088], including specific examples at 170 C [0116,0132].
Regarding Claim 12, US’612 teaches deposition of first and second layers of reaction product by atomic layer deposition (ALD) [0033].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers et al. (US 2017/0102612).
Regarding Claims 4, 13, and 17, US’612 teaches heating the resist layer before exposing the resist layer to actinic radiation (e.g. during deposition [0079,0082], during hydrolysis [0032], after hydrolysis and before exposure to drive off solvent and promote densification [0074]) at a temperature, for example baking between 100 and 600 C [0098], including examples at 100 C [0115,0131,0134,0139]; or at a hydrolysis/ solvent removal temperature between 45 C and 250 C [0075], which substantially and obviously overlaps the claimed range. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process to a temperature within the recited range to adequately drive off solvent and/ or densify the resist while avoiding damage to the resist or other layers. Also, generally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,222,643. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Claims 4, 14, and 19 of US’643 require every limitation of present Claims 1, 11, and 16, including
Depositing a resist layer over a substrate by chemical vapor deposition, ALD
Identical first precursors
A second precursor (e.g. water, also water vapor, Claim 18)
Patternwise exposure to actinic radiation, including EUV (Claims 1, 2, 12)
Applying developer
Application US’643
Claims 2-3 Claims 4-6
Claim 4,13,17 Claim 7
Claim 5,14,20 Claim 2
Claim 6 Obvious form of actinic radiation and conventional patterning radiation
Claim 7,12 Claims 8, 18 and CVD and ALD process
Claim 8,18 obvious/ typical temperature range for CVD/ALD
Claim 9,19 obvious/typical pressure range for CVD/ALD
Claim 10,15 Claim 3
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712