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 § 112
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.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the “(SOC)” is viewed as an example of “a film of a coating type organic lower. The phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 1-4, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Katsunuma et al. (US 20230058079A1).
With respect to claims 1, 4, Katsunuma teaches an etching method comprising: etching a mask MK, made of an inorganic SiON film, formed on a organic film OF (para 34; fig. 2)
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; etching the organic film OF in a step ST1 using sulfur containing gas such as COS gas, which would form deposits on the surfaces on the etching target film EF formed below the organic film OF since it is the same etching gas as that of claimed invention (para 59; fig. 5A)
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; removing a deposit on the EF layer in a step STR, the deposit would include PF layer and any deposits formed from using the COS gas in the etching step of the OF (fig 6A; para 119)
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; etching the organic film OF with step ST3 after removing the deposits by repeating the steps above until reaching the EF surface (para 118; fig. 6B)
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to claim 2, the etching step of etching the organic film OF after removing the deposit can be the same as the step ST1, in which an etching gas includes hydrogen (para 59, 117).
With respect to claim 3, the deposit from the etching step of the organic film OF using COS gas or from the depositing of the protective film PF using a gas mixture including O2, would provide an oxide-based deposited film.
With respect to claim 7, the organic film OF is a spin-on carbon film (SOC) or an amorphous carbon film (para 33).
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) 5, 6, 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsunuma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Une et al. (TW 201421581A).
With respect to claims 5, 6, Katsunuma doesn’t teach etching the inorganic layer MK using a mask exposed to EUV, which provides a chemically amplified photoresist. However, he teaches using a photoresist mask for the etching (para 34) and using photoresist mask exposed to EUV is practiced and used by one skilled in the art as shown here by Une for etching layers including inorganic layer (page 2, 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use EUV mask or chemically amplified photoresist because it has been successfully provide a mask for etching the inorganic layer with expected results.
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to claim 8, Katsunuma teaches the organic film OF is a spin-on carbon film (SOC) or an amorphous carbon film (para 33).
With respect to claim 9, Katsunuma describes the STR step to remove the organic protective film PF and any deposits from the etching step of the organic film OF using COS gas may be the same as the processing gas used in step ST1 (para 119), in which the second radio frequency power 64 used as a bias radio-frequency power, or claimed radio frequency power supplied to a sample stage, may not be used (para 56, 59). Therefore, a radio frequency power supplied to the sample stage would be 0 W during the step STR removing the organic protective film PF and any deposits from the etching step of the organic film OF.
With respect to claims 10 and 12, Katsunuma teaches the etching step of etching the organic film OF after removing the deposit can be the same as the step ST1, in which an etching gas includes hydrogen (para 59, 117).
With respect to claim 11, Katsunuma teaches the organic film OF can be etched with COS gas.
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
9/17/2026
