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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 23 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, line 8, filed 18 September 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 17 and 22-40 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibashi et al. (United States Patent No. US 6,319,853 B1), hereinafter Ishibashi, in view of Liu et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2013/0337380 A1), hereinafter Liu, and further in view of Park et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2010/0009482 A1), hereinafter Park, and further in view of Kubota (United States Patent Publication No. US 2015/0227042 A1), hereinafter Kubota, and further in view of Sawanda et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2005/0069813 A1), hereinafter Sawanda, wherein Hong et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2010/0159400 A1), hereinafter Hong, serves as a teaching reference; and Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibashi et al. (United States Patent No. US 6,319,853 B1), hereinafter Ishibashi, and further in view of Liu et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2013/0337380 A1), hereinafter Liu, and further in view of Park et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2010/0009482 A1), hereinafter Park, and further in view of Kubota (United States Patent Publication No. US 2015/0227042 A1), hereinafter Kubota, and further in view of Sawanda et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2005/0069813 A1), hereinafter Sawanda, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2016/0266490 A1), hereinafter Yoshida; have been fully considered and, in light of the claim amendment made are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Allen et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2013/0260313 A1), hereinafter Allen.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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:
4. 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.
5. Claims 17 and 22-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibashi et al. (United States Patent No. US 6,319,853 B1), hereinafter Ishibashi, in view of Allen et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2013/0260313 A1), hereinafter Allen, in further view of Liu et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2013/0337380 A1), hereinafter Liu, and further in view of Park et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2010/0009482 A1), hereinafter Park, and further in view of Kubota (United States Patent Publication No. US 2015/0227042 A1), hereinafter Kubota, and further in view of Sawanda et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2005/0069813 A1), hereinafter Sawanda, wherein Hong et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2010/0159400 A1), hereinafter Hong, serves as a teaching reference..
6. Regarding Claims 17 and 22-40, Ishibashi teaches (Col. 5, Lines 36-52) a step of coating a resist composition comprising a novolak resin on a substrate to form a resist composition layer. Ishibashi teaches (Col. 5, Lines 36-52) a step of coating a resist composition comprising a novolak resin on a substrate to form a resist composition layer. Ishibashi teaches (Col. 7, Lines 60-65) the composition comprising a cross-linking agent, a polymer and a solvent. Ishibashi teaches (Col. 7, Lines 3-10, Fig. 3(d)) a step of subjecting said resist composition layer to exposure. Ishibashi teaches (Fig. 3(f)) a step of developing said resist composition layer to form a resist pattern. Ishibashi teaches (Col. 5, Lines 61-63; Col. 12, Lines 18-22) a step of heating said resist pattern. Ishibashi teaches (Col. 6, Lines 4-16) a step of coating a fine pattern forming composition on the surface of said resist pattern to form a fine pattern forming composition layer. Ishibashi teaches (Col. 6, Lines 17-33) a step of heating said resist pattern and said fine pattern forming composition layer to cure the regions of said fine pattern forming composition layer in the vicinity of said resist pattern and to form an insolubilized layer. Ishibashi teaches (Col. 6, Lines 34-50) a step of removing uncured regions of said fine pattern forming composition layer to form a fine pattern. Ishibashi teaches (Col. 3, Lines 29-37) fine pattern forming composition comprises a cross-linking agent, a polymer, and a solvent. Ishibashi teaches (Col. 6, Lines 20-33) the temperature of the heating of step (7) of the present application is 50-140°C. Ishibashi teaches (Col. 6, Lines 20-33) the temperature of the heating of step (7) of the present application is 80-120°C for 150 to 240 seconds. Ishibashi teaches (Col. 5, Lines 61-63; Col. 12, Lines 18-22) the temperature of the heating of step (4) of the present application is 110-150°C. Ishibashi teaches (Col. 5, Lines 61-63; Col. 12, Lines 18-22) the temperature of the heating of step (4) of the present application is 130-140°C for 60 to 180 seconds. Ishibashi teaches (Col. 6, Lines 34-44) the uncured regions are removed by contacting said fine pattern forming composition layer and water, a liquid mixture of water and a water-soluble organic solvent, or an alkali aqueous solution in the step of removing uncured regions of said fine pattern forming composition layer to form a fine pattern. Ishibashi teaches (Col. 2, Lines 24-28) a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising using a fine pattern made by the method. The teaching reference Hong teaches (Paragraph [0105]) that a display device is a type of semiconductor device which may be manufactured by photolithography.
7. However, Ishibashi fails to explicitly teach a step of subjecting said resist pattern to flood exposure so that the unexposed regions of the resist pattern are exposed. Furthermore, Ishibashi fails to explicitly teach using a projector lens having a numerical aperture of 0.08-0.15. Furthermore, Ishibashi fails to explicitly teach the novolak resin having an alkali dissolution rate of 100-3,000 A. Furthermore, Ishibashi fails to explicitly teach the fine pattern forming composition layer of 3.0-6.0 µm thickness. Furthermore, Ishibashi fails to explicitly teach a step of heating said fine pattern. Furthermore, Ishibashi fails to explicitly teach the mass average molecular weight of said novolak resin is 1,500-25,000. Furthermore, Ishibashi fails to explicitly teach the viscosity of said fine pattern forming composition, as measured by a capillary viscometer at 25°C, is 1-120 cP. Furthermore, Ishibashi fails to explicitly teach the temperature of the heating in the step of heating said fine pattern is 100-145°C. Furthermore, Ishibashi fails to explicitly teach the cross-section shape of said resist pattern is a taper shape. Furthermore, Ishibashi fails to explicitly teach the cross-section shape of said high-defined pattern is a taper shape. Furthermore, Ishibashi fails to explicitly teach wherein the high-defined pattern has a shrink amount of 0.20-1.50 μm. Furthermore, Ishibashi fails to explicitly teach the shrink amount of the fine pattern being 0.05-1.00 μm. Furthermore, Ishibashi fails to explicitly teach the shrink amount of the photoresist pattern being 0.2-0.6 μm. Furthermore, Ishibashi fails to explicitly teach the shrink amount of said fine pattern is 0.1-0.50 μm and the shrink amount of said high-defined pattern is 0.30-0.80 μm. Furthermore, Ishibashi fails to explicitly teach the shrink amount of said fine pattern is 0.1-0.50 μm and the shrink amount of said high-defined pattern is 0.30-0.80 μm and the value of (the shrink amount of the high-defined pattern) - (the shrink amount of the fine pattern) is 0.15-0.50 μm. Furthermore, Ishibashi fails to explicitly teach the shrink amount of said fine pattern is 0.1-0.50 μm and the shrink amount of said high-defined pattern is 0.30-0.80 μm and the value of (the shrink amount of the high-defined pattern) - (the shrink amount of the fine pattern) is 0.20-0.30 μm. Furthermore, Ishibashi fails to explicitly teach the temperature of the heating in the step of heating said fine pattern is 120-130°C for 150 to 240 seconds. Furthermore, Ishibashi fails to explicitly teach the novolak resin having a dissolution rate of 400-1,000 A. Furthermore, Ishibashi fails to explicitly teach the mass average molecular weight of the novolak resin being 3,000-12,000. Furthermore, Ishibashi fails to explicitly teach a high defined pattern is achieved after heating the high defined pattern and the high defined pattern has a cross-section shape of a hole or a line is observed, L1 is the pattern width at a 10 percent portion (D1) of the depth and L2 is the pattern width at a 90 percent portion (D2) of the depth and has a Taper index (L2/L1) of the high-defined pattern is 1.2-9. Furthermore, Ishibashi fails to explicitly teach the Taper index of the high-defined pattern is 1.8-8.
8. Allen teaches (Paragraphs [0113 and 0168]) a step of subjecting said resist pattern to flood exposure so that the unexposed regions of the resist pattern are exposed. Allen teaches (Paragraphs [0113 and 0168]) that the step of subjecting the resist pattern to a flood exposure results in a change of the resist pattern’s solubility, thereby enhancing performance.
9. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishibashi to incorporate the teachings of Kubota to include a step of subjecting said resist pattern to flood exposure so that the unexposed regions of the resist pattern are exposed. Doing so would result in a change of the resist pattern’s solubility, thereby enhancing performance, as recognized by Allen.
10. Kubota teaches (Paragraph [0099]) using a projector lens having a numerical aperture of 0.08-0.10. Kubota teaches (Paragraph [0099]) using a projector lens having a numerical aperture of 0.08-0.10 results in an image be easily focused via the projector lens to accurately project the image.
11. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishibashi to incorporate the teachings of Kubota to use a projector lens having a numerical aperture of 0.08-0.10. Doing so would result in the ability to easily focused an image using the projector lens, as recognized by Kubota.
12. Liu teaches (Paragraph [0022]) the novolak resin having a dissolution rate of 100-3,000 A. Liu teaches (Paragraph [0022]) the novolak resin having a dissolution rate of 400-1,000 A. Liu teaches (Paragraph [0023]) the novolak resins disclosed therein may be tailored to the desired dissolution rate.
13. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishibashi to incorporate the teachings of Liu to have the novolak resin possess a dissolution rate of 100-3,000 A and a dissolution rate of 400-1,000 A. Doing so would result in the ability to tailor the resins used for the desired properties, as recognized by Liu.
14. Liu teaches (Paragraph [0031]) the fine pattern forming composition layer of 3.0-6.0 µm thickness. Liu teaches (Paragraph [0005]) said thicknesses are required for display and LED manufacturing.
15. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishibashi to incorporate the teachings of Liu to have the fine pattern forming composition layer of 3.0-6.0 µm thickness. Doing so would result in the proper thicknesses for display and LED manufacturing, as recognized by Liu.
16. Park teaches (Paragraphs [0090-0096]) a step of heating said fine pattern. Park teaches (Paragraphs [0090-0096]) the temperature of the heating in the step of heating said fine pattern is 100-145°C. Park teaches (Paragraphs [0090-0096]) the temperature of the heating in the step of heating said fine pattern is 120-130°C for 150 to 240 seconds. Park teaches (Paragraph [0007]) heating said fine pattern may be used to change the shape of a photoresist pattern.
17. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishibashi to incorporate the teachings of Park to have a step of heating said fine pattern and the temperature of the heating in the step of heating said fine pattern is 100-145°C. Doing so would result in the ability to change the shape of a photoresist pattern, as recognized by Park.
18. Park teaches (Paragraph [0047]) the mass average molecular weight of the novolak resin being 4,000-15,000. Park teaches (Paragraph [0047]) the mass average molecular weight of the novolak resin being 3,000-12,000. Park teaches (Paragraph [0047]) molecular weights below this range may result in a damaged photoresist pattern, whereas molecular weights above this range may result in the failure to fabricate a clear shape.
19. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishibashi to incorporate the teachings of Park to have the mass average molecular weight of novolak resins be 4,000-15,000, and have the mass average molecular weight of novolak resins be 3,000-12,000. Doing so would result in a product which fabricates a clear shape, while having a reduced chance of having the pattern be damaged, as recognized by Park.
20. Park teaches (Paragraphs [0071-0072]) the viscosity of said fine pattern forming composition, as measured by a capillary viscometer at 25°C, is 15 cP. Park teaches (Paragraph [0010]) composition disclosed therein improve manufacturing margin, heat resistance, and etching ability.
21. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishibashi to incorporate the teachings of Park to have a viscosity of the fine pattern forming composition of 15 cP. Doing so would result in compositions which show improved manufacturing margin, heat resistance, and etching ability, as recognized by Park.
22. Park teaches (Figs. 1-2) the cross-section shape of said resist pattern is a taper shape. Park teaches (Figs. 1-2) the cross-section shape of said high-defined pattern is a taper shape. Park teaches (Figs. 1-2) a high defined pattern is achieved after heating the high defined pattern and the high defined pattern has a cross-section shape of a hole or a line is observed, L1 is the pattern width at a 10 percent portion (D1) of the depth and L2 is the pattern width at a 90 percent portion (D2) of the depth and has a Taper index (L2/L1) of the high-defined pattern is 1.2-9. Park teaches (Figs. 1-2) the Taper index of the high-defined pattern is 1.8-8. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) states: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) . . . ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)." Park teaches (Paragraph [0027]) said shapes are idealized shapes for manufacturing.
23. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishibashi to incorporate the teachings of Park to have the high-defined pattern have a taper index of 1.05-18; the cross-section shape of the resist pattern and the high-defined pattern is a taper shape and a high defined pattern is achieved after heating the high defined pattern and the high defined pattern has a cross section shape of a hole or a line is observed; L1 is the pattern width at a 10 percent portion (D1) of the depth and L2 is the pattern width at a 90 percent portion (D2) of the depth and has a Taper index (L2/L1) of the high-defined pattern is 1.2-9. Doing so would result in idealized shapes for manufacturing, as recognized by Park.
24. Sawanda teaches (Fig. 2) the high-defined pattern has a shrink amount of 0.20-1.50 m. Sawanda teaches (Fig. 2) the shrink amount of the photoresist pattern being 0.2-0.6 μm. Sawanda teaches (Fig. 2) the shrink amount of said fine pattern is 0.1-0.50 m and the shrink amount of said high-defined pattern is 0.30-0.80 μm. Sawanda teaches (Fig. 2) the shrink amount of said fine pattern is 0.1-0.50 μm and the shrink amount of said high-defined pattern is 0.30-0.80 μm and the value of (the shrink amount of the high-defined pattern) - (the shrink amount of the fine pattern) is 0.15-0.50 μm. Sawanda teaches (Fig. 2) the shrink amount of said fine pattern is 0.1-0.50 μm and the shrink amount of said high-defined pattern is 0.30-0.80 μm and the value of (the shrink amount of the high-defined pattern) - (the shrink amount of the fine pattern) is 0.20-0.30 μm. Sawanda teaches (Paragraph [0128]) the shrink amount of the pattern can be minimized and controlled to produce a predictable, reproduceable product.
25. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishibashi to incorporate the teachings of Sawanda to have the shrink amount of the photoresist pattern be 0.2-0.6 μm; the shrink amount of said fine pattern is 0.1-0.50 m and the shrink amount of said high-defined pattern is 0.30-0.80 μm; the shrink amount of said fine pattern is 0.1-0.50 μm and the shrink amount of said high-defined pattern is 0.30-0.80 μm and the value of (the shrink amount of the high-defined pattern) - (the shrink amount of the fine pattern) is 0.15-0.50 μm; the shrink amount of said fine pattern is 0.1-0.50 μm and the shrink amount of said high-defined pattern is 0.30-0.80 μm and the value of (the shrink amount of the high-defined pattern) - (the shrink amount of the fine pattern) is 0.20-0.30 μm. Doing so would result in the ability to minimize and control shrinkage to produce a predictable product, as recognized by Sawanda.
26. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibashi et al. (United States Patent No. US 6,319,853 B1), hereinafter Ishibashi, in view of Allen et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2013/0260313 A1), hereinafter Allen, in further view of Liu et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2013/0337380 A1), hereinafter Liu, and further in view of Park et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2010/0009482 A1), hereinafter Park, and further in view of Kubota (United States Patent Publication No. US 2015/0227042 A1), hereinafter Kubota, and further in view of Sawanda et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2005/0069813 A1), hereinafter Sawanda, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2016/0266490 A1), hereinafter Yoshida.
27. Ishibashi in further view of Liu in further view of Park in further view of Kubota in further view of Sawanda teaches all limitations of Claim 17 above. However, Ishibashi in further view of Liu in further view of Park fails to explicitly teach the exposure amount being 15-80 mJ/cm2.
28. Yoshida teaches (Paragraph [0099]) the exposure amount being 15-80 mJ/cm2. Yoshida teaches (Paragraph [0099]) the exposure amount in this range avoids overexposure.
29. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishibashi in further view of Liu in further view of Park to incorporate the teachings of Yoshida to have the exposure amount be 15-80 mJ/cm2. Doing so would result avoid overexposure, as recognized by Yoshida.
Conclusion
30. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to RICHARD D CHAMPION at telephone number (571) 272-0750. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Mon-Fri EST.
31. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MARK F HUFF can be reached at (571) 272-1385. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
32. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
33. 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.
/R.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/MARK F. HUFF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights