DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 2, 2026, has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, 28-32, in the reply filed on October 8, 2024, is acknowledged. Claims 16-19, 21-24, 26-27, 35-36, 38-42, 44-46, 48-49, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 50-52, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, recites, that the carbon-rich layer having the property of presenting fewer than about 0.1 defects/sq.cm of layer if subjected to a CVD survivability test. The claim, does not recite that the film is subjected to a survivability test, and the claims, as recited, do not make clear that the test is conducted or not or under what circumstances such a test is conducted and the defect value after conducting the test, and its therefore, not clear when such defects or low defects would occur or not occur or surpass the defect range recited on the carbon-rich layer and makes the claim unclear. Correction is required.
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, 3-6, 28, and 30, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0166844 (hereinafter referred to as Okada).
Okada, in [0002], [0023], [0118]-[0120], discloses the production of a semiconductor device that includes the microelectronic structure (LSI), the process includes forming a film forming material that includes a diimide (bismaleimide) and is an underlayer composition ([0116]), that includes a diimide (bismaleimide) and an organic solvent ([0114]), wherein the underlayer composition is formed on a supporting material (substrate) to form a underlayer. Okada, in [0023], [0118]-[0120], and [0253]-[0255], discloses that the film formation material composition that includes a diimide (bismaleimide), is applied on a base material (substrate or supporting material) and is subjected to heating to form the underlayer (claimed carbon rich layer), and forming a photoresist layer on the underlayer (carbon rich) film. Okada, in [0299], [0426], discloses that the diimide is formed from a oxydianiline and a maleic anhydride (monoanhydride that is crosslinkable) and is the same claimed forming of a diimide, and Okada, in [0210], [0211], and [0217], discloses that the film forming material composition comprises a bismaleimide (diimide) and also includes polyphenols (polyfunctional phenols). Okada, in [0118]-[0129], discloses patterning the photoresist layer (imaging layer) to form a pattern and transferring the pattern to the underlayer to form a underlayer film pattern by etching the underlayer (carbon rich) using the resist pattern and/or the intermediate layer pattern as the mask. Okada teaches the same claimed film forming material composition used to form the claimed underlayer composition that is coated on the supporting material (substrate) and then heated in the same claimed manner and will inherently and necessarily form the claimed carbon rich layer and will inherently possess the claimed property of SC1 resistant and present fewer defects if subjected to a CVD survivability test. Okada, in [0253], [0254], [0256], and [0258]-[0259], discloses that the solvent in the film forming material is propylene glycol monomethyl ether, and that the film forming material composition that is applied to the substrate includes the solvent prior to applying since the application of the film forming material is either by dip coating or spin coating or flow coating and the film coated is only heated to evaporate the solvent in the composition (film forming material) subsequent to applying the film on the supporting material (base material or substrate) and not prior to applying the film forming material (underlayer composition) on the base material (supporting material or substrate) (claims 1, 4-6, 28). Okada in [0284], [0285], discloses that the supporting material can be a laminate of layers (multiple layers) that includes SiO2 and TiN (claim 3, 30).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 9-13, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0166844 (hereinafter referred to as Okada) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0207215 (hereinafter referred to as Xu) and Japanese Patent Publication No. 2004241602 (hereinafter referred to as Yamada).
Okada, in [0002], [0023], [0118]-[0120], discloses the production of a semiconductor device that includes the microelectronic structure (LSI), the process includes forming a film forming material that includes a dimide (bismaleimide) and is an underlayer composition ([0116]), that includes a dimide (bismaleimide) and an organic solvent ([0114]), wherein the underlayer composition is formed on a supporting material (substrate) to form a underlayer. Okada, in [0023], [0118]-[0120], and [0253]-[0255], discloses that the film formation material composition that includes a diimide (bismaleimide), applied on a base material (substrate or supporting material) is subjected to heating to form the underlayer (claimed carbon rich layer), and forming a photoresist layer on the underlayer (carbon rich) film. Okada, in [0299], [0426], discloses that the diimide is formed from a oxydianiline and a maleic anhydride (monoanhydride that is crosslinkable) and is the same claimed forming of a diimide, and Okada, in [0210], [0211], and [0217], discloses that the film forming material composition comprises a bismaleimide (diimide) and also includes polyphenols (polyfunctional phenols). Okada, in [0118]-[0129], discloses patterning the photoresist layer (imaging layer) to form a pattern and transferring the pattern to the underlayer to form a underlayer film pattern by etching the underlayer (carbon rich) using the resist pattern and/or the intermediate layer pattern as the mask. Okada teaches the same claimed film forming material composition used to form the claimed underlayer composition that is coated on the supporting material (substrate) and then heated in the same claimed manner and will inherently and necessarily form the claimed carbon rich layer and will inherently possess the claimed property of SC1 resistant and present fewer defects if subjected to a CVD survivability test. Okada, in [0253], [0254], [0256], and [0258]-[0259], discloses that the solvent in the film forming material is propylene glycol monomethyl ether, and that the film forming material composition that is applied to the substrate includes the solvent prior to applying since the application of the film forming material is either by dip coating or spin coating or flow coating and the film (underlayer) coated is only heated to evaporate the solvent in the composition (film forming material) subsequent to applying the film on the supporting material (base material or substrate) and not prior to applying the film forming material (underlayer composition) on the base material (supporting material or substrate) (claims 2, 9, 12-13, and 29). Okada in [0284], [0285], discloses that the supporting material can be a laminate of layers (multiple layers) that includes SiO2 and TiN (claim 10).
The difference between the claims and Okada is that Okada does not disclose contacting the underlayer film coated on the supporting material with SC1 (claim 11)
Xu, in [0218], discloses that the substrate with the silicon oxide coating is subjected to cleaning using a cleaning process such as SC1 wherein the SC1 is a mixture of ammonium hydroxide, water and hydrogen peroxide.
Yamada, in [0003], discloses that after the transferring of the pattern from the resist, a stripping agent is used to remove the remains of the unwanted photoresist resin and its residue wherein the stripping agent is an aqueous TMAH and an oxidizing material such as hydrogen peroxide.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Okada by subjecting the patterned supporting material with SC1 treatment because Okada teaches the transferring of the resist pattern to the underlying underlayer and transferring of the underlayer pattern to the underlying supporting material and Okada does not prohibit SC1 treatment and Yamada teaches that the post lithographical resist is of no longer of use and can be removed easily by the claimed stripping agent, and Xu teaches the ammonium hydroxide/peroxide mixture is a known standard clean solution used to perform cleaning of silicon oxide coated substrates.
Claim(s) 8, and 32, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0166844 (hereinafter referred to as Okada) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0333709 (hereinafter referred to as Kori).
Okada is discussed in paragraph no. 7, above.
The difference between the claims and Okada is that Okada does not disclose the resist underlayer coating comprising the diimide and using the components to form the diimide as recited in claim 8, and 32.
Kori, in [0028]-[0031], [0105], [0128], [0139], discloses that the under film (underlayer, organic film) is formed using an imide compound that is then imidized wherein the imide compound is formed by a phthalic anhydride (monoanhydride) and a diamine (amine compound) and Kori, in [0157], discloses that the imide compound is formed by an amine compound and a phthalic anhydride, wherein the amine compound can be the claimed aniline such as 4,4’-oxydianiline (formula B2, on page 22) and the phthalic anhydride can be the claimed ethynyl phthalic anhydride (see [0261], structure (C1)).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Okada by employing the claimed components to form the composition for the underlayer as taught by Kori because Okada teaches using dianiline and an anhydride to form the diimide for the composition of a film forming material to produce an underlayer for the photoresist, and Kori in [0003], [0115], and [0139], teaches the amic acid compound formed by reacting the phthalic anhydride with the amine compound which is then imidized to form the polyimide organic underlayer wherein the organic underlayer possesses excellent heat resistance and dry etching resistance sufficient to process the underlying substrate for further processing.
Claim(s) 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0166844 (hereinafter referred to as Okada) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0207215 (hereinafter referred to as Xu) and Japanese Patent Publication No. 2004241602 (hereinafter referred to as Yamada) as applied to claims 2, 9-13, and 29 above, and further in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0333709 (hereinafter referred to as Kori).
Okada in view of Xu and Yamada is discussed in paragraph no. 9, above.
The difference between the claims and Okada in view of Xu and Yamada is that Okada in view of Xu and Yamada does not disclose the resist underlayer coating comprising the diimide and using the claimed components to form the diamide as recited in claim 15.
Kori, in [0028]-[0031], [0105], [0128], [0139], discloses that the under film (underlayer, organic film) is formed using an imide compound that is then imidized wherein the imide compound is formed by a phthalic anhydride (monoanhydride) and a diamine (amine compound) and Kori, in [0157], discloses that the imide compound is formed by an amine compound and a phthalic anhydride, wherein the amine compound can be the claimed aniline such as 4,4’-oxydianiline (formula B2, on page 22), and the phthalic anhydride can be the claimed ethynyl phthalic anhydride (see [0261], structure (C1)).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Okada in view of Xu and Yamada by employing the claimed components to form the composition for the underlayer as taught by Kori because Okada teaches using dianiline and an anhydride to form the diimide for the composition of a film forming material to produce an underlayer for the photoresist, and Kori in [0003], [0115], and [0139], teaches the amic acid compound formed by reacting the phthalic anhydride with the amine compound which is then imidized to form the polyimide organic underlayer wherein the organic underlayer possesses excellent heat resistance and dry etching resistance sufficient to process the underlying substrate for further processing.
Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0166844 (hereinafter referred to as Okada) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0269265 (hereinafter referred to as Shukla).
Okada is discussed in paragraph no. 7, above.
The difference between the claim and Okada is that Okada does not disclose the use of a dianhydride and a monoamine as recited in claim 50.
Shukla in [0001], discloses that diimide is formed from amic acid precursors, and Shukla in [0036], discloses adding an amine ([0108], monoamine) to the dianhydride solution and mixing the reactants to obtain an amic acid (diamic acid).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Okada by using the dianhydride with a monoamine to form the amic acid as taught by Shukla because Shukla teaches that the formed amic acid is then converted into diimide and used as a semiconducting organic layer and Okada does not prohibit the use of a monoamine or a dianhydride and Shukla teaches in [0068]-[0069], that the films of the amic acid converted to a diimide compound containing film form semiconducting layers for devices and exhibit high performance in both inert conditions and in air.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment and Remarks, filed November 14, 2025, and entered in the RCE filed January 2, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been maintained. With respect to applicant’s arguments that the diimide of Okada has maleimide groups as endcaps, and that the present invention uses diimides, as disclosed in the examples cited in the Remarks, i.e., the maleimide groups are internally within the molecule and that the endcaps are formed by the crosslinkable groups such as the anhydride or the monoamine, the instant claims do not recite the claimed diimide structure, and the instant claims do not prohibit the diimide formed from having maleimide groups as the endcaps. Also, the claims do not recite the diimide is endcapped with crosslinkable groups from the monoanhydride or that the claimed diimides possess an anhydride or amino endcapper. Okada teaches a film forming material that includes a diimide wherein the diimide is formed from a crosslinkable monoanhydride and a diamine, and is the same as that recited in the instant claims. With respect to the applicant’s arguments raised in the Declaration filed June 12, 2025, that Kori requires a two solvent system, nothing in the claims recite that the composition of the underlayer that comprises a diimide is a single solvent composition or that the reaction of the amine and the anhydride is in a single solvent, and the claims, as recited, do not limit the composition or the mixing of the amine and the anhydride in a single solvent. Kori is not dependent upon to disclose the solvent used in the underlayer composition. Also, Applicant’s remarks in the declaration that Kori’s diamine and monoanhydride is different than applicant’s specific amine and dianhydride cited in paragraph 5 of the declaration, the instant claims, specifically, claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, 29-30, 32, do not prohibit a diamine or a monoanhydride and recite as the component of the diimide formation the argued diamine and monoanhydride, and instant claims 8, 15, and 32 recite the same argued anhydride and diamines (taught and cited in the declaration as Kori’s) and therefore, the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daborah Chacko-Davis whose telephone number is (571) 272-1380. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30AM-6:00PM EST Mon-Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark F. Huff can be reached on (571) 272-1385. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. 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.
/DABORAH CHACKO-DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 January 10, 2026.