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 .
Amendment to the claims was submitted on 05/18/2026, the rejections have been updated below.
Claim Status
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15, 21-24, and 26-28 are under consideration.
Claims 5, 14, 16-20, and 25 are cancelled.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 11, 15, 21, 23-24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodner (US20040086809A1, published 2004) in view of Kunimoto (US 20170260132 A1, published 2017).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 11, 15, 21, 24, and 26-28,
Goodner teaches forming an antireflective coating or resist release layer 14 (underlayer, bottom layer, first layer) with an overlying photoresist layer 16 [0013, fig 1]. Goodner teaches the photoresist is subsequently exposed and developed to form a trench (pattern) [0017].
Goodner teaches a base analog (such as a PBG and TBG, quencher) may be added to the resist release layer to modify (diffuse an acid and/or base into) the overlying resist layer [0015, 0019, 0023], reading on instant claim 28.
Goodner fails to teach examples of photobase generators aligning with those listed in the instant claims.
Kunimoto, analogous art, teaches polymerizable compositions for use in anti-reflective films and photoresist materials [0281]. Kunimoto teaches their compositions include a photoinitiator which may be oligomeric alpha amino ketones [0196, 0198]. While silent to examples of oligomeric alpha amino ketones, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a commercially available oligomeric alpha amino ketone photoinitiator such as Omnipol 910 (with the following structure, as exemplified by http://www.sellchems.com/products/uv-photoinitiators/cas-886463-10-1/), containing phenyl groups (sensitizer cores), reading on instant claims 1, 6, 11, 15, 21, 24, and 26.
As both Goodner and Kunimoto teach photosensitive film forming compositions which may be used to form anti-reflective films, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using the polymeric alpha aminoketone of Kunimoto as the PBG of Goodner would result in a comparable and expected resist underlayer film.
That is, the substitution of the photoinitiator of Kunimoto for the PBG of Goodner, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of forming an underlayer film capable of modifying an adjacent photoresist layer. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Although silent to the kPb of the base generated from the PBG, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the generated amine group would be expected to have a pKb of less than 13, reading on instant claim 27.
Regarding claim 7,
The instant claims do not affirmatively require a proton source functional group. The examiner maintains that Goodner in view of Kunimoto renders this claim obvious.
Regarding claim 23,
The instant claims do not affirmatively require a TBG, where the non-elected TBG group may contain the element selected from the instant group. The examiner maintains that Goodner in view of Kunimoto renders this claim obvious.
Claims 2-3, 8-10, 12-13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodner (US20040086809A1, published 2004) in view of Kunimoto (US 20170260132 A1, published 2017) as applied to claims 1, 11, and 21 above, and further in view of Pavelcheck (US20030008237A1, published 2003).
Regarding claim 2, 12 and 22,
Goodner is silent to heating their resist release layer prior to forming their photoresist layer.
Pavelcheck, analogous art, teaches curing (heating) their antireflective coating prior to forming a photoresist layer [0058], including an example of baking their antireflective coating at 175°C [0074], reading on instant claims 2, 12, and 22.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to bake the resist release layer 14 of Goodner prior to forming a photoresist layer as taught by Pavelcheck in order to evaporate a solvent in order to form an antireflective coating. Pavelcheck further teaches cure conditions preferably render the antireflective composition coating layer substantially insoluble to the photoresist solvent as well as an alkaline aqueous developer solution [0058].
Regarding claims 3 and 9-10,
Goodner teaches photoacid generators are commonly added to photoresists [0020].
Goodner is silent to the remaining composition of their photoresist layer.
Pavelcheck teaches their antireflective coating for use with photoresists sensitive to wavelengths 248nm and 193nm [0016], reading on instant claim 3.
Pavelcheck teaches photoresists containing polymers with acid labile groups [0021] and a solvent [0059], reading on instant claims 9-10.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the arts to use a photoresist composition as taught by Pavelcheck with the method of Goodner, as both teach antireflective coatings for use with overlying photoresists.
That is, the substitution of the photoresist of Pavelcheck for the photoresist of Goodner, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of forming a photoresist layer. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Regarding claim 13,
Goodner is silent to forming a target layer over the substrate prior to forming their resist release layer 14.
Pavelcheck teaches their substrate may be suitably any substrate used in processes involving photoresists. For example, the substrate can be silicon, silicon dioxide or aluminum-aluminum oxide microelectronic wafers. Gallium arsenide, silicon carbide, ceramic, quartz or copper substrates may also be employed. Substrates for liquid crystal display or other flat panel display applications are also suitably employed, for example glass substrates, indium tin oxide coated substrates and the like. Substrates for optical and optical-electronic devices (e.g. waveguides) also can be employed [0057]. This would include substrates with at least one overlying coating (target layer).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the arts that a coated substrate as taught by Pavelcheck with function comparably and expectedly as the substrate of Goodner, reading on instant claim 13.
That is, the substitution of the coated substrate of Pavelcheck for the substrate of Goodner, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of forming an underlayer coating onto a substrate. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Regarding claim 8,
Goodner is silent to the wt.% of their base generator in their resist release layer forming composition.
Pavelcheck teaches that the solid components of their antireflective coating comprises of 0.5-20 wt.% of the total weight of their composition [0045], reading on instant claim 8.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the arts that the composition of Goodner may contain a similar wt.% of solid components to ensure a liquid coating composition as taught by Pavelcheck [0045].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 with respect to the previous 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive, particularly in view of the new claim amendments. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kunimoto.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4 discloses that the polymer having a pendant PBG, or PBG and TBG, is formed from one of the instantly claimed monomers.
A search did not find the claimed invention.
The closest prior art Goodner et al. teaches a similar method and composition as disclosed in the above rejection.
However, Goodner fails to teach that the polymer having a pendant PBG, or PBG and TBG, is formed from at least one of the instantly claimed monomers.
Neither Goodner nor the prior art in general provide sufficient motivation to make it obvious to modify their composition and/or method to arrive at the instantly claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2261. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5:30 EST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at (571) 272-3458. 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.
/A.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights