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 01/21/2026, the rejections have been updated below.
Claim Status
Claims 1-15, 21-24, and 26 are under consideration.
Claims 16-20 and 25 are cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/21/2026 has been entered.
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, 4, 6-7, 11, 14-15, 21, 23-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodner (US20040086809A1, published 2004) in view of Kobayashi (US20080241736A1, published 2008).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 11, and 21,
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 or acid analog (such as PAG, TAG, PBG, and TBG) may be added to the resist release layer to modify (diffuse an acid and/or base into) the overlying resist layer [0015].
Goodner is silent to examples of thermal acid generators (TAG).
Kobayashi, analogous art, teaches a resist composition comprising of a copolymer comprising recurring units containing a carboxylic acid ammonium salt with the following general formula (1) [claims 1-2], which may be used with an overlying protective coating [0037], thus functioning as an underlayer.
PNG
media_image1.png
280
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kobayashi teaches an example recurring unit as shown below [0038], their R2 may be a C2 alkyl group which may contain an ester group [0022], where the carboxylic acid anion R2COO− includes mono-anions of dicarboxylic acids [0039].
PNG
media_image2.png
158
84
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would be readily envisioned by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the mono-anions of dicarboxylic acids would include a mono-anion of malonic acid, aligning with the instantly claimed TAG group shown below, reading on instant claims 1, 4, 11, and 21.
PNG
media_image3.png
59
178
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As both Goodner and Kobayashi teach resist film forming compositions for use with an overlying film, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using the polymeric TAG of Kobayashi as the TAG of Goodner would result in a comparable and expected resist underlayer film.
That is, the substitution of the TAG of Kobayashi for the TAG 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).
Regarding claims 6-7, 14-15, 23-24, and 26,
The instant claims do not affirmatively require a PAG group. The examiner maintains that Goodner in view of Kobayashi renders these claims 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 Kobayashi (US20080241736A1, published 2008) 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].
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.
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 acid and/or 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].
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].
Claim 5-7, 14-15, 23-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodner (US20040086809A1, published 2004) in view of Kobayashi (US20080241736A1, published 2008) as applied to claims 1, 11, and 21 above, and further in view of Ohashi (US20100099042A1, published 2010).
Regarding claim 5-7, 14-15, 23-24, and 26,
Goodner et al. teach the above limitations set forth.
Goodner teaches photoacid generators are commonly added to photoresists [0020].
Goodner fails to teach a polymer with a pendant PAG group.
Ohashi, analogous art, teaches a resist composition comprising of a polymer derived from a sulfonium salt monomer and capable of generating a sulfonic acid in response to high-energy radiation or heat [0002], where the monomer has the following structure [0034].
PNG
media_image4.png
211
177
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ohashi teaches the cation may be triphenyl sulfonium (aligning with the following instantly claimed PAG) or hydroxyphenyldiphenyl sulfonium [0059], reading on instant claims 6-7, 14-15, 24, and 26.
PNG
media_image5.png
102
112
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ohashi also teaches that it is appreciated that the polymerizable anion-containing sulfonium salts of formula (1) are merely illustrative, and iodonium salts or ammonium salts having such a polymerizable anion may be synthesized by the same method as the invention and equally applicable to the polymer, resist composition and pattern-forming process to be described later [0062], including illustrative non-limiting examples of the iodonium cation include diphenyliodonium [0063], aligning with the following instantly claimed PAG, reading on instant claims 5-7, 14-15, 23-24, and 26.
PNG
media_image6.png
70
82
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Ohashi also teaches the ammonium salt having the specific polymerizable anion and a polymer having the ammonium salt in recurring units may be used as a thermal acid generator [0063], similar to the pendant TAG taught by Kobayashi, and clearly teaching polymers comprising of both pendant TAGs and pendant PAGs.
Ohashi teaches their sulfonium salt is quite useful as a monomer for producing a base resin in a radiation-sensitive resist composition. Then, a radiation-sensitive resist composition comprising the polymer as a base resin exhibits a high resolution and is improved in pattern density dependency and exposure margin. The polymer is advantageously used as a resist material in precise micropatterning [0047].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try using the pendant PAG group of Ohashi with the polymer comprising of a pendant TAG group of Goodner in view of Kobayashi for the benefits taught by Ohashi.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments filed 01/21/2026 with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The above rejections have been updated accordingly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20170260132 A1 teaches an oligomeric (polymeric) photoinitiator aligning with the instant polymer with a pendant PBG group.
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, Mark 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.
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
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights