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 .
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-9, 11-20 are pending. Applicant’s previous election of Group I, and the species explained below, claims 1, 3, 6, 8-9, 13-18 still applies. Claims 11-12, 19 (non-elected method claim) and 20 (non-elected species because it excludes the formula 3 species) are withdrawn.
Applicant previously elected the following species but has amended the claims to preclude this species and therefore examination is extended to cyanoethyltriethoxysilane as the elected formula (1) species (the species for formula 2 and 3 remain unchanged).
PNG
media_image1.png
279
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/28/26 has been entered.
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 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.
If 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
When something is indicated as being “obvious” this should be taken as shorthand for “prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the invention”.
When a range is indicated as overlapping a claimed range, unless otherwise noted, this should be taken as short hand to indicate that the claimed range is obvious in view of the overlapping range in the prior art as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 8-9, 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibayama et al. (U.S. 2017/0153549) in view of Konno et al. (U.S. 2009/0050020) in view of Nakajima et al. (U.S. 2010/0330505).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, 8-9, 13-18, Shibayama teaches a film forming composition (inherently film forming) for forming a resist underlayer (underlayer because subsequent coatings can be applied over the layer) for EUV lithography (300 nm wavelength or less, [0189], though this intended use is not given patentable weight), that comprises a hydrolysis condensate of the same repeating units as in Formula 1, 2 and/or 3 (e.g., “at least one of” the silanes of formula 2 and 3, such as cyanoethyltriethoxysilane, methyltrimethoxysilane, tetraethoxysilane, methylenebistrimethoxysilane, also see formula 2-1 through 2-22, pages 18-22, including multiple embodiment showing a combination of tetralkoxysilane monomers and alkyltrialkoxysilane monomers) and overlapping the first, second and third elected species (as in claims 1, 3, and 18), and teaches that hydrolysis and condensation of the silane monomers (as in claim 16) to produce the polysiloxane may be performed with, e.g., nitric acid (as in claim 6, although this is an immaterial product by process limitation anyway), and also teaches that water (inherently a solvent) and alcohol/maleic acid may be added to the resist composition, as in claims 1, 13-15, to stabilize the polysiloxane polymer as well as a ph adjuster (acid generator) and surfactant as in claims 8 and 9 (see abstract, [0011]-[0014], [0033], [0056], [0058], [0070], [0098]-[0101]).
Shibayama does not disclose the claimed amount of cyanosilane compound, however, Konno is also directed to silicone based resist underlayer films and teaches that such cyanosilane compounds provide adhesion and tetralkoxysilane compounds provide mask resistance (see abstract, [0035]-[0037]) such that the amounts of these compounds would be obvious to adjust including to values within the claimed range (of claims 1 and 17) and the present disclosure as part of optimizing the adhesion and mask resistance in Shiabayama as taught by Konno.
Shibayama does not disclose a particular motivation for the amount of the bis trialkoxysilane monomers. However, Nakajima is also directed to resist compositions based on siloxane polymers bearing cyano groups and teaches that the same type of monomers (i.e., alkylene bis trialkoxysilane monomers) may be included to provide good resist shape (see abstract, [0081], [0085], [0086]). Thus, it would have been obvious to have adjusted the amount of the monomers of Formula 3 in Shibayama, including to values within the range in the present disclosure, because Nakajima teaches that such monomers provide good resist shape.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
References cited in any corresponding foreign applications have been considered but would be cumulative to the above. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B NELSON whose direct telephone number is (571)272-9886 and whose direct fax number is (571)273-9886 and whose email address is Michael.Nelson@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sat, 7am - 7pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 (faxes sent to this number will take longer to reach the examiner than faxes sent to the direct fax number above).
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL B NELSON/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights