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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, line 8, filed 21 October 2024, with respect to the rejection of Claims 17-21 and 23-31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Suzuki et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2019/0339614 A1), hereinafter Suzuki, and in further view of Liu et al. United States Patent Publication No. US 2019/0064662 A1), hereinafter Liu; and Claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Suzuki et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2019/0339614 A1), hereinafter Suzuki, and in further view of Liu et al. United States Patent Publication No. US 2019/0064662 A1), hereinafter Liu, and in further view of Kawamura et al. United States Patent Publication No. US 2016/0291464 A1), hereinafter Kawamura; have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments of Claims 17 and 18 overcome the rejection of record. The amendment to Claim 17 further limits the high end of the range of the mass of polymer P of the present application in relation to the total mass of Polymers P and Q of the present application from 100% to 90% and further limits the low end of the range of the mass of polymer Q of the present application in relation to the total mass of Polymers P and Q of the present application from 0% to 10%. The prior art, specifically Liu, teaches Polymer Q of the present application, See Paragraph #6 of the Office Action dated 21 June 2024. When faced with a mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed amount, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969) (See MPEP § 2143). With regards to Claim 18 of the present application, Applicant’s amendment further limiting the low end of the molar ratio of (Q-1b) from 0% to 10%. Liu teaches (Paragraph [0049]) 0%-60% p-cresol in synthesizing novolak polymers and thus there is significant overlapping in the range between that taught by Liu and that claimed by the present application.
2. Applicant further argues the present application found unexpected results not appreciated by the prior art. The claims permit an exponential number of polymeric possibilities with regards to Polymers P and Q of the present application, to say nothing of the very broadly limited acid generator and the very broadly limited dissolution rate modifier. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 716.02. The working examples of the present application all use the same acid generator and the same dissolution rate modifier. Furthermore, Polymer Q is the same in four of the ten working examples. Suffice to say, the objective evidence is not commensurate in scope with the claims of the present application. For all said reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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:
5. 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.
6. Claims 17-21 and 23-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Suzuki et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2019/0339614 A1), hereinafter Suzuki, and in further view of Liu et al. United States Patent Publication No. US 2019/0064662 A1), hereinafter Liu.
7. Regarding Claims 17-21 and 23-31, Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0022-0031]) at least one polymer selected from the group consisting of a polymer comprising a repeating unit selected from the group consisting of the formulae (P-1) to (P-4) of the present application. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0034-0066]) an acid generator having an imide group. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0080-0082]) a dissolution rate modifier, which is a compound in which two or more of phenol structures are bonded by a hydrocarbon group, therein a contrast enhancer. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0032-0033]) a solvent. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0068-0071]) a basic compound. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0034-0066]) the content of the acid generator is 0.1 to 10.0 mass% based on the total mass of the polymer. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0022-0031]) the content of the polymer is 10 to 50 mass% based on the total mass of the composition. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0080-0082]) the content of the dissolution rate modifier is 0.1 to 20 mass% based on the total mass of the polymer. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0032-0033]) the content of the solvent is 40 to 90 mass% based on the total mass of the composition. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0068-0071]) the content of the basic compound is 0 to 1.0 mass% based on the total mass of the polymer. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0034-0066]) the viscosity of said composition is 50 to 2,000 cP at 25°C. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0090-0100]) is a positive type resist composition forming reverse tapered shape. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0090-0100]) a positive type lift-off resist composition. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0090-0100]) applying the composition above a substrate. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0090-0100]) heating the composition to form a resist layer. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0090-0100]) exposing the resist layer. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0090-0100]) subjecting the resist layer to post exposure bake. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0090-0100]) developing said resist layer. Suzuki teaches (Paragraph [0095]) the film thickness of said resist pattern is 1 to 15 µm. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0090-0100]) manufacturing a resist pattern. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0090-0100]) depositing metal above a substrate using the resist pattern as a mask. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0090-0100]) removing the resist pattern with a remover. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0090-0100]) the film thickness of said metal pattern is 0.01 to 40 µm.
8. However, Suzuki fails to explicitly teach a polymer comprising a repeating unit represented by the formula (Q-1) of the present application. Furthermore, Suzuki fails to explicitly teach that provided that the total mass of the polymer comprising a repeating unit selected from the group consisting of the formulae (P-1) to (P-4) of the present application is (Mp) and the total mass of the polymer comprising a repeating unit represented by the formula (Q-1) of the present application is (Mq), 0 < Mp/(Mp+Mq) ≤ 90%; and 10 ≤ Mq/(Mp+Mq) ≤70%. Furthermore, Suzuki fails to explicitly teach wherein, Nqa that is the number of the repeating unit of (Q-1a) of the present application, Nqb that is the number of the repeating unit of (Q-1b) of the present application, Nqc that is the number of the repeating unit of (Q-1c) of the present application, and Nqa that is the number of the repeating unit of (Q-1d) of the present application; 30%< Nqa / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd)< 100%; 10%< Nq3 / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd)< 70%; 0%< Nqc / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd)< 50%; and 0%<Nqd / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd)< 70%.
9. Liu teaches (Paragraphs [0048-0051]) a polymer comprising a repeating unit represented by the formula (Q-1) of the present application. Liu teaches (Paragraphs [0048-0051]) that provided that the total mass of the polymer comprising a repeating unit selected from the group consisting of the formulae (P-1) to (P-4) of the present application is (Mp) and the total mass of the polymer comprising a repeating unit represented by the formula (Q-1) of the present application is (Mq), 0 < Mp/(Mp+Mq) ≤ 90%; and 10 ≤ Mq/(Mp+Mq) ≤70%. Liu teaches (Paragraphs [0048-0051]) wherein Nqa that is the number of the repeating unit of (Q-1a) of the present application, Nqb that is the number of the repeating unit of (Q-1b) of the present application, Nqc that is the number of the repeating unit of (Q-1c) of the present application, and Nqa that is the number of the repeating unit of (Q-1d) of the present application; 30%< Nqa / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd)< 100%; 10%< Nq3 / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd)< 70%; 0%< Nqc / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd)< 50%; and 0%<Nqd / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd)< 70%. Liu teaches (Paragraph [0006]) such novolac polymer composition does not have photosensitivity problems that other polymer compositions have.
10. 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 Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Liu wherein a polymer comprising a repeating unit represented by the formula (Q-1) of the present application; that provided that the total mass of the polymer comprising a repeating unit selected from the group consisting of the formulae (P-1) to (P-4) of the present application is (Mp) and the total mass of the polymer comprising a repeating unit represented by the formula (Q-1) of the present application is (Mq), 0 < Mp/(Mp+Mq) ≤ 100%; 0 ≤ Mq/(Mp+Mq) < 70%; and 10 ≤ Mq/(Mp+Mq) ≤60%;wherein Nqa that is the number of the repeating unit of (Q-1a) of the present application, Nqb that is the number of the repeating unit of (Q-1b) of the present application, Nqc that is the number of the repeating unit of (Q-1c) of the present application, and Nqa that is the number of the repeating unit of (Q-1d) of the present application; 0%< Nqc / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd)< 50%; and 0%<Nqd / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd)< 70%. Doing so would result in a photosensitive composition without the photosensitivity problems that other polymer compositions have, as recognized by Liu.
11. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Suzuki et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2019/0339614 A1), hereinafter Suzuki, and in further view of Liu et al. United States Patent Publication No. US 2019/0064662 A1), hereinafter Liu, and in further view of Kawamura et al. United States Patent Publication No. US 2016/0291464 A1), hereinafter Kawamura.
12. Regarding Claim 22, Suzuki in further view of Liu teaches all limitations of Claim 18 above. Furthermore, Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0080-0082]) the dissolution rate modifier represented by the formula (c) of the present application. Furthermore, Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0068-0071]) the basic compound is selected from a group consisting of ammonia, C1-16 primary aliphatic amine, C2-32 secondary aliphatic amine, C3-48 tertiary aliphatic amine, C6-30 aromatic amine, C5-30 heterocyclic amine, and any derivatives thereof. Furthermore, Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0083-0088]) a plasticizer comprising a structural unit represented by the formula (f-1) of the present application. However, Suzuki fails to explicitly teach the acid generator is represented by the formula (b) of the present application.
13. Kawamura teaches (Paragraphs [0163-0210], particularly Paragraph [0190]) the acid generator is represented by the formula (b) of the present application. Kawamura teaches (Paragraph [0404]) resist compositions comprising said acid generator are capable of achieving a resist pattern with excellent shape and high resolution.
14. 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 Suzuki in further view of Liu to incorporate the teachings of Kawamura wherein the acid generator is represented by the formula (b) of the present application. Doing so would result a resist pattern with excellent shape and high resolution, as recognized by Kawamura.
Conclusion
15. 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).
16. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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).
20. 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
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786