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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 March 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, line 9, filed 12 February 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 29-30 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; have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in further view of Nozaki et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2005/0269290 A1), hereinafter Nozaki.
3. Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, line 9, filed 12 February 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 17-21, 23-28, and 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 Claim 17 overcome the rejection of record. The amendment to Claim 17 limits the ratios np1, np2, np3, and np4 of their respective repeating units (P-1), (P-2), (P-3), and (P-4) of polymer P of the present application. Broadly, these respective ratios are taught by the prior art, but more specifically the exemplary Polymer A of Suzuki consists of 60% hydroxystyrene, 20% styrene, and 20% t-butyl acrylate (Paragraph [0102]). Hydroxystyrene is within the scope of repeating unit (P-1) of the present application, styrene is within the scope of repeating unit (P-2) of the present application, t-butyl acrylate is within the scope of repeating unit (P-4) of the present application, and there is no repeating unit within the scope of repeating unit (P-3) of the present application. Thus, np1 is 0.6, np2 is 0.2, np3 is 0, and np4 is 0.2, which is within the scope of the further limitations of Claim 17 of the present application. The prior art, specifically Liu, teaches Polymer Q of the present application. 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). The prior art teaches a mixture of Polymers P and Q of the present application and thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that this would, at minimum, teaches a 1:1 ratio of Polymers P:Q and that ratio falls in the middle of the very broadly claimed ratios of respective masses of Polymers P and Q compared to their combined mass.
4. 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, only four exemplary examples of Polymer Q in the ten working example compositions of the present application. Furthermore, only one exemplary example of Polymer P (P1), one acid generator (B1), one dissolution inhibitor (C1), one solvent mixture, and one plasticizer (F1) is used in all ten working example compositions of the present application. Suffice to say, the objective evidence is not commensurate in scope with the claims of the present application. Indeed, it’s worth noting that both the exemplary polymer P, i.e. P1, of the present application appears to be identical to the exemplary polymer taught by Suzuki, therein Polymer A in Paragraph [0102], i.e. 60:20:20 hydroxystyrene:styrene:t-butyl acrylate.
5. Furthermore, Applicant argues that Liu is incompatible to Suzuki. Applicant argues that Liu teaches a novolak polymer AND a polymer comprising meth(acrylate) repeating unit further comprising an acid-cleavable moiety. Applicant argues “it's highly unlikely that a person skilled in the art pays attention to the novolak resin only, which is a piece of the indispensable combination, and tries to combine it with the technical feature of Suzuki.” The present application teaches a meth(acrylate) repeating unit comprising an acid-cleavable moiety, i.e. (P-4). Indeed, both the present application and Suzuki teach the same exemplary polymer P, which is a polymer comprising an acrylate repeating unit further comprising an acid-cleavable moiety, i.e. t-butyl acrylate. For all said reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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:
7. 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.
8. Claims 17, 19-21, 23-28, and 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, in view of Liu et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2019/0064662 A1), hereinafter Liu.
9. Regarding Claims 17, 19-21 and 23-31, Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0022-0031 and 0102]) 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. Both the exemplary polymer P, i.e. P1, of the present application appears to be identical to the exemplary polymer taught by Suzuki, therein Polymer A in Paragraph [0102], i.e. 60:20:20 hydroxystyrene:styrene:t-butyl acrylate. 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 0.5 to 10 mass% based on the total mass of the composition. Further, Suzuki teaches (Paragraph [0033]) 100 to 900 mass% based on the total mass of the polymer (A). Thus, Suzuki teaches a minimum content of the acid generator of 0.5/100 composition, wherein the composition is otherwise 50:50 polymer:solvent, and thus 0.5/50 which equals 1.0 mass% content of the acid generator based on the total mass of the polymer (A). Furthermore, Suzuki teaches a maximum content of the acid generator of 10/100 composition, wherein the composition is otherwise 10:90 polymer:solvent, and thus 10/10 which equals 100 mass% content of the acid generator based on the total mass of the polymer (A). This overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1-10.0 mass% based on the total mass of the polymer (A). 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 0.5 to 40 mass% based on the total mass of the polymer (A) and more preferably 1 to 20 mass% based on the total mass of the polymer (A). This overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 20 mass% based on the total mass of the polymer (A). Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0032-0033]) the content of the solvent is
100 solvent/(100 solvent + 100 polymer (A) + 20 acid generator) = 100/220 or 45.45% to 900 solvent/(900 solvent + 100 polymer (A) + 5 acid generator) = 900/1005 or 89.55%. This range falls entirely within the claimed range of 40 to 90 mass% of solvent based on the total mass of the composition. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0068-0071]) the content of the basic compound is 0 to 2 mass% based on the total mass of the polymer and more preferably 0.01 to 1 mass% based on the total mass of the polymer. This overlaps with the claimed range of 0 to 1 mass% of the basic compound based on the total mass of the polymer (A). Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0090-0100]) is a positive type resist composition forming reverse tapered shape, given that this is a non-limiting intended use claim element. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0090-0100]) a positive type lift-off resist composition, given that this is a non-limiting intended use claim element. 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 0.9 to 15 µm. This overlaps with the claimed range of 1 to 50 µm of the film thickness of the resist pattern. Suzuki teaches (Paragraphs [0090-0100]) manufacturing a resist pattern.
10. 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%. Furthermore, Suzuki (alone) fails to explicitly teach the viscosity of the composition is 50 to 2,000 cP at 25°C.
11. 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]) 0-60% p-cresol, which is within the scope of the (Q-1b) repeating unit of the present application and 0-20% o-cresol, which is within the scope of the (Q-1a) repeating unit of the present application. 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 Nqd that is the number of the repeating unit of (Q-1d) of the present application, Liu thus teaches a Nqa / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd) between 0 and 60% and Nqb / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd) between 0 and 20%. While Liu teaches the possibility of phenol, which is within the scope of the (Q-1c) repeating unit of the present application, and xylenols, which are within the scope of the (Q-1d) repeating unit of the present application, their inclusion into the polymer is optional and thus, the limitations of Nqc / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd)=0% and Nqd / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd)=0% are met. The range of values of Nqa / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd) and Nqb / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd) taught by Liu overlaps with the claimed ranges of 30% ≤ Nqa / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd) ≤ 100%; 0% ≤ Nqb / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd) ≤ 70%. Liu teaches (Paragraph [0006]) such novolac polymer composition does not have photosensitivity problems that other polymer compositions have.
12. 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 Nqd that is the number of the repeating unit of (Q-1d) of the present application; 30% ≤ Nqa / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd) ≤ 60%; 0% ≤ Nqb / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd) ≤ 20%; Nqc / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd) = 0%; and Nqd / (Nqa + Nqb + Nqc + Nqd) = 0%. Doing so would result in a photosensitive composition without the photosensitivity problems that other polymer compositions have, as recognized by Liu.
13. Suzuki in view of Liu teaches a combination of the Polymer P of the present application and the Polymer Q of the present application and thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that this would, at minimum, that their teaching in combination would teach a 1:1 ratio of Polymers P:Q. Or put alternatively that provided that the total mass of the polymer P 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 Q comprising a repeating unit represented by the formula (Q-1) of the present application is (Mq), Suzuki in view of Liu, at minimum, teaches Mp/(Mp+Mq) = 50%; and Mq/(Mp+Mq) = 50%, which falls in the middle of the very broadly claimed ratios of respective masses of Polymers P and Q of 0 < Mp/(Mp+Mq) ≤ 90%; and 10 ≤ Mq/(Mp+Mq) ≤70%.
14. Suzuki in view of Liu teach all limitations, including structural limitations, of Claim 17 of the present application. Claim 23 further has the limitation: “The composition of claim 17, wherein the viscosity of the composition is 50 to 2,000 cP at 25°C.” A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. MPEP § 2144.09(I) states: "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).” Herein, Suzuki in view of Liu teaches all limitations of the composition of Claim 17 of the present application, thus a prima facie case for obviousness is made for said composition possessing the claimed viscosities of Claim 23 of the present application.
15. 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.
16. Regarding Claim 22, Suzuki in 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 in view of Liu fails to explicitly teach the acid generator is represented by the formula (b) of the present application.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Claims 29-30 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, in view of Liu et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2019/0064662 A1), hereinafter Liu, and in further view of Nozaki et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2005/0269290 A1), hereinafter Nozaki.
20. Regarding Claims 29-30, Suzuki in further view of Liu teaches all limitations of Claim 26 above. However, Suzuki in view of Liu fails to explicitly teach depositing metal above a substrate using the resist pattern as a mask. Furthermore, Suzuki in view of Liu fails to explicitly teach removing the resist pattern with a remover. Furthermore, Suzuki in view of Liu fails to explicitly teach the film thickness of said metal pattern is 0.01 to 40 µm.
21. Nozaki teaches (Paragraphs [0140-0141], Figs. 15 A-D) depositing metal above a substrate using the resist pattern as a mask. Nozaki teaches (Paragraph [0142], Figs. 15 A-D) removing the resist pattern with a remover. Nozaki teaches (Paragraphs [0140-0141], Figs. 15 A-D) the film thickness of said metal pattern is 3.06 µm, 0.01 µm Ti + 0.05 µm Cu + 3.0 µm Cu. Nozaki teaches (Paragraph [0143]) the resulting metal pattern is capable of serving as magnetic heads
22. 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 Nozaki depositing metal above a substrate using the resist pattern as a mask; removing the resist pattern with a remover; and the film thickness of said metal pattern is 3.06 µm. Doing so would result the capacity to fabricate a pattern of magnetic heads, as recognized by Nozaki.
Conclusion
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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).
26. 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.
/RICHARD DAVID CHAMPION/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights