DETAILED ACTION
Claims 12-26 and 28 are pending. Claims 12 and 21 have been amended and claims 1-11 and 27 were previously canceled.
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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 18, 2025 has been entered.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 12-25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (JP2004020933). Translation previously provided.
Takahashi et al. teaches a negative resist composition contains (A) a compound capable of generating an acid upon irradiation with an actinic ray or radiation, (B) a crosslinking agent capable of crosslinking by an acid, (C) an alkali-soluble resin having a repeating unit represented by general formula (I) as a constituent component, and (D) an alkali-soluble resin having a structural unit derived from vinylphenol [0008]. Takahashi et al. also teaches specific examples (C-1) to (C-16) of the alkali-soluble resin (C) for use in the present invention are set forth below, but the present invention is not limited thereto. In addition, the ratio of repeating units, the mass average molecular weight Mw, and the dispersity are also described, but the present invention is not limited thereto [0035] such as the following (C-15):
PNG
media_image1.png
131
401
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[00038] which is equivalent to alkali soluble resin (A1) of instant claim 12 when R11 is hydrogen, R12 is hydrogen, m11 is 2 where each R13 is a C1 alkoxy, n11 is 1, R14 is hydrogen, R15 is hydrogen, and m12 is 0 wherein [pA1/(pA1+qA1+rA1)] is 70%, [qA1/(pA1+qA1+rA1)] is 30%, and [rA1/(pA1+qA1+rA1) is 0% except the weight average molecular weight is 4,000 instead of the instantly claimed 8,000 to 100,000. However, Takahashi et al. teaches the weight-average molecular weight (Mw) of the alkali-soluble polymer (C) of the present invention is preferably 3,000-1,000,000, more preferably 3,000-500,000, particularly preferably 3,000-100,000 [0031] which overlaps the instantly claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "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) (claims 12 and 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the molecular weight of resin (C-15) through routine experimentation and arrive at the instant claims with a reasonable expectation of success.
Takahashi et al. further teaches specific examples (D-1) to (D-8) of the alkali-soluble resin (D) for use in the present invention are set forth below, but the present invention is not limited thereto. In addition, the ratio of repeating units, the mass average molecular weight Mw, and the dispersity are also described, but the present invention is not limited thereto [0083] such as the following (D-1):
PNG
media_image2.png
117
317
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0084] which is equivalent to an alkali-soluble resin (A2) of instant claim 12 when R21 is hydrogen, R22 is hydrogen, m21 is 0, and n21 is 1 wherein [pA2/(pA2+rA2)] is 100% and [rA2/(pA2+rA2)] is 0% having a molecular weight of 8,000 (claim 22). When the resin (C-15) is modified to have a molecular weight of at least 8,000, the combined molecular weight of (A1) resin and (A2) resin overlaps the instantly claimed range of 2,000 to 100,000 for resin (A) (claim 20). Takahashi et al. also teaches a specific example of (A) includes the following (A1-28):
PNG
media_image3.png
295
392
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[0125] which is equivalent to photo acid generator (B1) onium salt of instant claim 12 represented by Formula (B1), where Bm+ cation is represented by formula (B1)-C1 when m=1, m31-m33 are 1, R31-R33 are C2 alkoxyl, and Bm- anion is represented by formula (B1)-A1 when m41=1 and R41 is C4 alkyl substituted by halogen. Takahashi et al. further teaches the negative resist composition of the present invention is dissolved in a solvent capable of dissolving the above-described components and applied onto a support. The solvents used herein include ethylene dichloride, cyclohexane, cyclopentanone, 2-heptanone, γ-butyrolactone, methylethyl ketone, ethylene glycol monomethyl ether, ethylene glycol monoethyl ether 2-methoyethyl acetate, ethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetates, propylene glycol monomethyl ethers, propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetates, toluene, ethyl acetates, methyl lactate, ethyl lactate, methyl methoxypropionate ethyl ethoxypropionate, methyl pyruvate, ethyl pyruvate, propyl pyruvate, N,N-dimethylformamide, dimethylsulfoxide, N-methylpyrrolidone, tetrahydrofuran and the like are preferable, and these solvents are used alone or as a mixture. Particularly preferred solvents are propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate and a mixed solvent of propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate / propylene glycol monomethyl ether [0175] (claims 13 and 14). Takahashi et al. also teaches the amount of the alkali-soluble resin (C) having a repeating unit of the general formula (I) used in the present invention is 20 to 95% by mass, and preferably 40 to 90% by mass, based on the total mass of the resist composition (excluding the solvent) [0034] and the amount of the resin (D) added is in the range of 30 to 95% by mass, preferably 40 to 90% by mass, more preferably 50 to 80% by mass, based on the total solid content of the composition [0080], the amount of the acid generator to be added is 0.001 to 40 mass%, preferably from 0.01 to 20 mass%, more preferably from 0.1 to 5 mass%, based on the solid content in the composition [0161], and the crosslinking agent is used in an amount of 3 to 70% by weight, preferably 5 to 50% by weight, based on the total solid content of the resist composition [0112] which overlaps the instantly claimed mass ratio of 5-50 mass% for the (A) alkali soluble resin, the mass ratio of 1-20 mass% for the (B) photo acid generator, the mass ratio of 1-20 mass% for the (D) crosslinker, and mass ratio of 30-94 mass% for the (C) solvent (claims 15, 16, and 19). Takahashi et al. further teaches the present invention will be described in more detail with reference to Examples, but the content of the present invention is not limited thereto [0181] and an object of the present invention is to solve the problems inherent in the technology for improving the performance of microfabrication using radiation such as actinic rays, electron beams or X-rays, and to provide a chemically amplified negative resist composition having excellent isolation (resolution) with respect to the use of actinic rays or radiation [0007].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the specific teachings of Takahashi et al. to include additional compositions comprising the above components through routine experimentation of combining equally suitable components for the sought invention in order to achieve optimum resolution.
With regard to claims 17-19 and 28, Takahashi et al. teaches particularly preferred examples of the crosslinking agent (B1) include compounds represented by formulae (2) to (4) and alkoxymethylated melamine compounds [0095] and specific examples of the compounds represented by Formulae (2) to (4) and the alkoxymethylated melamine compound are shown below, but the present invention is not limited thereto [0097] such as the following compound (B-20):
PNG
media_image4.png
234
433
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[0099] which is equivalent to a melamine crosslinker (D1) of instant claims 17 and 18 when each R63 and R64 are -NR61R62 and each R61 and R62 are C2 alkoxylalkyl. Takahashi et al. also teaches particularly preferred examples of the crosslinking agent (B2) further include a compound which is a phenol derivative having 1 to 6 benzene rings in the molecules, has two or more hydroxy methyl groups and/or alkoxy methyl groups in the entire molecules, and has the hydroxy methyl groups and/or alkoxy methyl groups bonded to at least one of the benzene rings [0101] and among these phenol derivatives, particularly preferable ones include the following:
PNG
media_image5.png
211
213
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[0103] wherein L1 and L2 are each hydroxy methyl groups [0109] which is equivalent to cross linker (D2) of instant claims 19 and 28 when lD2 is 2, mD2 is 1, and nD2 is 1 where R65 is a C1 unsubstituted alkyl. Takahashi et al. also teaches the phenol derivative having a hydroxymethyl group or an alkoxymethyl group
thus synthesized is preferable in terms of stability during storage [0111]. Takahashi et al. further teaches in the present invention, the crosslinking agent is used in an amount of 3 to 70% by weight, preferably 5 to 50% by weight, based on the total solid content of the resist composition [0012] which overlaps the instantly claimed mass ratio of 1-20 mass% per the alkali-soluble resin (claim 19). In the case where the claimed ranges "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). Takahashi et al. also teaches in Examples 1, 2, and 17 the use of two crosslinkers. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose…[T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069 1072.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the specific teachings of Takahashi et al. to include two crosslinkers such as B-20 and the hydroxymethyl phenol shown above (claim 19) in the claimed mass ratio and arrive at the instant claims through routine experimentation of combining equally suitable components for the sought invention and subsequently adjusting their amounts with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to claim 23, Takahashi et al. teaches other components used in the negative resist composition of the present invention may further contain an organic basic compound, a dye, a surfactant, and the like [0166].
With regard to claims 24 and 25, Takahashi et al. teaches the negative resist composition was applied onto a silicon wafer using a spin coater and dried on a vacuum suction type hot plate at 120 °C for 90 seconds (baked) to obtain a resist film having a film thickness of 0.3 μm [0190] and the resist film was irradiated using an electron beam (13.5 nm) lithography system (accelerating voltage: 50KeV). After the irradiation, each sample was heated on a vacuum suction hot plate at 110°C for 60 seconds, dipped in a 2.38% aqueous solution of tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH) for 60 seconds, rinsed with water for 30 seconds, and dried [0196].
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (JP2004020933) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Park et al. (U.S. 2011/0274853).
With regard to claim 26, Takahashi et al. teaches the above composition and method thereof for use in ultramicrolithographic processes such as the production of ultra-large-scale integration (VLSI) and high-capacity microchips, and other photofabrication processes [0001].
Takahashi et al. does not teach a method of manufacturing a metal film pattern.
However, Park et al. teaches a negative photoresist composition and patterning method for device [abstract], specifically, a photoresist composition used in the lift-off process to effectively pattern different thin films, such as electrode (metal film), in the fabrication process for a variety of devices, such as LCDs or LEDs [0049] as seen in the following FIG. 1:
PNG
media_image6.png
272
551
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(claim 26). It should be noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, Park et al. teaches it is well known in the art that negative resist compositions can be used to make devices having a metal film pattern.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Takahashi et al. to include additional manufacturing steps such as those taught by Park et al. through routine experimentation in order to obtain additional devices well known in the art and arrive at the instant claims.
Response to Arguments
Due to the amendment filed November 19, 2025 of instant claim 12, the 102(a)(1) rejection over Takahashi et al. has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with regard to this rejection have been considered but are moot due to the amendment of instant claim 12. However, Takahashi is still being used as prior art as it continues to teach the claimed composition.
Applicant argues Takahashi alone or in combination with Park does not disclose or suggest a negative tone lift off resist comprising a resin having a weight average molecular weight of 8,000 to 100,000 or when m12 is 0 as claimed. There is no guidance or motivation in either Takahashi alone or in combination with Park to arrive at the claimed composition. Takahashi discloses resin (D) merely as an alkali-soluble resin having a structural unit derived from vinyphenol. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to have additional unit(s) in resin (D), much less to adjust the weight average molecular weight of resin (D) to be 8,000 to 100,000, such that the person of ordinary skill in the art would not have arrived at the present invention but rather would have been motivated to only use an alkali-soluble resin having a structural unit derived from vinyl phenol. Furthermore, even if the Office has established a prima facie case of obviousness based on the disclosure of Takahashi alone or in combination with Park, the existence of unexpected benefits for the present invention rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness, specifically good resolution. Takahashi alone or in combination with Park does not recognize the benefits of the composition.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Takahashi teaches a resist composition comprising two alkali soluble resins (C) and (D) [0008] each providing specific examples. Specifically, resins (C-15), (D-3), and (D-7) correspond to Applicant’s alkali soluble resin (A1), with the exception of the molecular weights, while resins (C-1) to (C-8), (C-10) to (C-14), (C-16), (D-1), (D-2), (D-5), and (D-6) correspond to Applicant’s alkali soluble resin (A2). Takahashi also teaches the weight-average molecular weight (Mw) of the alkali-soluble polymer (C) of the present invention is preferably 3,000-1,000,000, more preferably 3,000-500,000, particularly preferably 3,000-100,000 [0031] and the weight-average molecular weight Mw of the resins (D), preferably the resins
having a repeating structural unit represented by formula (a), is preferably
1,000-200,000, and more preferably 3,000-50,000 [0067] which overlap the instantly claimed ranges for both alkali soluble resins (A1) and (A2). Additionally, all of the resins identified above corresponding to (A1) include structural units when m12 is 0. Takahashi further teaches specific examples (C-1) to (C-16) of the alkali-soluble resin (C) for use in the present invention are set forth below, but the present invention is not limited thereto. In addition, the ratio of repeating units, the mass average molecular weight Mw, and the dispersity are also described, but the present invention is not limited thereto [0035] and specific examples (D-1) to (D-8) of the alkali-soluble resin (D) for use in the present invention are set forth below, but the present invention is not limited thereto. In addition, the ratio of repeating units, the mass average molecular weight Mw, and the dispersity are also described, but the present invention is not limited thereto [0083]. Thus, Takashi et al. makes it clear that additional resins having different molecular weights are inclusive of their invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the specific teachings of Takahashi et al. to include additional compositions comprising other resins through routine experimentation in the art. Furthermore, Takahashi et al. teaches an object of the present invention is to solve the problems inherent in the technology for improving the performance of microfabrication using radiation such as actinic rays, electron beams or X-rays, and to provide a chemically amplified negative resist composition having excellent isolation (resolution) with respect to the use of actinic rays or radiation [0007]. Therefore, Applicant’s results are considered expected based on the teachings of Takahashi.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. 2019/0033717, U.S. 2003/0124456, and U.S. 6,416,928.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA E MALLOY whose telephone number is (571)270-5849. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 EST M-F.
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.
/Anna Malloy/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/MARK F. HUFF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737