DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7, 12-14, and 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0169345 (hereinafter referred to as Nagasawa) as evidenced by WO2019/077147 (hereinafter referred to as Deeley).
Nagasawa, in [0009], and in [0070]-[0071], discloses a method of making a silicon containing polymer that is formed by hydrolytic polycondensation between alkoxy silicon compound A and alkoxy silicon compound B (claimed co-condensation via hydrolysis), wherein the composition is the polycondensate and the solvent (organic solvent) in which the co-condensation occurs. Nagasawa, in [0080]-[0083], discloses that the silicon containing polymer (hydrolytic polycondensate of the alkoxy compounds) is treated with the cation exchange resin that is strongly acidic such Amberlite 15 or Amberlite 200 wherein these cation exchange resin includes sulfonate functional groups (strongly acidic functional groups). Nagasawa, teaches the same claimed composition that has the same claimed components i.e., the hydrolytic copolycondensate of the alkoxysilicon compounds (silicon-containing polymer) and the same organic solvent, and the polycondensate is treated with the same claimed strongly acidic cation exchange resin and will inherently and necessarily possess the claimed reduced change in the weight average molecular weight of the silicon-containing polymer (claims 1, 3-4, 12-14). Nagasawa, in [0085], discloses that the polycondensate (claimed silicon-containing polymer) has a weight average molecular weight Mw of 500 to 100,000 (claims 7, and 17).
Nagasawa in [0080]-[0083], discloses that the strongly-acidic cation exchange resin include sulfo groups (sulfonate) as ionic groups and the resin includes copolymers of styrene-divinylbenzene copolymer and lists the strongly-acidic cation ion exchange resins as Amberlite, Dowex, and Amberlyst, and are inherently gel type cationic ion exchange resin as evidenced by Deeley on page 7, lines 23-34, and on page 8, lines 1-8, lists the strong acidic gel type cation exchange resins as a sulfonated copolymer of styrene and divinyl benzene that are available as Dowex gel-type ion exchange resins and Amberlyst gel-type ion exchange resins.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7, 12-14, and 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0256533 (hereinafter referred to as Shuto) as evidenced by WO2019/077147 (hereinafter referred to as Deeley).
Shuto, in [0010], [0015], and [0068], discloses the formation of a silicon-containing polymer by the hydrolytic co-polycondensation of a silane compound (formula (1), alkoxy silane) with the alkoxy silane of different formula (also alkoxy silicon, different from formula (1)) i.e., the claimed co-condensation by hydrolysis in the presence of an organic solvent i.e., the silicon containing polymer composition consists of the polycondensation product of the alkoxy silane (alkoxy silicon) and an organic solvent. Shuto, in [0041], [0074]-[0080], discloses that the polycondensate is treated with a strongly acidic cation-exchange resin such as Amberlite 15, or Amberlite 200 that are strongly acidic cation exchange resins with sulfonate groups as functional groups (strongly acidic functional groups). Shuto teaches the same claimed compositional components i.e., the hydrolytic copolycondensate of the alkoxysilicon compounds (claimed silicon-containing polymer) and the same organic solvent. Shuto treats the polycondensate with the same claimed strongly acidic cation exchange resin that has the same claimed functional groups (acidic) and will inherently and necessarily possess the claimed reduced change (less than 70) in the weight average molecular weight of the silicon-containing polymer (polycondensate) (claims 1, 3-4, and 12-14). Shuto, in [0083], discloses that the polycondensate (silicon-containing polymer) has a weight-average molecular weight Mw of 500 to 100,000 (claims 7, and 17).
Shuto in [0078]-[0080], discloses that the strongly acidic cation-exchange resin have a sulfo group (sulfonate) as the ion group and the resin is a styrene-divinylbenzene copolymer and lists the strongly acidic cation-exchange resins as Amberlite, Dowex, and Amberlyst, and are inherently the claimed gel type cationic ion exchange resin as evidenced by Deeley on page 7, lines 23-34, and on page 8, lines 1-8, that lists the strong acidic gel type cation exchange resins as a sulfonated copolymer of styrene and divinyl benzene that are available as Dowex gel-type ion exchange resins and Amberlyst gel-type ion exchange resins.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6, 8, 15-16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0169345 (hereinafter referred to as Nagasawa) as evidenced by WO2019/077147 (hereinafter referred to as Deeley) in view of U. S. Patent No. 5,580,700 (hereinafter referred to as Rahman) or U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0256533 (hereinafter referred to as Shuto) as evidenced by WO2019/077147 (hereinafter referred to as Deeley) in view of U. S. Patent No. 5,580,700 (hereinafter referred to as Rahman).
Nagasawa, in [0009], and in [0070]-[0071], discloses a method of making a silicon containing polymer that is formed by hydrolytic polycondensation between alkoxy silicon compound A and alkoxy silicon compound B (claimed co-condensation via hydrolysis), wherein the composition is the polycondensate and the solvent (organic solvent) in which the co-condensation occurs. Nagasawa, in [0080]-[0083], discloses that the silicon containing polymer (hydrolytic polycondensate of the alkoxy compounds) is treated with the cation exchange resin that is strongly acidic such Amberlite 15 or Amberlite 200. Nagasawa, teaches the same claimed composition that has the same claimed components i.e., the hydrolytic copolycondensate of the alkoxysilicon compounds (silicon-containing polymer) and the same organic solvent, and the polycondensate is treated with the same claimed strongly acidic cation exchange resin and will inherently and necessarily possess the claimed reduced change in the weight average molecular weight of the silicon-containing polymer (claim 8).
Shuto, in [0010], [0015], and [0068], discloses the formation of a silicon-containing polymer by the hydrolytic co-polycondensation of a silane compound (formula (1), alkoxy silane) with the alkoxy silane of different formula (also alkoxy silicon, different from formula (1)) i.e., the claimed co-condensation by hydrolysis in the presence of an organic solvent i.e., the silicon containing polymer composition consists of the polycondensation product of the alkoxy silane (alkoxy silicon) and an organic solvent. Shuto, in [0041], [0074]-[0080], discloses that the polycondensate is treated with a strongly acidic cation-exchange resin such as Amberlite 15, or Amberlite 200. Shuto teaches the same claimed compositional components i.e., the hydrolytic copolycondensate of the alkoxysilicon compounds (claimed silicon-containing polymer) and the same organic solvent. Shuto treats the polycondensate with the same claimed strongly acidic cation exchange resin that has the same claimed functional groups (acidic) and will inherently and necessarily possess the claimed reduced change (less than 70) in the weight average molecular weight of the silicon-containing polymer (polycondensate) (claim 8)
The difference between the claims and either Nagasawa or Shuto is that Nagasawa and Shuto do not disclose that the metal element content after the ion exchange treatment is less than 1ppb (claims 5, and 15). Nagasawa and Shuto do not disclose the cation exchange treatment as recited in claims 6, and 16.
Rahman, in col 3, lines 37-47, in col 4, lines 18-24, discloses that a polymer composition that is passed through the ion exchange resin results in a composition (solution of the polymer in a solvent) that has less than 10ppb of metal content. Rahman, in col 5, lines 3-8, discloses that the composition of the underlayer (BARC) is passed through a column of the ion exchange resin, and Rahman, in column 4, lines 51-54, discloses that the ion exchange resin is a cation exchange resin such as AMBERLYST 15 (claimed strongly acidic cation exchange resin with sulfonate functional groups) and treating the composition by passing the composition through the column of acidic cation exchange resin results in the metal content being less than 10ppb or lower (claimed less 1ppb).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify either Nagasawa or Shuto as evidenced by Deeley by using the ion exchange resin in the claimed manner as taught by Rahman because Nagasawa teaches treating the polymer composition with the strongly acidic ion exchange resin, and Nagasawa, in [0077], and [0080], teaches that treating the silicon containing polymer (hydrolytic polycondensate of different alkoxysilicon compounds) with cation exchange resin results in removing the base such as KOH, Ca(OH)2, Ba(OH)2 and includes the removal of metal containing particles, and Shuto, in [0041], discloses that the polycondensate is treated with the cation exchange resin to remove impurities such as metals, and neither Nagasawa nor Shuto prohibits the use of the claimed type of apparatus for treatment with the ion exchange resin and Rahman, in col 3, lines 24-27, and lines 50-55, discloses that treating the composition (BARC, a photoresist underlayer composition) with an ion exchange resin enables the purifying of the coating composition to very low levels of metal content.
Claim(s) 9-10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0169345 (hereinafter referred to as Nagasawa) as evidenced by WO2019/077147 (hereinafter referred to as Deeley) in view of U. S. Patent No. 5,580,700 (hereinafter referred to as Rahman) or U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0256533 (hereinafter referred to as Shuto) as evidenced by WO2019/077147 (hereinafter referred to as Deeley) in view of U. S. Patent No. 5,580,700 (hereinafter referred to as Rahman) further in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0265593(hereinafter referred to as Shibayama).
Nagasawa or Shuto as evidenced by Deeley in view of Rahman is discussed in paragraph no. 7, above.
The difference between the claims and either Nagasawa or Shuto is that Nagasawa and Shuto do not disclose using the polymer composition that include polysiloxane as a resist underlayer and used in patterning as recited in claims 9-10.
Shibayama in the abstract, [0019], discloses a hydrolysable silane composition treated with a cation exchange resin to form a silicon-containing resist underlayer film composition, and Shibayama, in [0023], [0126], [0127]-[0130], discloses producing a semiconductor device by using the silicon-containing resist underlayer composition to form a silicon-containing resist underlayer, forming a resist film atop the resist underlayer and exposing and developing the resist film to form a resist pattern, and using the resist pattern as a mask etching the resist underlayer film to form a patterned resist underlayer film (patterned silicon-containing resist underlayer) and using the patterned resist underlayer and patterned resist as a mask to further process the underlying semiconductor substrate.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify either Nagasawa or Shuto as evidenced by Deeley by using the hydrolytic polycondensate of the alkoxysilicon compounds (silicon-containing polymer composition), of either Nagasawa or Shuto, as the resist underlayer as taught by Shibayama, because Nagasawa, in [0136]-[0137], discloses that the composition can be used to form a cured product that includes exposure to radiation and heating/post-exposure baking, and Shuto in [0135]-[0137], discloses coating the composition on a silicon wafer and subjecting the film to heating, UV exposure and post-exposure processes and Shibayama teaches in the abstract, and in [0009], that the silicon-containing resist underlayer can be used as a hard mask for lithography.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 6, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections made in the previous office action are maintained. With respect to applicant’s arguments that neither Nagasawa nor Shuto teach a “gel type” strongly acidic cation exchange resin, Nagasawa and Shuto teach in the cited paragraphs listed in paragraph nos. 3, and 4, listed above, respectively, the use of a strongly acidic cation exchange resin in the same claimed manner (treating a silicon containing polymer) and lists the different types of strongly acidic cation exchange resins such as Amberlyst, Amberlite, and Dowex, that are gel-type strongly acidic cation exchange resin as evidenced by Deeley (also cited in paragraph nos. 3, and 4 above), and will inherently and necessarily result in the claimed reduced change in the weight average molecular weight of the silicon-containing polymer. With respect to applicant’s argument that the example 1 of the instant specification uses ORLITE DS-1 as opposed to the ORLITE DS-4 and ORLITE DS-7 used in the comparative examples 1 and 2, so as to obtain superior results due to the usage of a gel-type acidic cation exchange resin rather than the microporous DS-4 or DS-7 type resin, the instant claims do not recite that the gel-type ion exchange resin is the ORLITE DS-1 disclosed in the submitted non-patent literature. Nothing in the instant claims recite what the composition component of the strongly acidic cation exchange resin is. However, as discussed in the preceding sentences with respect to Nagasawa and Shuto as evidenced by Deeley, both Nagasawa and Shuto teach a gel-type strongly acidic cation exchange resin and is the same as that recited and will inherently produce the claimed reduction in weight average molecular weight.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daborah Chacko-Davis whose telephone number is (571) 272-1380. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30AM-6:00PM EST Mon-Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark F. Huff can be reached on (571) 272-1385. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. 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.
/DABORAH CHACKO-DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 April 28, 2026.
Prosecution Insights