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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/2/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 9 are pending. Claim 1 is independent. Claims 2-8 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 5-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph is withdrawn in light of applicant’s cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klipp et al. (US 9,891,520 B2) and Wayton (EP 1298492 A2) and further in view of Skee (WO2005043245A2) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants urge that each of Klipp et al, Wayton et al, nor Skee et al. teach each of the claim amendments. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further in response, Klipp et al. is pertinent to the claims for teaching in example 1, 0.05% tris(pentafluorotheyl)methane sulfonic acid sodium salt and suggest other fluoroalkyl ether surfactants (col.8,ln.65-col.10) with - erythritol , - threitol sugar alcohols for photomask cleaning. Because Klipp et al. do not explicitly teach the claimed 0.001 to 1.0% by weight of 1,2.3-propantriol and/or 1,2,.3,.4-butanetetraol nomenclature as claimed, Wayton et al. is relevant prior art disclosing that the claimed 1,2,.3,.4-butanetetraol [0009] and [0039] with fluoroalkyl ether surfactants [0060-0067] are known combination in photoresist layers as already disclosed by Klipp et al. Because neither Klipp and Wayton teach the claimed % amount of sugar alcohol, Skee et al. is relevant as a showing that the claimed amounts are commonly known to use. If each parameter had been in one reference, a combination would not have been necessary. Klipp et al, Wayton and Skee are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fluorinated photoresist compositions for cleaning.
Applicant’s further urge that table 16 of their specification shows superior and unexpected results in experimental examples 1-80 (transparent examples) as compared to the comparative examples 1-13 which are opaque. Upon careful consideration, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive because achievement of lifting of defects and transparency as noted in table 16, is not found to be superior nor even unexpected result because Klipp et al. illustrate a similar composition comprising a fluoroalkyl surfactant and triol substance for increase particle removal resulting in clean, transparent photo masks. See Klipp et al. col.1,ln.45-65 specifically addressing their transparent photo mask surface. One of ordinary skill will reasonably expect to achieve a clean (particle free) transparent photomask surface when using the claimed reagents as taught by Klipp. Accordingly the claim amendments are addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klipp et al. (US 9,891,520 B2) and Wayton (EP 1298492 A2) and further in view of Skee (WO2005043245A2).
Klipp et al. teach a composition for cleaning transparent photo masks having patterns with a fluorinated surfactant composition having a surface tension below 25 mN/m (encompassing the claimed range of 45 mN/m or less) see abstract and example 1. The composition of Klipp et al. is for use in the photolithography of photoresist layers with reduced defects encompassing the scope of the claim language in the instant preamble. See col.2,ln.15.
Claim 1 limitation to “a photoresist pattern having hydrophobicity represented by a contact angle of 75o or greater of a surface” is supported in the instant specification US20220342313 abstract having similar text with specific language to “photoresist surface” and also see the attached Google NPL that it is commonly understood if the water contact angle is smaller than 90°, the solid surface is considered hydrophilic and if the water contact angle is larger than 90°, the solid surface is considered hydrophobic. Thus, the photoresist surface taught by Klipp et al. would necessarily have hydrophobicity by a contact angle 75o or greater of a surface as required by claim 1 because Klipp et al. teach a similar “photoresist surface” and it is commonly understood if the water contact angle is larger than 90° (as evident by the claimed range of 75o or greater) the solid surface is considered hydrophobic.
Klipp et al. teach in example 1, col.10, a photo mask cleaning composition comprising 0.05% by weight of tris(pentafluoroethyl)methane sulfonic acid sodium salt in electronic grade ultra pure water. The photo mask cleaner showed a static surface tension of 20.7 mN/m.
Examiner notes that Example 1, in col.10 Klipp et al. teach photo mask blankets were patterned by eBeam writing after being coated with a photoresist. The EUV mask contained patterns with smallest line-dimensions of about 60 nm wide, which corresponds to patterns of line-dimensions of 15 nm (half pitch) on the wafer (i.e. the 4× magnification system) of the semiconductor substrate. Thereafter, the exposed photoresist layers were baked, developed and removed. After this step the photo mask was rinsed with the photo mask cleaner solution supported by megasonic treatment in order to enhance particle removal efficiency. The chemical rinse solutions were applied as puddles followed by megasonic treatment. Thereafter, the photo masks were spun dry. The dried photomasks did not show any watermarks, haze defects. See example 1 in col.10. It is the Examiner’s position that the patterned photoresist on the semiconductor substrate encompasses the claimed photoresist pattern hydrophobicity. It is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect the patterned photoresist of Klipp et al. to have the recited hydrophobicity because it is a patterned photoresist on a semiconductor substrate in general and one of ordinary skill understands that the contact angle of any hydrophobic surface will be greater than 90o in general.
Klipp et al. teach their surfactant composition A has the hydrophilic group E as described in col.9,ln.5-40 encompassing the claim 1 limitation to four-carbon sugar alcohol (1,2,3,4-butanetetraol), Examiner notes this exhibits two diastereomers: erythritol and threitol both of which are taught in col.9,ln.10-11 of Klipp et al. See Science Direct NPL attached for common knowledge support relating the claimed terms with that which is taught in the art.
Klipp et al. example 1, 0.05% tris(pentafluorotheyl)methane sulfonic acid sodium salt and suggest other fluoroalkyl ether surfactants (col.8,ln.65-col.10) with - erythritol , - threitol sugar alcohols for photomask cleaning. However, Klipp et al. do not explicitly teach the claimed amount of 0.001-1.0% of the triol sugar alcohol as required by claim 1. Because Klipp et al. do not explicitly teach the claimed 0.001 to 1.0% by weight of 1,2.3-propantriol and/or 1,2,.3,.4-butanetetraol nomenclature as claimed, Wayton et al. is relevant prior art disclosing that the claimed 1,2,.3,.4-butanetetraol [0009] and [0039] with fluoroalkyl ether sufactants [0060-0067] are known combination in photoresist layers as already disclosed by Klipp et al. See Wayton (EP 1298492 A2) explicitly teach the beneficial inclusion of the claimed 1,2,3, butanetriol and 1,2,3,4-butanetetriol [0009] and [0038] pg.5 with a fluoropolymer [0067] as also taught by Klipp et al.
Because neither Klipp and Wayton teach the 0.001 to 1.0 % of the sugar alcohol,, Skee et al. is relevant as a showing that the claimed amounts are commonly known to use. Skee teach it is commonly known to include fluoroalkylene surfactants [0038, page 15] with sugar alcohol cosolvents as taught by Klipp et al. and Wayton et al. in an amount from 0.1% or 1.0% in general. See page 11, lines 8-9 and 17 of paragraph [0027].
Klipp et al, Wayton and Skee are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fluorinated photoresist compositions for cleaning.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed composition comprising the claimed fluorine based surfactant with the claimed amount of triol to reduce a lifting defect level of a photoresist pattern hydrophobility as required by claim 1 because Klipp et al. teach a patterned photoresist on a semiconductor substrate is cleaned with a fluorinated surfactant and four-carbon sugar alcohol (1,2,3,4-butanetetrol) having the same properties as claimed in general and Wayton (EP 1298492 A2) explicitly teach the claimed 1,2,3, butanetriol and 1,2,3,4-butanetetrol nomenclature as discussed in Klipp et al. achieves a transparent antireflective photomask and Skee et al. teach it is commonly known to include fluorinated alkyl ether amphoterics with a sugar alcohol (glycerol) cosolvent as taught by Klipp et al. and Wayton et al. in an amount from 0.1% or 1.0%.
The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill because the primary Klipp et al. already teach a fluorinated surfactant with triol sugar in general in photomask cleaning, Wayton explicitly teach the claimed fluoro copolymers and triols, and Skee teach fluoroalkylene surfactants including sugar alcohol cosolvents within the claimed range is well within the skill set of one of ordinary skill.
One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Klipp, Wayton and Skee since all are in the analogous art of photoresist compositions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/PREETI KUMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761