DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending. Claims 1, 7, 15, and 20 have been amended and claim 6 has been 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 26, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein a mass ratio of an initiator is 0.3-15% of a total mass of monomers including the film-forming resin monomer and the acid inhibitor monomer”. However, there is no positive recitation of an initiator in claim 1, the initiator is only present in the polymerization process recited in claims 7 and 8. The Examiner suggests omitting “wherein a mass ratio of an initiator is 0.3-15% of a total mass of monomers including the film-forming resin monomer and the acid inhibitor monomer” from claim 1 and amending claim 7 to recite the subject matter.
Claims 2-5 and 7-20 are rejected because they depend from rejected based claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 15 and 20 fail to further limit claims 13 and 18 respectively which depend from claims 7 and 10 respectively which both depend from claim 1 which already requires the recited polar film-forming monomer, acid protected monomer, and non-polar film forming monomers shown. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (JP2008281980). Translation previously provided.
Wada et al. teaches (a) a resist composition containing a resin which has a repeating unit represented by General Formula (I) and of which the polarity is increased by the action of an acid, and of which the solubility in a negative tone developer is decreased by irradiation with actinic rays or radiation [0048] (claim 10) and examples of General Formula (I) include the following repeating unit (ACG-17):
PNG
media_image1.png
139
93
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0103] wherein Xa represents H, CH3, CF3 or CH2OH [0104] which is the polymerized form of the non-polar film-forming resin monomer having the structural formula shown in instant claims 1, 15, and 20 when R3 is H or CH3 and R11=CfH2f+1 where f is 0. Wada et al. also teaches the resin capable of increasing the polarity by the action of an acid according to the invention is preferably a resin containing a repeating unit represented by formula (NGH-1) [0108] and examples include the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
108
70
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0114] which is the polymerized form of a hydroxyl-containing acid inhibitor monomer of instant claims 1, 3, 4, 13, and 18, specifically a monomer comprising group (427) of instant claims 5, 14, and 19. Wada et al. further teaches the acid-decomposable resin for use in the present invention is preferably a resin containing at least one repeating unit selected from the group consisting of a repeating unit having a partial structure containing an alicyclic hydrocarbon represented by any one of the following formulae (pI) to (pV) and a repeating unit represented by the following formula (II-AB) [0116] and as the repeating unit having an alkali-soluble group protected by a structure represented by any one of formulae (pI) to (pV), a repeating unit represented by the formula (pA) is preferred [0130] and an example of formula (pA) includes the following formula 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
125
90
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[0135] wherein Rx can be H or CH3 and Rxa is an alkyl of 1-4 carbon atoms [0135] which is the polymerized form of the acid protected film-forming resin monomer having the structural formula shown in instant claims 1, 15, and 20 when R5 is H or CH3 and R4 is CdH2d+1 where d is 1 to 4. Wada et al. also teaches the acid-decomposable resin for use in the present invention preferably has a lactone group [0146] and other suitable repeating units having a lactone structure include the following:
PNG
media_image4.png
113
71
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[0154] wherein Rx can be H or CH3 [054] which is the polymerized form of the polar film-forming resin monomer having the structural formula shown in instant claims 1, 15, and 20 when R3 is H or CH3, R1 is CaH2a where a is 1, and R2 is CbH2b where b is 1. Wada et al. further teaches the content of the repeating unit represented by formula (I) or (i-1) (non-polar film-forming resin monomer) is usually from 1 to 80 mol%, preferably from 5 to 50 mol%, more preferably from 5 to 40 mol%. When the content is from 5 to 40 mol%, elution of low molecular weight components from the resist film into the immersion liquid during immersion exposure can be reduced [0106]; the content of the repeating unit represented by formula (NGH-1) (acid inhibitor monomer) is usually from 1 to 15 mol%, preferably from 5 to 15 mol%. When the content is 1 to 15 mol%, the affinity to a negative developer and a positive developer is improved [0111]; the content of the repeating unit having an acid-decomposable group (acid protected monomer) is preferably from 10 to 60 mol%, more preferably from 20 to 50 mol%, still more preferably from 25 to 40 mol%, based on all repeating structural units [0184]; the content of the repeating unit having a lactone ring (polar film-forming resin monomer) is preferably from 10 to 70 mol%, more preferably from 20 to 60 mol%, still more preferably from 25 to 40 mol%, based on all repeating structural units. In the acid-decomposable resin, the content of the repeating unit having an organic group having a polar group is preferably from 1 to 40 mol%, more preferably from 5 to 30 mol%, still more preferably from 5 to 20 mol%, based on all repeating structural units [0188]. Although Wada et al. teaches the amounts of each monomer in mol% instead of the instantly claimed wt%, the claimed ranges can be easily calculated such that they overlap with the instantly claimed ranges of 10-40 wt%, 20-60 wt%, up to 25 wt%, and 0.001-5 wt% respectively (claim 1). Thus, the mass ratio of the film-forming resin monomer to the acid inhibitor monomer of Wada et al. also overlaps with the instantly claimed ratio of (95-99.99):(0.01-5) (claims 2, 12, and 17). 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). Wada et al. also teaches the molar ratio of the content of each repeating structural unit is appropriately set in order to adjust the dry etching resistance of the resist, the suitability for a standard developer, the adhesion to a substrate, the resist profile, and the resolving power, the heat resistance, the sensitivity, and the like which are generally required performances of the resist [0182]. 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 amounts of the above monomers through routine experimentation in order to achieve optimum resist properties. Wada et al. further teaches the weight-average molecular weight of the resins according to the present invention is preferably 1,000-200,000, more preferably 3,000-20,000, and most preferably 5,000-15,000, in terms of polystyrene by the GPC method. When the weight-average molecular weight is 1,000-200,000, deterioration of heat resistance and dry etching resistance can be prevented, and deterioration of developability and deterioration of film-forming properties due to an increase in viscosity can be prevented. Another particularly preferred form of the weight-average molecular weight of the resins according to the present invention is 3,000-9,500 in terms of polystyrene by the GPC method. By setting the weight-average molecular weight to the 3,000-9,500, particularly, resist residues (hereinafter, also referred to as "scums") are suppressed, and a better pattern can be formed [0201]. Therefore, based on the known molecular weights of the above shown monomers and weight-average molecular weight taught by Wada et al., n in the general structural formula (I) of instant claim 1 can be calculated such that n of the resin or Wada et al. overlaps with the instantly claimed n of 5-200. Wada et al. also teaches the present invention will be described with reference to Examples, but the present invention is not limited thereto [0349] and an object of the present invention is to solve the above-mentioned problems and to provide a patterning method for stably forming a high-precision fine pattern, particularly reducing line edge roughness and enhancing the dimensional uniformity of the pattern in order to manufacture a highly integrated and high-precision electronic device [0011].
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 Wada et al. to include the above repeating units and arrive at the instant claims through routine experimentation of substituting equally suitable components for the sought invention in order to stably form a high-precision fine pattern, reduce line edge roughness and enhance the dimensional uniformity of the pattern.
With regard to claims 7-9 and 16, Wada et al. teaches the acid-decomposable resin for use in the present invention can be synthesized by a conventional method (for example, radical polymerization). Examples of the general synthesis method include a batch polymerization method in which polymerization is performed by dissolving monomer species and an initiator in a solvent and heating the solution, a dropping polymerization method in which a solution of monomer species and an initiator is added dropwise to a heated solvent over 1 to 10 hours, and the like, and the dropping polymerization method is preferable. Examples of solvents include ethers such as tetrahydrofuran, 1,4-dioxane, and diisopropylether; ketones such as methylethylketone and methylisobutylketone; ester solvents such as ethylacetate; amide solvents such as dimethylformamide and dimethylacetamide; and solvents capable of dissolving the composition of the present invention, such as propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate, propylene glycol monomethyl ether, and cyclohexanone [0199] and the polymerization reaction is preferably carried out in an atmosphere of an inert gas such as nitrogen or argon. As the polymerization initiator, a commercially available radical initiator (azo-based initiator, peroxide, etc.) is used to initiate the polymerization. As the radical initiator, an azo-based initiator is preferable, and an azo-based initiator having an ester group, a cyano group, or a carboxyl group is preferable. Preferred examples of the initiator include azobisisobutyronitrile, azobisdimethylvaleronitrile, and dimethyl 2,2′-azobis(2-methylpropionate). If desired, an initiator is added or added in portions, and after completion of the reaction, the reaction mixture is poured into a solvent and the desired polymer is recovered by a method such as powder or solid recovery. The reaction concentration is 5 to 50% by mass, preferably 10 to 30% by mass [0200].
With regard to claim 11, Wada et al. teaches the resist composition of the present invention contains a compound capable of generating an acid upon irradiation with an actinic ray or radiation (also referred to as a "photoacid generator" or a "component (B)"). As such a photoacid generator, a photoinitiator for cationic photopolymerization, a photoinitiator for radical photopolymerization, a photodecoloring agent for dyes, a photodiscoloring agent, a known compound capable of generating an acid upon irradiation with an actinic ray or radiation, which is used for a microresist or the like, or a mixture thereof can be appropriately selected and used [0204] which is equivalent to the photosensitizer of instant claim 11 and the content of the photoacid generator is preferably 0.1% to 20% by mass, more preferably 0.5% to 10% by mass, and still more preferably 1% to 7% by mass, based on the total solid content of the resist composition [0240]. Wada et al. also teaches the resist composition of the present invention preferably contains (E) a basic compound in order to reduce a change in performance over time from exposure to heating [0328] which is equivalent to an additive of instant claim 11 and the amount of the basic compound used is usually from 0.001 to 10 mass%, preferably from 0.01 to 5 mass%, based on the solid content of the resist composition [0334]. Wada et al. further teaches the resist composition of the present invention preferably further contains (F) a surfactant [0336] which is equivalent to an additive of instant claim 11 and the amount of the surfactant (F) used is preferably from 0.01 to 10 mass%, more preferably from 0.1 to 5 mass%, based on the entire amount of the resist composition (excluding the solvent) [0342]. Wada et al. also teaches in the examples, the compositions were prepared by dissolving 1.83g of resin, 69.6mg of photoacid generator, 8.7mg of basic compound, and 1.7mg of surfactant with a solid concentration of 5.8 wt% [0356] which is within the claimed content ranges.
Response to Arguments
Due to the amendment filed September 26, 2025, the 102(a)(1) rejection over Wada has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with regard to this rejection have been considered but are moot due to the amendment of instant claim 1. However, Wada is still being used as prior art because it continues to teach the claimed resin.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejection of claim 6 over Wada (now claim 1) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues the Examiner is silent about where there is a disclosure of the non-polar film-forming resin monomer having the formula in amended claim 1. Wada does not disclose such a structural formula.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The previous rejection did not point to a monomer/repeating unit meeting the formula as currently claimed, however, previous claim 6 recited two possible non-polar film-forming resin monomers of which the Examiner directed Applicant’s attention to the other formula. However, Wada does in fact teach the non-polar film-forming resin monomer of instant claim 1 in paragraph [0114] as repeating unit (ACG-17). Thus, the instant claims are still obvious over the entire disclosure of Wada.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. 2015/0111135, U.S. 2014/0242505, U.S. 2012/0196226, JP2011164434, and JP2008133312.
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