DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-13 are pending. Claims 1, 5, and 6 have been amended and claims 4 and 8 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 5 is 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. Claim 5 recites “the acrylic polymer comprises a structural unit represented by Chemical Formula 2…R2 is a fluorine, a hydroxy group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkyl group…and Ra, Rb, Rc, and Rd together comprise a fluorine and a hydroxy group”. However, claim 1 recites “R2, L1, and L2 together comprise a fluorine and a hydroxy group”. Thus, claim 5 fails to include all of the limitations of claim 1. 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.
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 1-3, 5-7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (U.S. 2013/0171574) in view of Lee et al. (KR20110009005). Translation attached.
Xu teaches a method comprising: (a) providing a semiconductor substrate comprising one or more layers to be patterned on an upper surface thereof; (b) forming a photoresist pattern on the one or more layers to be patterned, wherein the photoresist pattern comprises a plurality of features and is formed from a chemically amplified photoresist composition, the photoresist pattern comprising a matrix polymer having acid labile groups; (c) coating a photoresist trimming composition over the photoresist pattern, wherein the trimming composition comprises a matrix polymer, a free acid having fluorine substitution and a solvent, and wherein the trimming composition is free of cross-linking agents; (d) heating the coated semiconductor substrate, thereby causing a change in polarity of the photoresist matrix polymer in a surface region of the photoresist pattern; and (e) contacting the photoresist pattern with a developing solution (rinse) to remove the surface region of the photoresist pattern [0009] (claim 12) wherein the photoresist trimming compositions include a matrix polymer, a free acid having fluorine substitution and a solvent [0014] (claim 1) in which exemplary suitable acids include CF3SO3H [0019] which is equivalent to an acid represented by Chemical Formula 3 of instant claim 1, specifically the first compound of Group II of instant claim 9. Xu also teaches the matrix polymer should have good solubility in the developer solution to be used in the trimming process. For example, the matrix polymer can be soluble in an aqueous alkaline developer, preferably aqueous quaternary ammonium hydroxide solutions such as aqueous tetramethylammonium hydroxide, or in water. To minimize residue defects originated from the overcoat materials, the dissolution rate of a dried layer of the trimming composition should be greater than that of the photoresist pattern surface region to be removed by the developer solution. The matrix polymer typically exhibits a developer dissolution rate of 100 Ǻ/second or higher, preferably 1000 Ǻ/second or higher. The matrix polymer is soluble in the solvent of the trimming composition, described herein. The matrix polymer can be chosen, for example, from polyvinyl alcohols, polyacrylic acids, polyvinyl pyrrolidones, polyvinyl amines, polyvinyl acetals, poly(meth)acrylates and combinations thereof. Preferably, the polymer contains one or more functional group chosen from --OH, --COOH, --SO3H, SiOH, hydroxyl styrene, hydroxyl naphthalene, sulfonamide, hexafluoroisopropyl alcohol, anhydrates, lactones, esters, ethers, allylamine, pyrolidones and combinations thereof [0016] and suitable polymers and monomers for use in the overcoat compositions are commercially available and/or can readily be made by persons skilled in the art [0018].
Xu does not teach an acrylic polymer comprising a structural unit represented by Chemical Formula 1.
However, Lee et al. teaches a protective layer prepared using a homopolymer or copolymer prepared by polymerizing a polymerizable monomer containing a perfluoropinacol group [page 5], specifically, Example 1 comprises a homopolymer of the following monomer Ma having a molecular weight of 13,400 (claim 7) [page 8]:
PNG
media_image1.png
175
107
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[KR 0064] which is equivalent to an acrylic polymer comprising a structural unit represented by Chemical Formula 1 of instant claim 1, specifically Chemical Formula 2 of instant claim 5, more specifically the top structural unit in Group I of instant claim 6 when R3 is a methyl group. 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, both Xu and Lee et al. are directed to coating compositions for photoresists. Xu also teaches the matrix polymer preferably comprises a functional group such as hexafluoroisopropyl alcohol.
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 Xu to include the homopolymer of Lee et al. and arrive at the instant claims through routine experimentation of substituting equally suitable components for the sought invention with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, the disclosures of Xu and Lee et al. do not require any additional components. Therefore, the claimed limitation “consisting of” has been met.
With regard to claim 2, Xu teaches the matrix polymer is typically present in the compositions in an amount of from 80 to 99 wt %, more typically from 90 to 98 wt %, based on total solids of the trimming composition [0017] which overlaps the claimed ratio of the acrylic polymer and the acid of about 3:1 to about 30:1.
With regard to claim 3, Xu teaches the solvent component of the trimming composition is typically present in an amount of from 90 to 99 wt % based on the trimming composition [0020] which overlaps the claimed range for the total weight of the acrylic polymer and the acid compound of about 0.1 wt% to about 10 wt% based on a total weight of the composition.
With regard to claims 10 and 11, Xu teaches the solvent is typically chosen from water, organic solvents and mixtures thereof. Suitable organic solvents for the overcoat composition include, for example: alkyl esters such as alkyl propionates such as n-butyl propionate, n-pentyl propionate, n-hexyl propionate and n-heptyl propionate, and alkyl butyrates such as n-butyl butyrate, isobutyl butyrate and isobutyl isobutyrate; ketones such as 2,5-dimethyl-4-hexanone and 2,6-dimethyl-4-heptanone; aliphatic hydrocarbons such as n-heptane, n-nonane, n-octane, n-decane, 2-methylheptane, 3-methylheptane, 3,3-dimethylhexane and 2,3,4-trimethylpentane, and fluorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons such as perfluoroheptane; and alcohols such as straight, branched or cyclic C4-C9 monohydric alcohol such as 1-butanol, 2-butanol, 3-methyl-1-butanol, isobutyl alcohol, tert-butyl alcohol, 1-pentanol, 2-pentanol, 1-hexanol, 1-heptanol, 1-octanol, 2-hexanol, 2-heptanol, 2-octanol, 3-hexanol, 3-heptanol, 3-octanol and 4-octanol; 2,2,3,3,4,4-hexafluoro-1-butanol, 2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5-octafluoro-1-pentanol and 2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6-decafluoro-1-hexanol, and C5-C9 fluorinated diols such as 2,2,3,3,4,4-hexafluoro-1,5-pentanediol, 2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5-octafluoro-1,6-hexanediol and 2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7-dodecafluoro-1,8-octanediol; and mixtures containing one or more of these solvents. Of these organic solvents, alcohols, aliphatic hydrocarbons and ethers are preferred [0020] and Example 2 uses a mixture of 4-methyl-2-pentynol and di(isopentyl)ether [0045] which is equivalent to an ether-based solvent represented by Chemical Formula 7 of instant claim 10, specifically diisoamyl ether of instant claim 11.
With regard to claim 13, Xu teaches in step (d) heating the coated semiconductor substrate, suitable bake temperatures are greater than 50°C, for example, greater than 70°C, greater than 90°C, greater than 120°C or greater than 150°C, with a temperature of from 70 to 160°C and a time of from about 30 to 90 seconds being typical [0037] which overlaps the instantly claimed range of about 100°C to about 500°C.
Response to Arguments
Due to the amendment filed November 21, 2025 of instant claim 1, the 102(a)(1) and 103 rejections over Rowell have been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with regard to these rejections have been considered but are moot due to the amendment of instant claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANNA E MALLOY whose telephone number is (571)270-5849. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:00 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
