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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments with respect to claims 1 and 6, filed on 05/21/2025, after the Final Rejection, filed on 03/20/2025, are acknowledged. No new matter has been introduced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-14, filed 05/21/2025, with respect to claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-13 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments filed on 05/21/2025. Therefore, the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-13 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a newly found prior art reference as necessitated by the claim amendments, filed 05/21/2025.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner acknowledges the amendment to claim 1 wherein the comprising language was amended to consisting of language with respect to the composition. However, the acrylic polymer of the composition uses comprising language regarding the structural units, wherein this is interpreted to include one or more monomers, one of which is represented by Chemical Formula 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rowell et al. (US 2017/0255103 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-6, Rowell et al. teaches photoresist pattern trimming compositions coated over a photoresist pattern [0012] wherein the photoresist pattern trimming compositions consist of a polymer [0013-0014] formed from one or more monomers including acylate monomers such as (meth)acrylate exemplified as [0014]:
PNG
media_image1.png
266
150
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
302
214
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image3.png
294
218
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
277
191
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image5.png
257
281
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. Regarding claims 1 and 9-11, the composition further consists of a solvent such as monoether-based solvents [0017] including 1,4-cineole, 1,8-cineole, pinene oxide, di-n-propyl ether, diisopropyl ether, di-n-butyl ether, di-n-pentyl ether, diisoamyl ether, dihexyl ether, diheptyl ether and dioctyl ether, anisole, ethylbenzyl ether, diphenyl ether, dibenzyl ether and phenetole [0018] and a fluorinated acid [0023] such as perfluoroacetic acid, perfluorooctanoic acid, trifluoromethanesulfonic acid, 1-perfluorobutanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2-tetrafluorobutane-l-sulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-4-hydroxybutane-l-sulfonic acid or the following acids [0025]:
PNG
media_image6.png
93
264
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image7.png
120
211
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. Further, Rowell et al. teaches the solids content of the trimming compositions is from 1 to 10 wt % [0034] (claim 3) wherein the acid is about 0.01 to 20 wt % based on the total solids [0025] and the polymer is from 80 to 99 wt % based on the total solids [0015]; and the weight average molecular weight (Mw) of the polymer is preferably from 3,000 to 50,000 [0015] (claim 7). Regarding claim 12, Rowell et al. teaches a method of trimming a photoresist pattern comprising: (a) providing a semiconductor substrate; (b) forming a photoresist pattern over the semiconductor substrate; (c) coating a pattern trimming composition over the photoresist pattern (as described above); (d) heating the coated semiconductor substrate; and (e) rinsing the photoresist pattern with a rinsing agent [0007].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowell et al. (US 2017/0255103 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Rowell et al. teaches the photoresist pattern trimming compositions coated over a photoresist pattern, as explained and applied to claim 1 above, and further teaches the solids content of the trimming compositions is from 1 to 10 wt % [0034] wherein the acid is about 0.01 to 20 wt % based on the total solids [0025] and the polymer is from 80 to 99 wt % based on the total solids [0015]. Therefore, the weight ratio of the polymer to the acid ranges from 99:20 to 80:0.01 or 4.95:1 to 8,000:1. Furthermore, Rowell et al. teaches composition examples in Table 1 (pg. 19) wherein the weight ratio of the polymer to the acid ranges from ~18:1 to 30:1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion range of 4.95:1 to 30:1 as disclosed by Rowell et al. because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowell et al. (US 2017/0255103 A1), as applied to claim 12 above.
Rowell et al. teaches a method of trimming a photoresist pattern comprising: (a) providing a semiconductor substrate; (b) forming a photoresist pattern over the semiconductor substrate; (c) coating a pattern trimming composition over the photoresist pattern (as described above); (d) heating the coated semiconductor substrate; and (e) rinsing the photoresist pattern with a rinsing agent [0007] wherein the heating is conducted with a hotplate or oven from about 70 to 160 °C [0057] (claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range from 100 to 160 °C as disclosed by Rowell et al. because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christine Curiac whose telephone number is (703)756-1375. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00 ET.
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.
/CHRISTINE CURIAC/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/MARK F. HUFF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights