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 .
Response to Amendment
The previous rejections are maintained and the arguments 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.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 19-29, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0342088 A1 to Hatakeyama et al. (hereinafter Hatakeyama) and further in view of US 2012/0128891 A1 to Takei et al. (hereinafter Takei).
Regarding claims 15, 16, 19-25, 27, 28, Hatakeyama teaches resist underlayer film forming composition comprising a novolac resin (See abstract), wherein the novolac resin has the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
183
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
obtained by reacting 6,6’-(9H-fluoren-9,9-diyl)di(2-naphthol) with 4-(trifluoromethyl)benzaldehyde (para 147-149), which meets the claimed formula (1) cited in claims 15, 16, 19-29. Hatakeyama also teaches the composition contains a crosslinking agent (para 99-106) and an acid generator (para 107-108).
Hatakeyama further teaches a patterning process comprising forming a resist underlayer film on a substate using the above resist underlayer composition, forming an inorganic intermediate hard mask film on the resist underlayer film to form an antireflection film, forming a resist upper layer film on the antireflection film, exposing the region to light and developing to form a resist pattern in the resist upper layer film, transferring the pattern to the antireflection film by etching, transferring the pattern to the inorganic hard mask intermediate film by etching, and transferring the pattern to the resist underlayer by etching (para 139) wherein the resist upper layer is formed from an ArF Resist film composition of a resist polymer, and acid generator (para 189-191), which meets the curable composition adhesive layer. The above meets the method of claims 15, 16, 19-29. Hatakeyama further teaches the above composition comprising the novolac resin has good filling property, generates little outgass and is excellent in dry-etching resistance and heat resistance (para 15, 17, and 25).
Hatakeyama does not explicitly teach forming the resist pattern by contacting the curable composition with a mold such as in nanoimprinting.
However, Takei teaches resist underlayer film used in nanoimprint lithography (See abstract), which is the same field of the Applicant’s invention of resist underlayer processed by nanoimprinting. Take further teaches a nanoimprinting process by photo-imprint by forming a resist pattern by using a light transmittable template (mold) (para 154), wherein the template is pressed against the upper resist layer with heat-baking and/or light-irradiation, and is parted to form a resist pattern, wherein the resist underlayer is etched according to the resist pattern to form the semiconductor device. (para 154-164). Takei further teaches that the nanoimprinting process with photo-imprint is excellent in alignment position and productivity, causes a small amount of defects, and takes a shorter processing time, and is suitable for finer processing. (para 154).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to use the nanoimprinting process of Takei to form the resist pattern of Hatakeyama because Takei teaches the same field of the Applicant’s invention of resist underlayer processed by nanoimprinting and Takei further teaches that the nanoimprinting process with photo-imprint is excellent in alignment position and productivity, causes a small amount of defects, and takes a shorter processing time, and is suitable for finer processing. (para 154).
Regarding claims 26 and 29, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for the novolac composition of Hatakeyama to have the claimed pure-water contact angle properties of the claimed invention because Hatakeyama teaches a substantially identical novolac composition to the claimed invention such as a novolac resin obtained from reacting 6,6’-(9H-fluoren-9,9-diyl)di(2-naphthol) with 4-(trifluoromethyl)benzaldehyde, which is meets the claimed formula A of claim 5, and similarly uses the 4-(trifluoromethyl)benzaldehyde of the Applicant’s Synthesis Examples, and the Applicant recites in their specification that novolacs having the trifluoromethyl groups will exhibit the specific high pure-water contact angle (para 223-226 of US publication). See MPEP 2112.01. (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Claim(s) 15, 16, 19-21, 23-29, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/043410 A1 in which US 2019/0212649 A1 to Saito et al. is used below as the US equivalent. (hereinafter Saito) and further in view of US 2012/0128891 A1 to Takei et al. (hereinafter Takei).
Regarding claims 15, 16, 19-21, 23-25, 27, 28, Saito teaches resist underlayer film forming composition comprising a polymer (See abstract), wherein the polymer unit has the formula
PNG
media_image2.png
176
293
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(para 55) obtained by N,N’diphenyl-1,4-phenylene diamine with 4-tert-butylbenzaldehyde (para 147-149), which meets the claimed formula (1) cited in claims 15, 16, 19-21, 23-29. Saito also teaches the composition contains a crosslinking agent (para 56-62) and an acidic catalyst (para 63-65). Saito further teaches a resist patterning process comprising forming a resist underlayer film on a substrate and baking to cure and form an underlayer film. (para 77). A resist is applied on the resist underlayer film irradiated by an electron beam or light and baked to form a pattern, and the resist underlayer film is developed and patterned by etching (para 77), wherein the resist is a novolac resin photoresist with a binder and photoacid generator (i.e. curable resin), (para 73-74). Saito further teaches a hard mask such as silicon nitride oxide can be applied on the resist underlayer film and forming a resist film on the hard mask before the irradiating/patterning/etching step (para 84). The above meets the method of claims 15, 16, 19-21, 23-29.
Saito does not explicitly teach forming the resist pattern by contacting the curable composition with a mold such as in nanoimprinting.
However, Takei teaches resist underlayer film used in nanoimprint lithography (See abstract), which is the same field of the Applicant’s invention of resist underlayer processed by nanoimprinting. Takei further teaches a nanoimprinting process by photo-imprint by forming a resist pattern by using a light transmittable template (mold) (para 154), wherein the template is pressed against the upper resist layer with heat-baking and/or light-irradiation, and is parted to form a resist pattern, wherein the resist underlayer is etched according to the resist pattern to form the semiconductor device. (para 154-164). Takei further teaches that the nanoimprinting process with photo-imprint is excellent in alignment position and productivity, causes a small amount of defects, and takes a shorter processing time, and is suitable for finer processing. (para 154).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to use the nanoimprinting process of Takei to form the resist pattern of Saito because Takei teaches the same field of the Applicant’s invention of resist underlayer processed by nanoimprinting and Takei further teaches that the nanoimprinting process with photo-imprint is excellent in alignment position and productivity, causes a small amount of defects, and takes a shorter processing time, and is suitable for finer processing. (para 154).
Regarding claims 26 and 29, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for the novolac composition of Saito to have the claimed pure-water contact angle properties of the claimed invention because Saito teaches a substantially identical novolac composition to the claimed invention such as a novolac resin obtained from N,N’diphenyl-1,4-phenylene diamine with 4-tert-butylbenzaldehyde, which is meets the claimed formula A of claim 1-4, and similarly uses the 4-tert-butylbenzaldehyde of the Applicant’s Synthesis Examples, and the Applicant recites in their specification that novolacs having the 4-tert-butyl groups will exhibit the specific high pure-water contact angle (para 223-226 of US publication). See MPEP 2112.01. (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Claim(s) 15, 16, 19-29, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/188263 A1 in which US 2019/0137878 A1 to Tokunaga et al. is used below as the US equivalent. (hereinafter Tokunaga) and further in view of US 2012/0128891 A1 to Takei et al. (hereinafter Takei).
Regarding claims 15, 16, 19-25, 27, 28, Tokunaga teaches resist underlayer film forming composition comprising a novolac resin (See abstract), wherein the novolac resin has the formula
PNG
media_image3.png
197
341
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(para 50) obtained by carbazole with 4-(trifluoromethyl)benzaldehyde (para 97), which meets the claimed formula (1) cited in claims 15, 16, 19-29. Tokunaga also teaches the composition contains a crosslinking agent (para 55-63) and an acidic catalyst (para 64-65). Tokunaga further teaches a resist patterning process comprising forming a resist underlayer film on a substrate by applying the resist underlayer film forming composition on the substrate and baking to curing and form an underlayer film. (para 73). A resist is applied on the resist underlayer film irradiated by an electron beam or light and baked to form a pattern, and the resist underlayer film is developed and patterned by etching (para 74 and 84), wherein the resist is a novolac resin photoresist with a binder and photoacid generator (i.e. curable resin), (para 75). Tokunaga further teaches a hard mask such as silicon nitride oxide can be applied on the resist underlayer film and forming a resist film on the hard mask before the irradiating/patterning/etching step (para 88 and See method claims 10-12). The above meets the method of claims 15, 16, 19-29.
Tokunaga does not explicitly teach forming the resist pattern by contacting the curable composition with a mold such as in nanoimprinting.
However, Takei teaches resist underlayer film used in nanoimprint lithography (See abstract), which is the same field of the Applicant’s invention of resist underlayer processed by nanoimprinting. Takei further teaches a nanoimprinting process by photo-imprint by forming a resist pattern by using a light transmittable template (mold) (para 154), wherein the template is pressed against the upper resist layer with heat-baking and/or light-irradiation, and is parted to form a resist pattern, wherein the resist underlayer is etched according to the resist pattern to form the semiconductor device. (para 154-164). Takei further teaches that the nanoimprinting process with photo-imprint is excellent in alignment position and productivity, causes a small amount of defects, and takes a shorter processing time, and is suitable for finer processing. (para 154).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to use the nanoimprinting process of Takei to form the resist pattern of Tokunaga because Takei teaches the same field of the Applicant’s invention of resist underlayer processed by nanoimprinting and Takei further teaches that the nanoimprinting process with photo-imprint is excellent in alignment position and productivity, causes a small amount of defects, and takes a shorter processing time, and is suitable for finer processing. (para 154).
Regarding claims 26 and 29, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for the novolac composition of Tokunaga to have the claimed pure-water contact angle properties of the claimed invention because Tokunaga teaches a substantially identical novolac composition to the claimed invention such as a novolac resin obtained from carbazole with 4-(trifluoromethyl)benzaldehyde, which is the same carbazole and 4-(trifluoromethyl)benzaldehyde used to form the novolac resins of Applicant’s Synthesis Examples, and the Applicant recites in their specification that novolacs having the trifluoromethyl groups will exhibit the specific high pure-water contact angle (para 223-226 of US publication). See MPEP 2112.01. (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., novolac resin having the specific repeating units of Formulae (2-1) to (2-12)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On page 6, the Applicant argues the prior art of Hatakeyama and Saito does not teach a novolac resin having the specific repeating units of Formulae (2-1) to (2-12). This is not persuasive because claim 15 recites a novolac resin of formula (1), which are met by the novolac resins as cited by Hatakeyama and Saito in the rejection above.
On page 6, the Applicant also argues the prior art of Tokunaga does not teach a novolac resin having the specific repeating units of Formulae (2-1) to (2-12). This is not persuasive because, as cited in the rejection above, Tokunaga teaches
PNG
media_image3.png
197
341
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, which meets the cited formula (1) of claim 15, as well as formula (2-2) of the arguments.
On page 6-7, the Applicant argues unexpected results of improved contact angle with pure water when using formula (2-1) to (2-12) in nanoprinting method when compared to formulas without the presence of the t-butyl or trifluoromethyl group at the D position in the repeating units of formula (2-1) to (2-12). The Office finds the evidence of unexpected results persuasive, however, the evidence does not commensurate in scope to the claims. As cited above, the novolac resin having the specific repeating units of Formulae (2-1) to (2-12), are not recited in the claims. Thus, because the evidence of unexpected good properties does not commensurate in scope to the claims, the Applicant has not met their burden in establishing unexpected results. See MPEP 716.02 (a-e).
On page 7-8, the Applicant argues that Takei does not remedy the issues of Hatakeyama, Saito, and Tokunaga above. This is found unpersuasive for the reasons addressed above.
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 HA S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, Flex schedule 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/HA S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights