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 .
Amendment to the claims was submitted on 04/10/2026, claims 2-3 are canceled.
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 4-9 are under consideration.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takei (US20070238029A1, published 2007) in view of Shirakawa (US20180120706A1, published 2018).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-9,
Takei teaches the polymer contained in their underlayer coating composition may contain following structural units (A-1) and (B-1) [0020-0023], where the structural unit (B-1) may be structural unit (B-2) [0030-0031], where n may be an integer of 1-6, Y may be a C1-C6 thioalkyl group (reading on the instant formula (1) where X1 is -S- and R1 is a C1-C6 alkyl group), R2 is H or methyl, and R3 is C2-6 alkyl group substituted with at least one hydroxy group, reading on the instant unit structure represented by the instant formula (2) where R2 is H or methyl, Y1 is an ester bond, A1 is a C2-C6 alkylene group, and Z1 is a reactive hydroxy group, reading on instant claim 4.
PNG
media_image1.png
179
218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
71
207
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
115
207
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Takei teaches organic solvents such as ethylene glycol monomethyl ether [0108].
Takei teaches including an acid compound that includes for example sulfonic acid compounds such as p-toluene sulfonic acid, trifluoromethane sulfonic acid, and pyridinium p-toluenesulfonate, etc., and carboxylic acid compounds such as salicylic acid, sulfosalicylic acid, citric acid, benzoic acid, and hydroxybenzoic acid, etc., and so on [0092], reading on the instant crosslinking catalyst, reading on instant claim 5.
Takei teaches further including a crosslinking compound (agent) [0042], reading on instant claim 6.
Takei teaches coating their film forming composition onto a substrate then baking to form a film [0110], coating and baking a photoresist layer [0112], exposing the photoresist film to light [0113], developing the film to form a pattern [0115], and removal of the underlayer coating and processing of the semiconductor substrate are conducted by using the photoresist pattern formed as mentioned above as a protective coating (etching the underlayer film and processing the substrate) [0117], reading on instant claims 7-9.
However, Takei only teaches exposure using actinic rays such as ultraviolet rays, ArF excimer laser beams, and KrF excimer laser beams [0002].
Shirakawa, analogous art, teaches a similar underlayer film forming composition [abstract] comprising of a resin with a pendant hydroxy reactive group and a pendant alkyl group, as well as a crosslinking agent and a crosslinking catalyst [0750, 0068], where they perform an exposure using KrF exposure or EUV exposure [0296].
As both Shirakawa and Takei teach similar underlayer film forming compositions that may be exposed using KrF exposure, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using the EUV exposure of Shirakawa as the exposure of Takei would result in a comparable and expected patterning process.
That is, the substitution of the EUV exposure of Shirakawa for the exposure of Takei, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of patterning an underlayer film and processing an underlying substrate, reading on instant claim 1. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Examiner notes that it would be readily envisioned by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the structural unit of formula (A-1) of Takei shown above could be at a terminal of the polymer main chain, as any of the repeating units would be expected to be at a terminal position of the polymer main chain. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the structural unit of formula (A-1) of Takei could be at a terminal of the polymer main chain, as any of the three repeating units would be expected to be at a terminal position of the polymer main chain.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/10/2026 with respect to the 102 rejection in view of Nishita and the 102/103 rejection in view of Shirakawa have been fully considered and are persuasive, particularly in view of the new claim amendments. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 regarding the 103 rejection in view of Takei have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The above rejections have been updated accordingly.
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 Alexander Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2261. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5:30 EST.
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.
/A.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/MARK F. HUFF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights