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 12/30/2025, the following rejections are updated accordingly.
Claim Status
Claims 1-13 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zampini (US20110033801A1, published 2011).
Regarding claims 1-11,
Zampini teaches a coating composition for use with an overcoated photoresist (resist underlayer film forming composition) [abstract] such as example 25 comprising of the following polymer, methyl-2-hydroxyisobutyrate (solvent), and tetramethoxymethyl glycoluril (reading on the instant film material (Y) and a crosslinking agent) [0095], where the polymer contains both methoxymethyl and an ROCH2- group other than methoxy methyl group where R is a C2 aliphatic hydrocarbon, as well as a linking group containing an alkylene group, reading on instant claims 2-6.
PNG
media_image1.png
248
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that the nitrogen moieties of the glycoluril group may be interpreted as substituted amino groups.
Zampini further teaches, for antireflective applications, suitably one or more of the compounds reacted to form the resin comprise a moiety that can function as a chromophore to absorb radiation employed to expose an overcoated photoresist coating layer, where the compound that contains a chromophore unit also may preferably contain two or more hydroxy groups and be reacted with a carboxyl-containing compound. For example, a phenyl compound having two or more hydroxyl groups may be reacted with a carboxyl-containing compound [0049-0050].
While Zampini fails to explicitly teach an example polymer where a structural unit contains a phenolic hydroxy group, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try including a phenolic hydroxyl group in the polymer, such as the example 25 shown above, for the benefits taught by Zampini in functioning as an antireflective coating, reading on instant claim 1.
Given that Zampini discloses the polymer that encompasses the presently claimed structural unit, including hydroxy phenyl moieties, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the polymer, which is both disclosed by Zampini and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Zampini teaches further including a surfactant and a photoacid generator to their composition [0057-0058], reading on instant claims 7-8.
Zampini teaches their solvents may include gamma-butyro lactone (boiling point of 204 °C), reading on instant claim 9.
Zampini teaches coating an underlayer film using their composition onto a substrate (such as silicon or microelectronic wafers), curing their underlayer film, forming a photoresist layer, exposing and developing the photoresist film to form a patterned resist film, and etching and/or processing the underlying underlayer and substrate [0076-0084], reading on instant claims 10-11.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zampini (US20110033801A1, published 2011) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hatakeyama (US20160358777A1, published 2016).
Regarding claim 12,
Zampini teaches the above limitations set forth.
Zampini fails to teach a hardmask layer formed over the underlayer film.
Hatakeyama, analogous art, teaches a resist underlayer film forming composition, where to suppress substrate reflection, a multi-layer antireflection film is effectively formed under the resist. A 3-layer (tri-layer) structure in which a hydrocarbon film (a resist under layer film) with high carbon density is formed on a substrate, a silicon-containing resist middle layer film is formed thereon (hard mask layer), and a resist upper layer film is formed thereon can prevent the substrate reflection by the two layers of the hydrocarbon film and the silicon-containing middle layer film. Thus, the application of this technique has been rapidly spreading with use of the liquid immersion lithography [0004-0006].
As both teach underlayer film forming compositions, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form a hard mask layer in between the underlayer and upper photoresist layer as taught by Hatakeyama with the methods of Zampini for the benefits disclosed by Hatakeyama, reading on instant claim 12.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zampini (US20110033801A1, published 2011) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Minegishi (US20120252217A1, published 2012).
Regarding claim 13,
Zampini teaches the above limitations set forth.
Zampini fails to teach using a nanoimprint method to form their underlayer film.
Minegishi, analogous art, teaches a resist underlayer film forming composition, where a nanoimprint method may be used in forming their underlayer film [0094].
As both teach resist underlayer film forming compositions, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using the nanoimprint method of Minegishi with the composition of Zampini would form an expected and comparable underlayer film, reading on instant claim 13.
That is, the substitution of the nanoimprint method of Minegishi for the underlayer formation method of Zampini, 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 forming an underlayer film. 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 regarding the claim amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While the 102 rejections are withdrawn, 103 rejections are made in view of Zampini as shown above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20150185613A1 teaches crosslinking agents for use in underlayer film forming compositions such as methoxymethylated melamines such as hexakis(methoxymethyl)melamine; methoxymethylated glycolurils such as tetrakis(methoxymethyl)glycoluril; and the like [0129].
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
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734